'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 UsersTwice a Day

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:22:44 -0000, Roger Blake wrote:

On 2016-01-18, Mr Macaw wrote:
As I said, they should have used 2000. IUt did everything that 98 and ME could do, AND was business-stable.

Most use what comes loaded on the PC out of the box, and for a while
that was frequently ME.

More fool them. Any decent computer shop gives you an option.

Vista and 7 were almost the same. What problems did you have with Vista? Because I had precisely zero. And it was 3 times more stable than XP.

Windows 7 is essentially Vista cleaned up as it should have been in
the first place.

It was Vista point 1. So what? That doesn't stop Vista being WAY better than XP.

Vista had serious performance issues unless you had high-end hardware.
The more typical lower-end hardware purchased by most consumers and
businesses suffered from very poor performance. (Service Pack 1 did
help to an extent, but Vista was still slow compared to XP running on
the same hardware.)

Any newer Windows will suck on an old piece of junk. But I upgraded most of my work's PCs from XP to Vista, and some needed a RAM upgrade, but that was all. Mind you, they needed the bloody RAM upgrade for XP. Computer shops really should put the maximum possible RAM a motherboard can take on every single PC, or you're just wasting the performance of everything else.

--
Barber: "Your hair is getting grey."
Customer: "Try cutting a little faster."

There are guidelines about posting to UseNet.
They include wrapping your lines.

In other words... This is a babbling clueless troll...

--
"Mr Macaw" no spam.com wrote in newsp.ybeidmfz86ebyl red.lan:

Path: eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!xmission!news.alt.net
From: "Mr Macaw" no spam.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:09:12 -0000
Organization: .
Lines: 23
Message-ID: op.ybeidmfz86ebyl red.lan
References: d688a41c55708cf719bd3857f7edab73 remailer.org.uk c9cb51b04769047aa120e415e4490172 hoi-polloi.org n7c7ts$tdn$1 dont-email.me n7cdoc$ako$1 dont-email.me 6159e4740342775ebe8364dc5f56554d msgid.frell.theremailer.net n7dt5q$rkk$1 dont-email.me op.ybcct0lt86ebyl red.lan n7dv1l$3k4$1 dont-email.me op.ybcer3cc86ebyl red.lan n7e54v$s4q$1 dont-email.me op.ybcjizpi86ebyl red.lan n7eil1$jab$1 dont-email.me op.ybct4uii86ebyl red.lan 20160116193224 news.eternal-september.org op.ybd9hmgd86ebyl red.lan XnsA592A481E1359F7D9A8 dieselpower.eternal-september.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32)
Xref: mx02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.freewa258327 alt.comp.os.windows-10:14482 alt.privacy.anon-server:47600

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:02:37 -0000, Diesel me privacy.net wrote:

"Mr Macaw" no spam.com newsp.ybd9hmgd86ebyl red.lan Sun, 17 Jan
2016 17:57:12 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

I really don't care about their point of view. Mine is that I
maintain business systems which you don't just cavalierly toss
operating system upgrades at. I am dealing with cases in which
business owners have specifically been told that specialized
software they depend on will not work properly on Windows 10

That's the fault of the authors of the software. Everyone else
releases patches if they programmed it badly the first time.

That's insane! How can an author possibly know MS is going to release
an 'updated' OS that breaks some other code in the process? When
customized software is in use, if it's not broken, you don't 'fix' it
with an OS upgrade.

There are guidelines on how to write a program. If you make it work with one version of windows, but don't adhere to the guidelines, it's not M$'s fault when they remove that feature and break the program.

--
But she was always fat. She was born an only twin.

On 2016-01-18, Mr Macaw wrote:
More fool them. Any decent computer shop gives you an option.

Buying from a good custom shop (or building your own, which is what I do)
is best, but many blindly by whatever the major vendors are offering.
But that's neither here nor there. The point is that WinME was worse
than Win98SE that preceded it.

It was Vista point 1. So what? That doesn't stop Vista being WAY better than XP.

That has not been my experience. Nobody that I dealt with was happy
with Vista. Typically after getting a taste of it, during the Vista
era they would continue to purchase new systems with XP instead. There
is a reason that Windows XP hung around for as long as it did.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roger Blake wrote:

But that's neither here nor there. The point is that WinME was worse
than Win98SE that preceded it.

There was little difference IMO. I believe ME had somewhat improved
support for USB.

during the Vista era they would continue to purchase new systems with
XP instead. There is a reason that Windows XP hung around for as long
as it did.

That's because Windows XP was like Windows 2 for consumers. It was a
huge improvement over prior versions and there has been little
improvement afterwards.

Two notable exceptions in the user interface after Windows XP...

Being able to move taskbar buttons around. But browsers and freeware
programs were able to do that sort of thing long before.

Being able to preview windows from the taskbar.

At the same time, Microsoft's file manager went downhill immediately
after XP. The most notable trashing of it is the fact that navigating
with the arrow keys does nothing but uselessly highlight the folder
name.

I noticed some really bizarre behavior in the Windows 10 file manager,
too. Little things, but stuff that reeks of bad programming.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:43:46 -0000, Roger Blake wrote:

On 2016-01-18, Mr Macaw wrote:
More fool them. Any decent computer shop gives you an option.

Buying from a good custom shop (or building your own, which is what I do)
is best, but many blindly by whatever the major vendors are offering.

The major vendors allow you to customise when you buy. Unless you buy some **** like an Emachines, you always get a choice.

But that's neither here nor there. The point is that WinME was worse
than Win98SE that preceded it.

I saw it a few times and I'd say it was either 98 point 1 or just the same. But I never tried it properly as 2000 was the one to go for and it came out first.

It was Vista point 1. So what? That doesn't stop Vista being WAY better than XP.

That has not been my experience. Nobody that I dealt with was happy
with Vista. Typically after getting a taste of it, during the Vista
era they would continue to purchase new systems with XP instead. There
is a reason that Windows XP hung around for as long as it did.

Why were they unhappy? Vista crashed much less than XP and had a much improved interface. The only way to make it worse than XP was to try to install it on a dinosaur. But you could say the same about trying to put XP on a machine designed for 98.

--
The modest young lass had just purchased some lingerie and asked if she might have the sentence "If you can read this, you're too damned close" embroidered on her panties and bra.
"Yes madam," said the clerk. "I'm quite certain that could be done. Would you prefer block or script letters ?"
"Braille," she replied.

PKB whiner.

In article
John Doe wrote:

There are guidelines about posting to UseNet.
They include wrapping your lines.

In other words... This is a babbling clueless troll...

On 2016-01-18, Mr Macaw wrote:
The major vendors allow you to customise when you buy. Unless you buy some **** like an Emachines, you always get a choice.

Not always the case. For example, many perfectly good Dell systems have
no such option available. Likewise when purchasing major brand PCs over
the counter there is usually little or no choice.

I saw it a few times and I'd say it was either 98 point 1 or just the same. But I never tried it properly as 2000 was the one to go for and it came out first.

I wound up working with WinME for people that wound up with it on new PCs.
It was pretty damned awful.

Why were they unhappy? Vista crashed much less than XP and had a much
improved interface. The only way to make it worse than XP was to try
to install it on a dinosaur. But you could say the same about trying
to put XP on a machine designed for 98.

Vista performance even on new PCs was terrible unless dealing with very
high-end hardware. I worked with many new computers sporting "Designed
for Windows Vista" stickers that had awful performance. This is not
merely my own experience. I know a lot of people in the business and
opinions on Vista were not very good, to be kind.

There is a reason that XP wound up being supported for 14 years, and that
reason is that its immediate successor was terrible.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing but a nym-shifting nobody...

--
Info info pub.roluci.com wrote in news:20160118010625.E3E161200C7 fleegle.mixmin.net:

From: Info info pub.roluci.com
References: d688a41c55708cf719bd3857f7edab73 remailer.org.uk c9cb51b04769047aa120e415e4490172 hoi-polloi.org n7c7ts$tdn$1 dont-email.me n7cdoc$ako$1 dont-email.me 6159e4740342775ebe8364dc5f56554d msgid.frell.theremailer.net n7dt5q$rkk$1 dont-email.me op.ybcct0lt86ebyl red.lan n7dv1l$3k4$1 dont-email.me op.ybcer3cc86ebyl red.lan n7e54v$s4q$1 dont-email.me op.ybcjizpi86ebyl red.lan n7eil1$jab$1 dont-email.me op.ybct4uii86ebyl red.lan 20160116193224 news.eternal-september.org op.ybd9hmgd86ebyl red.lan XnsA592A481E1359F7D9A8 dieselpower.eternal-september.org op.ybeidmfz86ebyl red.lan n7hce2$aba$1 dont-email.me
Subject: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day
Message-Id: 20160118010625.E3E161200C7 fleegle.mixmin.net
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 01:06:25 +0000 (GMT)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.test
Path: eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.mixmin.net!sewer!news.dizum.net !not-for-mail
Organization: dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider
X-Abuse: abuse dizum.com
Injection-Info: sewer.dizum.com - 194.109.206.211
Xref: mx02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.freewa258366 alt.comp.os.windows-10:14513 alt.test:363693

PKB whiner.

In article n7hce2$aba$1 dont-email.me
John Doe always.look message.header wrote:

There are guidelines about posting to UseNet.
They include wrapping your lines.

In other words... This is a babbling clueless troll...

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:32:37 -0000, Jake wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 22:25:12 -0000, edevils

wrote:

On 16/01/2016 22:47, Jake wrote:


"edevils" wrote in message ...

On 16/01/2016 18:14, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 17:06:39 -0000, Paul wrote:

Fritz Wuehler wrote:

So, free Windows is just like Linux now. A lot of code and
promising crap that never gets fixed or developed further.

Most of the time, we end up not understanding
why they're changing things. If the objective was
to in an obvious way, "make Win10 better and better",
I might have a more positive attitude to the rolling
release idea and what they're actually doing to it.

For example, the desktop version uses Windows
Update. The latest builds added Update Orchestrator,
which sits above Windows Update, a piece of software
used on the Enterprise edition. Do consumers
need Update Orchestrator ? No.
Did the policies in the OS change, because
of the presence of Update Orchestrator ? Yes.
Is the overall change an improvement for
consumers ? No.

The desktop version is being used as a testbed,
and for ideas that may have no positive impact
on the consumer version itself. And that's not
really the intention of the rolling release idea.
It's an abuse of rolling release.

Yawn..... it works for me, it's the nicest OS I've ever used. And it's
not gone wrong once.

It works for me too, but the fact that it is being used as a testbed,
like Paul put it, combined with the nearly "unstoppable" automatic
updates, makes me a bit unconfortable. I mean, a new feature update
could break it any time, could it not?

I've allowed MS to update my machines automatically for years without an
issue.

Same here.
But automatic updates did not include new features, usually, in previous
Windows versions.

Why would that increase the chances of a monumental ****up?

However, a Win 10 update a few weeks ago did change some of my
settings. But no problems since then.
But since we have no choice, lets see how it plays out.

However, Windows 10 *Professional* allows you to defer risky feature
upgrades, while still receiving security patches as soon as they are
released. That's why I deem Pro safer than Home.

Why would anyone have less than the full version?

Now that is an interesting question. I've got what the machine came with.
Since it's "free", I'm wondering if I can upgrade free?

I'm going to sniff around.

I'll keep you posted.

When you bought the machine, why did you not ask for a better version?

Dell Inspiron desktop. Core i7, 8 Gz RAM, 1TB HD....$449.00 tax exempt.
The p[rice was too good to be true. The OS wasn't an issue.

In article
John Doe wrote:

Obscurity at its finest...


Yawn.

Too scared and lame to stand up for its own opinions...

--
Nomen Nescio nobody dizum.com wrote in news:c850eb577518aae77cdaa28b6904f3bf dizum.com:

From: Nomen Nescio nobody dizum.com
References: d688a41c55708cf719bd3857f7edab73 remailer.org.uk c9cb51b04769047aa120e415e4490172 hoi-polloi.org n7c7ts$tdn$1 dont-email.me n7cdoc$ako$1 dont-email.me 6159e4740342775ebe8364dc5f56554d msgid.frell.theremailer.net n7dt5q$rkk$1 dont-email.me op.ybcct0lt86ebyl red.lan n7e5lo$u5o$1 dont-email.me op.ybcjktxa86ebyl red.lan n7edc1$ska$1 dont-email.me op.ybcprl1f86ebyl red.lan n7efcs$4up$1 dont-email.me op.ybcq37yn86ebyl red.lan n7el2u$ngq$7 dont-email.me wtidnbys25qwcwbLnZ2dnUU7-cOdnZ2d earthlink.com op.ybeegb2e86ebyl red.lan n7h45v$ao7$2 dont-email.me c49acab4ebc01d60f6a9c740a3147bd0 foto.nl1.torservers.net n7hcjp$aba$2 dont-email.me
Subject: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day
Message-ID: c850eb577518aae77cdaa28b6904f3bf dizum.com
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 03:31:06 +0100 (CET)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.hacker,alt.test
Path: eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.mixmin.net!sewer!news.dizum.net !not-for-mail
Organization: dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider
X-Abuse: abuse dizum.com
Injection-Info: sewer.dizum.com - 194.109.206.211
Xref: mx02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.freewa258373 alt.comp.os.windows-10:14523 alt.hacker:9938 alt.test:363694

In article n7hcjp$aba$2 dont-email.me
John Doe always.look message.header wrote:

Obscurity at its finest...


Yawn.

In article
John Doe wrote:

Regular troll...

--
"Mr Macaw" no spam.com wrote in newsp.ybejj5rb86ebyl red.lan:

Path: eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!xmission!news.alt.net
From: "Mr Macaw" no spam.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:34:43 -0000
Organization: .
Lines: 37
Message-ID: op.ybejj5rb86ebyl red.lan
References: d688a41c55708cf719bd3857f7edab73 remailer.org.uk c9cb51b04769047aa120e415e4490172 hoi-polloi.org n7c7ts$tdn$1 dont-email.me n7cdoc$ako$1 dont-email.me 6159e4740342775ebe8364dc5f56554d msgid.frell.theremailer.net n7dt5q$rkk$1 dont-email.me op.ybcct0lt86ebyl red.lan n7dv1l$3k4$1 dont-email.me op.ybcer3cc86ebyl red.lan n7e54v$s4q$1 dont-email.me op.ybcjizpi86ebyl red.lan n7eil1$jab$1 dont-email.me op.ybct4uii86ebyl red.lan 20160116193224 news.eternal-september.org op.ybd9hmgd86ebyl red.lan XnsA592A481E1359F7D9A8 dieselpower.eternal-september.org op.ybeidmfz86ebyl red.lan XnsA592A8364B3BF7D9A8 dieselpower.eternal-september.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32)
Xref: mx02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.freewa258334 alt.comp.os.windows-10:14486 alt.privacy.anon-server:47604

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:24:28 -0000, Diesel me privacy.net wrote:

"Mr Macaw" no spam.com newsp.ybeidmfz86ebyl red.lan Sun, 17 Jan
2016 21:09:12 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:02:37 -0000, Diesel me privacy.net wrote:

"Mr Macaw" no spam.com newsp.ybd9hmgd86ebyl red.lan Sun, 17
Jan 2016 17:57:12 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

I really don't care about their point of view. Mine is that I
maintain business systems which you don't just cavalierly toss
operating system upgrades at. I am dealing with cases in which
business owners have specifically been told that specialized
software they depend on will not work properly on Windows 10

That's the fault of the authors of the software. Everyone else
releases patches if they programmed it badly the first time.

That's insane! How can an author possibly know MS is going to
release an 'updated' OS that breaks some other code in the
process? When customized software is in use, if it's not broken,
you don't 'fix' it with an OS upgrade.

There are guidelines on how to write a program. If you make it
work with one version of windows, but don't adhere to the
guidelines, it's not M$'s fault when they remove that feature and
break the program.

ROFL. You haven't actually done much programming then, I take it...

There's lots of things I haven't done, but I still have a clue about how to.

Hint: most companies manage. If you use a **** piece of software from a tinpot company, that's your problem.

So he's a troll because he states his mostly accurate opinion,
and another clown who freely admits that he is an incompetent
programmer who doesn't follow good design concepts doesn't like
it? This is why your work comes to India now.

"Mr Macaw" news 2016 00:07:13 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

You have *got* to be kidding. Vista was an absolute pig.
Consumers and businesses avoided it like the plague whenever
possible. There were many sighs of relief when Windows 7 was
released.

Funny, when I deployed Vista to get rid of XP at my work, everyone
breathed a sigh of relief. Computers actually ran all day without
crashing.

Do you remember any specific crash scenarios? As what you're writing
simply does not jive with many real world experiences I have under my
belt. It doesn't jive with other techs I know, either....





--
Hey listen...
On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.

"Mr Macaw" news 2016 21:34:43 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

There's lots of things I haven't done, but I still have a clue
about how to.

I understand. I also understand that sometimes, you or someone else
who hasn't actually performed anything related to the subject often
thinks they know a lot more about the subject than they actually do.

You're a perfect example of that, actually.

If you actually had a clue concerning the aspects related to computer
programming on a level beyond that of a hobbyist, you wouldn't have
made the post that I responded to. As you'd realize how ignorant the
comments are.

Hint: most companies manage. If you use a **** piece of software
from a tinpot company, that's your problem.

Agreed, to a point. A lot of software in the corporate environment is
very customized and very specific. It's not that the software itself
is poorly written, it's more that it's very specific to the job it
does alone and/or assists others with doing.

If it's in a production environment, the last thing you want to do is
change the OS itself in a major way; Obviously upgrading the OS is a
major change and this can result in compatability issues which can
shut your production machine down; costing you/your company money.

It's not a simple matter of patching your code to make it work
properly in these cases. You can't be sure that patch isn't going to
break something else, and, for production systems and/or mission
critical apps, this is not an acceptable risk. If patches are
determined to be necessary, it's done to a machine that isn't on the
production line. It's vetted, before it's brought online in an
official capacity. This is again, costing you time and your company
money. For potential benefits (if any) down the road, as a result of
the OS upgrade. In this case, Windows 7 to Windows 10 really doesn't
offer business/corporate users any real incentive to upgrade and risk
compatability issues with their in house software and/or other issues
on the network that's in production and doing mission critical
things.

I've yet to see systems at the VA in a neighboring city leave Windows
7 professional edition. A call center where I do IT support is also
remaining with Windows 7 professional edition on their workstations.
There's a standing order that no machine takes a more recent version
of windows as we've confirmed some in house tools (written by a very
large and well known bank) will not run under a later edition of
Windows.

I don't believe it's because these programs are '****' from a lousy
wannabe company. It's just very custom, very specific software that
moves a lot of information around. It pulls this information from an
old school IBM mainframe, and, I'm sure it's not running the latest
and greatest anything from MS. [g] It's OS is ancient by todays
standards. Telnet is so yesterday.. get the idea? rofl.

If you've ever designed production level apps (We know you haven't,
obviously) you would understand the related pitfalls that go along
with it and wouldn't be so quick to blame people outside of Microsoft
when things go wrong as a direct result of something Microsoft
decided to do. Microsoft changes things and does a poor job of
documenting it, if! they document that particular change.

You have no realistic way of knowing in advance that an API call your
program has made without fail for the last three or so years is no
longer going to work properly in the final release, despite it having
worked fine in several pre-release versions. And this is because the
final release 'phased out' the API call, and/or changed the calling
parameters to add additional features and didn't bother to tell you
or anybody else on the programming team this was done.

You find that out later, when your program malfunctions and/or
crashes. Hopefully the vetting process catches this and it doesn't
hit the production floor with this problem. OTH, if your IT dept
decided to go ahead and bring production machines online with it,
because you tested it on pre-release and everything was okay, the
final release wasn't tested and you're all about to find out that
everything isn't okay. Hopefully!, you didn't push this update to all
workstations and you have a way of reversing the cluster**** you just
created in a reasonable (as in done yesterday) time period.

There's a world of difference between hobbyist level programming and
writing stuff that has to work and do so reliably! You do NOT make
major changes to any system under those conditions in the corporate
world. It's irresponsible!

Just because Windows 10 has officially been released is NOT good
enough reason to force all systems to download and install it. It has
nothing to do with ****ty code on the 3rd party author, but,
everything to do with MS known track record of changing things that
results in breaking things, that they attempt to fix later with patch
tuesday that invariably, breaks something else.

It's one thing for a home user to be inconvenienced when this
happens, it's another matter entirely for a corporate system to go
down as a result of MS ****up.

Due to the differences in emulation under the NT console, I had to
make several 'patch' style changes for BugHunter, to ensure it would
continue to run on the older systems which actually provided a DOS
environment, vs the ones that tried to emulate most aspects of the
environment. Initially, a patch to fix an issue on XP disabled
BugHunter's ability to properly read from the command line on Windows
9x based machines.

This wasn't something I did wrong, this was an issue Microsoft CAUSED
when they significantly changed the way the command line is passed to
the program being called on the stack. It worked as written in NT4
and 2000 and originally, windows 9x, but, XP changed the layout
slightly and this resulted in BugHunter no longer properly retrieving
ANY command tail when used under the older OSes due to the change I
made initially to re-acquire the command tail under XPs console.

A user reported the 'bug' to me, and I was able to quickly fix it,
again, and ensure this fix didn't break it's ability to continue
running under NT based operating systems. It was NOT a bug with
BugHunter itself, it was a bug MS introduced that I had to work
around; which is exactly what happens to any serious programmer/coder
who designs a program to run under Windows. This isn't new, it's been
happening for decades now and it's typically understood by those
who've written code professionally at some point. It's something
you'll have to do when Microsoft changes things in their OS and
doesn't bother to tell you about it. You get to visit the debugger
and find out the hard way, MS broke your code!

When your program is very customized and doing things that are
proprietary in nature, the last thing you want to deal with is having
to patch something to ensure your program will run with the new
steaming pile of **** Microsoft thinks the whole world wants. It's
just not so. You can't afford to risk bringing the production line to
a halt over something MS borked between OS revisions. - Something you
won't necessarily know is a problem right away, until your program
calls that not so often used function and finds out (the hard way)
that it cannot run the CNC machine due to some new policy restriction
on the USB port and/or a newly introduced driver conflict.

You can't realistically blame the IT dept and/or support programming
team when Microsoft ****s up something in their code that can affect
your work. This is why production machines are not provided the
latest and greatest OS or certain patches the second they are
released.

A competent IT staff will thoroughly check the upgrade
suggestions/patches on a system that's not mission ritical/production
machine to ensure it'll continue to function as they intend for it.
Then, over time, they may elect to slowly roll out upgraded machines
to replace the older units, once enough testing has been done to
reasonably ensure the code and support systems will continue to
function as expected. This can be a time consuming process which can
affect a companies bottom line. Someone is being paid to do all of
this checking/troubleshooting and, if need be, code rewrites to
ensure the new OS/security patch won't bork the companies way of
doing business.

Computers and associated software are a bit more complicated than the
majority of people realize. These aren't console gaming machines.
They aren't a toaster oven, despite the newer OS revisions trying
like hell to dumb it down for the average joe.

--
Hey listen...
On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.

Ken Blake
Sun, 17 Jan 2016
23:19:32 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:09:12 -0000, "Mr Macaw"
wrote:


There are guidelines on how to write a program. If you make it
work with one version of windows, but don't adhere to the
guidelines, it's not M$'s fault when they remove that feature and
break the program.


Yes! An excellent point and one that many Microsoft critics don't
realize.

It's not much of an excellent point, as proper programming guidelines
and technique isn't something MS established or typically follows
themselves. The guidelines do NOT cover issues where MS changes an
API call process and doesn't bother to document the change, either.

And finally, I'm not an MS critic or (insert company/person) linux
critic either. I personally enjoy using Windows XP and Windows 7. I
like both flavors fine. I like various editions of Linux as well. I
can see some good and bad aspects to both OSes and the pitfalls
associated with them.

It most certainly is MS fault when they change the calling parameters
to a certain API and don't document these changes right away, if
ever. How is the program author supposed to magically know that MS
introduced more functionality by expecting more on the api call that
your program isn't going to provide? Because, well, you don't know it
should be, the other OSes don't expect it/won't allow it, and MS
didn't tell you any differently.

So no, when you get to the meat of the issue, his point isn't
excellent. Hell, it's not even sound.







--
Hey listen...
On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.