Surface RT: A plan worthy of the South Park Underpants Gnomes Business strategy at Sun Microsystems became a joke long before even the prospect of a mercy acquisition by Oracle was in the air. If I’d heard one Sun executive try to convince me that hardware-dominated Sun was going to become a successful software and services player, I’d heard them all say it. Tired of hearing the same …
"He means that it supports over 430 million USB devices out of the box....unlike Android or IOS."
"Android and iOS", as well as any other sane OS does not count how many devices they support, because support for devices is provided based on the interfaces, APIs and protocols these devices provide. It is therefore enough to support one USB mass storage device, in order to support them all (of course, provided you account for the quirks each device class, generation etc, presents).
With any non-Microsoft OS, the need to support individual devices with individual drivers is very much reduced.
Microsoft however wants everything to be proprietary, controlled and "certified". This is how they make their money.
But, this is not necessarily what the consumer desires and while as long as it all works "seamlessly" consumers don't care, they do care the moment two seemingly identical devices don't work the same way, because the maker of one has paid the "Microsoft tax", while the other did not.
People also need to get over Windows 8 - used it since the beginning, works great, and I like it. People don't like change, but change comes all the same, don't all be a load of King Cnuts.
You are EXACTLY the kind of customer Microsoft wants - ie one who takes any sh**e thrown at them, claims its great and then insults everyone else who doesn't agree.
I'm sure you like your Surface, and I'm pleased for you, but the VAST majority of consumers don't like the Surface and hate Windows 8. We may well be 'wrong' in your eyes - and in Microsofts too - but frankly who cares what you or Microsoft think? Microsoft are hemorrhaging PC sales, customer goodwill, and shareholders money. That is the only real 'opinion' that matters.
The days of Windows dominance are long gone.
http://www.businessinsider.com/windows-monopoly-is-getting-destroyed-2013-7
The 10% (32bn) drop in Microsoft shareprice is bringing it back to where it needs to be. Another 4 days of similar drops should be about right.
One wonders if Microsoft tolerated any naysayers when Surface was being proposed? The shortcomings of the product would have been obvious (e.g. limited apps, poor encouragement for developers to create apps, incompatibility with existing Microsoft software). Was it corporate suicide to point this out? If so, then it will take more than a re-arrangement of management to rectify.
Recent Microsoft trends (e.g. canceling TechNet, limiting MSDN's Enterprise offerings to the highest cost tiers, poor training on how to effectively use Windows 8) indicate a disconnect that makes me think of companies like Novell and Blockbuster.
The reason why the RT and Surface have failed is primarily because no one at Microsoft examined why they failed with the first Windows Tablet PC's. They priced them too high, there was no app ecosystem, they were buggy, weren't thin nor life, and the battery life was sub standard. The moment Microsoft management decided to introduce Windows Tablets, they should've immediately examined what they did wrong the first time and immediately examined what Apple did right that makes the iPad sell. It's obvious that no one at Microsoft examined any of those factors, because if they had, the RT and Surface would have succeeded. RT and Surface weren't built on a logic model that made any sense. How anyone at Microsoft could've thought that anyone would buy the RT or Surface at the prices they've sold for, is beyond me. Those ridiculous dance choreography commercials didn't show any of what the RT or Surface are capable of doing.
The entire project was ill conceived and appears to be based on what someone in management wanted (likely, Balmer), not something that any consumer or corporate customer wanted. In order to sell a product to a customer, it makes sense to evaluate what the customer needs, wants, and can do with it before you develop what they will ultimately do with it. Some sort of usability testing involving "PEOPLE", gives an accurate evaluation of product strength and weaknesses. Without knowing your product's strengths and weaknesses, you can't really derive accurate sales estimates. The fact that it's a tablet that runs Windows, won't be enough to attract developers, and if it doesn't attract developers, it will be difficult to build an app ecosystem. A weak app ecosystem means that it won't be popular with consumers. That leaves business customers, and if it's overpriced, business customers will pass on it and buy iPads all day long.
The original tablet PCs were bulky and had an interface suited to mouse and keyboard. The Ipad was a success because it could be used with a finger. With Surface RT MS "examined those factors" and made something thin and light which could be used with a finger. I'll agree on the price though.
"And that’s a bad thing. It's bad for investors whose money is tied up in Redmond and an industry looking for a way out of the duopoly of Google and Apple on phones and smart phones, and Google's monopoly on search. The more time and money Microsoft wastes following blind fantasies and getting things like Surface RT wrong at the inception stage, then more power will remain in the hands of a technology few for even longer."
Excuse me, what planet are you on where a Microsoft product could ever conceivably be considered a great way out of a duopoly? We are talking about a company with a decades long history of ruthlessly crushing all competitors through a long series of underhanded, unethical, and frequently illegal tactics after all.
Besides, we don't need Microsoft for that 'third ecosystem' anyhow. At this point, any option for creating that third platform will have to leverage what is already in place. That's why I'm watching Sailfish and Tizen pretty closely. Both are Linux based, both can run Android apps, and both have solid backing. Sailfish is aimed at the premium market and is starting small. Tizen has a host of carriers already announcing plans to offer phones based upon it.
Other options with an outside chance of doing well are ChromeOS, FirefoxOS, and Ubuntu. RIM may even finally get its act together (but I'm not holding my breath on that one).
Any of these would be better than getting back in bed with Microsoft. Speaking as a long time support and implementation engineer, spare me from that!
1: Samsung+Android
2: Apple+iOS
3: everyone else+Android
At least from the publics POV. The fragmentation MS endless portrays as bad makes Android a flock of closely related systems, albeit in a very limited sense. MS can hope to beat some of that 3rd tier but not sell enough for anyone to care.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are more phones running the MIUI version of Android than total WP phones.
"it was obvious that Microsoft had convinced itself that it could sell the device in large numbers immediately .. if the app ecosystem had flourished quickly then it could have taken off but neither was likely".
Reason it sold in such low numbers was, unlike previous iterations of Windows where it came with virtually every PC, the consumers had to actually go out and buy a Surface RT. Remember the OEMs have to pay a Windows license even if they sell an OS-less computer.
"an industry looking for a way out of the duopoly of Google and Apple on phones and smart phones, and Google's monopoly on search"
This is news to me, I hadn't realized the phone makers were compelled through onerous OEM contracts to only supply Android and iOS software and consumers were compelled to only use Googles search engine, despite every Windows update making BING the default search engine.
There was no official way to run any desktop apps on the Surface RT, I'm not even talking about existing ones, new ones as well.
The thing had a desktop mode, and absolutely no way to run any existing desktop applications, or even create new ones with Visual Studio. Adding the option to Visual Studio to create an RT desktop app, using the same .Net framework running the Metro apps, would have made all the difference, as companies around the planet could port application x from .Net framework main => .net Framework RT and save a lot of cash on hardware, but nope!
I think that is BECAUSE Microsoft wanted business to buy ONLY the Surface Pro models.
1) SurfaceRT (sRT) includes a basic version of Office2013, not licensed for BUSINESS. (so most companies won't touch it).
2) The .net you said above... true.
3) sRT is aimed at home users...(because of #1 & #2) for some dumb reason (There are better products on market)
4) So MS sells the $1000 SurfacePro + $150 for a keyboard + $200~400 for Office2013 = $1500 and a dancing ballmer.
PS: Like other MS products of late, Office2013 has bad reviews. typical.
Has MS scored ANY good reviews for a product in the past 10 months?
Perhaps without the desktop mode its market position as a tablet would be more obvious; as it is we get a load of complaints about backward (in)compatibility. But the Office suite makes it a better prospect than any other tablet (ignoring app availability) so it's understandable that they'd include it - they just marketed it wrong.
If they allowed installable software on the RT desktop they'd create a confused ecosystem with X86, Arm and Metro apps. People are confused enough that they have 2 types, like Apple does.
I dont understand why commenters are saying the Surface RT was a good product.... The customer had the choice between the iPad, countless android devices, and Microsoft's own full fat surface pro that did pretty much everything they want.... and the Surface RT which did not a lot of a not a lot.
The product had no reason to exist. It wasn't a cheap device (cheap android devices from China had that nailed down), it wasn't a premium device, and it wasn't a mid range workhorse.
It was just a complete mistake.
The problem of RT wasn't the ARM-processor or such, contrary to what the author so nicely describes. I bet a fortune, that all RT fondleslabs would have been sold out by now if MS had bothered to
1. attach a reasonable price
2. allow the installation of the OS of the users' choice
Don't come and tell me the manufacturing costs, then, would have been too high. Or that it was intentional that no useful software could run on it. Because then the problem of excess stock would not have arisen. Then the problem had nothing to do with what the author pretends. Then the problem would have been a straightforward bad business decision: Every somewhat shrewd business persons knows that you can't sell uncool overpriced stuff. Any somewhat reasonable businessperson knows that it is suicide to sell something, and prevent the user from using it the way (s)he wants to use it.
"2. allow the installation of the OS of the users' choice" - That would NEVER happen. Why would anyone buy a Surface if just to put another OS on it? There are better tablets on the market that cost the same price or better. Microsoft (like Apple) does not make hardware for people to put whatever OS that person wants on it.
If you wanted more choice, get an Android tablet, root it and do with it as you please.
"1. attach a reasonable price" That is a double-edge sword. It was rumored the sRT was going to be a $200 product. That would have killed the 3rd party RTs.... and as we see, the smarter companies are not/have not released any RT products. There was simply no profit in it for THEM to produce the RT. If it costs a company $250 in hardware to make the tablet, then $80 for the OS = $320 (This doesn't include the millions more in R&D), which they then have to sell it for $400 to go against the iPad and Android tablets.... leaves them about $20 profit. BUT, they released them as $500~600 products... which nobody with brains would have bought...
Other than unsuspecting public who thought "Windows tablet for $500, what a deal" who were suckered in and when they tried to use the "WINDOWS" device, they found out that it doesn't run ANY WINDOWS software what-so-ever. Hence, the very high return rate for the RTs. Bestbuy in the USA no longer sells 3rd party RTs. They only have the sRT... starting at $350... which NO 3rd party company could hope to compete with... that is at COSTS, give or take. MS doesn't pay the $80 OS-Office-half-as tax.
Microsoft has gone STUPID for 12 months now. They killed the cool sounding "Metro" name for TIFKAM. Metro is NOT Windows. There are NO Windows UI elements in Metro. I call bullshit on "We had to drop the Metro name because of some German store", nobody would confuse the two. Anyone think an Apple at the grocery store is an Apple computer?
Okay, back to the pricing issue: Selling the sRT at $200~300 (Loss or at cost) would sell more units to help build up the base. Problem is... the sRT are not the typical low-cost tablets. When you sell something cheap, it devalues the brand name. Its a stupid human mental trick. Think of the idiot who buys a $1million car... mainly because it has a $1million price tag. Or the $20,000 iPhone (it has jewelry glued to it). I remember an article from a tech mag (INFO?) in the early 90s:
A Macintosh software developer LOVES making programs that people use. He sold it cheap so that the most amount of people could or would buy his software. Off the top of my head, the price was $30. He wasn't getting many sales and he was starving. He raised the price to $200 and suddenly, people were buying it! Because of the higher price, the consumer thought they were buying a more worthy (value) product.
Hence... MS shouldn't have to be competing against no-name brand and lower-end / smaller tablets... it looks bad.... but it was their best chance.
"Business strategy at Sun Microsysetms became a joke..."
And spelling at Vulture Towers also become a joke... Sorry, that's bit of a mean comment. Maybe we should blame the proof reader for missing a typo 5 words into the article? You do still have proof readers these days? Or someone who can click on the spell check button? ;-)
- Windows RT takes all the bloat of Windows Fat, but takes out some of the more useful bits, and makes it even slower than the real thing. And that's saying something.
- Surfaces are priced similar to iPads...
- ...but with far, far, far worse screen resolution...
- ...and heavier...
- ...and slower...
- ...and uglier...
- ...and no apps...
- ...and Windows Lite.
- You can't even side load your own OS onto the device.
- Microsoft provides rather less than a walled garden, and more of a walled cesspit. And guess which side of the wall they want you on... (hint: bring a wetsuit.)
Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Staggering.
This post has been deleted by its author
"- Surfaces are priced similar to iPads..."
But with:
A full featured, multitasking OS (can run one app on the tablet and different one on an external screen, or snap multiple apps on screen)
Full USB support
A larger screen
A proper Office suite.
A secure OS and boot path
A proper stand
A larger ecosystem
Is thinner than the iPad
Weighs less than the iPad
Has a micro SD card slot
Has higher quality chassis construction (magnesium)
Full USB support
No wonder you keep posting anonymously as this is drivel!
What do you think full USB support is supposed to mean? Because it most certainly does not mean: will support any device that is plugged in. USB defines some mechanical and electronic stuff plus some baseline driver specs (eg. HCI for mice, keyboards, or an equivalent for mass storage) pretty much everything else requires drivers to be written and compiled for the particular OS and why you almost always have to install some software when you connect say a USB TV receiver.
We're very happy for you that you like your Microsoft gear but please stop pretending that you are: a) everyman and; b) know anything technical.
'Is thinner than the iPad
Weighs less than the iPad;
Um, according to the published specs comparing a Surface RT to an iPad 3 (IIRC that's the one that was out when it launched), they're the same thickness to within a millimetre and the Surface RT is heavier.
Holding both in my hands (I do mobile device acceptance testing where I work, so I got given an RT to try out) the RT feels much bigger, heavier and more cumbersome. That's what people will actually care about.
I know this. Every Person in the industrialized world now is the owner of a smart phone and potential fondle slab owner. Almost every one of them is also a PC owner. Microsoft pissed off every PC owner by forcing the phone OS onto PCs. That pretty much killed any hopes they might have had of selling a Surface or Windows phone. It's a virtual boycott by silent consensus. They better make PC owners happy again and get farking TIFKAM off the PCs or Microsoft may never sell the surface or smart phones.
".. It's bad for investors whose money is tied up in Redmond and an industry looking for a way out of the duopoly of Google and Apple on phones and smart phones, and Google's monopoly on search...."
Does no one remember bofore this Apple/Google "doupoly" that Microsoft (and Intel) had the strangle hold on the market? I find it funny that Mr Clarke doesn't seem to remember the Wintel days.
You cannot design interesting products by market research, you test can test* a design with market research, but you cannot create one. Taking the average customer will create an average product, something similar to what is already on the market with little, if any, evolution.
However, you need a range of different designers, some (prototype) products will succeed and some will fail, but hopefully you will have enough successes to pay for the failures. Or you do the venture capital thing with one product.
MS of past, with Windows would have the 'Classic' option, which hid the new features and provided a familiar theme. MS must have studied Linux with a kernel, a standard set of (Gnu) programs, and a choice of window manager. Linux was born out of USA inventions: Unix, cheap commodity PC (IBM's version of the Apple 2), and open education software (MINIX). With Linux, Android and iPhone/iPad apps, you have a choice of several that do the same thing, but in slightly different ways, so there is more of a chance of being an app you like, (except it is harder to find it).
Steve Jobs appeared to have real faith in his products and people, I had the feeling Jobs was more quality assurance than sole visionary. I think Apple got a lot of things wrong, but also they were trapped by early decisions with hindsight were now not the best way to do something (MacOsX scroll bars). The change to touch only interface allowed them to revisit those things and improve them.
* see what selling price might be and the numbers sold, thus if that provides enough profit to make the product viable.
"MS must have studied Linux with a kernel"
nope - the monolithic model is dated. Microsoft studied VMS amongst others - and hence Windows has a modern hybrid microkernel - with security and auditing built in from the ground up, and not as a plug-on afterthought like with Linux...
"Windows has a modern hybrid microkernel - with security and auditing built in from the ground up"
The original Cutler design may have been along those lines (though as Custer's book Inside Windows NT acknowledges, there's probably as much VAXELN as there is VMS, not that most folk would be aware of VAXELN).
One of the impacts of doing things that way is that, although the increased separation can deliver increased security and stability, and the capability to support meaningful security and auditing, it also comes with a performance penalty, especially on simple benchmarks. Performance and productivity aren't the same thing, but regardless, Gates didn't like it when Windows 98 benchmarks ran slower than Windows NT - even though it was probably inevitable because of the "shared everything" (lack of) security on W98.
Consequently, stuff which shouldn't have been kernel mode and stuff which shouldn't have had shared data ended up in kernel mode and/or with shared data. That way, things go a bit faster, in return for which it's also a bit less secure and a bit less robust.
One of the other generally unnoticed differences is that properly written VMS code (including the OS itself) passes stuff around using a concept called a descriptor, which is natively supported by most VMS languages. The descriptor concept when used properly makes buffer overflow exploits very unlikely. NT lost that too.
So really, Windows security isn't that close to VMS at all, though obviously Windows has a lot more shiny GUI pseudo-security stuff than VMS does. Only people who don't really know both VMS and Windows can ever claim that Windows is comparable in any serious way.
"not as a plug-on afterthought like with Linux..."
What would happen if you ripped out the kernel in a Linux and replaced it with a real microkernel?
You'd have OSF/1 (RIP, 1994), or something very similar.
Variants of OSF/1 had rather impressive security classifications whose names I forget.
Might be an opportunity there for someone...
I agree with your statement - monolithic kernel not good, but that was not my point.
A micro-kernel with modules/drivers or kernel (with modules eh? ) *has the option of several GUI* (and CLI) environments.
Anyway, it is mainly invisible to the user, except the wait at boot time and when something is plugged in.
The micro-kernel philosophy of running things at the lowest security level possible, makes sense if that driver/module may have a bug which crashes or allows an exploit. I don't see how Windows XP did this, when a driver could BSOD and there were viruses which spread over a network from machine to machine.
Supposed micro-kernel OS:
NEXTSTEP
Windows NT
MINIX
GNU Herd
"A micro-kernel with modules/drivers or kernel (with modules eh? ) *has the option of several GUI* (and CLI) environments."
There's something I'm missing here. A UNIX can have (and some have had) had multiple distinct shells and GUIs (as can/does a Linux). Not to worry.
"The micro-kernel philosophy of running things at the lowest security level possible, makes sense if that driver/module may have a bug which crashes or allows an exploit. I don't see how Windows XP did this, when a driver could BSOD and there were viruses which spread over a network from machine to machine."
Much happier with that. Running printer drivers in kernel mode, in the interests of performance, was a bad idea from a security and stability point of view. But it happened (I believe it was fixed too). Whether there are still such relics around, I don't know. MS's "trusted computing" work done on behalf of the high value content distribution industry allegedly made Windows much more secure from an "unauthorised access to someone else's data" point of view, and should have had a significant effect in controlling unauthorised access (and unauthorised elevation of privilege) in general.
"Windows NT a microkernel"
Maybe microkernel concepts, pragmatic initial implementation. Later on, security and robustness were sacrificed at the altar of benchmark performance. Trusted computing attempted to reinstate security but afaik didn't reinstate much microkernelness.
See my earlier essay on Windows NT, VMS, VAXeln, etc.
Too big to fail? I've already heard about that...
1) 1B is only part of the value of the slabs, it is the planned discount... but as they will not sell, the damage will be far larger (x4 or x5 larger)
2) they not wrote off the damages of Pro missed sales, that is going to be much more larger - they sold better, but overall poor, and far less what estimated, and numbers were larger: that is the way hw market works, if you overstimate, you are hosed as the margins are tiny and obsolescence is quick.
Maybe Ballmer thought yelling "we 'r an hardware company now boyz!" dancing and throwing around some chairs would have magically turned 2012's MS in 2005's Apple, but hardware market does not work that way, ask HP, ask Dell, ask Acer, ask Lenovo...
3) Aforementioned hw companies are fighting back...
Too big to fail... I don't think so!
Sat here in front of me is a Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet II running the full version of Win8. It sucks, frankly, and that's down to one thing alone; the OS... or more specifically the lack of time and care taken by Microsoft over making the OS usable on a slate.
The few apps which work purely in Metro are very crude - Twitter, for example, is actually less functional that the WP8 version. AccuWeather simply crashes on launch. The apps which require desktop - such as Office - aren't optimized for touch at all. This means you need to resort to the stylus or a mouse in order to use them.
Furthermore, if you're in desktop mode, it assumes you have a keyboard attached. Calling up the screen keyboard loses half the screen estate and the program open doesn't compensate. Meaning you usually lose sight of the field you're trying to type in. Not being able to easily edit the spreadsheet or powerpoint sort of negates the whole point of the damn thing being a tablet in the first place.
Lastly, the whole setting/usability interface remains mouse-centric. The worst is bluetooth which can be controlled, to a degree, from metro - but usually requires dropping into desktop to play around with it properly.
Simply, Win8 doesn't work nicely on a tablet - yes, it works, but compared with true Tablet OS I have in the house - Android, iOS, hell even QNX, it is disjointed. As a laptop, it is simply too small - both physically and technically - to be a viable device to work on all day.
Having had this thing four months I still struggle to find a use for it, either in work or at home. Given that Surface Pro is the same thing in a different box, I really can't see they're going to get much traction in the business environment - especially since they're well into high-spec Ultrabook territory.
Time is ticking until LibreOffice on Android becomes usable. When that happens, even the availability of Microsoft Office on Surface RT won't be such a big deal.
In fact, users might discover that the way to deal with LibreOffice on the tablet being ever-so-slightly incompatible with MS Office on the PC, is to install LibreOffice on the PC. They can't complain about the price, anyway .....
Once upon a time, you had Windows, or you had Windows.
You used it school, at home, and at work. There was no getting away from Windows.
WIndows used to crash. A lot. Obtaining software for Windows was full of danger. Especially when the Internet came along and you could download "Free Screensavers" without having to go to a shop and drag the owner outside because he has sold you a virus!
If you wanted to access the Internet, send an email, or view your photos, you needed Windows. And that was that.
Then along came the iPod. Hey, this is cool. I don't need Windows anymore to play all my music. It doesn't crash and I it doesn't get a virus. I can live with this.
Then along came the iPhone, and it did everything your iPod did and allowed you to take photos and email them AND make phone calls. It didn't crash, and it didn't get a virus and it replaced at least 4 devices!
Then along came the app store, where you could buy applications and install them without it crashing and without it getting a virus!
So now you could use facebook, twitter and other social media goodies, you could google things, browse the Internet, take photos and post them directly to Facebook.
Windows became something you either used at work, or used at home to type out a resignation letter to your employer because you've made a million selling a fart app! Sure it was naff, but people paid a throw-a-way fee for a throw-a-way app and it was safer than doing the same on Windows!
And now we have tablets of all sizes. You can stream on demand videos on them, and they last for hours, and you can complain about Eastenders to all your twitter followers of facebook friends about what a bastrad Ian Beale is!
That Windows machine. Well, it's for work isn't it? That's what Windows is for? For doing work on.
Do I want a Windows RT tablet for around the house?
"It's Windows, and Windows get all kinds viruses!"
"Nah, I don't wan't to do work, I want to play with a shiney toy!"
"I don't want to do my tax returns, that's what my Windows machine is for in the corner, gathering dust"
"If I wanted to write a letter resigning, I'd do it at work, and use their laser printer and paper!!"
"Oh, I've used a windows laptop before and the battery life was crap"
"I don't want it to crash"
"Man, Windows reminds me of work, which I have to be in tomorrow, why would I want to be reminded of work"
"Dude, I've used Windows loads, and those free screensavers aren't really screensavers, so now thanks"
"Windows you say? No way, I don't want to be seen as a geek/nerd/dweep. That's what the IT bods at work use, no thanks, I want to be able to pull chicks you know!!"
I'm sure I could go on listing all the negative stereotypes associated with windows. True or no. I'm sure you can add your own to that list.
Windows.... It has a really bad name, doesn't it.
Kind of like the reputation British Motor Cars of the 70's and 80's have.
That's Microsofts real issue. No-one wants to be seen dead in one. Just because...
I love it how you think that anything apple doesn't crash. My iphone used to crash regularly. Hate to say it, but my old iphone crashed more regularly than any windows install I've had since XP ever did.
Honestly not sure why people think that windows is any less/more vulnerable to viruses and crashing than anything else. Its not the OS fault, its the user. "OH LOOKZ, I CLICKLED THIS LINK AND NOW MY POOTER CRASHEZ0R5!!" Stupidity on the user does not make the OS any more vulnerable.
Sure, I'm hating the look of Win8, until I put classic start on it, and killed metro, now it runs just like windows 7, but faster.
So to celebrate, I went and installed some games on my windows computer, you know, all those PROPER games that you cant get on an iphone, or ipad, or even an android tablet for that matter. Makes for great evenings when things are quiet.
I have an android tablet and an android smartphone, my wife has an ipad, and we both still have windows computers, because they do what we want, when we want to.
Just because it doesn't do what YOU want it to do immediately, it must be a fail eh? Here, I have a nice black turtleneck that you can wear, just to be like the rest of the useless pawns.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
