We've looked into Verizon because their coverage is better than
T-Mobile's, but (a) we'd have to get new phones because Verizon uses
CDMA whereas T-Mobile uses GSM; (b) even worse, Verizon's plans start
higher than our prepaid T-Mobile plan* ($30 per month each) and then
cost more still for smartphones.
* 100 minutes/month (which we've exceed twice), unlimited texts and data
(we've never used enough data to hit the speed cap).
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 2:56:06 PM UTC-4, Ron wrote:
If you don't want your "free"subsidy smartphone when contract renewal
time rolls around you still don't have to let AT&T keep it for extra
profits. You could give it to a family member, a charity, or even sell
it online for a little extra cash as many do.
Good luck to you Ron. Over and out.
Well, that is *your* experience. And you are talking about Verizon, not
AT&T. I paid $100 for my iPhone 4s plus the $18 upgrade fee. Before that
I got a Samsung Sunburst for free and there should have been an $18
upgrade fee but AT&T screwed up and didn't charge me the $18.
I just checked and I can get an iPhone 5s for $99.99 plus the upgrade
fee which has been increased to $45. iPhone 6 $199 plus upgrade fee.
iPhone 6 Plus $299.99 plus the $45 upgrade fee.
Here is a screen shot for the iPhone 5s for $99.99.
I have no problem with trader_4 or Aunt Tilly upgrading to 10 if they so
choose. However, they can save their Chicken Little act for other home
users. Meanwhile the techies are either loading it on a sacrificial
machine to poke at it, or sitting back to let the home users be the
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 12:00:21 AM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
More lies. First you imply that I'm a paid poster for MSFT.
Now you're lying about "chicken little". I didn't try to scare
anyone or tell anyone that they had to upgrade. All I did was
point out that if you have Win 7 you have a year to upgrade for
free. And if you don't, then you're left on an OS that MSFT already
ended mainstream support for in Jan 2105. That means no more
bug fixes, improvements, updates unless they are security related.
If you want to stay in that environment, that's fine. But for
me and I would think most users, the preferred path is to move
over for free to the latest OS.
You claimed it made no difference, that Win7 will be fully
supported, etc, all apps will run. I quickly answered that
challenge with the simple example of Internet Explorer. When
MSFT discontinued mainstream support for XP, new releases
of IE would no longer install on XP
and not long after that you started to have trouble with
the older IE no longer being compatible with some websites.
I know, because I went through that experience.
Your fundamental problem is you're one of the MSFT bashers,
that just hates MSFT. If MSFT wasn't giving a free update,
you'd be here bitching about that. If it's free, then it's no
good either. Why don't you just use Linux and give up?
Microsoft OS's have provided me with a fairly decent income stream. I
don't hate MS. However I have a certain degree of skepticism about
'free' things. Did you ever get around to telling me how MS is making a
profit giving free stuff away? Nadella better be brushing up his resume
if he can't turn a profit.
~ $cat /etc/issue
Welcome to openSUSE 13.2 "Harlequin" - Kernel \r (\l).
~ $cat /proc/version
Linux version 3.16.7-7-desktop (geeko@buildhost) (gcc version 4.8.3
20140627 [gcc-4_8-branch revision 212064] (SUSE Linux) ) #1 SMP PREEMPT
Wed Dec 17 18:00:44 UTC 2014 (762f27a)
12:57pm up 134 days 5:09, 4 users, load average: 0.22, 0.27, 0.25
I really should reboot so it can apply the kernel patches, but I haven't
encountered any problems. No reason to rush into anything.
My primary work machine is Kubuntu 12.04. It keeps asking me if I want
to upgrade to 14.04 LTS but 12.04 is supported for another 2 years so
Just so I don't show favoritism, I also work on 3 Windows 7 Pro machines
depending on the project at hand and which Visual Studio I want to use.
One of those will become a Windows 10 sacrificial offering. Oh yeah,
there's also the XP machine I use to build other production apps, and a
2000 machine I use mostly to build one of our legacy products with VC++
Nope, not a MS basher. In fact I watch MS very closely. When your a
professional you have to make decisions about which technology you will
support. MS has a reputation of throwing last year's bright idea under
the bus. The more or less defunct Silverlight is an example. The Edge
browser won't support ActiveX so anyone who invested in that technology
better figure out their next act. So far, I've been lucky to have made
the right choices and not found myself out on a dead MS limb.
| MS has a reputation of throwing last year's bright idea under
| the bus. The more or less defunct Silverlight is an example. The Edge
| browser won't support ActiveX so anyone who invested in that technology
| better figure out their next act.
And Active Desktop... Hailstorm... SPOT
watches... Windows LIVE... .Net ...VB
... soon to be followed by everything Metro
and WinPhone-ish. Fortunately I don't think
many people were daring enough to invest
in the Metro app idea.
ActiveX at least has had a long run in IE
and is still central to Windows.
.NET is still alive although the 4.6 release has a neat little bug in
the JIT compiler. It's not easy to trigger but if you're unlucky the
last function to get called gets passed random parameters.
VB is still around even though it looks an awful lot like C#.
unfortunately, converting VB6.0 code to VB .NET is a rocky road. We have
some legacy 6.0 code and you'll have to pry VS6.0 out of the developers
cold, dead fingers.
WinPhone was the classic
Consumer: I don't want to buy a WinPhone. There are no apps
Developer: I'm not developing for WinPhones. Nobody buys the things.
MS even started giving away Express versions of Visual Studio that were
pretty much uncrippled to try to pique interest.
ActiveX sort of grew out of OLE 2.0 and COM. You wouldn't have to rent a
large auditorium to have a meeting of all the people who really
understood how COM worked. apparently the MFC developers wouldn't be
attending either. Of course COM had some complex and hideous hacks to
make it work with VB. ActiveX and its wizards sort of made life easier.
The real problem was letting an ActiveX control run in a browser. That
lets the control interact with the local machine and is a security
nightmare. Anything happening in a browser is supposed to be sandboxed.
When Chrome dumped Java applets, which had the same access abilities,
ActiveX wasn't far behind. In fact a Java applet in IE was actually an
| > And Active Desktop... Hailstorm... SPOT
| > watches... Windows LIVE... .Net ...VB
| .NET is still alive
I included that because it will be left in the lurch
if Metro apps take over and MS closes down the OS
to 3rd-parties. .Net was designed for corporate
intranet applets and web services that never
materialized. It was never well suited to Windows
software -- just a slow and superfluous Java-esque
wrapper with gigantic dependencies. Now .Net is one
of the tools that can be used to write Metro apps.
has-been. They found it a spot to hang around, but
it's no longer part of the future plan. "Sorry
programmers! Take a look at our new tools!"
| VB is still around even though it looks an awful lot like C#.
| unfortunately, converting VB6.0 code to VB .NET is a rocky road.
I meant VB, not VB.Net. The fact that you
think of both as VB is a good example of Microsoft's
attempt to kill VB. They have litle in common aside
from language similarities. One's a COM-centric
Windows programming tool. The other is a Java-esque
wrapper sitting on top of windows.
VB is currently still among the most widely supported
tools for writing Windows software. Probably only VC6
can install on as many systems without needing support
files installed. But VB has been *officially* unsupported
for a long time now.
| MS even started giving away Express versions of Visual Studio that were
| pretty much uncrippled to try to pique interest.
Yes. I have VC8 Express for doing things like
recompiling OSS. Even the OSS extremists grant
grudging respect for Microsoft IDEs. :)
| > ActiveX at least has had a long run in IE
| > and is still central to Windows.
| ActiveX sort of grew out of OLE 2.0 and COM. You wouldn't have to rent a
| large auditorium to have a meeting of all the people who really
| understood how COM worked. apparently the MFC developers wouldn't be
| attending either. Of course COM had some complex and hideous hacks to
| make it work with VB. ActiveX and its wizards sort of made life easier.
I guess we're getting into limited interest territory
here, but as someone who loves COM I have to disagree
slightly. ActiveX is COM, to begin with. (I have a book
called The Essence of COM, from a cranky Harvard
expert, who spends an entire, hilarious page detailing
in almost techincal terms how ActiveX doesn't actually
mean anything at all. :)
COM is a bit of a debacle for C++ programming, but
it's pure pleasure for VB. It's arguably the precursor
of the current OO programming craze with endless classes:
The nice thing about COM is that it's integral to
Windows. The .Net framework is a vast wrapper
of classes. Java is a vast wrapper of classes. COM
is Windows wrapped in classes/objects. It's Explorer.
It's IE. It's folder windows, toolbars, Explorer Bars,
| The real problem was letting an ActiveX control run in a browser.
Yes. IE gave ActiveX a bad name. It should not
have been COM compatible online, *because* COM
is Windows. They should have made 2 browsers.
One for online and one for offline. But of course no
one thought about security issues back then. The
only issue was to kill Netscape, and ActiveX helped
a lot with that. At the time, ActiveX controls in a
webpage were a very clever idea. (They still are,
so long as it's offline. :)
Yes, you can use C# without the .NET framework but like C without
libraries it won't get you too far. When Miguel de Icaza started the
mono project it was sort of a grey area but after MS released CLI
specifications to ECMA it became the morphed into what Xamarin is today.
Even early on, I could move C# code to Linux, compile, and run.
With the MS flair for confusion, .NET is the runtime but it is
integrated into all the VS languages. Some I don't use like ASP.NET, but
most of my new work has been in C#, whether it's command line utilities,
web service interfaces based on WCF, or just plain old Windows services.
The only people who think .NET is dead are the tin foil wearing Java
fanboies :) I've got a couple of those working for me. I'll do bug fixes
in the Java product to keep my hand in. but I'm mostly a C/C++/C#
It's interesting that Charles Petzhold loathed MFC to the point his
early 'Programming Windows' focused on using the API directly and
skipped MFC entirely. When C#, implying the .NET Framework came out, he
embraced it and said it's what MS should have done the first time.
More or less. I've never worked with VB other than dipping my toe in and
wondering where the hell the code was. I never got into the Forms thing.
Tell me about it. We still have people working with an IDE from the last
century. I don't have much choice. I do a lot of ESRI stuff and the ESRI
Developer SDK's usually require the latest, greatest Visual Studio to
I've got an ancient book, 'The Essence of OLE with ActiveX' I think. The
author said he decided to write the book after he went to a Microsoft
seminar and the instructors were stumbling over their feet. It gets into
all the low level stuff that thankfully eventually got buried.
Debacle isn't quite the word. Like I said, I work with the ESRI
ArcObjects library and at one time their language of choice was C++.
Nothing like dealing with _variant_t and _b_str all over the place to
figure out what the hell a VARIANT or BSTR really is.
ESRI, btw, pretty much dropped C++ form their documentation and examples
when C# came along. They'd also been using VBA for extensions to their
tools and moved on to Python.
The older I get the higher level of abstraction I prefer. Writing fifty
lines of boilerplate code to get something done with C++/COM versus one
line in C# is a no brainer. Working in C I've even been known to pass
one line and send it off to do its thing.
Yeah, we got a lot of mileage out of an applet which runs in an ActiveX
control in IE. I've got to admit that being able to dump a data file to
disk from a browser is damn handy. HTML5 do allow for writing to disk
but it's so sandboxed I haven't figured out how to get my hands on the
That's one of the first critical pieces I've seen. It
will be interesting to see how this all plays out over
the next month.
| I have no problem with trader_4 or Aunt Tilly upgrading to 10 if they so
| choose. However, they can save their Chicken Little act
I suppose it's human nature that people want
to feel they're making the right decision. We
trust the flim flam man even more after we've
paid him. That's the price of not being a fool. :)
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 9:14:32 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
In my experience, when I've upgraded to a new MSFT OS
it's always been a good thing. And this one is free
for the next year for Win 7 users like me.
You prefer to focus on all the theoretical, what ifs,
assume the worst is going to happen. I've had 30 years
experience now with MSFT and for me, that hasn't happened.
I'm a satisfied customer and you look like the typical
tin hat wearing MSFT basher to me. Why don't you just
switch to Linux and stop worrying about what MSFT is
|>you look like the typical
| >tin hat wearing MSFT basher to me. Why don't you just
| >switch to Linux and stop worrying about what MSFT is
| He's probably dual or triple booting machines with multiple OS's.
As I mentioned earlier, I love Windows and
have been writing Windows software for about
15 years now. Trader_4 just likes to argue...
about anything and everything. The "tin foil
hat" name calling is a tired, knee-jerk response
from people who simply don't want to hear about
risks and issues in computing. It's not enough
that he likes Windows just the way it is. He
gets anxious if everyone else doesn't agree
with him, so he needs to find a way to define
those people as over-the-edge oddballs.
So you used Windows 1.0? What a gem that was. 2.0? hardly better. 3.0?
That started to gain popularity. Of course if you wanted to actually
connect to a network you had to download the Trumpet Winsock from the
Australians. MS was a little slow developing a socket layer. NT 3.1?
Not bad, but there were those consumer releases based on a different
technology, some of which weren't so great. XP, where the NT DNA finally
merged with the consumer branch was good. Vista? Remember Vista? 7 was
another winner, followed by a loser, and we're up to 10.
Actually, I had an epiphany. You consistently refer to Microsoft by the
NASDAQ code MSFT that nobody in the tech world uses. I don't want to
offend your tender sensibilities but is it possible you own a chunk of
MSFT stock? If so, you damn well better hope Nadella has a scheme for
making money giving away stuff for free.
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 3:25:26 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
See, there you go again, with the tin foil hat, MSFT bashing.
No, I don't own any MSFT stock, never did. Feel better now?
As to the giving stuff away for free, MSFT is not losing any
revenue from me. I've never bought an upgrade before and likely
would not have bought Win 10. I suspect their income stream
from the potentially lost upgrades doesn't amount to much. If
it did, their stock would be tanking. I haven't paid for all the
updates that I've received to my Android either. Maybe you should
take up your concerns with Google and MSFT. Or better yet, just
stop bitching about it.
All your tin foil hat, MSFT bashing rhetoric reminds me why developers
tend to refer to consumers as lusers.
So if it wasn't free you wouldn't have upgraded. In the past, MS has
charged for new OS's and they're suddenly handing out freebies. Do you
have any curiosity about what their new business model might be? No, I
guess you don't as long as it's 'free'.
That isn't completely true. People that bought Vista machines were able
to get Windows 7 for free. I don't recall the timeline, but my father
(RIP) bought a very high-end HP laptop with Vista. *I* found out that he
could get it upgraded for free within the specified timeline. So he too
it back to Best Buy and they told him he was TWO days too late. And even
after contacting MS they said, "you didn't make the deadline".
It wasn't the end of the world though, once MS released the 2 service
packs for Vista it ran just fine. My little sister has the laptop now
and I upgraded it to Windows 7 after AT&T Uverse (she had Comcast and it
worked fine) couldn't figure out why it wouldn't connect to their
I forget the psychological jargon but people who have underwent some
discomfort because of their decision tend to support the decision very
strongly. Eric Hoffer's 'The True Believer' also is relevant if dated.
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.