Window is on borrowed time

On 2016-02-13 6:47 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 18:03:14 -0500, "Wolfie"
wrote:


As you probably know, Win 7 is Vista improved.

I find Win 8.1 to be extremely close to Win 10.

It took me a few weeks, but I've got Win 10 to where I like it.


Every version of Windows is essentially the previous version improved.

Vista is a rewrite of Windows whereas 7 is an optimized rewrite. The
reason Vista was so choppy was because programmers were essentially
starting from scratch.


--
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Conservative Party of Canada, Mozilla &
PETA supporter

In article , Slimer wrote:
On 2016-02-13 6:47 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 18:03:14 -0500, "Wolfie"
wrote:
[ ... ]

Every version of Windows is essentially the previous version improved.

Vista is a rewrite of Windows whereas 7 is an optimized rewrite. The
reason Vista was so choppy was because programmers were essentially
starting from scratch.

I had someone swear up and down that Windows 2000 was a complete rewrite
without a single line of code from earler versions.

I Promptly inquired if that was the case, why was the default install directory was C:\WINNT.

Oddly enough, I never got a reply...but when XP came out, it was
C:\WINDOWS.


--
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Conservative Party of Canada, Mozilla &
PETA supporter

On 2016-02-14 12:06 PM, Gary Heston wrote:
In article , Slimer wrote:
On 2016-02-13 6:47 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 18:03:14 -0500, "Wolfie"
wrote:
[ ... ]

Every version of Windows is essentially the previous version improved.

Vista is a rewrite of Windows whereas 7 is an optimized rewrite. The
reason Vista was so choppy was because programmers were essentially
starting from scratch.

I had someone swear up and down that Windows 2000 was a complete rewrite
without a single line of code from earler versions.

I Promptly inquired if that was the case, why was the default install directory was C:\WINNT.

Oddly enough, I never got a reply...but when XP came out, it was
C:\WINDOWS.

Well, I know for a fact that Vista was a rewrite as it had been
determined, after the XP days, that the code it had used had become
overly complex and bloated and therefore a need to simplify it became
very important. Vista was the result of the simplification of the code,
but it obvious didn't run as well as the original code due to its lack
of optimization.


--
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Conservative Party of Canada, Mozilla &
PETA supporter

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 18:03:14 -0500, Wolfie wrote:


As you probably know, Win 7 is Vista improved.

Every version of Windows "improves" on the previous version, at least
according to MS publicity.




I find Win 8.1 to be extremely close to Win 10.

It took me a few weeks, but I've got Win 10 to where I like it.

Wolfie posted this via
:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonke...dows-10-true-c
ost/#43d2ec07593f“

"There is no such thing as a free lunch� has been the mantra of those
cynical about the true cost of ‘free’ Windows 10. But as Microsoft
increases pressure on users to upgrade, it turns out the real cost of
Windows 10 lies somewhere far less expected". MORE...Read


I'm waiting for a Google desktop OS, or one from the Chinese. And then,
it will be "Sayonara Windows".

Windows 10 is based on "alien technology." As soon as Cortana cross-breeds
with compatile human specimens, the initial stages of assimilation will be
complete. Resistance is futile. HTH.

--

I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^;

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."
-- Julius Robert Oppenheimer (1904 -1967)

.... and I approve this message!

On 2016-02-11 2:34 PM, Wolfie wrote:

I'm waiting for a Google desktop OS, or one from the Chinese. And then,
it will be "Sayonara Windows".

Might I suggest Red Star OS 3.0 from North Korea? It is a version of
Linux AFAIK.

Nil wrote:

I didn't fine Vista to be all that bad, either.

I liked Vista, it worked perfectly for me. It was also (I think?) the
last MSFT OS that allowed classic start menu, etc. w/o running an add
on program.

But if your computer had enough horsepower, Vista was perfectly
usable.

And there's the rub, manufactures sold a bunch of systems with Vista
loaded that really didn't have the horsepower. Vista ran well with
double the memory MSFT said was needed and a faster processor helped as
well.

My homemade had a bunch of RAM and a fast processor so I had zero
problems.


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:14:33 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2016-02-12 09:07, mike wrote:
On 2/12/2016 4:20 AM, Dave C wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 17:34:35 -0500, Wolfie wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonke...ndows-10-true-
cost/#43d2ec07593f“

"There is no such thing as a free lunch” has been the mantra of those
cynical about the true cost of ‘free’ Windows 10. But as Microsoft
increases pressure on users to upgrade, it turns out the real cost of
Windows 10 lies somewhere far less expected". MORE...Read


I'm waiting for a Google desktop OS, or one from the Chinese. And then,
it will be "Sayonara Windows".

This is another post in which the poster ignores the split between
typical home or small business user and large corporations (or even
smaller ones). These latter folks use hundreds of work stations, employ
IT personal to maintain them and have training classes for the users.
Just updating is a pain, to switch OS a nightmare. We've seen all this
before when competitors to IBM came and went (Honeywell, RCA etc.) IT
people in a large enterprise are very wary of trying new things.

Especially when those new things come from a nebulous, random,
bunch of individuals careening all over the map.

Some find comfort in using stuff that comes from a place
with a business name and a real address and a legal department
and some organized vision and commitment
to support and making everything just work.

As soon as desktop linux comes together to create a "BRAND", the world
will follow.

Too late for that. Android has done it, but it runs on smartphones and
tablets, not desktops. NB that only techie nerds know (or care) that
it's a Linux. More smartphones run on it than on iOS.

The desktop will survive as a workstation, but for most people, the
computing device of choice will be whatever evolves as smartphone and
tablet converge. Both are already implicated in all kinds of neat
gadgets, eg, I saw an electronic lock that's configured automatically
with a smartphone, total installation time about 15-20 minutes. It will
unlock if it senses the smartphone "nearby". Or not, depending. It can
be configured to give selected people, such as dog-walkers, access to
the house at programmed times via their smartphones. Etc. You can't do
that with a desktop....

Have a good day,

Nothing serves everyone's needs. There is still a place for desktops
and multiple monitors. People doing significant video work, people
designing buildings on CAD, and etc. To think the markets will never
change would be shortsighted. And to think the people who have the
current markets won't try to keep them would also be shortsighted.

All the "I hate ms" seems just silly to me. Clearly desktops will
become a smaller share of the market when looked at in terms of the
TOTAL market. That does not mean there will not be lots of money to
be made in the remaining desktop market for many many years to come.

Smart companies see this, see where the market is going, and try to
get part of the NEW segments of the market even as they nurture their
existing segment. If they fail to succeed, well, that's how
capitalism works. Back when the cell phone market first exploded the
Audiovox was one of the premier phones, even Fox Muldar used one on
the X-files. I had one and it was a fantastic phone. Now it's hard
to even find them listed in a google search of cell phone history.
Then Flip-phones took over the market. Change is inevitable.

On 02/11/16 15:15, Roger Blake so wittily quipped:
On 2016-02-11, Wolfie wrote:
I'm waiting for a Google desktop OS, or one from the Chinese. And then, it
will be "Sayonara Windows".

Not likely. Microsoft's real lock-in is the applications that run on
Windows, particularly Office. Applications from 3rd parties also insure
that Windows remains the top choice. If you need an off-the-shelf business
application chances are you will need to run Windows. (Most users
don't care about the operating system, many are even unaware of the
concept. They just know that they are using "Microsoft.") Even moving to a
Mac means swimming against the current.

Unless a replacement is 100% bug-for-bug compatible, Windows will be
with us for a long time to come.

That's the case for desktop systems. On the server end of course it is
a different story.


the big change will need to be developers who target things *like* Linux
and offer Linux versions at the same price, etc. as Windows versions.
Good examples, ACCOUNTING software, from Quickbooks to Turbo Tax.

I understand those are actually written using Java... so it SHOULD be
possible!!!

On 02/11/16 14:34, Wolfie so wittily quipped:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonke...3d2ec07593f“


"There is no such thing as a free lunch� has been the mantra of those
cynical about the true cost of ‘free’ Windows 10. But as Microsoft
increases pressure on users to upgrade, it turns out the real cost of
Windows 10 lies somewhere far less expected". MORE...Read

tried to, but I kept hitting this "you have ad blocker software" screen.
I refuse to participate in their web crap if they don't honor MY
preferences.

On 02/12/16 04:20, Dave C so wittily quipped:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 17:34:35 -0500, Wolfie wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonke...ndows-10-true-
cost/#43d2ec07593f“

"There is no such thing as a free lunch� has been the mantra of those
cynical about the true cost of ‘free’ Windows 10. But as Microsoft
increases pressure on users to upgrade, it turns out the real cost of
Windows 10 lies somewhere far less expected". MORE...Read


I'm waiting for a Google desktop OS, or one from the Chinese. And then,
it will be "Sayonara Windows".

This is another post in which the poster ignores the split between
typical home or small business user and large corporations (or even
smaller ones). These latter folks use hundreds of work stations, employ
IT personal to maintain them and have training classes for the users.
Just updating is a pain, to switch OS a nightmare. We've seen all this
before when competitors to IBM came and went (Honeywell, RCA etc.) IT
people in a large enterprise are very wary of trying new things.


and yet... back in the early noughties, Ernie Ball did JUST THAT -
switched to an RHEL solution because, Microsoft audited them and fined
them $100k!!!

http://web.archive.org/web/201312030...3-5065859.html

And, according to the CEO, they SAVED about $80k the first year!

"In 2000, the Business Software Alliance conducted a raid and subsequent
audit at the San Luis Obispo, Calif.-based company that turned up a few
dozen unlicensed copies of programs. Ball settled for $65,000, plus
$35,000 in legal fees. But by then, the BSA, a trade group that helps
enforce copyrights and licensing provisions for major business software
makers, had put the company on the evening news and featured it in
regional ads warning other businesses to monitor their software licenses."

in other words, these auditor asshats wanted to SET AN EXAMPLE, and
Ernie Ball is a pretty large target. They went on a fishing expedition
based on some "turn in your employer" thing, and like anyone doing a
thorough rectal exam, found some ****.

The CEO's reaction:
quote
"I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" recalled
Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade show. "We won't do
business with someone who treats us poorly."
/quote

"I know I saved $80,000 right away by going to open source, and each
time something like (Windows) XP comes along, I save even more money
because I don't have to buy new equipment to run the software."


In summary, we have a REALLY GOOD PRECEDENT here that for business, open
source CAN DO (and from what I can tell, often DOES) the same or better
job, at lower overall cost, than Microsoft.

On 02/18/2016 01:31 PM, Big Bad Bob wrote:
On 02/11/16 14:34, Wolfie so wittily quipped:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonke...3d2ec07593f“


"There is no such thing as a free lunch� has been the mantra of those
cynical about the true cost of ‘free’ Windows 10. But as Microsoft
increases pressure on users to upgrade, it turns out the real cost of
Windows 10 lies somewhere far less expected". MORE...Read

tried to, but I kept hitting this "you have ad blocker software" screen.
I refuse to participate in their web crap if they don't honor MY
preferences.


Someday we'll have ad blocker detector blockers.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
-- Philip K. Dick

Mark Lloyd wrote on 2016/02/19:

Someday we'll have ad blocker detector blockers.

There are already blocklists for sites (and elements within them) that
detect adblockers and shove a warning at the user. The uBlock Origin
add-on has the following block-the-adblock blocklists:

Adblock Warning Removal List
Anti-Adblock Killer List

That doesn't mean this will make the site magically believe you are not
using an adblocker or will make them blind to prevent them from not
delivering some or all of their content. Any site can see if a client
is not connecting to the ad sources through the objects that would
normally be presented in the delivered web page. If they redirect the
ad content through their server, they can see it was not retrieved by
the client. If they cooperate with advertising centers (e.g., CDNs -
content delivery networks) then the CDN sees the content was not
retrieved and reports it to the web site you visited; i.e., there is
sharing of info on content hits. They can use Javascript to determine
if the ad content got retrieved and is part of the document. Yes, you
can disable Javascript but then that is very easy to detect and they can
decide to show you only some or none of their content.

Yeah, your preferences (to block) but THEIR property and resources from
where you get to leech for free. If adblocking imperils their revenue
for survivability, sure, they will react. Then we have to react but our
reaction would be lessened if sites weren't so rude in behavior along
with indemnifying their responsibility for the content they deliver.

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:19:59 -0600, Mark Lloyd wrote:

Someday we'll have ad blocker detector blockers.

We just need an option to retrieve the ad content without displaying it. The
current method of not requesting the ad content is a stick in their eye,
which is understandable.

And then the game escalates to the next level, whatever that is.

Char Jackson wrote on 2016/02/19:

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:19:59 -0600, Mark Lloyd wrote:

Someday we'll have ad blocker detector blockers.

We just need an option to retrieve the ad content without displaying it. The
current method of not requesting the ad content is a stick in their eye,
which is understandable.

And then the game escalates to the next level, whatever that is.

Good idea. Use a separate process to retrieve the otherwise blocked
content but that process runs as low-priority and with throttled
bandwidth. Then retrieving the unwanted content results in minimal
impact on computer and network responsiveness.