I suspect that is the way things will be, going forward.
Corporate world is a different beast. I.e., you can declare, "by edict", that "Thou shalt use XYZ". You also tend to have some folks on staff whose sole reason for being there is to "make it happen" -- whatever "it" may be!
Also, MS is probably less interested in what happens at work; it's a lot harder to track *who* is doing *what*. And, their motivations for doing so then come into play (is he looking for X as a genuine work-related need? Or, something personal that he's doing on the company's dime?)
Also, most of the "normal computer uses" that happen in a typical workplace can be easily redirected to a small set of applications supplied by a *different* vendor (e.g., FOSS). So, you can standardize your "workstations" (user environment).
Here, I much prefer operating with my applications running on a "server" and my "user interface" (display/keyboard/mouse) being much leaner and more portable. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for Windows apps...
Then why don't they do it? Why don't they charge by the hour? Because they're benevolent? Because they're generous? Why on earth don't they charge by the hour or minute of use? You tell me. I say it would be suicide. Linux would then become the main consumer operating system. Free. And MS could no longer sell an OS to the masses, as it now does.
Did you ever get your walls painted with anti-RF paint?
snip
I had an app (Ghost) that hung doing a simple directory look-up on a machine after I added 8gb of memory. It never hung until I added the
8 gig. At first I thought it was a permanent hang, but found that it took a full 2 minutes to resolve its answer. Every time. I quit using it when I found a suitable replacement.
Well, my Win10 machine boots in 25 seconds. So there. (-:
I never reinstall anything. Just recover an image.
snip
Yes, that's a lot of data to install. But I would image it at today's HD/SSD prices.
| >And, MS wouldn't be doing anything illegal *or* immoral (you pay for | >minutes on your phone; aren't you paying or a service? isn't your | >OS providing a service to you??) | > | | Then why don't they do it? Why don't they charge by the hour?
They are doing it. Office 365 is subscription by the month. Adobe has gone the same way with Creative Suite. They pretend the programs are online "cloud apps" to justify subscription, but they install locally just like anything else. Subscription is what this whole thing is about. It's the reason for free Win10 updates from 7/8.
Why Office 365 and CS? Because those are monopoly products that are critical to business. They can afford to get a bit pushy. Your Windows PC itself may end up being subscription at some point. Like an addicted Facebookie complaining about ads and spying, it will probably be too late for you to pull yourself away at that point. That's because they won't do it until it *is* at that point.
Microsoft started with ads in the OS and attempts at online services way back in Win98. They've been very gradually pulling the rug out ever since: locking down options, creating online services, trying to lead people into those services by pushing them to do things like get a "Microsoft ID". (And remember Passport before that? MS was hoping to have a lock on online wallets. The only problems were that nobody wanted an online wallet and no one trusted Microsoft.) Vista was originally supposed to be a locked down system based on .Net. (Look up "Longhorn".) If it had worked that would have closed the door to 3rd-party programmers who wanted to have system access. Only sandboxed software would have been possible, and MS probably could have started their online "store" to take a cut of software sales, like they're now doing with tablet apps.
So Microsoft hasn't taken all this time for lack of trying. They're constantly cooking up new gimmicks. But there have been various reasons why it hasn't worked out for them. One is that they're terrible at doing services. Another reason is because it's only recently that Internet speeds are fast enough for services. And even now, something like MS Word *really* online is a pipedream. It would be too slow. Another reason is because Microsoft has lost money on almost everything they've ever done except their two monopoly products, Windows and Office. So they see Apple raking in bucks from suckers with iPhones and they want a piece of that action. But it's a big risk for them. Services is not their forte. Only greed is leading them to forego common sense and push into a market they don't do well. The trick is to get enough frogs in pans, like you, who don't realize the heat's being turned up until they're already cooked. :)
For what? I know, I know. I'm being "spied upon." That's okay. It works very well for me.
Those stats I gave are for IE11. It's all over the net. Why you use a Wiki with old data as a reference is beyond my ken. XP is only about 10% of the market now. But people still drive old cars. My cars are 2003 and 1995.
| >IE has anywhere from 10% to 50% share, depending on | >who you ask. | >
formatting link
| > | > But that's IE, not IE11. IE11 can only run on Win7/8/10. | >It won't install on XP. (Win10 only recently passed XP | >in usage. XP is still popular. So not being able to run IE11 | >on XP is a rather pitiful statement about Microsoft.) | | Those stats I gave are for IE11. It's all over the net. | Why you use a Wiki with old data as a reference is beyond my ken.
Because that Wikipedia page is listing the popular stat companies, like statcounter. Perhaps your ken could manage to come up with links if you want to make contrary claims. "It's all over the net" is not useful. You may have got it from an ad in your hotmail for all I know.
Here's w3c's stats. Is that official enough? They put IE11 at 6.75% as of January. That's unusually low because they're counting all visitors, not just desktops. On the other hand, phones and tablets are very real considerations these days. On the bright side, most of those are running Safari or Chrome, so they don't need any special treatment. On my own site those numbers seem to be about right.
Other counters that only track desktops give figures 25-50% for all IE versions.
It will vary a lot. Shopping sites will vary from more techie sites, for instance. A counter that tracks Victorias Secret and Amazon may have different results from one that tracks CNN and EBay but not Amazon. 25% for IE11 may be realistic in some markets
*for desktop only*, but in general browser usage it's quite low. And I know from my own server logs that IE11 is only an occasional visitor to my site, despite it being a Microsoft-centric site. (Frankly I'm shocked at how many people prefer google's Chrome spyware. I don't consider IE spyware. Just unsafe, non-standards-compliant junk. I actually *love* IE for offline use in HTAs. I just don't think it's fit for online use. Chrome, on the other hand, really is spyware.... Well, I should say I don't consider IE to be exceptional spyware. most browsers these days are tracking people, under the guise of such things as "website reputation reporting". Even Firefox has become very sleazy.)
| XP is only about 10% of the market now. | But people still drive old cars. My cars are 2003 and 1995. | That's what I find, too. XP, 8 and 10 are all in the 10% range. The rest is mostly Win7. Another way to look at it is that Windows XP-10 is about 90% of OS share online. About
15+% of those, or 1/6, XP and Vista, can't run Microsoft's latest version of IE. No other OS can run Microsoft's latest version of IE. I don't know about you, but I'd say that's pretty bad performance on the part of Microsoft. To my mind that makes IE11 a niche browser, like Safari. I'm happy to support Safari if I can, but I'm not going to go out of my way for it. The difference is that Safari, like every other non-IE browser, is standards compliant. So I only need to support one of those -- Firefox, Chrome, Safari, etc -- and I automatically support them all. IE11, by contrast, breaks compatibility with IE10, which breaks with IE9, which breaks with IE8... and so on. And they all break compatibility with standards.
You're free to support IE11 if you have a website. I see it as a case of diminishing returns. It's just not worth my time and effort.
| >| >And, MS wouldn't be doing anything illegal *or* immoral (you pay for | >| >minutes on your phone; aren't you paying or a service? isn't your | >| >OS providing a service to you??) | >| > | >| | >| Then why don't they do it? Why don't they charge by the hour? | > | > They are doing it. Office 365 is subscription by the | >month. | | We were talking about the OS, not apps.
I'm talking about both. Linux is not going to replace Windows if it can't run MS Office and Photoshop. The software is what people use the OS for. And there's no reason to assume charging a subscription for the OS won't happen, either. It's all just a matter of market. MS could do something like say, "OK, we're going to keep Windows free, but patches will be on a yearly subscription basis." That's essentially what they already do with business licensing. They rent it on a multi-year basis.
Personally I never believed Adobe would get away with charging rent on Photoshop, but people have signed up in droves. They don't think they have a choice. Microsoft will do the same. If they can get away with it, they'll charge. And apologists like yourself will undoubtedly be the first to rationalize why it's reasonable.
What makes you think that's not already in the cards? I used to buy albums (LP's). Then, the same content (in a cheaper to produce form) moved to CD for much MORE money. Now, you *rent* songs (pay per play).
Linux will never be mainstream. Too many technocrats stroking their egos instead of thinking about the end user. "Gee, look at this nifty new feature I created... that *almost* works!" And, it's boring (and hard!) to make sure it *really* works so they just move on to the next NNF (Nifty New Feature) to amuse themselves instead of hunkering down and making a robust, reliable version of that NNF (assuming, for the moment, that anyone really *wants* that NNF!)
The same is true of most FOSS projects. Apache, Mozilla and PostgreSQL are probably the only notable exceptions; treated as *products* instead of monuments to the developers' abilities.
Huh? Why, because they couldn't collect the revenues? The phone company can't sell to the masses? Nor cable? Nor Apple? They'd cut a deal with something like PayPal (though MS would have to reinvent it instead of relying on an existing implementation!) and you'd sign up just like you sign up for your ISP.
We decided that there was no practical way of *removing* it. And, any future homeowner would probably not be keen on the fact that he couldn't use his cell phone indoors.
So, I will live with the RF vulnerability in the prototype until I can develop a technology that doesn't rely on it. "Security by obscurity" for the time being.
(Only so many hours in a day)
Moving past the 4G limit means you have introduced a 32/64 bit issue. Moving from 2G to 3G poses no such problem.
Is your hardware 10 years old? Did it cost you more than $10? :>
Can't recover images when you are moving apps to different workstations. It is almost impossible for me to use a single workstation configured with *every* app that I currently use. The start menu itself would be several layers of cascaded menus. File associations would be meaningless (as multiple applications want to claim the same extension for different purposes -- yet another MS screwup). Startup times would be horrendous as every add-in initialized itself, etc.
I have three windows workstations each with 1T spinning. Much of that is "work space". But, a fair bit of it is "software" (a few hundred MB). Do I want to reimage all of that each time I make a notable configuration change? In any of the many applications?
Or, do I want to split the application domains into smaller pieces that are self-consistent: no need for photo editing software on a machine that's intended to layout electronic circuits; likewise no need for audio processing tools on a machine used to write software!
It doesn't buy you anything. You spend time building the HUGE images, hoping the media never falters -- all for the potential of recovering it in a single operation. What happens if you want to recover it to a machine that has different drivers? I.e., your windows image isn't compatible with the new hardware.
Trust me, I've been doing this a LONG time. I've learned where the costs are (for the tools that *I* have) and how best to avoid them. I have zero desire to spend time maintaining my *purchased* tools (though obviously have an obligation to maintain my *developed* tools). So, I look for every economy possible to save labor and expense.
E.g., I have built ISO's of all my CD/DVD media so I don't have to "feed discs" into a machine -- just mount ISO's. I keep things like clipart/font libraries offline -- yet have an online catalogue (so I can preview the clipart and fonts to decide
*which* CD/DVD-ISO I will need to access to retrieve the item).
My heart goes out to IT guys who have to do this stuff day in and day out. It would feel like digging ditches and refilling them at the end of each day!
Ads in the game are not that intrusive but fact they are there makes it annoying. As for Win 10, I heard Kim Komando say that the underlying architecture is better. I also use ad blocks on my Win 10 desktop and Android tablet but Android pop ups are far worse than Windows.
Websites are just as guilty of this intrusiveness crap. I was looking at new model cars on a car maker site and later logging into another site there was an ad for the cars I was looking at. My Firefox browser is set to delete all cookies and history when I leave it but session stuff can get through.
I'll wait until those cards are dealt. Then we can talk about it.
As far as I can tell, Linux distros come with adequate web browsers right now. I just booted a Linux stick I set up a while ago. Had no trouble browsing the web with the Firefox that is included. Depends what you do with your PC.
Maybe you would. I won't. Like I said, why would MS screw up a good revenue stream? They make plenty as it is from licensing fees. Most people pay that fee when they buy a computer with Windows installed. In any case I'll just wait for the fat lady to sing. You mentioned phone and cable. My home phone is Ooma. It costs about 5 bucks a month. My cells are pay-as-you-go. They cost about
150 bucks a year for two. Cable TV is another story, due to my wife liking her shows. But I'm getting pissed off enough to dump it.
snip
Well, it had no problem with 8gb, but choked with 16.
Can't say it didn't, but my games wouldn't work with yours.
I've decided my brain is simply "wired wrong". I don't respond to ads. When I want something, I go looking for it -- along with first-hand (verifiable) accounts of its performance, etc.
There are *lots* of ways to track "you" and/or "your machine".
When you visit a web site, they can "profile" your browser (Firefox/Chrome/IE/etc., plus version). They know what OS you are running (Mac/PC, version).
They can figure out which fonts you have configured. Whether you have flash enabled or not. Your tracking preferences. Etc.
[And, of course, they have an IP address that correlates with you (in some way -- it may not be *your* IP address but it is related to you!).]
So, they can play the numbers game: how many people (machines) have this combination of these "attributes".
[In my case, my browser configuration is reasonably unique -- anything that stores a representation of my browser "fingerprint" can identify me (well, not *me* but, rather, my browser!) whenever I revisit the site.]
And, there's nothing to prevent someone (someTHING) from SHARING that information behind the scenes. E.g., every site that uses googleadservices is effectively relaying this information to google (actually, THEY aren't doing it but, instead, are telling *you* to do it for them! By directing YOUR browser to fetch some bit of script from that domain!)
Up until Win98 they all still had the original DOS core hidden in them.
XP was a fresh re-write of MOST of the OS (compared to win98), but it was actually based on the NT core which had been around for over a decade,
Windows 7 built on top of XP code, 8 was an extention of 7, and 10 is a major revision of 7 - apparently a parallel upgrade to windows 8.
Not too much that was actually solved in one version re-appears as the identical problem in the next release.
What's hard to figure out is not how certain problems filter down from version to version, but how the operating systems operate at all, given how they are programmed. Millions of lines of code written by programmers across the world - each working on a separate part of the OS - with those parts combined together into the final release by a relatively small cadre of programmers at Redmond. Most of the code is generated in places as diverse as Ireland, India,China, France, Turkey and Singapore.
IE11 is still one of the most reliable and compatible browsers in the PC world. Particularly with it's built-in compatability mode. I have not found a webpage I could not access with IE11. Firefox is a very close second, with Chrome and Safari for Windows lagging well behind the pack.
I just upgraded an old Atom 270 powered Acer Aspire 1 netbook to Windows 10, and it runs faster than it did on Windows 7. It boots faster too . As long as I don't try to run more than 2 applications at a time it is great. (can't put more than, IIRC, 2gb of RAM in it - which is it's major limiting factor)
What bothers me more than Win10 is the blasted new extended bios (UEFI?) that Microsoft has required all OEMs to implement before being licenced to distribute anything from Win8.0 on.
Quote: And, that huge flaw that exposes you to all sorts of hackery will be deployed to PAYING customers before we "give it away" (no doubt because we are being forced to do so).
Of course, the new .NET framework that your application REQUIRES is actually part of the OS so, unless you've a paid subscription, you're SoL. We *may* make JUST that component available for a separate fee...
And, of course, the more of a "minority opinion" your needs become, the less likely we're going to make *any* effort to cater to them!
Note that they are not *depriving* you of anything that you
*HAD*. Rather, just not granting you anything ADDITIONAL! (Hey, SOMEONE has to pay for this development work!)
Pay per play on music titles?? WTF?
The Unwashed Masses dictate (by their tolerance of what you might consider "unreasonable"/outrageous) what we
*all* have to live with!
Because it *is* reasonable! Why should everyone have to pay the same license fee regardless of how "much" they use it? Or, how VALUABLE to them it may be? I pay more if I use more electricity, make more phone calls, use more natural gas, watch more TV channels, etc.
The problem is one of consumer mindset: you have to condition the consumer to thinking that this "makes sense" -- even if it ends up costing them more (because you never TELL them that -- up front!)
My internet connection has no data limits. I can saturate the link 24/7/365 and pay the same as if it was idle for all of that time. Other folks have limits on how much data they can move across the wire. Ages ago, I used UUCP over long distance phone lines to move traffic to other hosts -- files were "priced" in terms of the number of LD minutes required to move them!
I pick something that makes sense for *my* needs/usage. But, if there's only one game in town (e.g., MS), then THEY decide what their policies will be and I have a choice of accepting them, or not. If they're the 800 pound gorilla and can convince enough people to buy in to their practices (even if they don't LIKE it), then I have no other choice.
So nobody is stopping you from installing the 32 bit version of windows, either 7, 8, or 10, on your new machine. The license key for
64 bit works just fine to install the 32 bit version.
I downgrades a pile of Win7-64 pro machines to win7-32 pro because we had a lot of legacy scanners that were not supported on the 64 bit platform, and we were not about to spend $2400 each to replace 20-some scanners.
A few have been "upconverted" back to 64 bit since the scanners have taken themselves out of service.
IE11 and Edge are two totally different browsers Edge is a "work in process". Ie11 has built in compatability support and can open and display any webpage that could be opened or viewed with 8, 9, or 10. You may have to tell the browser to use compatability mode - but it is there, available, and simple to implement.
Never depend on ANY OS or browser to continue to support "undoccumented calls" or "undoccumented features" A lot of programmers get way to "smart" for their own good.
Just put a note on the page saying if the page does not open properly in IE11 to use compatability mode.
With Edge, you are totally on your own - I think Microsoft made a big mistake deploying Edge before it was anywhere near ready for prime time. It's the only part of W10 that is not better than or equal to W7, W8, or W8.1 in my eyes.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.