I've been reading this thread trying to figure out if it's a good idea
to get that win10 or if I should wait a while. Am I right in saying
it'd be better to wait to make sure all the bugs are worked out of it?
No, I updated my desktop machine but not (yet) the notebook.
But I am rather fussy about what I run on my Windows machines. E.g., as
little email as possible. The Windows desktop is primarily for use with
a rather specialized piece of hardware for which the only software is
for Windows. The notebook primarily for use away from home, and now
mostly with Linux.
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:41:07 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
The insidious thing about this OS is they will start charging you for
the updates in a year or so.
W/10 is designed to be s subscription service, that is why it was
distributed for free.
Sort of like those AOL disks that were everywhere.
It's not a new idea. M$ has been trying to get the general public to
cozy up to the idea for yrs. But, with Linux looming at every corner,
who is gonna embrace the idea of never actually owning yer OS.
Adobe had no such reservations. All you can get from Adobe, now, is
new subscriptions for Photoshop. I think Autodesk did the same with
AutoCad. Not sure, as I've been using Linux fer 15 yrs, so don't get
into arguments over M$ or Apple. ;)
No doubt. And like most enterprises, can easily afford them.
When the PC went public, all that changed. Now the corps that be are
trying to put the I-now-own-it buying public on the same pay plan. I
suspect more resistance from granny Growler and Ronnie Rub-One-Out.
But, maybe not. Ppl are changing to mobil devices which have always
been subscription. Perhaps it's no big deal to the gullible masses.
| > The insidious thing about this OS is they will start charging you for
| > the updates in a year or so.
| > W/10 is designed to be s subscription service, that is why it was
| > distributed for free.
| Do you have evidence of charging in the future? I've seen
| unsubstantiated rumor, no facts.
One might ask that the other way around: What
makes you think they won't be charging? Where
have you been that you don't know this is Microsoft's
There are ads on the Start Menu. The Win10 version
of Solitaire presents with an option to either see
ads with each play or to pay a subscription. (A
crappy little program like Solitaire, and you can't
even buy it. You can only rent!) I know this just
from reading news online in the 3 days since Win10s
Microsoft are gradually phasing out MS Office, to be
replaced with the online rental version. So how do
you *not* know that rental is their longterm plan?
Microsoft have made very clear, for several years
now, that their business has been recast as "devices
and services". Here's a quote from 3 years ago:
The devices part is all but kaput,
given that they've managed to entirely destroy Nokia,
which used to make 40% of all cellphones, and that
the Windows/Metro smart phones have been a near
total failure. Their Surface tablet has seen some success,
but in general MS charges too much for their hardware.
And they seemed to hint when Surface came out that
they were mostly trying to "set an example" for tablet
So it's mostly services. They're not mentioning
software anymore. Microsoft used to be the biggest
*software* company in the world, and they no longer
advertise that as their product. Shouldn't that tell
you something? It's not only their ads. It's also their
official stated position to ther media and shareholders.
The Privacy terms now include Windows. I don't know
when that started, but I don't remember seeing any
privacy terms in XP or Win7. The very idea that one
needs a legal privacy document for an operating
system is a radical step.
Microsoft started all of this back in 1998. The Active
Desktop theme was meant to put ads on the Desktop.
Remeber the Channel Bar? It was a billboard with ads
for Disney and others, stuck to the Desktop. A number
of companies paid to get icons pre-installed on Win98,
in hopes that people would "subscribe to their channel",
which meant getting a dynamic ad fixed to the Desktop.
(There were dozens of such icons from ther likes of
Forbes, I think Citibank, etc, in a folder that, if I remember
correctly, was Windows\Web\Media\ on win98/ME)
There were also "Internet keyboards". Computing was
moving to the Internet, or so all the media crowed. Anyone
who wasn't a loser would be throwing away their PC to get
a "thin client" -- a tiny, crappy PC for using online services.
Microsoft's Hailstorm mess was another attempt
at services. Software as a Service (SaaS) has been a
mostly failed, industry-wide fad since the mid-2000s.
It's all based on some simple facts: Computers used
to cost a lot of money and buying new gear was
always worthwhile. Software was the same. Moving
from a 400 MHz CPU to a 450, and from Photoshop 4
to Photoshop 5, was a must for commercial users,
despite costing them thousands of dollars. But hardware
and software have both matured. That's why phones are
the big thing now. That's why the PC era is "dead". That's
why rental and services. Not because people stopped
using PCs but because there are no longer crazy profit
margins. (The development of high speed access has
also played a big part. Services simply weren't feasible
in 2000, with dial-up.)
Given all of that, there's an industrywide fad that's
currently at high heat: rental. Phones are essentially
rented. Software is becoming subscription. Since most
people won't really need to buy version X+1 of program
XYZ, the only way now to make it a steady income source
is to rent it.
Rental is also a big factor in the trend toward system
PCs have been heading toward interactive TV for a long
time now. But if you can install all of the free or cheap
software that you need then you won't rent it. Options
are to charge for the OS and/or make it very difficult
for people to use their own software, by manufacturing
incompatibility, increasing restrictions, etc. They've
already got the average person afraid to touch anything
that didn't come from a big, approved corporation. And
Metro apps require a license to write, as well as a 30%
extortion fee to Microsoft in order to sell through their
store. (The double edged sword of security again. The
new apps, whether MS or Apple or Google, are increasingly
hard to get and use except through the respective,
official, rental and sales portal.)
You might think that extortion is a strong word, but
I can write Windows software today, put it online, and
people can use it. I do that now. I don't need any
license or payment to Microsoft. That's not true of
Metro apps. They're only allowed to be sandboxed
trinkets, with little access to the system, with MS
in control. (Ironically, apps are becoming a nasty
privacy problem, despite being sandboxed: They often
get access to things like location data and then sell that
to advertisers running ads in the apps.)
Some might say that all of this is because the public
is unwilling to pay for product. Yet the public used to
pay $600+ for Photoshop. Now they don't even have
that option. Photoshop is still installed on a computer.
It's not really online at all. But it pretends to be online
and one can only get it as rental software.
Either way -- whether we want to assign blame and
if so, to whom -- rental is the future, at least for the
You seem to think all the talk about rental and
privacy problems is a lot of negative gossip
mongering. Speaking for myself, I write Windows
software; I want and need to know what's going
on and how the market is moving; I need to know
what changes to expect when writing software
in the future. I also follow news and technical
information about such things as privacy and
online security. So I'm uniquely placed to know
about things that the general public has no idea of.
Microsoft spends billions on marketing. They also
get lots of softball reviews from the lapdog media.
Look for the business-centric NYT, for instance,
to cover only as much of the negative as they
absolutely have to in order to maintain a veneer of
credibility among the suckers who turn to the NYT for
information. The tech media are likely to be worse.
If they don't play ball with MS they won't get fast
access to press releases and interviews.
So, speaking for myself, I write about this stuff
because there is such a dearth of balanced information
out there. I figure that people have a right to know
the facts and make their own decisions. Wouldn't
you want someone to do that in fileds where you
have no knowledge or expertise? I'm not
telling people not to buy Win10. I'm saying, "Here's
what you're in for. Don't walk into it blind". If you
want Win10 that's none of my business. Likewise,
if people want to know the risks and down sides of
Win10 then the fans have no business trying to shout
down the people telling them.
Case in point: How many current Facebook addicts
would have guessed, back when they started using
a free bulletin board, that they'd end up having to
see ads and give up privacy just to reach their
friends? and every step of the way a few have said,
"This is outrageous! I've a good mind to quit Facebook
right now!" Then they'd log in again. Now, as Sheryl
Snadberg so creepily put it, Facebookies friends
*are* the advertisers:
?It enables brands to find their voices? and to have genuine, personal
relationships with their customers?
(Brand here is a euphemism for corporate advertisers.)
Windows is going the same way, in very small steps
so as not to alienate people. And look at how well
Windows and ads on the Start Menu, yet you think
it's merely unsubstantiated rumor that things are
changing! (You know the one about cooking frogs?
Supposedly if you raise the heat slowly enough they'll
never jump out of the pan.)
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 9:50:14 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
So show us some credible reviews, articles, etc about Win 10
that says this is MSFT's intention. Show us where MSFT has said
they are going to charge for Win 10 updates. I've read several
articles from sources that cover the industry and
haven't seen it. My bet is that it's from the tin hat wearing
Note that MSFT transforming to a devices and services company
does not equate to they will be charging me for updates to Win 10.
Sure, so show us some credible industry sources that say
that MSFT is going to charge us for Win 10 updates.
So far, I don't see anyone here buying Win 10. I do see
people getting it for free.
I just played a couple of games to see the ads. I saw none. Yes, there
is an opportunity to upgrade, but that was under the menu. I mentioned
befor I bought card games from goodsol.com and paid a one time fee and
have the game on a few computers. It is better than the MS version
anyway, I can play faster.
Don't know either way.
Nokia was pretty dead before MS bought it. I don't blame MS for their
decline. Apple and Samsung killed them. BTW, how is your Blackeberry
Their Surface tablet has seen some success,
I've seen the Surface and like it. I'd even buy one if it did not look
like a cheap plastic toy. Would to well in Toys-R-us for $9.99
It gives me a hint, but it is not hard evidence.
I can appreciate that, but while you may be 100% correct, it is still
supposition, not fact. Yet.
I avoid Facebook, but I have heard about the ads.
I agree the probability is strong, but I have no ads on my Start Menu.
I can get my email on the Yahoo page and yes, it is loaded with ads. I
could not tell you what they are for as I ignore them.
| > The devices part is all but kaput,
| > given that they've managed to entirely destroy Nokia,
| > which used to make 40% of all cellphones, and that
| > the Windows/Metro smart phones have been a near
| > total failure.
| Nokia was pretty dead before MS bought it. I don't blame MS for their
| decline. Apple and Samsung killed them. BTW, how is your Blackeberry
| holding up?
I've wondered what was up with that. An MS
executive took over at Nokia. I thought maybe
the plan was that he'd sell out to MS. Sort of a
trojan horse CEO. But I know someone who used
to work there and he said the Nokia people generally
wanted him. The only sensible explanation I can
think of is that MS believed they could step into
being a third company in a phone triopoly if they
had the Nokia infrastructure, patents, etc. There's
been speculation that they could have made it work
if they'd immediately gone to Android and dumped
Metro. I don't know. I get the sense that the whole
story is not public.
I'm afraid I don't get the Blackberry joke. :)
I know they're in tough shape. The connection?
Personally I don't use cellphones. I have a Trachpone,
paying $20/3 months, which I use as a portable
phone booth and to relate to cellphone addicts
who no longer even know how to answer a doorbell
and expect visitors to call from the front porch
instead. (!) Aside from that, I can read maps, don't
use Facebook, have no interest in game diddling,
and don't want to carry a tracking collar that charges
me $100+/month for the privilege.
In addition to all of that, I quite enjoy the
luxuries of time and space. Cellphones tend to
collapse all that. Everyone and everything is
imminent. I don't want to take a walk -- around
the neighborhood or around a wilderness -- and
have someone be able to interrupt me. I'm "out".
I went out for a reason. I want to look at the
trees and have some solitude. With a cellphone
there's no more going "out". That feels tragic to me.
| > So it's mostly services. They're not mentioning
| > software anymore. Microsoft used to be the biggest
| > *software* company in the world, and they no longer
| > advertise that as their product. Shouldn't that tell
| > you something? It's not only their ads. It's also their
| > official stated position to their media and shareholders.
| It gives me a hint, but it is not hard evidence.
You deleted the link -- one of many --
to their official statements. What constitutes
evidence if not official statements? Of course
they could change course if things change.
But as of now they're a services company.
| > Microsoft started all of this back in 1998. The Active
| > Desktop theme was meant to put ads on the Desktop.
| > Remeber the Channel Bar?
| Actually, no.
All OEM windows used to come with a rectangle
on the Desktop, full of ads. The only one I remember
was Disney. Each ad was a "channel". They called
that rectangle the Channel Bar. The whole idea
was ludicrous. I'm not surprised that you never
noticed. It was an idea ahead of its time. Or perhaps
behind its time. Bill Gates was widely celebrated as
a genius at the time, for "turning the corporate ship
on a dime" to adapt to the new importance of the
Internet. All he really did was to blend Explorer with
IE, put ads on the Desktop, and generally try to make
it look like windows was online. (The "Active" part
of Active Desktop was that folder windows and the
Desktop itself were techinaclly actually webpages.
People were invited to stick something like a Disney
ad to an area of the Desktop, where one could
then presumably get the latest news and ticket
prices for Disney's child exploitation extravaganzas.)
By the time XP came out, Active Desktop was gone
and instead of making Windows look like a browser
they were trying out Fischer-Price style 3-D techno-
kitsch "skins". The Internet was assumed by that time.
They didn't need to train people that computers and
Internet went together. On the other hand, the Internet
has also become more integrated, as they did with
the stupendously idiotic idea of searching online when
you look for a file on your computer.
| I agree the probability is strong, but I have no ads on my Start Menu.
It's something they're euphemistically calling
"suggestions". Supposedly it can be disabled,
but by default it will advertise various
things like software that you could buy, "from
time to time". I gather that means that they're
going to start slow.
| I can get my email on the Yahoo page and yes, it is loaded with ads. I
| could not tell you what they are for as I ignore them.
Well, at least you don't mind companies rifling
through your email to show you targetted ads,
so the privacy issues with Win10 probably
won't bother you overly much. :)
Just that Nokia, like Blackberry ws left in the dust when new technology
came along. I don't hold MS responsible for their decline, nor did they
do much to help it. Technology is really a risk as it movrs so fast.
Huge companies have died in the past few decades. Digital Equipment,
Data General, replaced by a $900 desktop PC. Facebook killed MySpace
and it may also die when a new fad comes along.
Never had a name brand PC such as from the big box stores so I must have
I can use any one of the email programs, but the web allows me access
from any computer. Advertising is the price of convenience.
The Symbian platform was losing market share to Android but was still
the leader until 2010. They were still ahead of iOS in 2011. The switch
to Windows Phone immediately dropped them below Blackberry. Windows did
recover a little ground in 2013 while Blackberry continued to slip away.
Could Symbian have retained significant market share? We'll never know.
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 12:32:48 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Almost all the PCs I've had were brand names, eg Gateway, HP
and I never saw a rectangle full of ads either. Some had some
free software pre-loaded, eg for AOL or free AV software.
Again M is full of baloney.
Maybe some PCs did, but how that gets extended to all OEM PCs
had a box called the "channel bar", full of ads, is just another
example of the tin hat crowd.
The whole plan was to sell the Windows Phone, which was not well
received. Low market share means developers are reluctant to target the
platform. A lack of apps further discourages purchases.
Ballmer and Elop were pushed the Nokia acquisition, and Nadella was
against it. Ballmer was shown the door. Elop 'retired' in June with
Nadella making the proper noises. New broom sweeps clean and Nadella
wasn't shy about writing down Nokia even if it did result in a bad quarter.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.