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

Nym-shifting troll...

--
hah hah no.email.stupid.invalid wrote in news:hj6ny.182032$tL.3292 fx34.iad:

Path: eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!fx34.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day
Newsgroups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.hacker,alt.privacy.anon-server
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$1 dont-email.me op.ybcjizpi86ebyl red.lan wtidnYKs25rscQbLnZ2dnUU7-cOdnZ2d earthlink.com op.ybeea11m86ebyl red.lan wtidnbms25rrbQbLnZ2dnUU7-cOdnZ2d earthlink.com
From: hah hah no.email.stupid.invalid
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: wtidnbms25rrbQbLnZ2dnUU7-cOdnZ2d earthlink.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 14
Message-ID: hj6ny.182032$tL.3292 fx34.iad
X-Complaints-To: abuse(at)newshosting.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 14:06:05 UTC
Organization: Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price! www.newshosting.com
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 08:06:05 -0600
X-Received-Bytes: 1772
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2936827330
Xref: mx02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.freewa258413 alt.comp.os.windows-10:14547 alt.hacker:9948 alt.privacy.anon-server:47646

On 01/17/2016 01:51 PM, Big Bad Bob wrote:

[snip]

I should be able to HAVE that, and *NOT* have the *INFERIOR* **** known
as Windows 10 SHOVED INSIDE MY COLON


Windows 10: like a colonoscopy.

--
"The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the
way of women's emancipation." -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Free Thought
Magazine, 1896

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 13:53:54 -0000, Sam E wrote:

On 01/17/2016 11:54 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:

[snip]

I quit Windows years ago.

You exit windows, you quit Mac OS.


IIRC, Win 98SE was the last version with an exit command in the menus.

Wordpad, windows 10, "exit", bottom of the file menu.

--
They say that when a man holds a woman's hand before marriage, it is
love; after marriage it is self-defense.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 01:28:06 -0000, Roger Blake wrote:

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 have purchased many Dells (business and home machines) and there was ALWAYS a choice. Maybe only a choice of two, usually the last two Windowses, and sometimes they'd install Linux too.

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.

I fixed a few ME machines for people and it looked just like a slightly updated 98 to me. They never suggested it was any more 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.

XP crashed all the time and its interface was hideous. And Vista performed just fine on decent machines. I didn't have to use the latest hardware, at most I upgraded some memory and made hundreds of "designed for XP" machines run Vista without ANY slowdown.

--
Why is it that people say they "slept like a baby" when babies wake up every two hours?

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 01:33:50 -0000, Jake wrote:



"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.

I don't think you can change to pro without paying. Phone MS and plead?

--
Keep your nose to the grindstone, your shoulder to the wheel, your eye on the ball, and your ear to the ground. Then see how much work you get done in that position.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 04:16:04 -0000, Diesel wrote:

"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....

I don't remember Vista crashing ever. XP tended to lock up for no reason. Vista allowed you to kill the unresponsive application more easily.

--
Why do they call it a TV set when you only get one?

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 04:16:05 -0000, Diesel wrote:

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.

So you have to recode something and release a .1 version, big deal.

--
The planet Neptune has barely completed one orbit since it was discovered in 1846.
Pluto hasn't completed a full orbit since its discovery, and won't until March 23, 2178.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 04:16:06 -0000, Diesel wrote:

"Mr Macaw" news 2016 00:30:41 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

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.

That depends. If the computer shop still has various OEM discs with a
key to sell you, then sure. Otherwise, if their stock is already used
up, and they're a legit MS system builder; You're getting what MS has
deemed you should be getting.

Funny, I've always been able to buy the last 2 or 3 Windowses by mail order from big companies.

What do you mean legit MS builder? MS do not have to authorise someone to make a PC.

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.

Customers don't want to pay the cost of maxing out the ram capacity
when they initially purchase the machine...

You're better spending the money on the RAM and spending that much less on the rest.

I tried to suggest going
ahead and allowing us to max it out during the assembly phase; the
difference in cost (this was some years ago, and, ram wasn't exactly
cheap then) was enough that many declined the offer, only to come
back within a week or two and decide, more ram is better. Ironically,
this happened more frequently with the brand new VISTA based machines
than it did with the XP ones.

I once sent a global email to everyone asking if anyone wanted their computer sped up. 2/3rds said yes. I maxed the memory in those ones and people couldn't believe everything started several times faster.

Concering your other comment that any newer version of Windows will
suck on an old 'piece of junk'. I can dispute that remark, too. I've
installed Windows 7 Professional edition on several machines that ran
XP prior to that. Some of these machines (they were clones and had
the same internal hardware) had Vista present instead of XP, and
actually performed better/more responsive to the user running Windows
7 than they did running Windows Vista; without any hardware changes
being performed and a flat/clean load of Vista,XP, And Windows 7.

The machines that ran XP previously did seem a little slower with
responsiveness when compared to their vista (but, not Windows 7)
counter parts. Vista's memory management functions (nothing to do
with the GUI, everything to do with important, low level, code) were
actually worse than Windows XP and much much worse than Windows 7.

XP was a mickey mouse OS with bugger all in it. You might aswell say Windows 3 would run faster on the same machine. Yes it would, but it would be **** to use.

Although these machines were dated and obviously, using some older
hardware; they weren't junk when assembled and are only what some
might consider to be as junk when compared to machines that are 3+
generations ahead in hardware technology.

Which is why you expect to update the hardware when you update the OS, not blame Vista for not working on something built before it existed.

If you were in charge of someones IT dept and making serious IT
decisions, I'd question that companies general intelligence level and
their decision (based on your posts that I've read so far) to let you
touch one of their machines and/or provide technical advice
concerning them. You seem to know just enough to be dangerous to
yourself and others at this point.

I was in charge of IT and got on with things and pleased everyone. I wasn't you're usual "no you can't do that it's against policy" arsehole. If somebody wanted something faster or a bigger monitor, or some different software, they got it. You spend a bit of money on the computers and you vastly increase productivity.

--
The planet Neptune has barely completed one orbit since it was discovered in 1846.
Pluto hasn't completed a full orbit since its discovery, and won't until March 23, 2178.

In article
Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 01/17/2016 01:41 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

[snip]

No Windows has ever been worse than the previous one, with the exception
of Windows 8's Metro interface, which was easily disabled.


Vista was worse than XP, and XP was worse than 2000.

Not sure what planet you're on, but here on earth your statement
is reversed.

Like DOS 4 was worse than 3.3.

Vista Business ran fine if you removed the silly crap and made a
few tweaks. We deployed it in hospitals all over the planet.
It was very reliable.

On 1/18/2016 1:57 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Which is why you expect to update the hardware when you update the OS,
not blame Vista for not working on something built before it existed.


Would you be happy buying a car that wouldn't drive on roads built
before it existed?

How about a toaster that required you to replace the AC sockets in
your kitchen?
How about a microwave oven that REQUIRED you to replace a working
dishwasher?
What if ALL microwave ovens REQUIRED you to replace a working
dishwasher?

How about if someone broke down your door, replaced your microwave
FOR FREE
and broke your dishwasher so it couldn't be fixed...ever...
and took up residence in your kitchen to spy on you...and
rummaged through your house collecting information on your
possessions and kids...and tagged along in your car everywhere you
went??? And they announced that they would do it again, but next time,
they would also break your fridge, and send you a monthly bill for
the privilege.

Remember the gut-wrenching conversion to ATSC TV? Users wouldn't
stand for the incompatibility. Took an act of congress to make it happen.

Change must be evolutionary. Backward compatibility is CRITICAL!

On 2016-01-18 2:51 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2016-01-18, Slimer wrote:
Meanwhile, it was a lot better than GNU/Linux was at the time. I
switched to GNU/Linux several times back then (thinking that the grass
was greener) but it was worse.

It depends what you were looking for and accustomed to. Having worked
with Unix since Sixth Edition on the PDP11, the crudities in earlier
Linux releases didn't bother me and I had access to the tools I was
accustomed to. Someone looking for a Windows replacement would of course
be appalled and quickly run the other way. (I have not used Windows on
my own PCs since version 3.1.)

Whereas 3.0 was the first version of Windows I've ever used and have
been with Microsoft almost exclusively since then. Between 2004 and
2005, I used a Mac only but ran back to Windows soon thereafter.

Today it's come a long way, but in the business world Linux is used
mainly on the back end for servers. Business users don't care about
the underlying OS on their desktop computer. They just want to run
their applications and most business applications are designed for
Windows. That's just the way the market is. So running Linux on the
desktop is not a choice right out of the starting gate for most business
users. Even if they are ticked off at Microsoft and would like to try
something else they are stuck. (I don't deal with home computer users,
that's an entirely different mess.)

I'm going through a version of this myself. I really don't like the
mass Linux migration to systemd and have been entertaining moving
to one of the BSDs, but am finding that applications and hardware
I use are not supported. So when it comes time to upgrade if I can't
find suitable workarounds it might be necessary for me to just hold
my nose and deal with systemd.

I honestly don't see what the big deal with systemd is. I'd love for
someone to point out what's so damned bad about it.

The one thing I couldn't stand in Windows
Vista was how long it took for certain folders to appear such as the
Control Panel. The thing just loaded and loaded, it was unbearable.

Performance in Vista overall was terrible. It was no exaggeration to
say that XP would run at twice the speed on the same hardware, even
if was "designed for Windows Vista."

I wouldn't disagree. In beta, the thing was a mess and incredibly
unstable. When us testers got the e-mail to say that we would be getting
the final version in ISO, I was shocked to find out that that mess had
somehow reached maturity. Testing 7 was an entirely different experience
and it was rock-solid from the very beginning.

Be careful! Claiming that XP was/is rock-solid will have the GNU/Linux
losers calling you a liar in due time.

I have not seen a lot of stability problems with XP unless a buggy device
driver or the like was installed. Usually either that or bad hardware
would be found when the BSODs started.

XP had always been wonderful for me.

--
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Mozilla & PETA supporter
"Everything seems to work fine, except that occasionally everything
freezes." - Another one of GNU/Linux's many victims

Whiner.

In article
John Doe wrote:

This thing claims "I was in charge of IT and got on with things and
pleased everyone" and yet it cannot even wrap its lines here on
UseNet...

In article
John Doe wrote:

This thing claims "I was in charge of IT and got on with things and
pleased everyone" and yet it cannot even wrap its lines here on
UseNet...


It's Usenet not UseNet, troll.

On 2016-01-18, Slimer wrote:
I honestly don't see what the big deal with systemd is. I'd love for
someone to point out what's so damned bad about it.

Google is your friend. There's been a lot of shouting back and forth from
both sides of the issue. The short form from my standpoint is that I
don't care for so much of the system to be dependent on a centralized
utility, and don't care for binary logs that can't be processed with
traditional Unix text processing utilities. Then there's the added
complexity to system initialization and administration. Of course I
haven't used a Linux distro yet that's dependent on systemd so I'm just
going by what I've read. I'll have to try one out for myself in a VM.

I wouldn't disagree. In beta, the thing was a mess and incredibly
unstable. When us testers got the e-mail to say that we would be getting
the final version in ISO, I was shocked to find out that that mess had
somehow reached maturity. Testing 7 was an entirely different experience
and it was rock-solid from the very beginning.

I'm amazed to see another participant here defending Vista, contradicting
not only my own experience but that of just about the entire industry.
I figure they must either be trolling or from the Bizarro world. Windows
7 is what Vista should have been.

XP had always been wonderful for me.

I supported a lot of XP systems out in the field for a long time and
had few problems with them. I still have a few out there that I deal
with but Windows 7 has been the standard for business use for some time
now. I have no beef with 7. It performs well, the user interface is not
so different from what users have been accustomed to for many years,
and it's been rock-solid overall.

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

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

On 01/17/16 11:44, Mr Macaw so wittily quipped:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:41:15 -0000, Big Bad Bob
wrote:

On 01/16/16 15:51, John Doe so wittily quipped:
"Mr Macaw" wrote:

edevils wrote:

Most times there weren't any problems, but sometimes there were, and
you had to find a fix.

What times? I've NEVER had a problem with an update.

That's because you are clueless twit who hardly uses a computer.

I like to avoid anything but CRITICAL fixes anyway. why install EVERY
update just because they exist?

Because they improve things.

NOT! ALWAYS! [example, 'GWX' in windows 7, 8.x, NOT an "improvement"]

I'd much rather choose for myself, thanks. but in W10, you don't GET
choices, except Microsoft's "choice". I guess Microsoft is being
ANTI-CHOICE.

In article
Roger Blake wrote:

On 2016-01-18, Slimer wrote:
I honestly don't see what the big deal with systemd is. I'd love for
someone to point out what's so damned bad about it.

Google is your friend. There's been a lot of shouting back and forth from
both sides of the issue. The short form from my standpoint is that I
don't care for so much of the system to be dependent on a centralized
utility, and don't care for binary logs that can't be processed with
traditional Unix text processing utilities. Then there's the added
complexity to system initialization and administration. Of course I
haven't used a Linux distro yet that's dependent on systemd so I'm just
going by what I've read. I'll have to try one out for myself in a VM.

I wouldn't disagree. In beta, the thing was a mess and incredibly
unstable. When us testers got the e-mail to say that we would be getting
the final version in ISO, I was shocked to find out that that mess had
somehow reached maturity. Testing 7 was an entirely different experience
and it was rock-solid from the very beginning.

I'm amazed to see another participant here defending Vista, contradicting
not only my own experience but that of just about the entire industry.

Most of the idiots complaining about Vista, and yes that's what
they are, based their experiences on Vista SP1. Admittedly that
is a horrible environment, but Vista SP2 cleaned everything up
and it was rock solid after that. All it took was an extra day
or two to perfect the RIS images prior to deployment, but when
you have a bunch of smartphone playing lazy punks smoking dope
and acting like horse's asses, you deserve what you run.

I figure they must either be trolling or from the Bizarro world. Windows
7 is what Vista should have been.

XP had always been wonderful for me.

The US Navy paid MS $35 million to continue supporting XP until
they can get off it.

I supported a lot of XP systems out in the field for a long time and
had few problems with them. I still have a few out there that I deal
with but Windows 7 has been the standard for business use for some time
now. I have no beef with 7. It performs well, the user interface is not
so different from what users have been accustomed to for many years,
and it's been rock-solid overall.

Windows 8.1 isn't so bad once you perfect the user environment.
Pretty stable.