Why not Widows 10?

On 11/06/2015 09:43 AM, Tim Slattery wrote:
"Mayayana" wrote:

| Version Limit on X86 Limit on X64
| Windows 10 Enterprise 4 GB 2TB

As you probably know, the 4 GB isn't quite that.
In practice it's 3+.

It's a 4GB address space, that has to be used to address not just RAM,
but also video memory and several other things. Video RAM is the big
one though.


Most processors have had a 36-bit (64GB) address space in 32-bit mode
for a long time. At to the Windows limit, I've heard claims that some
drivers wouldn't work with more than 4GB, but it still seems that this
is an artificial limit. I remember some things from the web about
someone finding a way to use more than 4GB (in 32-bit Windows), although
this seemed a lot of work compared to using a 64-bit OS.

BTW, I have had a different OS (Ubuntu 32-bit) that recognized all the
16GB in my PC.

--
49 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of
cruelty." [Bertrand Russell, "Unpopular Essays"]

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 11/06/2015 09:43 AM, Tim Slattery wrote:
"Mayayana" wrote:

| Version Limit on X86 Limit on X64
| Windows 10 Enterprise 4 GB 2TB

As you probably know, the 4 GB isn't quite that.
In practice it's 3+.

It's a 4GB address space, that has to be used to address not just RAM,
but also video memory and several other things. Video RAM is the big
one though.


Most processors have had a 36-bit (64GB) address space in 32-bit mode
for a long time. At to the Windows limit, I've heard claims that some
drivers wouldn't work with more than 4GB, but it still seems that this
is an artificial limit. I remember some things from the web about
someone finding a way to use more than 4GB (in 32-bit Windows), although
this seemed a lot of work compared to using a 64-bit OS.

BTW, I have had a different OS (Ubuntu 32-bit) that recognized all the
16GB in my PC.


http://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/w...nse/memory.htm

"A Marketing Ruse
----------------

Perhaps the following, from

'Pushing the Limits of Windows: Physical Memory'

by Mark Russinovich at a Microsoft website, ends with a more
frank description of Microsoft’s thinking about this 4GB limit
than can be found in anything written directly by Microsoft:

'Because device vendors now have to submit both 32-bit and 64-bit
drivers to Microsoft's Windows Hardware Quality Laboratories
(WHQL) to obtain a driver signing certificate, the majority
of device drivers today can probably handle physical addresses
above the 4GB line. However, 32-bit Windows will continue to
ignore memory above it because there is still some difficult
to measure risk, and OEMs are (or at least should be) moving
to 64-bit Windows where it's not an issue.'

See that the difficult-to-measure risk is merely asserted despite
an acknowledgement that it seems implausible for new computers.
"

The computer does recognize all the RAM. This machine is an example.
I run WinXP SP3 x32 on an 8GB machine (and the OS has PAE enabled
on purpose, to support the NX but). 4GB for the OS portion
(programs can use it), and my PAE RAMDISK uses the upper 4GB.
I've even had a pagefile on the RAMDISK, just for chuckles. That's
a bit difficult to set up, and is mainly to test just how
smooth paging would be on a RAMDISK. And it was very smooth.
You could hardly tell you were using more than 4GB for programs.
I managed to run 5GB worth of programs, as a test, and when
a program would page in, you could hardly notice it was
happening. If I tried that with the hard drive for paging,
you would definitely know it.

This is the RAMDisk.

http://memory.dataram.com/products-a...ftware/ramdisk

The item at the bottom of the list, the terms of the software
have been changed to support only 1GB for the free version.
If you find an older version of the software, the limit is 4GB,
and the free version is used on this machine. I paid for
one of the commercial versions, for the test machine, so I
could use a larger RAMDisk. I have multiple OSes on the test
machine, and the license activates for any of them on that
machine. So the license for the software is tied to the test
machine. That's how I was able to set up an unactivated
copy of Win7 x32 (a test install), install the RAMDisk software,
activate the license, then benchmark and get 6.5GB/sec in HDTune.
Just for fun. The reason the RAMDisk is so fast, is I suspect
CPU "large pages" are used for mapping PAE space. The performance
in low memory (AWE) is terrible. And all the memory is low
memory, if you install a x64 OS and use the RAMDisk.

Paul

In message , Mike Barnes
writes:
[]
Also W10 won't run 16-bit programs, except under a VM with a separate
Windows licence. That's a pretty serious shortcoming for me.

Well, W10-64 won't, but then nor will W8-64 or W7-64. But of course
you're highly unlikely to find W10-32 (or, I think, W8-32) on a new PC
from the usual suspects (PC World or supermarkets/department stores, if
in UK; not sure about USA).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The middle classes have no real value in television terms, apart from as a
spawning ground for TV-drama serial murderers. Spot a man in glasses reading a
book and you can guarantee his hobby is showing dismembered prostitutes down
drains as Mahler's Symphony No 5 plays on the stereo. Killers just love
classical music. - Alison Graham, RT 2014/12/6-12

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 00:22:33 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ashton Crusher
writes:
[]
I upgraded my Win7 setup to Win8. Didn't care for the Native
interface but I got Start8 (I think but one of those "fixes") and that
made it seem a lot like how 7 looked. Used it for about a month and
thought it was OK and liked a few things better in it then in 7 but
don't recall the specifics now. The main thing I did not like was how
it "looked"... the blockiness of the windows.. it simply didn't have
the elegant and refined look of Win7, instead it had the "new look" of
"tiles", the colors were kind of stupid choices, the fonts were also

(There's a setting in Classic Shell - which tends to be missed as it's
at the bottom! - where you can turn off the Metro interface, so you
never see the tiles. I don't know if StarDate has such a setting - I'd
hope so, as it's not free [though cheap enough].)

stupid for the window titles and some other appearance stuff was to me
a step backwards. About a month after the conversion I was given a
newer more powerful computer and decided that since I was going to
have to reset up everything on the new computer I would use my Win7 on
it and get the nice looking windows back.

So bottom line is that had I not been given the new computer I would
have continued using Win8 and would have updated it to win10 without a
doubt since Win10 is just win8 'fixed". If I bought a new computer I
would get one with Win10 - the notion of getting a new computer with
Win7 because "I hate MS, etc" seems silly to me since it's not the OS
you are presumably buying a computer to run but the programs you add
to it. Other then some appearance issues the OS is just the engine
under the hood that you really shouldn't need to spend much time
thinking about or obsessing over.

So, basically, you had 7, upgraded to 8, and were about to load 7 on a
new computer because you preferred it to 8 - but would buy 10 if getting
a new PC.

So you're not really in a position to answer the question that quite a
lot of us are wondering, which is basically "what does 10 give us over
7, other than being - obviously - newer and thus will be supported for
longer?".


I thought I did in a roundabout way say - Win10 is a bit better then 8
and Win8 was a little better FUNCTIONALLY then 7 but COSMETTINCLALY I
liked 7 better so went with 7 when starting from scratch. So, if
someone doesn't care about the cosmetic (appearance) changes I see no
reason for them not to go to 10, that is unless the know that some
specific hardware of software they use will not work on 10.

As for the difference(s) we're "obsessing over", according to a lot
here, they're a lot more than just "appearance issues" - apparently
there are significant changes to how updates and privacy (ha!) are
handled - at least by default, and possibly even if not. I cannot
confirm from personal experience, not having experienced 10 (or even 8.1
for more than a weekend).

I understand that but realistically, if you are a normal non-criminal,
non-techie person the stuff windows is going to collect on you isn't
worth worrying about nor is the automatic updates. If it's something
that bothers you anyway then of course don't use 10. But not using 10
won't change how everyone captures your info, that's how the world is.
If you want to see the info capturing stop you need to do something
other then boycott 10, you need to be chewing the ears off your
representatives to get some privacy laws passed making it illegal. As
long as it's legal it forces companies that want every edge to do it,
it's a competitive marketplace. The few sales lost due to the people
who are worried about their "secret info" getting out just isn't going
to stop it. Just my opinion.

Ashton Crusher wrote on 11/6/2015 7:52 PM:

I understand that but realistically, if you are a normal non-criminal,
non-techie person the stuff windows is going to collect on you isn't
worth worrying about nor is the automatic updates.

And you know that how?

Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 00:22:33 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ashton Crusher
writes:
[]
I upgraded my Win7 setup to Win8. Didn't care for the Native
interface but I got Start8 (I think but one of those "fixes") and that
made it seem a lot like how 7 looked. Used it for about a month and
thought it was OK and liked a few things better in it then in 7 but
don't recall the specifics now. The main thing I did not like was how
it "looked"... the blockiness of the windows.. it simply didn't have
the elegant and refined look of Win7, instead it had the "new look" of
"tiles", the colors were kind of stupid choices, the fonts were also
(There's a setting in Classic Shell - which tends to be missed as it's
at the bottom! - where you can turn off the Metro interface, so you
never see the tiles. I don't know if StarDate has such a setting - I'd
hope so, as it's not free [though cheap enough].)

stupid for the window titles and some other appearance stuff was to me
a step backwards. About a month after the conversion I was given a
newer more powerful computer and decided that since I was going to
have to reset up everything on the new computer I would use my Win7 on
it and get the nice looking windows back.

So bottom line is that had I not been given the new computer I would
have continued using Win8 and would have updated it to win10 without a
doubt since Win10 is just win8 'fixed". If I bought a new computer I
would get one with Win10 - the notion of getting a new computer with
Win7 because "I hate MS, etc" seems silly to me since it's not the OS
you are presumably buying a computer to run but the programs you add
to it. Other then some appearance issues the OS is just the engine
under the hood that you really shouldn't need to spend much time
thinking about or obsessing over.
So, basically, you had 7, upgraded to 8, and were about to load 7 on a
new computer because you preferred it to 8 - but would buy 10 if getting
a new PC.

So you're not really in a position to answer the question that quite a
lot of us are wondering, which is basically "what does 10 give us over
7, other than being - obviously - newer and thus will be supported for
longer?".


I thought I did in a roundabout way say - Win10 is a bit better then 8
and Win8 was a little better FUNCTIONALLY then 7 but COSMETTINCLALY I
liked 7 better so went with 7 when starting from scratch. So, if
someone doesn't care about the cosmetic (appearance) changes I see no
reason for them not to go to 10, that is unless the know that some
specific hardware of software they use will not work on 10.

As for the difference(s) we're "obsessing over", according to a lot
here, they're a lot more than just "appearance issues" - apparently
there are significant changes to how updates and privacy (ha!) are
handled - at least by default, and possibly even if not. I cannot
confirm from personal experience, not having experienced 10 (or even 8.1
for more than a weekend).

I understand that but realistically, if you are a normal non-criminal,
non-techie person the stuff windows is going to collect on you isn't
worth worrying about nor is the automatic updates. If it's something
that bothers you anyway then of course don't use 10. But not using 10
won't change how everyone captures your info, that's how the world is.
If you want to see the info capturing stop you need to do something
other then boycott 10, you need to be chewing the ears off your
representatives to get some privacy laws passed making it illegal. As
long as it's legal it forces companies that want every edge to do it,
it's a competitive marketplace. The few sales lost due to the people
who are worried about their "secret info" getting out just isn't going
to stop it. Just my opinion.
What about keystrokes Account numbers credit card numbers etc.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 00:22:33 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ashton Crusher
writes:
[]
I upgraded my Win7 setup to Win8. Didn't care for the Native
interface but I got Start8 (I think but one of those "fixes") and that
made it seem a lot like how 7 looked. Used it for about a month and
thought it was OK and liked a few things better in it then in 7 but
don't recall the specifics now. The main thing I did not like was how
it "looked"... the blockiness of the windows.. it simply didn't have
the elegant and refined look of Win7, instead it had the "new look" of
"tiles", the colors were kind of stupid choices, the fonts were also

(There's a setting in Classic Shell - which tends to be missed as it's
at the bottom! - where you can turn off the Metro interface, so you
never see the tiles. I don't know if StarDate has such a setting - I'd
hope so, as it's not free [though cheap enough].)

stupid for the window titles and some other appearance stuff was to me
a step backwards. About a month after the conversion I was given a
newer more powerful computer and decided that since I was going to
have to reset up everything on the new computer I would use my Win7 on
it and get the nice looking windows back.

So bottom line is that had I not been given the new computer I would
have continued using Win8 and would have updated it to win10 without a
doubt since Win10 is just win8 'fixed". If I bought a new computer I
would get one with Win10 - the notion of getting a new computer with
Win7 because "I hate MS, etc" seems silly to me since it's not the OS
you are presumably buying a computer to run but the programs you add
to it. Other then some appearance issues the OS is just the engine
under the hood that you really shouldn't need to spend much time
thinking about or obsessing over.

So, basically, you had 7, upgraded to 8, and were about to load 7 on a
new computer because you preferred it to 8 - but would buy 10 if getting
a new PC.

So you're not really in a position to answer the question that quite a
lot of us are wondering, which is basically "what does 10 give us over
7, other than being - obviously - newer and thus will be supported for
longer?".


I thought I did in a roundabout way say - Win10 is a bit better then 8
and Win8 was a little better FUNCTIONALLY then 7 but COSMETTINCLALY I
liked 7 better so went with 7 when starting from scratch. So, if

Why not Win 10 you ask?

Because I do not want to have to screw around with getting my old
composite tv out to work yet again. It works fine now. Gives me a non
dmr'd means of recording anything regardless of source viewed on my pc
using a hardware dvd recorder. I'm old, ntsc resolution if fine for me.

Because I don't want to have to change what programs I use to rip and
convert video and audio files yet again.

Because I do not want to find the audio controls even more difficult to
use which they've been ever since 98SE's mixer interface disappeared.
Midi control is even more obtuse now requiring registry changes to
specify which device Windows will use by default.

I don't want to find some software that I use doesn't work without
paying for some update, e.g. Alcohol 120% virtual drive and Win 7 come
to mind. Will my old Nero 7 still work and just as importantly will Nero
Vision still work?

Not enough time passed yet to know so no thanks I'm in no hurry.

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 07:06:24 +0000, Mike Barnes
wrote:

As for the difference(s) we're "obsessing over", according to a lot
here, they're a lot more than just "appearance issues" - apparently
there are significant changes to how updates and privacy (ha!) are
handled - at least by default, and possibly even if not. I cannot
confirm from personal experience, not having experienced 10 (or even 8.1
for more than a weekend).

Also W10 won't run 16-bit programs, except under a VM with a separate
Windows licence. That's a pretty serious shortcoming for me.

Now that (at last) is the kind of information I am looking for.

Soes that mean that 16-bit programs that will run on Win 7 will not
run on 10?


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 05:33:26 -0500, Paul wrote:

Mike Barnes wrote:


Also W10 won't run 16-bit programs, except under a VM with a separate
Windows licence. That's a pretty serious shortcoming for me.


So for those playing along at home, you're using
Win10 x64 for the host OS, and Win10 x32 for the guest
OS, as the x32 version would run 32 bit or 16 bit programs.

You could always just install the 32 bit version of Win10
on the main OS. It's not such a big deal.

The limit here, remains 4GB of address space when using
the 32 bit version of the OS.

Ah, so a 32-bit version of Win 10 *is* available?

My laptop came with Win 7 64-bit installed, but had the 32-bit version
on DVD. When I found that some of my programs wouldn't run, I switched
to the 32-bit version, and all was well.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 06:18:42 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

Also W10 won't run 16-bit programs, except under a VM with a separate
Windows licence. That's a pretty serious shortcoming for me.

Now that (at last) is the kind of information I am looking for.

It's incomplete information. W10 64 bit won't run 16 bit programs but
win10 32 bit will, just as with win7 and later.

Soes that mean that 16-bit programs that will run on Win 7 will not
run on 10?

Not if it's a 32 bit Win10.

--
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed http://www.500kmh.com/

Steve Hayes wrote:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 05:33:26 -0500, Paul wrote:

Mike Barnes wrote:

Also W10 won't run 16-bit programs, except under a VM with a separate
Windows licence. That's a pretty serious shortcoming for me.

So for those playing along at home, you're using
Win10 x64 for the host OS, and Win10 x32 for the guest
OS, as the x32 version would run 32 bit or 16 bit programs.

You could always just install the 32 bit version of Win10
on the main OS. It's not such a big deal.

The limit here, remains 4GB of address space when using
the 32 bit version of the OS.

Ah, so a 32-bit version of Win 10 *is* available?

My laptop came with Win 7 64-bit installed, but had the 32-bit version
on DVD. When I found that some of my programs wouldn't run, I switched
to the 32-bit version, and all was well.


This would be release 10240 DVD.

http://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/softw...d/windows10ISO

"Windows 10 English
32-bit Download
64-bit Download
"

And this is a Windows Insider Preview DVD. This is the
first DVD from Microsoft, that will accept a Windows 7 key
directly during an upgrade install. (The only question is,
how does that help you ?) Otherwise, there would be
nothing noteworthy about these.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/soft...iderpreviewiso

Editions Link to download SHA-1 hash value

Windows 10 Insider Preview (x64) Download (3.72 GB) 0xEA37A740FD0744CAE856D1B12FB4167F6EE88B54
Build 10565

Windows 10 Insider Preview (x86) Download (2.81 GB) 0x03E4DE01EA0C06351EA80438837CB5F6A3033F3E
Build 10565

You could test either of these in a VirtualBox guest.
For some reason, the "Skip" box appears when you install,
so you can finish the install.

The 32 bit OS is still available.

I run VirtualBox on a 64 bit machine, with a 64 bit Host OS.
And it will run 32 bit or 64 bit guests. (Whereas my VPC2007
setup, only runs 32 bit guest OSes, and it also won't
run Win8 or Win10. You need the very latest VirtualBox for
best results with a new OS.) The main benefit of virtualization,
is the materials are easy to throw away later.

Paul

Steve Hayes wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 07:06:24 +0000, Mike Barnes
wrote:

As for the difference(s) we're "obsessing over", according to a lot
here, they're a lot more than just "appearance issues" - apparently
there are significant changes to how updates and privacy (ha!) are
handled - at least by default, and possibly even if not. I cannot
confirm from personal experience, not having experienced 10 (or even 8.1
for more than a weekend).

Also W10 won't run 16-bit programs, except under a VM with a separate
Windows licence. That's a pretty serious shortcoming for me.

Now that (at last) is the kind of information I am looking for.

Shame it's wrong. :-)

Soes that mean that 16-bit programs that will run on Win 7 will not
run on 10?

That's what I thought when I posted that, but I was wrong. Paul put me
right. Apparently 16-bit programs run fine on W10 32-bit.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 06:02:56 +0000 (GMT), "Rodney Pont"
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 06:18:42 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

Also W10 won't run 16-bit programs, except under a VM with a separate
Windows licence. That's a pretty serious shortcoming for me.

Now that (at last) is the kind of information I am looking for.

It's incomplete information. W10 64 bit won't run 16 bit programs but
win10 32 bit will, just as with win7 and later.

Soes that mean that 16-bit programs that will run on Win 7 will not
run on 10?

Not if it's a 32 bit Win10.

Ok, so 32-bit Win 10 will run them just as well as 32-bit Win 7.

Now my worry is that if I start using Win 10 it will stop working
unless I pay Microsoft an annual subscription -- why else would they
be giving it away "free"?


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In message , Steve Hayes
writes:
[]
Ah, so a 32-bit version of Win 10 *is* available?

[Apparently. But I bet you won't find a computer with it in any shop
(-:!]

My laptop came with Win 7 64-bit installed, but had the 32-bit version
on DVD. When I found that some of my programs wouldn't run, I switched
to the 32-bit version, and all was well.

Interesting. How did the switching go?

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

no good deed goes unpunished. This is an iron-clad rule in Netiquette.

In message , Ashton Crusher
writes:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 00:22:33 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ashton Crusher
writes:
[]
I upgraded my Win7 setup to Win8. Didn't care for the Native
interface but I got Start8 (I think but one of those "fixes") and that
made it seem a lot like how 7 looked. Used it for about a month and
[]
So bottom line is that had I not been given the new computer I would
have continued using Win8 and would have updated it to win10 without a
doubt since Win10 is just win8 'fixed". If I bought a new computer I
would get one with Win10 - the notion of getting a new computer with
[]
So, basically, you had 7, upgraded to 8, and were about to load 7 on a
new computer because you preferred it to 8 - but would buy 10 if getting
a new PC.

I wasn't sure if you've actually used 10 ...

So you're not really in a position to answer the question that quite a
lot of us are wondering, which is basically "what does 10 give us over
7, other than being - obviously - newer and thus will be supported for
longer?".


I thought I did in a roundabout way say - Win10 is a bit better then 8

.... but it sounds like you have now.

Other than "it's newer" and "it brings back some of the cosmetic things
you preferred about 7", how - _for the general user_ - is 10 "a bit
better" - or was that only better than 8, rather than better than 7?
(I'm not asking just to continue the discussion for its own sake: I'm
genuinely curious if there _is_ anything about 10 that is an
_improvement_ on 7, for the _user_. I'm guessing there probably _are_
some improvements, even if small - it's just that there seems to have
been little or no actual mention of what they are.)
[]
As for the difference(s) we're "obsessing over", according to a lot
here, they're a lot more than just "appearance issues" - apparently
there are significant changes to how updates and privacy (ha!) are
handled - at least by default, and possibly even if not. I cannot
confirm from personal experience, not having experienced 10 (or even 8.1
for more than a weekend).

I understand that but realistically, if you are a normal non-criminal,
non-techie person the stuff windows is going to collect on you isn't

Realistically, you are probably right about the privacy issues - as you
say, for the normal person.

worth worrying about nor is the automatic updates. If it's something

Although there - and I repeat, I'm only going by what others have said,
I've no experience of 10 (I don't think I've even _seen_ it yet here!) -
I _tend_ to disagree, _if_ it is true that it's a lot harder - and in
some cases impossible - to inhibit them (and to continue using the
machine). I say that such would be a disadvantage for two reasons:
firstly, updates which break the machine have occurred in the past (and
if they break it enough, you can't then go online to get the ones that
then fix it - or even get into Windows); obviously, Microsoft should be
reducing the incidence of such occurrences, but (to some extent through
no fault of theirs: I think most such breakages have been rare
interactions of unusual combinations of hardware) in the past it has
been possible to stop updates, so that in the - rare - cases where they
do break something, the opportunity to hear warnings from others and act
on them (usually "don't install 'update' X unless you also install
update Y which fixes it, if you have hardware Z) has been available.
Secondly, some "updates" do change how the system works, and people like
the option of not installing those ones.

that bothers you anyway then of course don't use 10. But not using 10
won't change how everyone captures your info, that's how the world is.

No, not the info capture aspects, agreed.

If you want to see the info capturing stop you need to do something
other then boycott 10, you need to be chewing the ears off your
representatives to get some privacy laws passed making it illegal. As

I'd have little chance of that from here (UK); _in practice_ I'm at the
mercy of US corporations, if I want to actually _do_ much. (Not even
just online; if I want to deal with a company and make sure they store
all data outside the US, my choices are severely limited. In practice
this isn't much of a problem to me and probably most other people - it's
just a matter of principle, and uneasiness.)

long as it's legal it forces companies that want every edge to do it,
it's a competitive marketplace. The few sales lost due to the people
who are worried about their "secret info" getting out just isn't going
to stop it. Just my opinion.

Almost certainly right.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

no good deed goes unpunished. This is an iron-clad rule in Netiquette.