EEVblog® Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: BrianHG on January 10, 2026, 01:05:49 am
-
Is this for real? Will windows will be a minority operating system in a few years? :popcorn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrtJAw57Wkw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrtJAw57Wkw)
(I don't know as I still use Windows 7)
-
Is this for real? Will windows will be a minority operating system in a few years? :popcorn:
(I don't know as I still use Windows 7)
I loved Windows 7. Loved XP, liked 10.
Windows, in some very important ways, is already a minority OS. By the numbers, Linux is king!
No if you narrow that to Desktop OSs, Windows is king but has been losing for years. Mostly to macOS. Any particular version of Windows loses more share to its siblings than other OSs, I believe.
-
I hope so, that will teach a lesson to others.
You can't ignore reality and just be money driven in your choices.
-
Winux Zorin all other flavours ......... win 11 and up are dead
-
Dying is strong but increasingly inrellevant.
Android already outnumbers windows worldwide and iOS does in the US. Linux is the overwhelmingly dominant server OS. Mac OS and ChromeOS are very strong in the laptop segment. Windows is still the leader in laptops and the king of desktop operating systems but those are an ever diminishing share of the market.
Plus windows "sales" are basically new device sales. Replacement cycles especially for desktop computers have increased dramatically. Even big companies aren't replacing computers every 3 years.
That's why MS is adding mandatory MS account sign-in, user tracking, and ads to windows. That's also why they are tricking people into using cloud storage. They can't count on selling someone a new computer with a new version of windows any more so they want ongoing revenue.
-
the business cycle repeats - Gates should know this.
-
It's happening, but I can't celebrate. There were real benefits to an almost universal and open operating system. I know there will be pushback on open, but Windows allowed others to operate in their ecosystem, unlike Apple. Linux lets anyone play, but because of the fragmentation of Linux the true cross device compatibility is even lower than indicated by the market share. Same things apply to iOS and Android.
And the reason it is happening is that Windows is avidly adopting all of the problems I complain about in the other OS.
-
I think the today's AI, datacenter and network tycoons dream about a "thin minimalist terminals" completely wired to their clouds/accounts. So the "heavy" PCs as we know it today should become the history (OSes regardless). No need for powerful CPUs, GPUs, beefy fast memories/SSDs and heavy thick OSes at home or in any offices then..
:(
-
Probably the biggest force against windows is that nobody (except enthusiasts) actually wants to own a computer of any description. They want the internet so they can buy crap off amazon and make their brains dumber with political propaganda on facebook, and that's already something their phones can do.
For enthusiasts I see no reason why you would want to use Microsoft's tailored-advertising-with-vestigial-operating-system-functions product. You can just install linux mint or something, install steam, your games work. In the rare instance they don't immediately, then it's 99% faster to fix the problem than it would be to decrapify a windows 10 or 11 install.
The remaining market for windows is just office computers and the terminally apathetic.
-
I'm wondering, how much of that video is fakenews?
If so many desktops have been migrated to Linux, why don't we see that on statcounter?
-
I think the today's AI, datacenter and network tycoons dream about a "thin minimalist terminals" completely wired to their clouds/accounts. So the "heavy" PCs as we know it today should become the history (OSes regardless). No need for powerful CPUs, GPUs, beefy fast memories/SSDs and heavy thick OSes at home or in any offices then..
:(
Its funny how the circle of computing goes around. You had computers and terminals, then we had physical computers, now we have the 'cloud' and back to computers being terminals. I wonder if we are going to return to PCs at home.
I see more and more often people dont have a PC or even a laptop at home. The phone does most of what they want to do.
People who work in an office I guess are a big part of the PC users and other than being secure the OS makes little difference for those that are cloud users. Its only the ones that need specific apps that still use them.
I have not watched the video, then to avoid click bait vids if I can. Can somone who has watched it give some context to what its rambling on about.
-
i've watched a few and as usual they repeat the same thing ad nauseum. I'm going to visit "the register" to see if they are any better.
-
I have not watched the video, then to avoid click bait vids if I can. Can somone who has watched it give some context to what its rambling on about.
I think it is an AI generated video. Spelling errors and usage of random video fragments based on context. And it seems it is just a rant against Windows 11. Some Googling tells me South Korea decided to ditch Windows in 2020 and finalise the migration to Linux in 2026.
-
The color in these videos makes me really uncomfortable, it feels just like a Netflix show. Maybe I'm just getting old and out of touch, maybe it's because I'm Chinese, or maybe I'm just weird. Either way, I'm really not used to this kind of look ...
-
The color in these videos makes me really uncomfortable, it feels just like a Netflix show. Maybe I'm just getting old and out of touch, maybe it's because I'm Chinese, or maybe I'm just weird. Either way, I'm really not used to this kind of look ...
Ah looks like a clickbait video collection. I know if I clicked on one I would be shown videos like it for a the next few months. The algorithm is an arse and cant cope with a person who is interested in lots of random things.
Thanks @nctnico that sounds like the standard jump on a partial truth and expand on it crap. I find it interesting that we have statistics and data but it still doesn't stop people using them to spread misinformation.
-
The color in these videos makes me really uncomfortable, it feels just like a Netflix show. Maybe I'm just getting old and out of touch, maybe it's because I'm Chinese, or maybe I'm just weird. Either way, I'm really not used to this kind of look ...
You are allergic to click-bait . And that's a good thing! :-+
-
are you sure the thin client thing is just not the school of MBA that only knows how to outsource stuff telling you that things need to be outsourced and that is that? They usually push propaganda pretty hard with a strait face
the only thing I see is that its the least work and least responsibility and basically the whole concept is shift risk elsewhere make my position safe and easy, I noticed it has little to do with business continuity or efficiency... its kind of self serving to tell people to rely on services
if you shift all the risk and work it becomes closer to the ideal money making machine (but only for the person in charge of that thing within a organization, not for the organization, i.e. self serving). At some point its like watching your significant other get wow'ed by a infomercial advertisement, because that is the only info they basically have about whats going on, advertisements..
So when there is someone managing an outsourced service that is kind of amusing because what are you paying them for, the possibility of releasing their primal frustration on a telephone to protect your business with a mean and loud conversation when the outsourced risk fucks up? It's not like trump is gonna send delta force for them. Oh or maybe they will get to cut ties and go on a big expensive shopping trip, or get you tied up with lawyers with a company that is bigger then yours because it does generic shit, possibly in another country. bring in that bread hero
-
Back in the day, that's '80s when computer hardware was different, the repair operation was on-site.
That included the user end, that was a terminal.
That was also expensive.
Next step was when user end repair changed to off-site, then a PC was broken.
Earlier a repairman had a hardware kit, a single trip approach.
Next the broken machine was moved and repair facility was stationary, a bit cheaper system.
And now a system where the whole machine is sort of disposable, cheapest for the machine support.
Next rational step is that software support follows, back to its beginning.
First software was centered, obviously when hardware was the same.
Then its bug style period started, actual harmful part started also quite early.
Spreading things around is not cheap, especially when quality and harmony is low.
I've seen a retail chain grow, now it's cashed out at least once and grown more.
When the chain was growing first it bought other sort of small ones, so many kind of retailer electronics and their systems were also collecting.
Obviously combining that collection wasn't very smooth, so outsourcing all hardware stuff became eminent, and no sense to do any different with the software.
-
Probably the biggest force against windows is that nobody (except enthusiasts) actually wants to own a computer of any description. They want the internet so they can buy crap off amazon and make their brains dumber with political propaganda on facebook, and that's already something their phones can do.
For enthusiasts I see no reason why you would want to use Microsoft's tailored-advertising-with-vestigial-operating-system-functions product. You can just install linux mint or something, install steam, your games work. In the rare instance they don't immediately, then it's 99% faster to fix the problem than it would be to decrapify a windows 10 or 11 install.
The remaining market for windows is just office computers and the terminally apathetic.
There are many comments along these lines, and I think they slightly miss the boat on my attitude and situation, and I would guess a significant majority of those on this forum.
I would say it this way.
In the beginning there were computers. Served by punch cards and bunches of attendants. And the purpose of those computers was to do science, and military things and big finance things. Most people didn't care much about it. But there was a small percentage of the population, the geeks and scientists and engineers who lusted after access to these new toys.
Then the big users of those computers saw a way to fill their needs with timesharing and smaller machines (called mini-computers at the time and called things like PDP). And that small group still didn't have their lusts fulfilled because both time share time and mini-computers still were way out of almost everyone's financial reach. Only the relatively few who could access after hours access on one of the big machines or sweet talk a couple hours of time share from somewhere got to explore this new universe. Any even smaller subset could actually do hardware interfaces to such machines.
And then came the altairs and the apples and the ohio scientifics and many more. Finally the geeks had their toys. And they did things that interested the big boys. Spreadsheets. Low cost control of ATE. And particularly, word processing and graphic presentation tools. Which talked to the money people. They could fire secretaries and do local analysis. So desktop computing became a thing both in big business and small business. These mass produced things drove costs down even more, and because of their geek roots they still had the features that let those of us in that crowd do our thing.
Now the business needs of small and big business have been largely satisfied, and the public has lost their fascination with printing fancy placemats and whatever so the market is moving back to thin clients which do fine for social media and light word processing. And the geek crowd has lost the big market driving hardware and software suitable for our needs. Linux is the best available solution for geeks from my point of view, but I doubt it will ever have big money driving it as Microsoft once did. So we won't have the benefit of what was a relatively brief overlap of our interests with the mainstream market. Maybe the gamers will be fine, but that isn't what I consider a peer group.
-
I think thats a very bold statement about what the public lost interest in or how much satisfaction there is with thin clients. I worked managing thin clients before and everyone hated them pretty much universally. The only people that liked it were the bosses because they said it saved money (but there was serious friction because of constant complaints)
Worst job I ever had because I had zero power to help people because of how locked down the systems were. If it was a for-profit business, they would have gotten axed, but it was taxpayer dollars at work so complaints fall on deaf ears, mostly. The only thing I kept thinking is that someone must have really thought they can make one of my skill sets useless, and that they have failed.
That is what I think, there is adoption by organizations that basically have no performance metrics (horrible accountability) and change incredibly slowly, that makes it seem like they are popular. I also saw a med doctor go haywire when his thin client bullshit system was acting up. Of course its a 'jump' type organization, where everyone wants to GTFO, there are zero 'lifers' and its only tolerated because the attrition is so damn high for multiple reasons. By jump I mean like a resume filler/looking for another job thing, where its just like a crappy springboard. Those places are like 'damned'. They also like to have zero-tolerance rules, it just seems to go with the territory, so they can prevent experience based pay increase from occurring.
Oh yeah its also not doing its job of being secure (main selling point, that it was supposed to be so secure that there would never be a problem), given how I get regular mail about 'data-break-ins' that invite me for class action fun. :palm: It has the obvious marketing of being a 'golden bullet' solution that will eliminate computer problems, get rid of IT and allow you to be 'cutting edge' with no work. Yeah, golden bullets don't work. I suggest keeping "too go to be true" in mind when you listen to the spiel, your skepticism will save your butt. Does the rhetoric advocating for these changes not sound exactly like "there has been a paradigm shift in the computing industry"? (wow, no one has been making fun of paradigm shift related corpospeak marketing recently... maybe that is why so many companies are getting owned after blindly rushing into a AI focus, what is it, too 2000's to ever happen again, they can't bear to miss out on the profitable paradigm shift?)
If I had to make a list of how to scuttle an organization while making your own career, I would say adopting thin clients is a real good bullet point.
-
Good.
Bloated, horrible, uncustomizable task bar where I can't even add quick launch folders, cpu slowing animated skeleton placeholder.
No OS should require an online account just to use it, forced app store that does things in the background and install things behind the users back and pesters them
-
Good.
Bloated, horrible, uncustomizable task bar where I can't even add quick launch folders, cpu slowing animated skeleton placeholder.
No OS should require an online account just to use it, forced app store that does things in the background and install things behind the users back and pesters them
As a long time Linux user I have no idea about modern day Windows at all. But from what I remember from the distant past, Microsoft seems to have Windows editions or at least offers way of tailoring Windows to suit business users. AFAIK what drives updates is to add security for the home users. What drives needing an account is to milk extra money from home users. As larger business users typically have IT departments and service contracts, there should be less need for pestering Windows users and milking more money.
-
Plus windows "sales" are basically new device sales.
That's a slight over-representation because a good number of people buy a PC or laptop with Windows and immediately wipe it and install Linux. That's what I did with my current machine. I also bought my nephews a Mac Air, to both avoid Windows and because I'm generally happy with Apple's build quality, even though it has downsides of poor upgradability and it being a closed system.
-
People have been banging on about thin clients for years, probably a couple of decades, maybe three.
Do you remember Web 2.0 back in 2002? As soon as we had interactive Web pages people were predicting that the Web browser would become the universal client to server-side processing. Do you remember ChromeOS and the appearance of Chromebooks back in 2010? Again, we were told that soon all we will need is a Web browser running on a minimalist hardware (and software) platform, and it would be the end of the traditional PC. Chromebooks would supplant most traditional consumer computers.
Honestly, I don't see very much progress towards the widespread use of thin clients, despite the technology being largely in place for a good quarter century. I don't actually know why. Google Docs and the online versions of the MS Office suite have been around for several years now, and are mature technologies, and yet there is still an enormous market for client-side versions of MS Office, et al.
For reasons I don't fully understand, the online versions of MS Office (for example) have slightly different - and lesser - features from the client-side applications.
I suspect - but don't know - that it's all about the UI and the available bandwidth. Take a 3D CAD program, for instance, running on the user's own PC. The bandwidth between the modelling engine and the screen - via a sophisticated and powerful graphics card - must be orders of magnitude faster than even a fast Internet link.
Perhaps the cost of providing all that server-side processing power, and the bandwidth necessary to serve tens or hundreds of thousands of simultaneous users, is just too high for the service providers, and it makes more financial sense to run the software on the end users' own hardware.
And I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I don't think there will be a significant move to Linux on the desktop until the big commercial players port their applications to Linux. The existing Linux desktop applications are just not good enough.
-
Honestly, I don't see very much progress towards the widespread use of thin clients
Are you serious? I would bet that vast majority of end users' computers (smartphones included) are actually used as thin clients that do nothing else than access online content. People rarely use anything but the web browser and maybe a couple messenger apps, which are essentially thin clients too. Yes there are cases when people need to run specialized software that don't exist in "the cloud" or can't operate like that because of bandwidth or other limitations, but I'm sure these are comparatively rare.
-
Linux desktops are still just in the noise, but it's interesting that it's pretty much doubled in the last year.
I realized, and have even told customers, that Windows is starting to become my malware, and it's getting harder and harder to lock it down and stay in any sort of compliance. We're actively looking for ways to ditch it entirely, not because we hate it, but because we can't control it.
The killer apps for systems have ALWAYS been games. Yes, there are a couple of niche apps. Altium...Solidworks. But these are really niche. When Linux gaming becomes for real world class, and it's close, Windows will be irrelevant to home systems. And will thus become irrelevant to business systems. Everything is in the web anyway, just like you wanted.
Won't be the next 5 years, probably, but the desktop is effectively dead as a concept at the moment. When the tide shifts again to a local desktop being a thing, I don't think Windows will have any relevance. These things take many years to sort out. We went from remote computing, to local computing, and back to remote over 60 or so years. These are big, long cycles.
-
Honestly, I don't see very much progress towards the widespread use of thin clients, despite the technology being largely in place for a good quarter century. I don't actually know why. Google Docs and the online versions of the MS Office suite have been around for several years now, and are mature technologies, and yet there is still an enormous market for client-side versions of MS Office, et al.
What? Are you serious? Google docs and MS office 365 are incredibly popular. If client side office isn't the minority yet it will be soon. Of course there are still tons of users of the client side office either because they need them for something or just that's what they have always done, but the online versions are hugely popular.
I suspect - but don't know - that it's all about the UI and the available bandwidth. Take a 3D CAD program, for instance, running on the user's own PC. The bandwidth between the modelling engine and the screen - via a sophisticated and powerful graphics card - must be orders of magnitude faster than even a fast Internet link.
Onshape is an online only 3D cad tool founded by former solidworks executives and it works well enough for a large number of use cases. There are still performance advantages to local tools but it's not orders of magnitude.
-
Plus windows "sales" are basically new device sales.
That's a slight over-representation because a good number of people buy a PC or laptop with Windows and immediately wipe it and install Linux. That's what I did with my current machine. I also bought my nephews a Mac Air, to both avoid Windows and because I'm generally happy with Apple's build quality, even though it has downsides of poor upgradability and it being a closed system.
Linux desktop users are still a basically irrelevent fraction.
My point was that if new computer sales are down 40% because people are keeping computers for 5 years instead of 3, that's 40% fewer windows sales even if the number of users remains the same.
-
As a long time Linux user I have no idea about modern day Windows at all. But from what I remember from the distant past, Microsoft seems to have Windows editions or at least offers way of tailoring Windows to suit business users. AFAIK what drives updates is to add security for the home users. What drives needing an account is to milk extra money from home users. As larger business users typically have IT departments and service contracts, there should be less need for pestering Windows users and milking more money.
After what happened in 2019:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-computing/windows-10-update-aggro/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-computing/windows-10-update-aggro/)
If someone gave me a free Windows 10 (standard branch)/11 license key I'd bin it.
I discovered Windows 10 Enterprise LTSC 2019 in early 2020 which doesn't have a stupid app store and I read security updates only but Flash Player which I used for something was stilled uninstalled under the guise of security so not pleased about that at first.
It took me 2 years from early 2020 to make alterations get it the way I want before I started using it. One thing it won't do anymore is shut down all of a sudden which is a big nono. A notification would be nice but none as above. I have removed services; Rempl, waasmedic and set permissions to stop 'update orchestrator' from rewriting the keys in it's task scheduler folder (system) and registry bit (trustedinstaller) that shuts it down where it'd recreate the keys and deny users write permissions to alter the tasks. Disabled and removed quite a few telemetry things to discover over time there are others and even with Office Click to run service which I now set to manual.
I think this might be my last version of Windows I'd use.
I gave up on LTSC 2021 in 2022 (see screenshot) as soon as I saw it plastered with stupid animated skeleton placeholders that slow everything down for a few seconds by hogging a cpu core, flash and annoy me that they copied of webpages, the built in appstore and bloating of the window appearance where I find I could no longer set the size in the registry like i could before. It just looked bloated and horrible to me. I have seen Windows 11 since when given things to look at or buying newer laptops. It looks to me like they copied what was called Chrome driver, called it Webview and are now trying to use it to mimic explorer. In regedit, deleting keys and it dims the screen or the area? like on a web page which I find a very STUPID idea and that hurts my eyes, especially if I am searching, altering and deleting stuff where it dims and undims excessively goes to show they have absolutely no consideration for the eyes of their users.
I wonder how they'd like it if I turned up and down their contrast and brightness control excessively to the extremes depending on what they're doing.
-
Honestly, I don't see very much progress towards the widespread use of thin clients, despite the technology being largely in place for a good quarter century. I don't actually know why. Google Docs and the online versions of the MS Office suite have been around for several years now, and are mature technologies, and yet there is still an enormous market for client-side versions of MS Office, et al.
What? Are you serious? Google docs and MS office 365 are incredibly popular. If client side office isn't the minority yet it will be soon. Of course there are still tons of users of the client side office either because they need them for something or just that's what they have always done, but the online versions are hugely popular.
I suspect - but don't know - that it's all about the UI and the available bandwidth. Take a 3D CAD program, for instance, running on the user's own PC. The bandwidth between the modelling engine and the screen - via a sophisticated and powerful graphics card - must be orders of magnitude faster than even a fast Internet link.
Onshape is an online only 3D cad tool founded by former solidworks executives and it works well enough for a large number of use cases. There are still performance advantages to local tools but it's not orders of magnitude.
Actually, when visiting various companies, I see a lot of thin clients being used. So to me is seems the thin client is back. And indeed a lot of office tasks can be done online. The last 5 years I have gravitated to using web based office alternatives (like Google docs). These work surprisingly well and get rid of the complexity which comes with MS-Office. I basically stopped using MS-Office.
-
when market saturation occurs sometimes a business will try to extract more from what they have.
killing off more demand for the product. greed gets in the way of good judgment. as in trying to please everyone.
maybe by 2027 see Windows phone 2.0 on a wearable device with a hand crank to save energy.
one size fits all Windows is not the answer? in 2026 Windows OS has become obese & too smart for its own good.
but then what would I know.
-
Is this for real? Will windows will be a minority operating system in a few years? :popcorn:
(I don't know as I still use Windows 7)
I loved Windows 7. Loved XP, liked 10.
Windows, in some very important ways, is already a minority OS. By the numbers, Linux is king!
No if you narrow that to Desktop OSs, Windows is king but has been losing for years. Mostly to macOS. Any particular version of Windows loses more share to its siblings than other OSs, I believe.
Don't know why, but, WinNT4 sp4 with a 2 cpu motherboard was the fastest most efficient OS I ever used.
Win2000pro SP3 was small and a little slower than NT4 with dual cpus. I think is was something to do with the scheduling as NT4 had a few multi-threading related bugs solved in 2000pro at the expense of speed. I rarely rebooted 2000pro if ever.
I got 2000pro to work really good on a P-Pro with I believe 512mb of ram. Boy, have times changed...
I ran a Quake 3 arena server from that system. It was up for a year without a hiccup.
-
maybe by 2027 see Windows phone 2.0 on a wearable device with a hand crank to save energy.
We already had those for over a century. They are called watches.
They are so efficient, they only need a windup one a day.
There even exist watches which gather surplus energy from the motion of you arm as you do things throughout the day such as walking. Never need winding, they just appear to operate perpetually.
-
People have been banging on about thin clients for years, probably a couple of decades, maybe three.
Do you remember Web 2.0 back in 2002? As soon as we had interactive Web pages people were predicting that the Web browser would become the universal client to server-side processing. Do you remember ChromeOS and the appearance of Chromebooks back in 2010? Again, we were told that soon all we will need is a Web browser running on a minimalist hardware (and software) platform, and it would be the end of the traditional PC. Chromebooks would supplant most traditional consumer computers.
Honestly, I don't see very much progress towards the widespread use of thin clients, despite the technology being largely in place for a good quarter century. I don't actually know why. Google Docs and the online versions of the MS Office suite have been around for several years now, and are mature technologies, and yet there is still an enormous market for client-side versions of MS Office, et al.
For reasons I don't fully understand, the online versions of MS Office (for example) have slightly different - and lesser - features from the client-side applications.
I suspect - but don't know - that it's all about the UI and the available bandwidth. Take a 3D CAD program, for instance, running on the user's own PC. The bandwidth between the modelling engine and the screen - via a sophisticated and powerful graphics card - must be orders of magnitude faster than even a fast Internet link.
Perhaps the cost of providing all that server-side processing power, and the bandwidth necessary to serve tens or hundreds of thousands of simultaneous users, is just too high for the service providers, and it makes more financial sense to run the software on the end users' own hardware.
And I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I don't think there will be a significant move to Linux on the desktop until the big commercial players port their applications to Linux. The existing Linux desktop applications are just not good enough.
have you ever tried using that shit? I had a co-worker that wanted to make this the project norm, the google or maybe microsoft virtual office system. Thank god I fucking don't trust it and saved the documents copy paste locally, because I don't trust it with my career. IIRC it even locked access during a important review meeting with people who are hard to get a hold of
-
Linux desktops are still just in the noise, but it's interesting that it's pretty much doubled in the last year.
5% marketshare in the US is not noise.
-
I think the today's AI, datacenter and network tycoons dream about a "thin minimalist terminals" completely wired to their clouds/accounts. So the "heavy" PCs as we know it today should become the history (OSes regardless). No need for powerful CPUs, GPUs, beefy fast memories/SSDs and heavy thick OSes at home or in any offices then..
:(
Have you ever tried controlling 3D CAD on a PC over an internet link from another PC? in 4k ? The average but well setup PC can do 3D CAD so no need for a remote machine. Really the daily use of the vast majority of people is already met by what would be used as a terminal anyway. Where I work the general office PC's are not that powerful compact PC's. I even used one for a bit and with it's integrated graphics and DDR4 RAM it ran 2 4k monitors with no problem and may have managed 3D CAD on a 2k monitor.
My rapsery pi 5+ with an SSD is frankly fast and good enough to run a 4k monitor and do general office work. The new terminal idea won't be to save hardware but to control users and lock them in.
-
Linux desktops are still just in the noise, but it's interesting that it's pretty much doubled in the last year.
5% marketshare in the US is not noise.
Funny how different readers get triggered by different things. For me it was the second part of the sentence -- where the heck does the "pretty much doubled last year" claim come from?
-
People are not switching to Linux in their droves. The open source world has a problem: no standardization. You can't run 3D CAD on linux, the vendors just won't risk such a fractured and fractious bunch of people to provide the thing that if it goes slightly wrong screws them and all of their customers.
Open source is great but not great for business. The big problem Linux has is that the mantra is: It's not perfect but the good news is that you can fix it yourself because you are a programmer yourself and you can do as you please. This is the definition of a business nightmare for anyone wanting to provide software to users on any distribution.
Until there is a big wide ranging reason for people and more importantly businesses adopt one distribution of linux that is seriously supported it won't become mainstream on desktops. If UNIX is still around that would be a better place to start from a business point of view.
this is what the man himself has to say and he is right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzl1B7nB9Kc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzl1B7nB9Kc)
-
^^^ This, among other things, is why I will never switch to *nix.
And the average person won't either. So enough with the fond fantasies of Linux taking over the world.
-
^^^ This, among other things, is why I will never switch to *nix.
And the average person won't either. So enough with the fond fantasies of Linux taking over the world.
This an age old argument. These days we are in echo chambers than we like to admit.
At work we use(d) Google workspace and I dislike it hence we are heading towards MS Office as I do like editing spreadsheets in a grown up program. At home I have 5 MS machines, 1 Chromebook, and 5 Pi with Linux on them but all are headless. Depending on your job and industry things maybe different. I will say again more and more of the general population dont have a computer, just a phone or a tablet.
-
The other thing that has changed in "computers" is the number of women amongst our ranks.
I thought about this for a while, trying to track where and why they left.
Consider in the 30/40s it was 99% women as the men where fighting in WWII. In the 50/60s The "computer room" was often fronted and operated by women.
There is a very human aspect here, which starts to depart the industry. In those early days "people" brought "people" decks of paper work. Women who once where in the computing departments, typing pools became "Data entry cleks" through to "system adminstrators". The point is.... real people met real people face to face to hand over input, action the machines, hand over outputs. There was a people->people social mechanism.
We progressively "optimized" all that person->person contact out the system with automation. Eventually even the data entry, typist role disappeared. Typing became less critical a skill once you could edit before print.
Now "Hardcopy" is hardly ever seen. We try and encourage women back with incentives and "We'll change the workplace to suit you". However, women still seem to flock towards "Health Care", "Retail", "Hospitality" and the sciences of the same. They "enjoy" working with people directly.
Human types something up.... machines move it... another human reads it. This is 1% the bandwidth of "Human goes to other human and has a conversation"... even if they hand them the document and it's just "small talk", it's still dozens of times more "human bandwidth" that sending an email.
I think this bores women. I think they prefer a far more human rich environment with "social" turned up to 11. The IT world has been going the other way in the past 60 years.
For me it's the same as saying, "Women like people. Men like things".. that old trope. I am aware it's a "bell curve thing" though I think it has merit to ask?
Or am I being a sexist pig?
-
Honestly, I don't see very much progress towards the widespread use of thin clients
Are you serious? I would bet that vast majority of end users' computers (smartphones included) are actually used as thin clients that do nothing else than access online content. People rarely use anything but the web browser and maybe a couple messenger apps, which are essentially thin clients too. Yes there are cases when people need to run specialized software that don't exist in "the cloud" or can't operate like that because of bandwidth or other limitations, but I'm sure these are comparatively rare.
Yes, I'm serious, but I admit that I was thinking mostly about desktop computing rather than mobile computing. What you are describing (Web browsing, messaging) are content consumption activities and mostly take place on Android and iOS devices.
As for desktops, I think I am a fairly typical user, and I don't think I have a single app that - overtly or covertly - runs "in the cloud". Let's see:
MS Visual Studio and Delphi for Windows software development
Arduino and VisualMicro for microcontroller programming
MS Office 2019 for word processing, spreadsheets, etc
Affinity and Corel Paint Shop Pro for graphics creation and editing
Soundforge Audio Studio, Audacity and Pocket MIDI for audio creation and editing
Cyberlink Power Director for video creation and editing
Siemens Solid Edge and KICAD for CAD work
All of those run on my PC, not in the cloud.
So yes, I'm serious. Are you seriously telling me that most desktop users do all that "in the cloud"?
EDIT: I've just remembered: my email software - em Client - also runs locally. I've also just remembered that I have Messenger and WhatsApp clients on my desktop, and those will definitely be "thin", so that's two cloud apps I run.
-
Honestly, I don't see very much progress towards the widespread use of thin clients, despite the technology being largely in place for a good quarter century. I don't actually know why. Google Docs and the online versions of the MS Office suite have been around for several years now, and are mature technologies, and yet there is still an enormous market for client-side versions of MS Office, et al.
What? Are you serious? Google docs and MS office 365 are incredibly popular. If client side office isn't the minority yet it will be soon. Of course there are still tons of users of the client side office either because they need them for something or just that's what they have always done, but the online versions are hugely popular.
Yep, serious. See the list of non-server-side software I use in my post just above this one.
-
Onshape is an online only 3D cad tool founded by former solidworks executives and it works well enough for a large number of use cases. There are still performance advantages to local tools but it's not orders of magnitude.
Yes, I'm aware. I didn’t say that cloud apps don't exist, I said that the local versions are much more popular.
I totally admit that I didn't research the statistics, although I don't believe those of you who disagreed with me did either. All I'm saying is that I'm a pretty boring, conventional Windows desktop PC user, and none of my main applications (listed above) run in the cloud. As far as I know, only MS Office out of my list gives me a choice. That's why I think local applications are more popular than cloud apps.
-
Yes, I'm serious, but I admit that I was thinking mostly about desktop computing rather than mobile computing. What you are describing (Web browsing, messaging) are content consumption activities and mostly take place on Android and iOS devices.
As for desktops, I think I am a fairly typical user, and I don't think I have a single app that - overtly or covertly - runs "in the cloud". Let's see:
MS Visual Studio and Delphi for Windows software development
Arduino and VisualMicro for microcontroller programming
MS Office 2019 for word processing, spreadsheets, etc
Affinity and Corel Paint Shop Pro for graphics creation and editing
Soundforge Audio Studio, Audacity and Pocket MIDI for audio creation and editing
Cyberlink Power Director for video creation and editing
Siemens Solid Edge and KICAD for CAD work
All of those run on my PC, not in the cloud.
So yes, I'm serious. Are you seriously telling me that most desktop users do all that "in the cloud"?
I'm telling that most desktop users don't do all that at all, except maybe the office suite, which they don't need either, because it's available in the cloud.
You (and me, and many other folks here) are in the minority, that's what I'm pretty sure about.
-
People are not switching to Linux in their droves. The open source world has a problem: no standardization.
It depends. Some things are very well standardised: file formats, much more so than proprietary platforms, others not so much.
The two things I hate most about Windows are the desktop and they way updates are handled. It would be good if someone were to develop their own desktop environment for Windows, which is fully customisable and doesn't change random things when updated.
-
People are not switching to Linux in their droves. The open source world has a problem: no standardization. You can't run 3D CAD on linux, the vendors just won't risk such a fractured and fractious bunch of people to provide the thing that if it goes slightly wrong screws them and all of their customers.
Utter nonsense. Lots of software companies prove it is perfectly possible to distribute software to run on Linux. Every FPGA vendor has their tools working on Linux. And take browsers like Firefox and Chrome. That is just the tip of the iceberg. No need to compile anything. Don't confuse not knowing how to use Linux with Linux being useless in general.
-
Someone asked why the increase in linux desktops does not appear on statcounter.
Look at where they get the data.
About Statcounter GlobalStats
Statcounter Global Stats are brought to you by Statcounter - the free, online visitor stats tool.
It appears to primarily work off of "X-UserAgent" headers from browsers.
You realise that most large company InfoSec teams will have those obfuscated within the proxy right?
Additionally and far more damning. Virtually no servers have internet access or EVER use a browser.
-
Yes, I'm serious, but I admit that I was thinking mostly about desktop computing rather than mobile computing. What you are describing (Web browsing, messaging) are content consumption activities and mostly take place on Android and iOS devices.
As for desktops, I think I am a fairly typical user, and I don't think I have a single app that - overtly or covertly - runs "in the cloud". Let's see:
MS Visual Studio and Delphi for Windows software development
Arduino and VisualMicro for microcontroller programming
MS Office 2019 for word processing, spreadsheets, etc
Affinity and Corel Paint Shop Pro for graphics creation and editing
Soundforge Audio Studio, Audacity and Pocket MIDI for audio creation and editing
Cyberlink Power Director for video creation and editing
Siemens Solid Edge and KICAD for CAD work
All of those run on my PC, not in the cloud.
So yes, I'm serious. Are you seriously telling me that most desktop users do all that "in the cloud"?
I'm telling that most desktop users don't do all that at all, except maybe the office suite, which they don't need either, because it's available in the cloud.
You (and me, and many other folks here) are in the minority, that's what I'm pretty sure about.
OK, I think that's a fair point.
As I mentioned above, I think that most content consumption is done with iOS or Android, and I think that is where the thin client is king. I doubt that's true for most machines running Windows. I suspect that - in general - most Windows machines exist because the user needs to do more than just consume content. Trouble is, I don't have the stats to support my suspicion.
-
People are not switching to Linux in their droves. The open source world has a problem: no standardization. You can't run 3D CAD on linux, the vendors just won't risk such a fractured and fractious bunch of people to provide the thing that if it goes slightly wrong screws them and all of their customers.
Utter nonsense. Lots of software companies prove it is perfectly possible to distribute software to run on Linux. Every FPGA vendor has their tools working on Linux. And take browsers like Firefox and Chrome. That is just the tip of the iceberg. No need to compile anything. Don't confuse not knowing how to use Linux with Linux being useless in general.
OK, find me a professional 3D CAD program that runs on linux. Right so that is my employer out. How many electronics CAD packages are there for linux? Apart from KiCad I don't know of any and KiCad is not a professional package or at least it is not a package that a business is likely to use unless as in my case the electronics engineer (me) gets to choose. Right so that is engineering out.
Programming, of course as the software user is a programmer, yes sure Linux is a doddle.
The general public? People like to all use the same system so that they can compare notes and tell each other about how to do things and how great it is. If everyone is on a different desktop then they won't have access to the same programs.
If you just want to browse the internet and do emails then sure, by definition every phone is linux and a basic desktop machine is fine.
I don't I know anyone that uses Linux for any reason other than they actively don't like windows or are anti capitalism bla bla bla and hate microsoft. None of the general public looks at their options and goes "I think I like the Linux option better", they just want to use whatever is the easiest and supported. For Linux to take over you need a huge commercial drive, some new product that makes you use it and that is nice to use.
-
People are not switching to Linux in their droves. The open source world has a problem: no standardization. You can't run 3D CAD on linux, the vendors just won't risk such a fractured and fractious bunch of people to provide the thing that if it goes slightly wrong screws them and all of their customers.
Utter nonsense. Lots of software companies prove it is perfectly possible to distribute software to run on Linux. Every FPGA vendor has their tools working on Linux. And take browsers like Firefox and Chrome. That is just the tip of the iceberg. No need to compile anything. Don't confuse not knowing how to use Linux with Linux being useless in general.
OK, find me a professional 3D CAD program that runs on linux. Right so that is my employer out. How many electronics CAD packages are there for linux? Apart from KiCad I don't know of any and KiCad is not a professional package or at least it is not a package that a business is likely to use unless as in my case the electronics engineer (me) gets to choose. Right so that is engineering out.
Programming, of course as the software user is a programmer, yes sure Linux is a doddle.
The general public? People like to all use the same system so that they can compare notes and tell each other about how to do things and how great it is. If everyone is on a different desktop then they won't have access to the same programs.
If you just want to browse the internet and do emails then sure, by definition every phone is linux and a basic desktop machine is fine.
I don't I know anyone that uses Linux for any reason other than they actively don't like windows or are anti capitalism bla bla bla and hate microsoft. None of the general public looks at their options and goes "I think I like the Linux option better", they just want to use whatever is the easiest and supported. For Linux to take over you need a huge commercial drive, some new product that makes you use it and that is nice to use.
I completely agree until the last sentence. If Linux standardized enough so that everyone from grandma to the gum chewing high schooler could use the same programs and share help on how to print their photos and listen to their music and so on Linux could grow greatly. That is what Mandrake attempted, and the what Ubuntu set out to do. But the Linux ethos is orthogonal to standardization. So it seems unlikely to happen.
The result is that someone like me, who wants to leave Windows hasn't. Because despite an engineering and programming background I can't make a program like Lightburn work under Linux. Lightburn has a dedicated Linux version, but there is some nuance to installation, and some requirements on distro and version number that keeps it from happening. I'm sure it is possible, and if I spent enough time on the FAQs and forums I would eventually get it working. But if the barrier is too high for me, think how unscaleable it is for those with less technical background.
-
What about Mac then? Many arguments also apply for that with the exact same reasons. Plenty of people get a Mac because it is not Windows. That is all the reasons you need.
I think (relatively speaking) only few video/image editing folks are around that want to use with Apple ProRes using hardware encoders from their cameras.
Linux is a much larger niche though. And my personal gripes with it is that some people become all rosemary and can't criticize its obvious flaws. I've used Linux daily for over 10 years, and although I never had something dramatic happen, I've had to daily workaround annoying quirks and bugs which over time have ground me down..
And one of the annoying one is exactly Simon's argument. Its still has a home garage tinkering vibe to it. It may be a fairly high-spec home garage.. but the tool selection is more limited than Linux, and there is a lot of reliance on emulation or virtualization software to get 'foreign' software to work. If you tell Altium, Autodesk, Inventor you have problem running their software through Wine or Virtualbox, I guess they will shrug and tell you to just get a Windows machine. IME the ecosystem for Mac is slightly bigger, and if my tax records software crashes on Mac, I can at least call them up and don't have to jump through 100 hoops to explain why.
I know likes such as SteamOS may change the future of Linux in the coming years. I hear from plenty of gamer folks that they grow absolutely tired of spyware, nagware and AI riddled shitcan that Windows is these days. But 95% program support is not enough for people. It needs to near darn 100% for people to jump over. I think if an OS can deliver that, while also providing a consistent, stable and non-quirky experience, that it will be a no-brainer for many people.
-
The point is that no linux developer gives a toss weather or not you use their OS, they do it because it's what they do for fun.
The first thing that gets something adopted is that someone has something to gain from them doing so and spends a huge amount of money up front getting it out there. At this point success is more down to luck than how much money you throw at it, you would just be trying to sell people something they never asked for.
People are generally highly tolerant of garbage, that is why windows is garbage.
-
Plenty of people get a Mac because it is not Windows.
Every single Mac fan I know prefers the Mac because of the better usability compared to Windows, including a fully-integrated ecosystem (desktop & mobile devices, backup infrastructure, content stores). I have never heard that as an argument in favor of Linux. ;)
-
Yes, I'm serious, but I admit that I was thinking mostly about desktop computing rather than mobile computing. What you are describing (Web browsing, messaging) are content consumption activities and mostly take place on Android and iOS devices.
As for desktops, I think I am a fairly typical user, and I don't think I have a single app that - overtly or covertly - runs "in the cloud". Let's see:
You may not, which is fine. But plenty of people do.
MS Visual Studio and Delphi for Windows software development
A ton of software development is not for windows, and that has been common to use "thin clients" all along, even if that's just SSH + emacs. Windows software development itself is a decreasing niche vs web development. But VSCode has a web version. It's usually self hosted, not public cloud but still thin client, and plenty of businesses have thin client development workflows.
Arduino and VisualMicro for microcontroller programming
Arduino IDE has a cloud version. And there are arduino plugins for VSCode as well.
MS Office 2019 for word processing, spreadsheets, etc
From what statistics you can find online, Google Workspace (cloud only) has a 50% market share worldwide, vs 45% for MS. In the US google workspace is dominant in education and small business but MS Office is still more popular for the fortune 500. But that's not counting the MS Office users who primarily use the thin client versions -- the workplaces I know that use MS Office are tending to default to the web version for new users, but still have a large fraction of desktop application users. On the other hand, I would be _shocked_ if more than 5% of small businesses founded in the last 10 years primarily use the desktop versions MS office.
Affinity and Corel Paint Shop Pro for graphics creation and editing
Soundforge Audio Studio, Audacity and Pocket MIDI for audio creation and editing
Cyberlink Power Director for video creation and editing
Siemens Solid Edge and KICAD for CAD work
I don't know of any pro grade could options for these, although there are plenty of cloud based photo/graphics editors for casual use.
For mechanical CAD, again, OnShape has a very small market share -- CAD customers are mostly big established companies that have been doing this for decades and they are continuing to use the tools they have. But it's proof that a lot of things that even 10 years ago you might have said are "impossible" to do as a thin client are now possible. And OnShape is growing, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a major player in another 10 years.
So yes, I'm serious. Are you seriously telling me that most desktop users do all that "in the cloud"?
I'm saying there has been a dramatic move to thin client tools in the past 10 years and if you 'haven't seen evidence" of that, then you just aren't looking. I think many, perhaps most people still have a handful of more special purpose tools that aren't readily available as a cloud service. Plenty of people use local apps because they prefer them, or that's just the tool they were used to. But the list of "must do locally" is constantly diminishing.
-
I see more and more often people dont have a PC or even a laptop at home. The phone does most of what they want to do.
I expected this for many years to eventually happen. However I expected the manufacturers to push more into the "breakout box" thing - connect your phone to a monitor, keyboard, mouse - and have your "more than powerful enough" desktop replacement. Though technically, you could use BT and wireless mirroring nowadays, so no extra box needed.
I think Samsung had that a couple of years ago, but it flopped.
Really, only gamers and a few poweruser really do need a desktop system now.
And (other than AI and search engines) the "mainframe aspect" is not the same, as the local machines are plenty powerful by themselves and cheap, so there is no need to dumb them down.
Replacing the desktop systems for gamers and poweruser is a thing as well - with the internet being fast enough, real time hires graphics can be streamed now...
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VZJO-hOT4c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VZJO-hOT4c)
Same hardware platform. Cow 11 "wins."
-
I see more and more often people dont have a PC or even a laptop at home. The phone does most of what they want to do.
I expected this for many years to eventually happen. However I expected the manufacturers to push more into the "breakout box" thing - connect your phone to a monitor, keyboard, mouse - and have your "more than powerful enough" desktop replacement. Though technically, you could use BT and wireless mirroring nowadays, so no extra box needed.
I think Samsung had that a couple of years ago, but it flopped.
Really, only gamers and a few poweruser really do need a desktop system now.
And (other than AI and search engines) the "mainframe aspect" is not the same, as the local machines are plenty powerful by themselves and cheap, so there is no need to dumb them down.
Replacing the desktop systems for gamers and poweruser is a thing as well - with the internet being fast enough, real time hires graphics can be streamed now...
I don't like using phones because they're touch screen, I find I become frustrated very quickly because it doesn't always register my fingers properly, so I can definitely see a market for that, but I suppose it's cheaper just to buy a desktop PC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VZJO-hOT4c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VZJO-hOT4c)
Same hardware platform. Cow 11 "wins."
Did you watch the same video as I did? Windows 8.1 is the fastest and Windows 11 the slowest.
It's obviously for old hardware. There might be less of a difference on a system with more memory.
-
I see more and more often people dont have a PC or even a laptop at home. The phone does most of what they want to do.
I expected this for many years to eventually happen. However I expected the manufacturers to push more into the "breakout box" thing - connect your phone to a monitor, keyboard, mouse - and have your "more than powerful enough" desktop replacement. Though technically, you could use BT and wireless mirroring nowadays, so no extra box needed.
I think Samsung had that a couple of years ago, but it flopped.
Really, only gamers and a few poweruser really do need a desktop system now.
And (other than AI and search engines) the "mainframe aspect" is not the same, as the local machines are plenty powerful by themselves and cheap, so there is no need to dumb them down.
Replacing the desktop systems for gamers and poweruser is a thing as well - with the internet being fast enough, real time hires graphics can be streamed now...
So you can stream 2x 4k monitors ? that will be expensive. Miracast uses 25+ Mbps, so that is 50-70 Mbps for 2 monitors over the internet. It must be real time, so my mouse movements need to reach the shared server, be interpreted and then come back in 20ms over the internet to my screen having been compressed and decompressed. Don't be utterly ridiculous! This is so expensive and resource demanding. A total waste of electricity never mind the power demands of AI datacentres, the average desktop will go from a low power device to a power hungry abomination.
The hardware required to run such a remote system is basically the hardware that is used for a basic computer these days but you can use that hardware for something rather than just handling the IO that right now is done at a fraction of that overhead.
The point is that to replicate a basic to decent desktop setup will take at least what is already used in computers. Workstations are no longer a thing although they are coming back the opposite way around as the average PC is now being built to be cheaper and less capable as so much is now possible for so little that it is a novelty now to make a low power PC.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VZJO-hOT4c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VZJO-hOT4c)
Same hardware platform. Cow 11 "wins."
Did you watch the same video as I did? Windows 8.1 is the fastest and Windows 11 the slowest.
It's obviously for old hardware. There might be less of a difference on a system with more memory.
Did you notice the quotation marks in "wins"?
I have the same opinion as you.
-
I see more and more often people dont have a PC or even a laptop at home. The phone does most of what they want to do.
I expected this for many years to eventually happen. However I expected the manufacturers to push more into the "breakout box" thing - connect your phone to a monitor, keyboard, mouse - and have your "more than powerful enough" desktop replacement. Though technically, you could use BT and wireless mirroring nowadays, so no extra box needed.
I think Samsung had that a couple of years ago, but it flopped.
Really, only gamers and a few poweruser really do need a desktop system now.
And (other than AI and search engines) the "mainframe aspect" is not the same, as the local machines are plenty powerful by themselves and cheap, so there is no need to dumb them down.
Replacing the desktop systems for gamers and poweruser is a thing as well - with the internet being fast enough, real time hires graphics can be streamed now...
So you can stream 2x 4k monitors ? that will be expensive. Miracast uses 25+ Mbps, so that is 50-70 Mbps for 2 monitors over the internet. It must be real time, so my mouse movements need to reach the shared server, be interpreted and then come back in 20ms over the internet to my screen having been compressed and decompressed. Don't be utterly ridiculous! This is so expensive and resource demanding. A total waste of electricity never mind the power demands of AI datacentres, the average desktop will go from a low power device to a power hungry abomination.
70Mbps isn't a lot nowadays, but it's very doubtful that they would do that - they would merely stream the changes between frames (just like every existing video streamer does now). Mouse movement would be handled locally, and a click is probably fast enough to get upstream and cause something to happen quicker than your reactions would notice (unless you play games).
Only significant difference between the average phone and previous thin clients is the phone is smaller and faster.
-
I'm telling that most desktop users don't do all that at all, except maybe the office suite, which they don't need either, because it's available in the cloud.
You (and me, and many other folks here) are in the minority, that's what I'm pretty sure about.
I second that emotion, although I have no hard data to back that up.
But surely the mass migration--among the general population, not the narrow sliver that comprises techies and geeks like us--to non-desktop devices (phones/tablets) surely indicates the way forward. Which of course is much more cloud-based.
People like us (like me) who actually use non-cloud applications on a general-purpose computer are very much in the minority. Even among businesses, with the exception, perhaps, of the ranks of code monkeys churning out code in the back room.
Everyone else can happily (they think) subsist on thin clients and everything-in-the-cloud.
Or on a local area network. Typical example, I think, is when you go to see the doctor; all their computers in the exam rooms are the thinnest of clients, with all the applications lodged on their server--maybe--or perhaps that too is in the cloud.
-
70Mbps isn't a lot nowadays, but it's very doubtful that they would do that - they would merely stream the changes between frames (just like every existing video streamer does now). Mouse movement would be handled locally, and a click is probably fast enough to get upstream and cause something to happen quicker than your reactions would notice (unless you play games).
Only significant difference between the average phone and previous thin clients is the phone is smaller and faster.
During the pandemic I had to work from home remote controlling my work pc. It was insane, 4k was out of the question, even HD was a shit show. Long story short I ended up installing a local hooky copy of the 3D CAD software. 70 Mbps is a lot when it has to be low latency. The internet is not low latency, it may appear so when your demands are small and you are not competing with many people. Move everything out of the PC to a server and it will get very expensive to match current system performance of cheap machines. Why do it? we are talking about a complete change in how infrastructure is used and it will be heavily used to get us back to where we are.
You can buy a computer for £200 that has plenty of performance for the average user, your "terminal" will cost as much.
-
You can buy a computer for £200 that has plenty of performance for the average user, your "terminal" will cost as much.
Cost of computer isn't really relevant. It's whether we are allowed to run stuff on it that counts. With the trend towards subscription it's only a short hop to 'cloud too', so they have maximum control over your funds.
During the pandemic I had to work from home remote controlling my work pc. It was insane, 4k was out of the question, even HD was a shit show
That's because it's dealing with video. Think about X11 and, instead, sending window information. The info necessary to put up a window of some colour at a specific size and position is many, many times less than this paragraph. And once it's up it doesn't need to be constantly refreshed.
-
surely indicates the way forward. Which of course is much more cloud-based.
ok, ok...here is the thing....over the decades, present for a few of them, there is always some way "forward".
"everyone" was moving to the suburbs, everyone was buying station wagons, then minivans, then SUVs, then twin cab trucks, Porsche, Ferrari Maserati even Rols Royce have an SUV (Ugly as f**k, but it exists)...it's he way forward.
Pehaps fom most the way "forward" is not determined by some sort of compass, but which way everyone else is going.
That's where we get into trouble.
Neither on premise servers, nor remote hosted a'la rackspace, nor "cloud hosted" ie amazon/google/azure is alway a universal solution.
The big money is trying to get "everyone" to switch from something, to something else , and then to whatever the new something else wiil be.
After getting inendated with "cloud" propaganda", maybe 2-4 years ago the "new" "new-thing" was "Hybrid Cloud".
AKA, now that we got your cloud money, we'll also sell you a bunch of on-premise servers too! A Win-Win!!
For sure the only way forward is not to stick to what works, but whatever direction causes the "industry" to sell more stuff.
progress!
-
OK, find me a professional 3D CAD program that runs on linux. Right so that is my employer out.
Onshape is web based but runs fine on Linux. But you are correct that there is no "professional" 3D cad tool that runs natively on Linux.
How many electronics CAD packages are there for linux? Apart from KiCad I don't know of any and KiCad is not a professional package or at least it is not a package that a business is likely to use unless as in my case the electronics engineer (me) gets to choose. Right so that is engineering out.
So this part is completely wrong.
Cadence Allegro runs on Linux. Keysight ADS runs on Linux. HFSS and comsol both run on Linux. Sonnet EM runs on Linux. Cadence virtuoso _only_ runs on Linux.
The only pro EDA tools I know of that lack a Linux version are altium and microwave office.
-
surely indicates the way forward. Which of course is much more cloud-based.
Pehaps fom most the way "forward" is not determined by some sort of compass, but which way everyone else is going.
[snip]
For sure the only way forward is not to stick to what works, but whatever direction causes the "industry" to sell more stuff.
progress!
Look: I'm not saying that this is the "way forward" I would prefer, but you know what? Nobody asked me.
I'm saying this is (probably) the way forward for all of us schmos, like it or not.
And yes, it is due as much to herd instinct and corporate greed as anything else.
I'm just reading the handwriting on the wall.
-
The XP interface was the best.
I'm running windows 10 and a free program called "Classic shell" so my interface looks just like XP. I tried learning the new windows interface but it sucks, there is no other way to put it, it just sucks.
Windows isn't going anywhere and the majority of programs are designed to operate on windows. I thought about switching but I'm too invested in it with CAD, CFD, CNC and countless other windows based programs.
-
Windows isn't going anywhere and the majority of programs are designed to operate on windows. I thought about switching but I'm too invested in it with CAD, CFD, CNC and countless other windows based programs.
designed :-DD
No, they are tech-debt locked on Windows.
Most of them probably use .NET Framework or DirectX which is only available on Windows.
-
The way it works is that joe public determines what happens. Joe public want the cool stuff, so corporates dress up whatever will make the most money as the next best thing. Joe public not wanting to be left behind falls for the pitch. And so critical mass is achieved, whether it's any good or not. Unfortunately everything about our existence is measure by money or value or what seems to be best, the actual facts are secondary.
-
I drive a cupra born, anyone who see's it tells me how great it looks, it I tell them it's not worth the £40k it costs they will say "but it looks nice". Fact, it is inferior to a renault zoe that comes in at £30k......
-
Most of them probably use .NET Framework or DirectX which is only available on Windows.
.NET is available for Linux and Mac.
-
Most of them probably use .NET Framework or DirectX which is only available on Windows.
.NET is available for Linux and Mac.
.NET Framework is not.
There are three version, they are all called .NET.
Microsoft :-//
-
I'm wondering, how much of that video is fakenews?
If so many desktops have been migrated to Linux, why don't we see that on statcounter?
Several reasons come to mind why statcounter statistics in particular might be skewed.
It can only look at the Browsers user-agent identifier that is sent when visiting a website running the statcounter codesnippet.
There is an incentive for Linux browsers to outright *lie* in their user-agents. There are some websites that do not want to work if they recognize a linux header, but work fine with a fake header saying it's windows.
Secondly, for now i suspect that the average linux user is somewhat more intent on data privacy. Blocking third party scripts is common then. If the statcounter script is blocked, it won't see a thing.
Supposedly a similar thing happened within Windows itself. As a reason why you can't move the taskbar horizontally anymore, it was said by Microsoft, that their telemetry shows that barely anyone uses the taskbar that way. Well... *I* was using it that war and still sorely miss it, but all my Windows telemetry is blocked, and I suspect that to be the case for a large part of "power users".
-
I'm wondering, how much of that video is fakenews?
When I looked at the click-baity title and still photo and the AI-laden production with its urgent voice-over, I was wondering how much of that video is true. And after I looked at the 16 most recent videos from that Youtube channel, my guess is "not much at all".
EDIT: Proudly brought to you by Nouman Malik, "CEO - KNSAAE DIGITAL, Self-Made Millionaire at 20". KNSAAE DIGITAL, Pakistan's top YouTube Automation company. When I try to bring up their website, it redirects to a fake version of the major German public news service, with made-up scandalized content.
So, while the discussion in this thread may bring some interesting perspective -- I think it is safe to fully discount that video in the original post.
-
AI slop/fiction on the rise. In this case it should be for catching your attention to make money from ad revenue. YouTube and Co are becoming more messy. A test for your media literacy. ;)
And regarding Windows 11. Yes, it will die some day after upgrading to Windows 13. >:D
-
The XP interface was the best.
Actually I think the W7 UI was the best. 😄 To me, it feels like the pinnacle of the WIMP paradigm.
Windows isn't going anywhere and the majority of programs are designed to operate on windows. I thought about switching but I'm too invested in it with CAD, CFD, CNC and countless other windows based programs.
That's exactly where I'm at. The applications ecosystem for Linux is dire, for Windows it is great.
-
Continuing with a retail chain.
But first a small and special one.
Here locally MS is not offering hardware of any kind, but for regular stuff only net access is missing and getting one is trivial.
It changes fast if you have special needs, like static address, VPN tunnel etc, maybe also some special inhouse hardware.
Somebody must maintain all that, despite how little time is needed.
When retail chain is big enough, and its hardware needs regular enough, at some point it starts pulling hardware maintenance back in.
Its retail software is most likely tailored so far from generic product that it needs its own support folks.
But own datacenter, I'd say it's still one step ahead.
The lag or not then.
Very few environment needs a minimum lag, real time is obvious, but what is real time, what kind of thing needs a reaction time like fraction of seconds.
I'd say that any design interface that needs an instant response, or can't do it by exact numbers, is incomplete.
Internet is also not a real time environment.
Now we have a cache memory, why not drag and drop cache.
Original stationary and moving new part are local, current change has coordinates that are calculated at the server side and only drop and its new original is updated locally.
Back in the day Mac used a remote cache/swapfile.
-
OK, find me a professional 3D CAD program that runs on linux. Right so that is my employer out.
But you are correct that there is no "professional" 3D cad tool that runs natively on Linux.
I Disagree. Freecad is pretty powerfull these days and very useable as an alternative to Solidworks. I've seen people use Freecad for commercial 3D work. And then there is Blender for more artistic 3D modelling. I've also seen some impessive things from OnShape.
-
Don't know why, but, WinNT4 sp4 with a 2 cpu motherboard was the fastest most efficient OS I ever used.
Win2000pro SP3 was small and a little slower than NT4 with dual cpus. I think is was something to do with the scheduling as NT4 had a few multi-threading related bugs solved in 2000pro at the expense of speed. I rarely rebooted 2000pro if ever.
I'm pretty sure it was something to do with you being much younger and a grass green'er at that time, and very little to do with actual reality. Objectively Win 2000 was crap when it comes to security even after all those service packs, even early releases of XP were a bit of a mess until SP2 arrived, which made a lot of security improvements. Vista introduced a new driver model as well as mandatory driver signing, which defeated a whole host of security problems, Win10 overhauled a WDDM (display driver model) which allowed to recover from some driver crashes, which again improved stability.
-
One aspect there is also the second CPU.
My upgrade from single core to dual core was significantly later, running Windows XP, when AMD dual-core processors became available for socket 939.
That was the second most impactful upgrade i ever made from one pc to the next. The most impactful upgrade was switching to an SSD.
Considering how lightweight Windows NT was, i can imagine how well it must have ran on two CPUs.
I am currently looking at how to emulate NT4 Server, just to feel around in it a bit, since my professional IT carreer barely missed it and i never actually used it. But i'm curious how much NT there still is in Windows 11. There is *a lot* of Windows 2000 in Windows 11 if you look a bit deeper.
Cinsidering that i'm baffled with how little hardware the servers ran back then and how much of a hardware hog windows has become over the years.
-
I Disagree. Freecad is pretty powerfull these days and very useable as an alternative to Solidworks
But it dont follow the corporate ideal. Spend loads, own nothing.
-
OK, find me a professional 3D CAD program that runs on linux. Right so that is my employer out.
But you are correct that there is no "professional" 3D cad tool that runs natively on Linux.
I Disagree. Freecad is pretty powerfull these days and very useable as an alternative to Solidworks. I've seen people use Freecad for commercial 3D work. And then there is Blender for more artistic 3D modelling. I've also seen some impessive things from OnShape.
Well FreeCAD is powerful, but I still find it awful to use. The learning curve is atrocious. Also, importing any moderately complex .STEP model makes it ultra-slow, that's nearly unusable. I'd like to say it's on par with Solidworks, but it clearly isn't. My main use case is to work on integration of PCBs and so I use a lot of .STEP models, so clean and fast handling of these is key to me.
Blender OTOH has become pretty good. There's a learning curve as well, but it's not that bad, there are tons of clear tutorials, and the overall experience I have with it is way better than with FreeCAD.
-
nctnico
I Disagree. Freecad is pretty powerfull these days and very useable as an alternative to Solidworks.
I love freecad and have been using it for years.
Freecad and Blender are free and can do literally anything I want. I don't buy into all this online/cloud software bs. If I can't run the software on my machine offline I won't use it.
Blender is my goto software for 3D printing and CNC. Blender 3D CAM is by far the best CNC software I have seen to date and it's free.
-
I love freecad and have been using it for years.
Cool, I have a real use case question for you. So, say, I'm making a fishing lure. My current flow is: use Inkscape to draw the side profile shape, mark the drilling points etc., also manually draw the top/bottom profile shapes, then print them, cut and proceed to the woodworking fun.
Inkscape isn't too great for all this, because it requires a lot of manual operations and approximations, especially when I try to estimate the volume of the model. Its measuring capabilities are all super basic, "because Inkscape is not CAD software".
I kinda want to make my models 3-dimensional to make things easier and more predictable: calculate surface area (3d and a given cross-section), volume, measure linear sizes etc., not to mention having a proper 3d visualization.
So if I move my workflow to freecad and obviously decide to keep it simple in the beginning, i.e., create the 3d shape by "extruding" a side profile shape and then adding some chamfering on the corners, how steep and long of a learning curve may it require to arrive at that, what do you, as a long-time user, think?
I've been thinking of freecad, but never really even tried to run it (nor any other 3d modelling software actually), and now that I'm reading all these horrors about it, I'm somewhat scared.
-
And regarding Windows 11. Yes, it will die some day after upgrading to Windows 13. >:D
And in longstanding Microsoft tradition, the next major version will hopefully be a decent one again. ;)
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7
Windows 8
Windows 10
Windows 11
Windows whatever is next
Edit: Or maybe this is just the users' psychology. People never like to move away from something they have gotten used to. So MS gives them a new version which everybody agrees to hate -- only to create that shared feeling of relief when we can finally move on to the next iteration. 8)
-
Edit: Or maybe this is just the users' psychology. People never like to move away from something they have gotten used to. So MS gives them a new version which everybody agrees to hate -- only to create that shared feeling of relief when we can finally move on to the next iteration. 8)
Yup, that's exactly it. I've been hearing this for any new major version of Windows.
-
Edit: Or maybe this is just the users' psychology. People never like to move away from something they have gotten used to. So MS gives them a new version which everybody agrees to hate -- only to create that shared feeling of relief when we can finally move on to the next iteration. 8)
It's not just that. In many cases the "bad" revisions introduced major changes, and the subsequent versions fixed a lot of the complaints. Windows 2000 was the first NT based OS for consumer / desktop use, but it had a lot of compatibility problems with windows 95 code. XP improved this a ton, plus by then there was a lot more native code. Windows 8 tried to push the "metro" UI overall, and windows 10 backtracked that a lot. I think there is a legitimate point that windows vista was primarily disliked because people had gotten used to windows XP.
The only problem I really have with windows 11 over 10 is the mandatory TPM and MS sign in. Partly because it "obsoletes" perfectly good hardware but mostly because it's one more step away from actually owning your computer.
-
The only problem I really have with windows 11 over 10 is the mandatory TPM and MS sign in. Partly because it "obsoletes" perfectly good hardware but mostly because it's one more step away from actually owning your computer.
How does requirement of having TPM makes your PC less yours? That doesn't make any sense.
-
The only problem I really have with windows 11 over 10 is the mandatory TPM and MS sign in. Partly because it "obsoletes" perfectly good hardware but mostly because it's one more step away from actually owning your computer.
I agree on the forced MS account. Why would an operating system need that?! Well, to lock you into the vendor's offering and cloud service, of course...
The other thing that really annoys me is how they force Copilot down our throats. My new Thinkpad has a blessed Copilot key on the keyboard! >:D And MS have even made it impossible to assign anything but either Copilot or the Search dialog to it. So whenever I accidentally touch it instead of the neighboring AltGr, my typing gets interrupted by a popup Window. Alt Grrr...
-
Objectively Win 2000 was crap when it comes to security even after all those service packs....
I can certainly accept the truth of that, but in my experience it was pretty quick and very stable.
Well FreeCAD is powerful, but I still find it awful to use. The learning curve is atrocious.
That's exactly what I think. It is typical of open source software: it is developed by geeks, as a hobby, for fellow geeks. They have made no effort to make it beginner friendly because they don't care whether people use it or not. In general, new users are a net negative because they keep distracting the geeks with their "stupid" questions. "If only they'd RTFM!"
Edit: Or maybe this is just the users' psychology. People never like to move away from something they have gotten used to. So MS gives them a new version which everybody agrees to hate -- only to create that shared feeling of relief when we can finally move on to the next iteration. 8)
Yup, that's exactly it. I've been hearing this for any new major version of Windows.
Oh, god, I hope that's a joke.
-
Systems are now getting further away from win32 with each version (replaced by WinRT/COM). Unless they do a 180 on a decade of going in the wrong direction it can only get worse now.
-
Systems are now getting further away from win32 with each version (replaced by WinRT/COM). Unless they do a 180 on a decade of going in the wrong direction it can only get worse now.
What are the main problems you see with that shift? Provided that they don't repeat the Windows 8 attempt of a "unified, touch-centric UI for the desktop" in parallel, of course.
-
The only problem I really have with windows 11 over 10 is the mandatory TPM and MS sign in. Partly because it "obsoletes" perfectly good hardware but mostly because it's one more step away from actually owning your computer.
How does requirement of having TPM makes your PC less yours? That doesn't make any sense.
For individual end users it absolutely does.
The point of TPM is to establish a trusted boot sequence from the processor to the firmware to the OS loader to the OS to the drivers to (potentially) the applications so that each of them can refuse to run if the layer above it isn't trusted, and untrusted code can be limited in its access to the computer and the hardware. This is all fine in principle. What it does is meant that the control of the computer belongs to whoever holds the keys rather than whoever holds the computer. And for the most part, microsoft holds the keys. It's possible to create your own root of trust and build a secure boot system that you control, and large organizations can do that to make their fleet management more secure. But as an end user, it's not practical to do so.
And it doesn't really provide a lot of added security for the end user. Currently microsoft allows untrusted applications to run outside of the most privileged parts of the OS. But those "unpriviledged" parts of the OS are where literally everything I care about lives. Trusted boot can't protect my actual data against spyware or ransomware because that's all part of the untrusted application layer. It can protect against malicious firmware rootkits that persist after a OS reinstall, but you know what else can do that? Simple signed firmware update process from a USB stick that can only be done from within the EFI interface with the hardware physically in your possession, like we have had for ages. This is impractical for large companies that want to remotely administer firmware updates, but it's ideal for individual users.
The only way TPMs and trusted boot really help protect end user security is (somewhat ironically...) if it's coupled with a microsoft account. In this case, microsoft can maintain the key management infrastructure that is impractical for an individual, taking the place of your corporate IT staff. In that case you can have TPM protected full disk encryption, backups, and password/person secret stores, and you can do that because you can use your MS account for key recovery if needed. This is why it drives me crazy when people say "I don't mind the windows 11 requiring a TPM because it's good for security, but I hate the mandatory signing because it's bad for privacy" -- they work together.
-
I can certainly accept the truth of that, but in my experience it was pretty quick and very stable.
How about you install it, connect to the Internet and count seconds until some kind of worm or virus infects it?
Oh, god, I hope that's a joke.
It's not a joke. Most people are resistant to change. So much so that they will believe any BS which supports their resistance due to confirmation bias even if there is no objective basis for it.
-
I drive a cupra born, anyone who see's it tells me how great it looks, it I tell them it's not worth the £40k it costs they will say "but it looks nice". Fact, it is inferior to a renault zoe that comes in at £30k......
I was tempted by a Born or an MG EV4.
Then I got a valuation my car "2017 GT86 Pro" and discovered it still hold 50% of it's value at 7 years old. Don't make them anymore. So it's likely to hold it' valve far, far better than any 2025 electric will.
-
For individual end users it absolutely does.
No it does not because at the end of the day, you can control what's in there and even wipe it if you so please. So all control remains with the user. As for the OS, the mere fact that you run OS presumes that you trust it's vendor since it by definition has access to all your hardware and can control it. So not trusting OS vendor but still running their OS doesn't make a whole lot of sense to begin with. But even despite of that, there are various methods to control what OS can and can not do with some hardware components - like hardware encryption via password/fingerprint protection.
Another big thing is that keys stored in TPM can never leave it, so if you encrypt anything using that key, it can only be ever decrypted on the same machine, which makes stealing drives for the purposes of extracting data pointless (provided it's secured properly). I do agree that a lot of TPM features are more geared towards corporate environments, but I've long held that Windows is designed for those environments first and foremost (those who think it's designed for casuals and housewives are delusional), but all of those features are still available for home users, so dedicated enough user can take advantage of them too.
Simple signed firmware update process from a USB stick that can only be done from within the EFI interface with the hardware physically in your possession, like we have had for ages. This is impractical for large companies that want to remotely administer firmware updates, but it's ideal for individual users.
Many UEFI firmwares allow you to lock out firmware upgrades so you can do exactly that if you so please. Again, it's your hardware, so you get to decide what it's running.
-
What are the main problems you see with that shift?
It encourages maldesign. Using WinRT for high frequency calls is a giant waste of CPU cycles. It's not the only reason modern Windows UI is slow (UWP was faster than WinUI3) but it doesn't help.
https://community.devexpress.com/blogs/wpf/archive/2022/01/24/winui-3-performance-boost.aspx
-
It encourages maldesign. Using WinRT for high frequency calls is a giant waste of CPU cycles.
But isn't it such that you are not supposed to perform high-frequency calls, but rather wait for whatever event to come back? More a case of "it punishes bad design" than "it encourages"? Which, of course, is still a problem for the user of a badly designed piece of software.
-
But isn't it such that you are not supposed to perform high-frequency calls, but rather wait for whatever event to come back?
It's not I/O which is the problem, the dozens of levels of indirection take a toll no matter how many awaits get thrown in.
-
No it does not because at the end of the day, you can control what's in there and even wipe it if you so please. So all control remains with the user. As for the OS, the mere fact that you run OS presumes that you trust it's vendor since it by definition has access to all your hardware and can control it. So not trusting OS vendor but still running their OS doesn't make a whole lot of sense to begin with.
Well, part of my trust in an OS is being able to see and control what it does. And Windows 11 is reducing that further. For instance, you can't (without unsupported and undocumented hacks that will eventually be blocked) run windows 11 in a hypervisor with a soft TPM provided by the hypervisor.
It's not yet at the android/ios/ChromeOS level where only signed apps approved by the OS vendor can run, and can run and only with restricted permissions, or if an alternative is allowed it's only in a super restricted sandbox. But that's definitely the goal, and honestly that's the only thing that can actually provide the security that MS _claims_ that TPMs do.
MS also attempted but ultimately backed off of making trusted boot mandatory (not able to be disabled) for windows supporting systems -- AFAIU it's already this way on ARM but not yet x86. This makes booting any OS dependent on Microsoft signing the bootloader shim. And this bootloader shim is a major source of "security vulnerabilities" (really: secure boot bypass bugs), so it's now going to be continually in the crosshairs for increased restrictions.
-
Well, part of my trust in an OS is being able to see and control what it does. And Windows 11 is reducing that further. For instance, you can't (without unsupported and undocumented hacks that will eventually be blocked) run windows 11 in a hypervisor with a soft TPM provided by the hypervisor.
I haven't tried it myself, but I'm pretty sure you can run Win11 in a VM. That is a major testing workflow used for many different purposes - from debugging device drivers to testing upcoming updates in corporate environments before rolling them out across the company, to testing in-development software in different software and hardware environments.
It's not yet at the android/ios/ChromeOS level where only signed apps approved by the OS vendor can run, and can run and only with restricted permissions, or if an alternative is allowed it's only in a super restricted sandbox. But that's definitely the goal, and honestly that's the only thing that can actually provide the security that MS _claims_ that TPMs do.
Actually they can not do that because their primary market relies on a crap ton of custom software developed specifically for those companies, and they are not going to share with anybody because it might disclose some corporate secrets. So that can't possibly be their goal. Maybe for home edition they can get away with it, but not for their main cash cow for sure.
MS also attempted but ultimately backed off of making trusted boot mandatory (not able to be disabled) for windows supporting systems -- AFAIU it's already this way on ARM but not yet x86. This makes booting any OS dependent on Microsoft signing the bootloader shim. And this bootloader shim is a major source of "security vulnerabilities" (really: secure boot bypass bugs), so it's now going to be continually in the crosshairs for increased restrictions.
You can always add your own key and sign bootloader with it instead of using somebody else's key.
-
Well, part of my trust in an OS is being able to see and control what it does. And Windows 11 is reducing that further. For instance, you can't (without unsupported and undocumented hacks that will eventually be blocked) run windows 11 in a hypervisor with a soft TPM provided by the hypervisor.
I doubt Microsoft will ever require attestation, millions of VM's would break. Soft TPM's with UEFI firmware with pre-enrolled keys will keep working.
-
FWIW I had to modify my win11 installation image, or something along the lines (maybe some special magic during boot?), to disable the secure boot check, in order to install it in virtualbox. It works.
There have been news since that it was no longer possible to disable secure boot, I haven't checked that.
-
I can certainly accept the truth of that, but in my experience it was pretty quick and very stable.
How about you install it, connect to the Internet and count seconds until some kind of worm or virus infects it?
You're applying 2026 knowledge and experience to a 1999 product, and then picking the worst possible case to justify your fearmongering.
Back when W2K was around things were very, very different to what they are now. You wouldn't point to Y2K Internet Explorer and then postulate that it's really very crap to browse random websites now. Or maybe you would, because you don't see how silly that comparison is. At least it wasn't an Apple machine, which got infected just by being powered on, seemingly :)
-
You're applying 2026 knowledge and experience to a 1999 product, and then picking the worst possible case to justify your fearmongering.
Back when W2K was around things were very, very different to what they are now. You wouldn't point to Y2K Internet Explorer and then postulate that it's really very crap to browse random websites now. Or maybe you would, because you don't see how silly that comparison is. At least it wasn't an Apple machine, which got infected just by being powered on, seemingly :)
Well people are saying that this 1999 year product is better than a modern one, so I offered a way to check if that's the case. Since there were no Win11 in 1999, the only way to check that is in today's environment.
-
I can certainly accept the truth of that, but in my experience it was pretty quick and very stable.
How about you install it, connect to the Internet and count seconds until some kind of worm or virus infects it?
I guess I'd be waiting a long time behind my router with NAT?
-
I can certainly accept the truth of that, but in my experience it was pretty quick and very stable.
How about you install it, connect to the Internet and count seconds until some kind of worm or virus infects it?
I guess I'd be waiting a long time behind my router with NAT?
Indefinitely... Unless you have an internet provider which is foolish enough to encourage their customers to have their PCs connected to internet directly. There should be a law against such practises.
-
You're applying 2026 knowledge and experience to a 1999 product, and then picking the worst possible case to justify your fearmongering.
Back when W2K was around things were very, very different to what they are now. You wouldn't point to Y2K Internet Explorer and then postulate that it's really very crap to browse random websites now. Or maybe you would, because you don't see how silly that comparison is. At least it wasn't an Apple machine, which got infected just by being powered on, seemingly :)
Well people are saying that this 1999 year product is better than a modern one, so I offered a way to check if that's the case. Since there were no Win11 in 1999, the only way to check that is in today's environment.
If nothing else, it took up a hell of a lot less disk space! The one I have running is <800MB. Until last year, when the PC running it died, I had W2K controlling my mill primarily because the timer interrupt was super-smooth compared to later Windows.
So, for the time, yes, it was pretty damn good and in some respects it is indeed 'better' than W11. Depends on how you want to measure stuff.
-
Oh, god, I hope that's a joke.
It's not a joke. Most people are resistant to change. So much so that they will believe any BS which supports their resistance due to confirmation bias even if there is no objective basis for it.
I was referring to the suggestion that Microsoft deliberately releases crap versions of Windows alternately, in order to drum up demand for the next version. It's obviously ridiculous, therefore a joke. Right?
-
Well people are saying that this 1999 year product is better than a modern one, so I offered a way to check if that's the case. Since there were no Win11 in 1999, the only way to check that is in today's environment.
What? Who said that? And anyway, how do you define "better"?
-
I can certainly accept the truth of that, but in my experience it was pretty quick and very stable.
How about you install it, connect to the Internet and count seconds until some kind of worm or virus infects it?
I guess I'd be waiting a long time behind my router with NAT?
Indefinitely... Unless you have an internet provider which is foolish enough to encourage their customers to have their PCs connected to internet directly. There should be a law against such practises.
You're not wrong.
I think that it's an interesting subject. Prior to NAT, all computers were connected to the Internet. With IPv6, all computers can again be directly addressable on the Internet without NAT.
My ISP provides me with a /56 block of IPv6 addresses for my home use. I still use a firewall, of course, but no NAT is required.
An IPv6 /56 is 2^72 addresses vs all of IPv4 space being 2^32 addresses. The IPv6 /56 offers me 256 /64 blocks, which are the smallest you can properly mask per the standards. That's still more than enough to directly map all of the IPv4 space into a single block, with plenty of room left over.
What may surprise folks is that most computers today are connected directly to the internet via IPv6 and IPv6-to-IPv4 NAT GWs, and we carry them in our pockets and on our wrists. Carriers manage their mobile networks "differently" from typical ISP networks.
Windows NT and 98 both supported IPv6. Though not at the level of support it is today on hosts. The auto-addressing scheme came later, and there's more than one.
-
I love freecad and have been using it for years.
Cool, I have a real use case question for you. So, say, I'm making a fishing lure. My current flow is: use Inkscape to draw the side profile shape, mark the drilling points etc., also manually draw the top/bottom profile shapes, then print them, cut and proceed to the woodworking fun.
Inkscape isn't too great for all this, because it requires a lot of manual operations and approximations, especially when I try to estimate the volume of the model. Its measuring capabilities are all super basic, "because Inkscape is not CAD software".
I kinda want to make my models 3-dimensional to make things easier and more predictable: calculate surface area (3d and a given cross-section), volume, measure linear sizes etc., not to mention having a proper 3d visualization.
So if I move my workflow to freecad and obviously decide to keep it simple in the beginning, i.e., create the 3d shape by "extruding" a side profile shape and then adding some chamfering on the corners, how steep and long of a learning curve may it require to arrive at that, what do you, as a long-time user, think?
I've been thinking of freecad, but never really even tried to run it (nor any other 3d modelling software actually), and now that I'm reading all these horrors about it, I'm somewhat scared.
Whenever I want to design something in Freecad I usually look for video's on the subject. Google freecad fishing lures like this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taTp4EIr2lA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taTp4EIr2lA)
Make your first fishing lure in FreeCAD
I follow along and go through the steps then make a few notes on the tools used and process. Once we understand the basic process then it's much easier to start playing around and modifying things. I think it's much easier and faster to learn by example.
I use Freecad for most basic 3D parts but use Blender whenever there are more complex curves.
-
I was referring to the suggestion that Microsoft deliberately releases crap versions of Windows alternately, in order to drum up demand for the next version. It's obviously ridiculous, therefore a joke. Right?
It's a similar joke/meme to "this year is the year of desktop linux". It is a joke but a carefully crafted joke enough that some people take it seriously.
Once one gets into the mode of confirmation biases, they can easily find some proof. Obviously with each new version of any software, new bugs get introduced. And, with each new version, some old bugs get fixed. Similarly, new features usually do not work perfectly when they are first introduced, but get better on the next release.
Select suitable set of bugs/features and you can easily see how "good" and "bad" versions alternate, on any software.
-
I was referring to the suggestion that Microsoft deliberately releases crap versions of Windows alternately, in order to drum up demand for the next version. It's obviously ridiculous, therefore a joke. Right?
I have a feeling you have not been around very long. If you delve into the history of Windows, you can easely spot an alternating pattern where Windows versions where bad / good. I doubt it is on purpose though. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
-
I was referring to the suggestion that Microsoft deliberately releases crap versions of Windows alternately, in order to drum up demand for the next version. It's obviously ridiculous, therefore a joke. Right?
I have a feeling you have not been around very long. If you delve into the history of Windows, you can easely spot an alternating pattern where Windows versions where bad / good. I doubt it is on purpose though. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
I listed those Windows versions a few posts above (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/windows-11-is-dying/msg6158781/#msg6158781), and made the (tongue-in-cheek) suggestion that the alternating pattern might be somewhat deliberate. That's what prompted Steve's comment.
To clarify: I do not think it is deliberate. But I do think there is a mix of bad Microsoft design decisions and user psychology at play:
When Microsoft has made major changes to Windows (often in the area of new UI "paradigms"), their first attempts have tended to be objectively poor, and they fixed this in the next revision -- with tweaks and sometimes significant back-pedaling. At the same time, users were alienated by the changes in the original release, then to some extent got used to them and accepted them in the next release.
-
I was referring to the suggestion that Microsoft deliberately releases crap versions of Windows alternately, in order to drum up demand for the next version. It's obviously ridiculous, therefore a joke. Right?
I have a feeling you have not been around very long.
Goodness me, how I wish that were true! 😅
However, as someone who didn't get into Windows until Version 3.1, I accept I am a baby compared with you. I do claim one good decision, though: I switched to NT as soon as NT4 was released, and never went back to the original code base after that. I have used every NT version of Windows since. In fact I am one of the few people on the planet who actually liked W8, but only on a touch-based device.
Having lived with Windows since 3.1, I am intimately familiar with it, and of course I recognise the claim that every alternate version is crap. I think there is something in it, although a lot depends on what your usage criteria are - crap for one person might be just fine for another.
But where I dig my heels in is the claim that this is all part of a big conspiracy by Microsoft. To deliberately release crap software in order to encourage the adoption of the next release. It's beyond ridiculous, and anyone who really believes that probably wears a tin foil hat.
-
I know it's anecdotal but I started a new job this week.
I have, so far, got two MacBook Pro's a 14" and a 16". No Windows 11 in sight. (Two because "Company + Customer" laptops)
-
When Microsoft has made major changes to Windows (often in the area of new UI "paradigms"), their first attempts have tended to be objectively poor, and they fixed this in the next revision -- with tweaks and sometimes significant back-pedaling. At the same time, users were alienated by the changes in the original release, then to some extent got used to them and accepted them in the next release.
I think this is the most credible explanation by far. In general, it takes a couple of versions - maybe more - for Microsoft to polish their latest marvellous idea.
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7
Windows 8
Windows 10
Windows 11
Windows whatever is next
In terms of this list, there are a couple of things I disagree with. I don't think W2000 should have a line through it. It was very good in its own right and a solid step forward from NT4. XP was a further solid step. So I think there's a run of three non-crap versions in the list: NT4, W2K, XP.
Also - and this is controversial - I think the line through V8 should be dotted. It was very awkward for mouse/keyboard users, but excellent for touch UI users. I loved using it on my Sony Vaio 2-in-1 - it was innovative and modern and suddenly made its competitors look distinctly "ordinary".
Finally, I think V8.1 warrants a place on the list, it being a very significant change from V8. Should there be a line through it? Well, only a dotted one. Again it was very good for touch UI users.
Right now everybody is singing the praises of W10. But not me. I think it might warrant a strikethrough for its awful, bodged together, half-touch half-mouse/keyboard UI. Making every dialog twice (or more) as big as it was in W7 is no use for mouse users, and leaving a load of old UI elements in there, carried forward from the XP days, is no use for touch users.
So no, W10 isn't one of the great releases. In my opinion, the best ever mouse/keyboard UI was in Windows 7, and the best ever touch UI was in Windows 8.
Windows 8.1 was a half-baked merging of W7 and W8, and Windows 10 was a two-thirds-baked merging of W7 and W8.
-----
EDIT: To be fair, I acknowledge that each release improved on security. My comments are aimed at usability.
-
I have, so far, got two MacBook Pro's a 14" and a 16". No Windows 11 in sight.
I have several times been tempted to go Apple to deal with W10+, but it's the cost and walled garden that's the sticking point. And global menu. Thankfully they've moved on from the single-button mouse.
-
Windows 3.1 and before: small gradual improvements
Windows 95: Large fundamental changes, some hated it, some loved it
Windows 98: Small gradual fixes over Windows 95.
So now is 95 a "bad" and 98 a "good" Windows? Some could say so, but I don't think so (especially if by 95 we mean the fixed version, not the initial release)
(Windows NT, a separate parallel product line. Considered that of better design by pretty much everyone, but not considered a general-purpose option, and does not fit into the linear history timescale as such.)
Then after the many versions of 98, Windows 2000. Large fundamental changes, but because those were already tested on NT, was fairly stable and usable, so generally a real improvement. This is definitely a "good" Windows, most would agree I guess?
Then Windows XP. Small gradual improvements over Windows 2000. Saw some hate for reasons unclear in retrospect, really. Then again wasn't really game-changing either. But this coincides with the proliferation of home computers - I mean the period in history where "all those normies who still didn't have a computer" finally got one, and for them Windows XP is their first OS. So around 2001-2008, just before smartphones, was era in history where home computers were more relevant than ever. And Windows XP also was one of the longest-in-use operating system. People really ended up liking it.
So what, do we have TWO good Windows (2000 and XP) after each other? Wasn't they supposed to alternate?
Then Vista, nearly everyone agrees it was crap, everyone hated it. Brought in some breaking new changes and new fundamental ideas which people did not like. This is clearly a bad Windows, and most would agree.
Then Windows 7, which is undoubtedly an improvement over Vista, but IMHO only because Vista clearly sucked. It's the case of introducing new ideas and failing to make people like them on the first try (Vista), but then being able to polish them on the second try (7). Maybe 7 was a sweet spot to some as it still resembled a classic operating system and not a thin client for MS cloud services, I don't know. I was not able to like it and saw too many problems to use it as a daily driver and migrated completely my desktop use to linux in 2014-2015 or so, when Windows XP had been end-of-support for many years already.
But clearly, consensus is that Windows 7 is a "good" Windows.
And then, finally, for all the rest, it seems no one likes any OS Microsoft manages to produce anymore; people are getting more honest about the motivation, they use Windows to run Windows software because it works well enough. There are occasional strong feelings of dislike to Microsoft's practices even among Windows users but it seems this is now regardless of version, same complaints with 10 and 11.
So really, to summary, I can only see the alternating pattern of "good and bad" XP (good) -> Vista (bad) -> 7 (good) -> 8 (bad), and even that is pretty questionable and depends who you ask. The more you look into either history, or more recent versions, the more the theory of altering good and bad versions falls apart, IMHO.
-
I have, so far, got two MacBook Pro's a 14" and a 16". No Windows 11 in sight.
I have several times been tempted to go Apple to deal with W10+, but it's the cost and walled garden that's the sticking point. And global menu. Thankfully they've moved on from the single-button mouse.
Absolutely. Apple got it wrong with the single-button mouse, but stuck to it for years because, as far as Apple is concerned, they never make mistakes and their competitors never do something better.
One area where Windows has wiped the floor with MacOS for years is in windows management. Attaching windows to the sides of the monitor, arranging them in tiles or other layouts.... Apple have only recently started to catch up.
-
But clearly, consensus is that Windows 7 is a "good" Windows.
For me, yes, absolutely.
I consider W7 to be the very pinnacle of the old WIMP UI paradigm (windows, icons, menus, pointer), after years of fine tuning and polishing. If you like that type of UI (I do), then I don't think W7 has ever been surpassed.
Unfortunately for me, later versions of Windows have varying amounts of touch-based UI folded in, which I very much dislike when using my mouse/keyboard workstation. And much to my dismay, even Linux has started along that path! At least, Mint has.
Now, instead of checkboxes and radio buttons, my favourite Linux has adopted those large blue slider switches. Now look, they were designed for poking with a finger, not clicking with a mouse! I wish Mint would stick to the pure WIMP UI and release a separate version for touch-based devices. That is exactly what Apple did.
-
Windows 3.1 and before: small gradual improvements
Windows 95: Large fundamental changes, some hated it, some loved it
Windows 98: Small gradual fixes over Windows 95.
So now is 95 a "bad" and 98 a "good" Windows? Some could say so, but I don't think so (especially if by 95 we mean the fixed version, not the initial release)
Agree; the "every other version is good" (for most users) did not apply to the original, DOS-based Windows versions.
Windows 1 and 2 were clearly work in progress; some might say the same for 3.0. I think there's a consensus that 3.1 was the first solid version that gained massive traction, and 3.11 brought some improvements in networking ("for workgroups"). The successor, Windows 95, was pretty good in my view, and as far as I remember was well-received in the market -- despite the comprehensive technical changes (16/32 bits!) and UI changes. I don't have any recollection of Windows 98: All home users I recall staid on 95, and professional use I was involved with switched from 3.11 straight to NT.
So you might argue that Windows 95 was the one and only instance where Microsoft got major changes to the OS right first time. ;)
-
Windows 3.1 and before: small gradual improvements
Windows 95: Large fundamental changes, some hated it, some loved it
Windows 98: Small gradual fixes over Windows 95.
Windows Me ;D
Then after the many versions of 98, Windows 2000. Large fundamental changes, but because those were already tested on NT, was fairly stable and usable, so generally a real improvement. This is definitely a "good" Windows, most would agree I guess?
Yep, Windows 2000 was great for business applications, i.e. swift and stable.
-
So you might argue that Windows 95 was the one and only instance where Microsoft got major changes to the OS right first time. ;)
Maybe some rose-tinting in your glasses here... Remember how Windows 95 was quite late from the promised release date and when finally released, people were pretty angry with all sort of issues and missing features (like a web browser people were expecting to see), until later service releases fixed that. When we talk about Windows 95, we really remember Windows 95 OSR2 from late 1996, 1.5 years later than the original planned release date of Windows 95. So maybe not right the first time.
I consider W7 to be the very pinnacle of the old WIMP UI paradigm (windows, icons, menus, pointer), after years of fine tuning and polishing. If you like that type of UI (I do), then I don't think W7 has ever been surpassed.
I never saw how it was any better than Windows XP, really. It did the job. Then again, now I'm more than happy with xfce, which is also quite primitive.
-
Windows Me ;D
Just one of too many in the 98 series. As I said, there was nothing special in 98 to begin with; just small gradual, irrelevantly small changes to 95. And not only that, they branded it as three "different" "major" releases, 98, 98SE and 98ME within very short timeframe.
But that was also the time where normies were buying a lot of home computers, so with a massive sales volume you can have a "newly" branded product every year. Soon after the release of XP that development tapered off.
-
So you might argue that Windows 95 was the one and only instance where Microsoft got major changes to the OS right first time. ;)
Maybe some rose-tinting in your glasses here...
It was great, since it came with Edie Brickell! ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okt9GcWiWmE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okt9GcWiWmE)
-
I never saw how <Windows 7> was any better than Windows XP, really. It did the job.
W7 was a big step on from XP (two steps, via Vista, of course). There was a tremendous amount of polishing in the kernel, behind the scenes. Improved handling of large amounts of RAM, faster thread scheduling. Probably the biggest change for users was UAC (introduced in Vista, I think?) - the equivalent of which Linux had had for years. Users didn't like it, so sadly it was dialled down in later versions. Also, dont forget Aero (introduced with Vista), which many people (including me) think has never been improved upon. Oh, and the ability to pin programs to the task bar. Also, better memory protection and driver isolation.
Proper SSD support: W7 was a serious step forward over XP for SSDs, including TRIM support.
XP didn't have Windows Defender (the "better than nothing but only just" anti-virus), and compared with XP, W7 was significantly hardened against malware in most forms.
I also liked the "Libraries" concept in the W7 filing system, plus the clever ability to have Library entries for search results, which automatically update their contents. This was, apparently, a step too far for most users because it has largely been ignored since.
Windows 7 introduced Aero Snap - the first step towards the excellent windows management that left MacOS years behind.
In fact, it's a lot easier just to read the this Wikipedia article: 😅
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7)
So yes, Windows 7 was BIG, and in my view very much better than XP.
EDIT:
Two more things, which probably seem trivial: the default sound theme in XP was ATROCIOUS! Do you remember the giggling children and the other patronising sounds? Secondly, the default colour scheme which always reminded me of a bag of sweets. And do you remember how XP put "My" in front of everything? "My Computer", "My Documents". FFS! W7 felt much more "grown up" than XP.
-
And I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I don't think there will be a significant move to Linux on the desktop until the big commercial players port their applications to Linux. The existing Linux desktop applications are just not good enough.
Well I think that's a very personal matter that depends on a)what you need to do; b)laziness
I personally use almost exclusively Linux since about 2002. Found that i can do all I want to do. Things like FreeCAD made me pulling my hairs more than once, but, hey, with use comes learning, At the end of the day, it's enough to do what I need it to do, including things like FEM that are not available on windows offers, at least for free. By using Debian, I get easy, hassle free access to rare and quite fine apps like a virtual wind tunnel from a MIT professor, a fine, free GIS which isn't emasculated, or a mapping app for caving that is able to redraw the contours of a cave when a polygonal is corrected (which saves A LOT of work). Installs are really easy, apt does install any dependencies for me, and I never had any antivirus making my system slow. So, if you are happy with what windows gives to you, fine. It just isn't enough for me.
I have friends that used to have windows for just email, Internet and spreadsheets. Problem was, they were guys and, so, they liked to look at some boobs every now and then; after that, they usually called asking for help because their PC got syphilis, gonorrhea and AIDS. They were scared to have linux because of substituting libreoffice calc for excel. Most of them rapidly saw it was the same since hey didn't use any macros. An easy migration and now they don't need windows, which a) allows them to watch boobs recklessly, and b) allows them to use old hardware. One of these friends still uses one of the first dual core AMD athlons, which I got for him, for free because it was already "too old" in about 2015 IIRC. So, if you like to be bothered by all sorts of viruses, have your PC slow because of the antivirus, and have pockets deep enough to upgrade your hardware each time microsoft thinks it's time to milk the cow again, fine. I just don't like that, so took another road.
On the other hand I have seen a low-ranking local female officer ranting at tech staff because what was Ctrl-P on Excel became Ctrl-V in Calc, and that was obviously unacceptable. Well, laziness is still a personal matter.
I think privative business model has more to do with slow Linux adoption on the desktop. You can't do any serious paid, professional printing work without Pantone codes, and they will probably never get into Linux, because Pantone is privative, unless Pantone gets interested in having it working under linux. No one is going to do it for free. Pantone privative business model was already a thing in the 90s. So far this has not changed. Better get a Mac for that.
Of course, you don't want to waste all the work you did to learn to use the apps you "need". I can understand that. But I'm glad I took the work to learn how to do useful work with apps that are really worse, but allow me to use an OS that is free, runs faster, safer and easier, can use much older hardware, doesn't compel me to signing into any vendor account, and doesn't spy on me.
-
And I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I don't think there will be a significant move to Linux on the desktop until the big commercial players port their applications to Linux. The existing Linux desktop applications are just not good enough.
Well I think that's a very personal matter that depends on a)what you need to do; b)laziness
I personally use almost exclusively Linux since about 2002. Found that i can do all I want to do. Things like FreeCAD made me pulling my hairs more than once, but, hey, with use comes learning, At the end of the day, it's enough to do what I need it to do, including things like FEM that are not available on windows offers, at least for free. By using Debian, I get easy, hassle free access to rare and quite fine apps like a virtual wind tunnel from a MIT professor, a fine, free GIS which isn't emasculated, or a mapping app for caving that is able to redraw the contours of a cave when a polygonal is corrected (which saves A LOT of work). Installs are really easy, apt does install any dependencies for me, and I never had any antivirus making my system slow. So, if you are happy with what windows gives to you, fine. It just isn't enough for me.
I've said up there ^^^ somewhere that I like Linux Mint as an OS, but I don't like the applications because they look and feel like they were developed and are maintained by geeks for geeks. Which they were, and are. I haven't tried looking in the Windows ecosystem for the specialised applications you describe, although my experience is that if you can imagine it there will be a Windows application that does it. I accept there may be some rare exceptions. 😊
I also totally accept that my assessment of the Linux app ecosystem is totally subjective. What's important to me might not be for anyone else. Having said that, I think there is a fair degree of consensus about Linux apps being a bit old-fashioned, a bit geeky, with some pretty steep learning curves.
-
I've said up there ^^^ somewhere that I like Linux Mint as an OS, but I don't like the applications because they look and feel like they were developed and are maintained by geeks for geeks. Which they were, and are. I haven't tried looking in the Windows ecosystem for the specialised applications you describe, although my experience is that if you can imagine it there will be a Windows application that does it. I accept there may be some rare exceptions. 😊
I also totally accept that my assessment of the Linux app ecosystem is totally subjective. What's important to me might not be for anyone else. Having said that, I think there is a fair degree of consensus about Linux apps being a bit old-fashioned, a bit geeky, with some pretty steep learning curves.
Well, I don't think apps like Firefox or libreoffice look like made by geeks for geeks. For that matter, almost all the apps that get into the PC on a default Linux install look very much the same than windows counterparts. It's only on the specialized apps where that difference is visible. I wonder how much people has a CAD app versus how many have an office suite and a browser.
I do care for a well developed app with an intuitive use a good GUI; but to me what really matters is: can it do the work I need? I'm willing to trade many things for the ability to escape from windows, as you can see. I think it's well worth the hassle. YMMV.
-
I do care for a well developed app with an intuitive use a good GUI;
But then you contradict yourself:
but to me what really matters is: can it do the work I need? I'm willing to trade many things for the ability to escape from windows, as you can see. I think it's well worth the hassle. YMMV.
So you admitted that you're so heavily biased against Windows that you are ready to accept objectively poor user experience if it means not having to use Windows. There is a name for that behavior, and we all know it.
-
I have, so far, got two MacBook Pro's a 14" and a 16". No Windows 11 in sight.
I have several times been tempted to go Apple to deal with W10+, but it's the cost and walled garden that's the sticking point. And global menu. Thankfully they've moved on from the single-button mouse.
Absolutely. Apple got it wrong with the single-button mouse, but stuck to it for years because, as far as Apple is concerned, they never make mistakes and their competitors never do something better.
One area where Windows has wiped the floor with MacOS for years is in windows management. Attaching windows to the sides of the monitor, arranging them in tiles or other layouts.... Apple have only recently started to catch up.
... and Windows took that back from KDE where it appeared first for a few years. (window snapping). You will find a lot of Windows features get back ported from improvements that KDE make in their "Windows like" UI.
-
and Windows took that back from KDE where it appeared first for a few years. (window snapping).
has windows got an "always on top " option yet?
-
So you admitted that you're so heavily biased against Windows that you are ready to accept objectively poor user experience if it means not having to use Windows. There is a name for that behavior, and we all know it.
Having to use windows is the worst user experience. Moreover, we are talking about specialized apps right now. Ask my boob-watching friends. They want a system that "just works" They can now watch boobs and to do their invoices in Calc, on machines that any windows user would consider "really obsolete". Without needing to call asking for help. For years. Not to mention microsoft accounts, AI, spyware, etc, etc, that they don't need nor want. Without having to buy new hardware when MS feels any itching in their balls.
I'm not biased against windows. I'm biased against privative software. I began in 1990 on MacOS because i was working at a newspaper. Photoshop was a MacOS back then. But, in 1998 I needed GIS software and nothing available, neither on Windows and even less on MacOS, even under student licenses, even still expensive, was nowhere near what we needed. But we could do it, using GRASS GIS for free. Yeah, it was Linux-only back then. Yeah, it was geeky. But it was the only software that allowed us to have areas of about 300 sq kilometers studied in any way, shape or form we needed. I will say it again: for free. No way we could pay the fortune they were asking for a full fledged version of ESRI or something like that. So, the benefit in migrating to Linux was obvious.
-
Having to use windows is the worst user experience. Moreover, we are talking about specialized apps right now. Ask my boob-watching friends. They want a system that "just works" They can now watch boobs and to do their invoices in Calc, on machines that any windows user would consider "really obsolete". Without needing to call asking for help. For years. Not to mention microsoft accounts, AI, spyware, etc, etc, that they don't need nor want. Without having to buy new hardware when MS feels any itching in their balls.
Lol here we have a typical staple of fanatics. Literally none of those things are true, yet you continue to parrot them like headless chicken :palm: Oh, and "Linux desktop" and "just works" do not belong in a single sentence. It requires quite a bit of maintenance as updates regularly break something (leading contenders in my experience are WiFi/BT cards - I had to fix their drivers after every update because some kind of firmware which is required for them to run get removed after update for some reason). And don't get me started on version upgrades - they are a disaster, still in this day and age. While my install of Windows dates back to 8.1 days, first being upgraded to Win10 and then recently to Win11. All while having changed a complete system once (from x99 Intel to AM4 AMD) and many less radical upgrades. Show the the Linux install which will survive such transplantation without requiring extensive manual fixing or outright reinstallation.
I run both Windows and Linux on two separate PCs as I need them both for work, so I know first hand what it takes to maintain them both over many years. And Linux has been much more maintenance-intensive than Windows. And that despite it running on "Linux-friendly" all-AMD SoC, so none of that NVidia drivers shenanigans which are known to be a big pain in the butt.
I'm not biased against windows.
Yes you are. And not only that, you are very behind regarding what modern Windows actually is.
-
Without needing to call asking for help. For years.
Unless they want newfangled stuff like hibernation (suspend to disk). Or speakers in their laptops which don't sound like a phone landline. Or maybe they want a calendar which can be accessed from multiple devices. Then they will need help.
All of that is possible with Linux, no doubt. But don't expect a plain "user" to figure it out.
-
Lol here we have a typical staple of fanatics. Literally none of those things are true, yet you continue to parrot them like headless chicken :palm: Oh, and "Linux desktop" and "just works" do not belong in a single sentence. It requires quite a bit of maintenance as updates regularly break something (leading contenders in my experience are WiFi/BT cards - I had to fix their drivers after every update because some kind of firmware which is required for them to run get removed after update for some reason). And don't get me started on version upgrades - they are a disaster, still in this day and age. While my install of Windows dates back to 8.1 days, first being upgraded to Win10 and then recently to Win11. All while having changed a complete system once (from x99 Intel to AM4 AMD) and many less radical upgrades. Show the the Linux install which will survive such transplantation without requiring extensive manual fixing or outright reinstallation.
I run both Windows and Linux on two separate PCs as I need them both for work, so I know first hand what it takes to maintain them both over many years. And Linux has been much more maintenance-intensive than Windows. And that despite it running on "Linux-friendly" all-AMD SoC, so none of that NVidia drivers shenanigans which are known to be a big pain in the butt.
I'm not biased against windows.
Yes you are. And not only that, you are very behind regarding what modern Windows actually is.
Well I feel you are somewhat offensive. I understand it; your beloved windows is getting trashed, and you feel the need to fight that. But I have nothing to earn by entering into any arguments here. I will just observe that a) you seem to have more problems than my absolutely-non-tech friends have, and b) windows user experience gets worse and worsewith each new version, as demonstrated by this thread existence. No amount of copium will change that.
Have a nice day
-
Then after the many versions of 98, Windows 2000. Large fundamental changes, but because those were already tested on NT, was fairly stable and usable, so generally a real improvement. This is definitely a "good" Windows, most would agree I guess?
Then Windows XP. Small gradual improvements over Windows 2000. Saw some hate for reasons unclear in retrospect, really. Then again wasn't really game-changing either. But this coincides with the proliferation of home computers - I mean the period in history where "all those normies who still didn't have a computer" finally got one, and for them Windows XP is their first OS. So around 2001-2008, just before smartphones, was era in history where home computers were more relevant than ever. And Windows XP also was one of the longest-in-use operating system. People really ended up liking it.
So what, do we have TWO good Windows (2000 and XP) after each other? Wasn't they supposed to alternate?
I think Windows 2000 counts as "bad." It's an odd one -- It was originally promised as the OS to unify the home and business operating systems. But while it replaced Win9x on corporate desktops, it ended up not being suitable for home use so that had to wait for XP. It added DirectX, but still had massive compatibility issues with win9x/DOS, and poor gaming compatibility in general when games which were still *the* killer app for home computers as internet access was still uncommon. So MS had to abandon it as a home OS and keep upgrading win98 and release winME. It was super stable as a corporate desktop replacement for Win98, so in that sense it was good, but in the "alternating versions" theory, either Win2000 was a "bad" OS, or it wasn't in the lineup at all, and WinME was the bad one.
It also did have a lot of rough spots for end users who did adopt it. It introduced non-tech users to mandatory sign-ins with permissions checks to people who hadn't ever seen their own computer say "permission denied" before. It introduced a new filesystem (NTFS) to end users which they had to worry about compatiblity, especially with removable media and external drives.
-
Well I feel you are somewhat offensive. I understand it; your beloved windows is getting trashed, and you feel the need to fight that. But I have nothing to earn by entering into any arguments here. I will just observe that a) you seem to have more problems than my absolutely-non-tech friends have, and b) windows user experience gets worse and worsewith each new version, as demonstrated by this thread existence. No amount of copium will change that.
Have a nice day
Lol when lies didn't work, you move on to condescension. Did that playbook ever changed? :palm: And don't think I didn't notice lack of any substance in your response.
I don't "fight" for anything, and Windows is far from being my "beloved". But objective reality is what it is. Oh, and user experience has never been better in Windows, I have next to no issues to it when it comes to experience, all my gripes with it are of technical nature. But when it comes to day-to-day usage, modern Windows is the best with nothing else being even close. Linux is useable for my purposes (FPGA design, firmware/software development), infact Vivado/Vitis tend to work better in Linux as they were clearly designed for it first and foremost, but Linux requires ongoing maintenance, which is kind of annoying. I wish Linux would be closer to being maintenance-free, when you just press a button and in updates everything automagically - like it tends to work in Windows, yet like I said, in my experience updates still break things from time to time, while the last time I had a windows update cause any issues was many years ago - and even that one was a specific incompatibility with some of my hardware's driver. I rolled it back immediately, and the problem disappeared. That problem was later fixed with a driver update.
-
Then after the many versions of 98, Windows 2000. Large fundamental changes, but because those were already tested on NT, was fairly stable and usable, so generally a real improvement. This is definitely a "good" Windows, most would agree I guess?
Then Windows XP. Small gradual improvements over Windows 2000. Saw some hate for reasons unclear in retrospect, really. Then again wasn't really game-changing either. But this coincides with the proliferation of home computers - I mean the period in history where "all those normies who still didn't have a computer" finally got one, and for them Windows XP is their first OS. So around 2001-2008, just before smartphones, was era in history where home computers were more relevant than ever. And Windows XP also was one of the longest-in-use operating system. People really ended up liking it.
So what, do we have TWO good Windows (2000 and XP) after each other? Wasn't they supposed to alternate?
I think Windows 2000 counts as "bad." It's an odd one -- It was originally promised as the OS to unify the home and business operating systems. But while it replaced Win9x on corporate desktops, it ended up not being suitable for home use so that had to wait for XP. It added DirectX, but still had massive compatibility issues with win9x/DOS, and poor gaming compatibility in general when games which were still *the* killer app for home computers as internet access was still uncommon. So MS had to abandon it as a home OS and keep upgrading win98 and release winME. It was super stable as a corporate desktop replacement for Win98, so in that sense it was good, but in the "alternating versions" theory, either Win2000 was a "bad" OS, or it wasn't in the lineup at all, and WinME was the bad one.
It also did have a lot of rough spots for end users who did adopt it. It introduced non-tech users to mandatory sign-ins with permissions checks to people who hadn't ever seen their own computer say "permission denied" before. It introduced a new filesystem (NTFS) to end users which they had to worry about compatiblity, especially with removable media and external drives.
I was using Windows 2000 Professional at work back then. I used Windows 98SE at home until XP was released in 2001. I recall Windows 2000 Pro being a workhorse. We ran our code/products directly on it, as we were selling into the Solaris and Windows 2000 Server markets. I remained on 2000 Pro at work till I think SP2 of XP. SP2 was, as I recall, when XP became a viable replacement for the aging Windows 2000 Pro. SP3 was the real gem of XP, of course. I just restored two XP systems for a friend's home management platform. That was a trip down memory lane.
-
I think Windows 2000 counts as "bad." It's an odd one -- It was originally promised as the OS to unify the home and business operating systems. But while it replaced Win9x on corporate desktops, it ended up not being suitable for home use so that had to wait for XP. It added DirectX, but still had massive compatibility issues with win9x/DOS, and poor gaming compatibility in general when games which were still *the* killer app for home computers as internet access was still uncommon. So MS had to abandon it as a home OS and keep upgrading win98 and release winME. It was super stable as a corporate desktop replacement for Win98, so in that sense it was good, but in the "alternating versions" theory, either Win2000 was a "bad" OS, or it wasn't in the lineup at all, and WinME was the bad one.
It also did have a lot of rough spots for end users who did adopt it. It introduced non-tech users to mandatory sign-ins with permissions checks to people who hadn't ever seen their own computer say "permission denied" before. It introduced a new filesystem (NTFS) to end users which they had to worry about compatiblity, especially with removable media and external drives.
I think the problem of Win2000 was the same as with Vista - it was simply too radical of a change, and software ecosystem was not prepared for it. And so XP was better for the same reason Win7 was better then Vista - by the time of it's release software ecosystem has caught up with it for the most part, so that migration happened with much less friction. I remember I had to dual-boot between Win98 and Win2000 for a while as some software just pain didn't work in the latter.
-
Lol when lies didn't work, you move on to condescension. Did that playbook ever changed? :palm: And don't think I didn't notice lack of any substance in your response.
I don't "fight" for anything, and Windows is far from being my "beloved". But objective reality is what it is. Oh, and user experience has never been better in Windows, I have next to no issues to it when it comes to experience, all my gripes with it are of technical nature. But when it comes to day-to-day usage, modern Windows is the best with nothing else being even close. Linux is useable for my purposes (FPGA design, firmware/software development), infact Vivado/Vitis tend to work better in Linux as they were clearly designed for it first and foremost, but Linux requires ongoing maintenance, which is kind of annoying. I wish Linux would be closer to being maintenance-free, when you just press a button and in updates everything automagically - like it tends to work in Windows, yet like I said, in my experience updates still break things from time to time, while the last time I had a windows update cause any issues was many years ago - and even that one was a specific incompatibility with some of my hardware's driver. I rolled it back immediately, and the problem disappeared. That problem was later fixed with a driver update.
:-DD :-DD :-DD
-
I think the problem of Win2000 was the same as with Vista - it was simply too radical of a change, and software ecosystem was not prepared for it. And so XP was better for the same reason Win7 was better then Vista - by the time of it's release software ecosystem has caught up with it for the most part, so that migration happened with much less friction. I remember I had to dual-boot between Win98 and Win2000 for a while as some software just pain didn't work in the latter.
The ecosystem was part of it, but both of them also didn't actually support what people needed to do and required significant improvements to be usable.
Windows 2000 improved stability by eliminating most direct access to hardware. That obviously broke software that relied on it, but also the alternatives (i.e., DirectX) were not yet up to the task in terms of performance or capability.
Vista tried to fix the problem of people needing to be logged in as administrator, but they didn't fully develop the UI that made UAC actually usable.
-
wish Linux would be closer to being maintenance-free, when you just press a button and in updates everything automagically - like it tends to work in Windows, yet like I said, in my experience updates still break things from time to time, while the last time I had a windows update cause any issues was many years ago
my experience is the opposite,cant remember the last time i had any issues with linux,and at least the updates get carried out in the background,no sitting waiting for updates to finish installing before your able to use/power off the machine
-
Then after the many versions of 98, Windows 2000. Large fundamental changes, but because those were already tested on NT, was fairly stable and usable, so generally a real improvement. This is definitely a "good" Windows, most would agree I guess?
Then Windows XP. Small gradual improvements over Windows 2000. Saw some hate for reasons unclear in retrospect, really. Then again wasn't really game-changing either. But this coincides with the proliferation of home computers - I mean the period in history where "all those normies who still didn't have a computer" finally got one, and for them Windows XP is their first OS. So around 2001-2008, just before smartphones, was era in history where home computers were more relevant than ever. And Windows XP also was one of the longest-in-use operating system. People really ended up liking it.
So what, do we have TWO good Windows (2000 and XP) after each other? Wasn't they supposed to alternate?
I think Windows 2000 counts as "bad." It's an odd one -- It was originally promised as the OS to unify the home and business operating systems. But while it replaced Win9x on corporate desktops, it ended up not being suitable for home use so that had to wait for XP. It added DirectX, but still had massive compatibility issues with win9x/DOS, and poor gaming compatibility in general when games which were still *the* killer app for home computers as internet access was still uncommon. So MS had to abandon it as a home OS and keep upgrading win98 and release winME. It was super stable as a corporate desktop replacement for Win98, so in that sense it was good, but in the "alternating versions" theory, either Win2000 was a "bad" OS, or it wasn't in the lineup at all, and WinME was the bad one.
It also did have a lot of rough spots for end users who did adopt it. It introduced non-tech users to mandatory sign-ins with permissions checks to people who hadn't ever seen their own computer say "permission denied" before. It introduced a new filesystem (NTFS) to end users which they had to worry about compatiblity, especially with removable media and external drives.
Fair enough. I did use it in home environment and considered it being an improvement over 98SE; it went into right direction of unifying the two product lines, but sure enough the transition was not finished at that point. XP being not that different from the 2000 in my opinion shows though they were "almost there" with the 2000.
-
Fair enough. I did use it in home environment and considered it being an improvement over 98SE; it went into right direction of unifying the two product lines, but sure enough the transition was not finished at that point. XP being not that different from the 2000 in my opinion shows though they were "almost there" with the 2000.
Another factor that helped XP was that hardware has become significantly faster in time since Win2000 release, so many of performance issues of the 2000 were "fixed" just by brute force alone. And again the same thing happened with Vista/Win7 - Vista was not very performant on the kind of hardware which was typical at a time of it's release, but by the time of Win7 release it has improved to the point that those issues were really non-issues anymore. That's not to claim that "tock" versions in Intel parlance did not actually make any performance improvements - they did, but hardware advances helped a lot for sure.
-
Well, I don't think apps like Firefox or libreoffice look like made by geeks for geeks.
Well that's not a good example, is it! Firefox is specifically designed to be identical on all platforms.
But LibreOffice? OF COURSE it looks like it's a geek's paradise. Have you actually compared it with MS Office recently? LibreOffice is highly functional but plug-ugly with a messy UI. And it's not just me saying that - go and read some reviews of it. If you want to see what a good, modern, smooth, elegant UI looks like on your Linux machine, try SoftMaker Office. Unfortunately it is paid-for after 30 days, so against the Linux religion, sadly.
For that matter, almost all the apps that get into the PC on a default Linux install look very much the same than windows counterparts.
What do you mean, "their Windows counterparts"? Are you talking about cross-platform apps? If so, well of course they look the same - they are designed that way.
I'm talking about the commonly used Windows applications, and the commonly used Linux apps. MS Office on Windows vs LibreOffice on Linux. LibreOffice does not look like MS Office. And Linux users get the god-awful Thunderbird. You can't seriously tell me that has a good, modern UI. It's complicated, visually noisy, old fashioned. I can't believe many Windows users use Thunderbird by choice - they enjoy many better alternatives.
Find me a Windows graphics editor with an interface as obscure as GIMP. It is famous for its vertical learning curve.
I do care for a well developed app with an intuitive use a good GUI; but to me what really matters is: can it do the work I need?
I would be very surprised indeed if there is a problem doing the work you need in Windows. You and I aren't that unusual - there are 1.4 billion Windows users; that's a hell of a potential user base even for pretty obscure and specialised software. Usually, if there's a demand in the Windows world, someone will be able to fill it.
I'm willing to trade many things for the ability to escape from windows, as you can see. I think it's well worth the hassle. YMMV.
Why do you want to "escape Windows"? It sounds too emotional, too irrational. The apps are where the work gets done, not the OS. And the apps in the Windows world are, in general, better than Linux apps. Why? Because Windows users are willing and accustomed to pay for software, whereas Linux users pretty much insist that their software must be free.
-
I would be very surprised indeed if there is a problem doing the work you need in Windows. You and I aren't that unusual - there are 1.4 billion Windows users; that's a hell of a potential user base even for pretty obscure and specialised software. Usually, if there's a demand in the Windows world, someone will be able to fill it.
You'd think so but it actually isn't the case. There is a myriad of tiny tools available on Linux allowing to do the most crazy things simply from the command line. Look at xxd for example. And easy to automate using shell scripting. For example: Around 2000 I was involved in a yellow-pages -ish website and we send faxes to companies to check their listing. We're talking about sending hundreds of thousands of faxes. Back then making phone calls during the night was free so I wanted to make use of that. None of the Windows fax software was up to the task. None where clever enough to adhere to the time limit when sending the fax, instead they applied the time limit when the fax was queued -sigh-. And none where able to use my ISDN fax modem efficiently. In the end I created a small shell script to run on my Linux server which took a text file with phone numbers as input and send the faxes during the night. This worked as intended and it was sending faxes about 2 times faster compared to using Windows software. In hindsight starting with the shell script would have taken less time compared to messing around with so called professional software.
And I have many more examples. Linux can do insane things where it comes to auto-modifying text and file conversions. But it is all from the command line. In the end you can't catch 50 options with over a billion of combinations into a GUI. Even less so when trying to combine several GUI programs to perform a function together. It just doesn't work.
This is one of the reasons I switched to Linux a long time ago. Fed up with the idiosyncrasies of Windows and having proper tooling ready at my finger tips instead of browsing through Tucows or Piratebay to find some obscure tool (that in the end typically didn't quite work). A VM is good for whatever needs to run in Windows nowadays but that is becoming less and less. And when Windows starts acting up, restoring the VM (and Windows) is a matter of seconds. Gone are days with meddling with Windows to get the PC going again after some registry entry got corrupted or something.
-
Fair enough. I did use it in home environment and considered it being an improvement over 98SE; it went into right direction of unifying the two product lines, but sure enough the transition was not finished at that point. XP being not that different from the 2000 in my opinion shows though they were "almost there" with the 2000.
Another factor that helped XP was that hardware has become significantly faster in time since Win2000 release, so many of performance issues of the 2000 were "fixed" just by brute force alone. And again the same thing happened with Vista/Win7 - Vista was not very performant on the kind of hardware which was typical at a time of it's release, but by the time of Win7 release it has improved to the point that those issues were really non-issues anymore. That's not to claim that "tock" versions in Intel parlance did not actually make any performance improvements - they did, but hardware advances helped a lot for sure.
It is a while back, but wasn't W2K intended to merge the domestic Win98 with the business NT4? I think a significant part of that was moving to pre-emptive interrupts (W3.x was cooperative, can't recall W98 properly but I think it still retained that). Small matter of booting Windows from DOS too, so satisfying both sides of that particular 'feature' was going to be a bit tricky.
-
When Microsoft has made major changes to Windows (often in the area of new UI "paradigms"), their first attempts have tended to be objectively poor, and they fixed this in the next revision -- with tweaks and sometimes significant back-pedaling. At the same time, users were alienated by the changes in the original release, then to some extent got used to them and accepted them in the next release.
I think this is the most credible explanation by far. In general, it takes a couple of versions - maybe more - for Microsoft to polish their latest marvellous idea.
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7
Windows 8
Windows 10
Windows 11
Windows whatever is next
In terms of this list, there are a couple of things I disagree with. I don't think W2000 should have a line through it.
With this I agree.
I still have an operating computer (my "scanning station") using Windows 2000 Professional. It was the computer + OS that the company I worked for used for their media duplication systems.
The only thing that was/is sub-par about W2K is its SCSI implementation, which was pretty flaky. Everything else about it is solid.
-
It is a while back, but wasn't W2K intended to merge the domestic Win98 with the business NT4? I think a significant part of that was moving to pre-emptive interrupts (W3.x was cooperative, can't recall W98 properly but I think it still retained that). Small matter of booting Windows from DOS too, so satisfying both sides of that particular 'feature' was going to be a bit tricky.
It was more of attempt to make NT home-user-friendly as it was already established in corporate world. And user world was running Win9x at the time, they needed to make NT more compatible, but since Win9x kernel was very different, that transition was not very smooth. Also like you mentioned, NT kernel does not allow direct access to hardware while Win9x kernel did, so that was another common factor - especially in industrial space, as a result many pieces of industrial equipment were shipped with Win9x long after Win2000 or even WinXp was released. I worked with some car factories a few years ago and there were still a few stations powered by Win9x - and that was in 2020's! It just goes to show that this stuff cost a lot of money, so vendors are extremely resistant to changes because any change requires an expensive QA and re-certification, also users of this equipment tend to use it for as long as possible because they are so darn expensive. I admit it was hilarious to see the cutting edge luxury vehicle built on a line which was powered by 20+ years old software ;D, but apparently this is a par for the course in manufacturing.
With that kind of software you can imagine that changing a kernel it's running on is bound to cause issues, and it did. Of course situation improved over years, and by the time Xp rolled around it wasn't nearly as big of a problem as it was at the time of Win2000 release. But if you visit just about any factory which is old enough, you will see a toxic cocktail of everything from MS DOS to modern Windows, Linux, and everything in-between.
-
2000 was never a home consumer OS. It was for servers and workstations. The consumer line went 95->98->ME->XP.
Most home users never experienced 2k because it wasn't typically sold to home consumers by companies like dell or preloaded on brick and mortar pcs. 2000 and XP were both good operating systems.
-
2000 was never a home consumer OS. It was for servers and workstations. The consumer line went 95->98->ME->XP.
Most home users never experienced 2k because it wasn't typically sold to home consumers by companies like dell or preloaded on brick and mortar pcs. 2000 and XP were both good operating systems.
I bought a boxed version of 2000 Pro - back then it was still pretty common. Never had WinME, just heard many anecdotes about it :D
-
2000 was never a home consumer OS. It was for servers and workstations. The consumer line went 95->98->ME->XP.
Most home users never experienced 2k because it wasn't typically sold to home consumers by companies like dell or preloaded on brick and mortar pcs. 2000 and XP were both good operating systems.
I bought a boxed version of 2000 Pro - back then it was still pretty common. Never had WinME, just heard many anecdotes about it :D
Ah, I remember the complete train wreck called WinME.
It was a crashing machine and I came to know the blue screen of death quite well. It smoked my HD master boot record twice which took hours to repair. Smoked one HD when it crashed and lost many files which just randomly disappeared. I believe it was the first OS with system restore which I had to use almost weekly.
Been running windows 7 and 10 with classic shell XP for years and have had basically no real problems.
-
It is a while back, but wasn't W2K intended to merge the domestic Win98 with the business NT4? I think a significant part of that was moving to pre-emptive interrupts (W3.x was cooperative, can't recall W98 properly but I think it still retained that). Small matter of booting Windows from DOS too, so satisfying both sides of that particular 'feature' was going to be a bit tricky.
Originally that was the intent, but it fell considerably short and MS stopped pushing for that.
Also, "business" NT4 is a bit misleading. NT was heavily used in engineering, and in industries that were migrating from other centrally managed systems like mainframes or UNIX servers. But a lot of general business desktops for office workers were Win311/Win95/Win98. Windows 2000 saw considerable success in replacing Win98 for business users, as it has much better and more secure file sharing. Sneakernet was still very much the default but people were moving towards file sharing, and Windows2000 clients made that much more attractive.
Win95 was mostly pre-emptive for 32 bit applications, but used cooperative multi-tasking for 16 bit windows 3.11 apps, and also still had a significant amount of 16 bit code in the core OS.
-
It is a while back, but wasn't W2K intended to merge the domestic Win98 with the business NT4? I think a significant part of that was moving to pre-emptive interrupts (W3.x was cooperative, can't recall W98 properly but I think it still retained that). Small matter of booting Windows from DOS too, so satisfying both sides of that particular 'feature' was going to be a bit tricky.
It's important to emphasise that the NT family never booted from DOS, and always had pre-emptive multi-tasking. It began as a brand new, clean sheet design. The "merging" you describe was only about two things: the UI and application compatibility.
W2K was supposed to look and feel like W98, in an attempt to attract non-professional users because Microsoft wanted to end-of-life the DOS/3.1/95/98/Me development stream.
I recall that W2K had some (slightly controversial) work under the hood to handle application incompatibilities. MS did a good job of ensuring the APIs of the two different operating systems were compatible, but various applications running on the DOS-based versions played a bit fast-and-loose with the APIs. As a result W2K had a few workarounds built in, in order to provide continuity for those wayward 16-bit applications. I recall someone (probably Microsoft?) published a very long list of Windows applications, showing which versions of Windows they would run on. Thank goodness that stuff is pretty much in the past now.
-
2000 was never a home consumer OS. It was for servers and workstations. The consumer line went 95->98->ME->XP.
Most home users never experienced 2k because it wasn't typically sold to home consumers by companies like dell or preloaded on brick and mortar pcs. 2000 and XP were both good operating systems.
win95 to XP SP2 were the original "windows" codebase different from NT, 2000.
Windwos XP SP3 used the same codebase as "NT" . After XP SP3, to today 2026 W11... "It's all NT"
.permissions, registry entries/product keys determine home/ pro/server flavor; "rauch und spiegel" as they say in my village :)
-
Another note about NT and Win2k, the other versions of windows, w95/98... limited the amount of ram you could have and only supported 1 cpu, 1 core. Kinda pissed me off, I went from my Amiga4000 to a PC with a dual socketed 500MHz PIII (hope memory serves correctly) with 512mb ram and Win98 couldn't do shit, couldn't even run my raid correctly.
NT4 only had software compatibility issues because of my 2 CPUs, but Win2K pro was really stable except for 2 programs, however, this was poor coding, not the fault of the OS. (Here's looking at you Protel98's PCB software, when drawing too many arcs and accidentally hitting that radius of 0 causing a divide by 0 error....)
-
Cold Fusion has commented on this as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKjo8Oc2qLk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKjo8Oc2qLk)
-
win95 to XP SP2 were the original "windows" codebase different from NT, 2000.
Windwos XP SP3 used the same codebase as "NT" .
What? No of course not. Every version of XP was primarily based on the windows 2000 (and windows NT) operating system. They all used NTLDR and booted directly into 32 bit protected mode with no underlying "DOS" startup phase. They all had versions of the NT kernel, and they all used vm86 mode to run dos applications in a sandbox that couldn't directly access the hardware.
Thats not to say there was no code sharing, especially with application level code such as Windows explorer. But the idea that XP SP3 was when they changed to the NT kernel is completely wrong.
-
I recall that W2K had some (slightly controversial) work under the hood to handle application incompatibilities. MS did a good job of ensuring the APIs of the two different operating systems were compatible, but various applications running on the DOS-based versions played a bit fast-and-loose with the APIs. As a result W2K had a few workarounds built in, in order to provide continuity for those wayward 16-bit applications. I recall someone (probably Microsoft?) published a very long list of Windows applications, showing which versions of Windows they would run on. Thank goodness that stuff is pretty much in the past now.
And, to be fair, and this is coming from someone who definitely isn't a Microsoft fan, MS has done stellar job on userland application compatibility. You can mostly still run ages old 16-bit Windows 3 software many of which definitely do all sorts of hack with APIs and direct hardware access. For a such massive under-the-hood rewrite / complete redesign, I have little to nag about Win2000's software compatibility. Like, probably more than 99% of software just worked. 1% can be annoying, sure, still.
-
You can mostly still run ages old 16-bit Windows 3 software
If only :(
W7 on basically killed off the 16-bit stuff. Be good if nlsnipes would work again.
-
Fair enough. I did use it in home environment and considered it being an improvement over 98SE; it went into right direction of unifying the two product lines, but sure enough the transition was not finished at that point. XP being not that different from the 2000 in my opinion shows though they were "almost there" with the 2000.
Another factor that helped XP was that hardware has become significantly faster in time since Win2000 release, so many of performance issues of the 2000 were "fixed" just by brute force alone. And again the same thing happened with Vista/Win7 - Vista was not very performant on the kind of hardware which was typical at a time of it's release, but by the time of Win7 release it has improved to the point that those issues were really non-issues anymore. That's not to claim that "tock" versions in Intel parlance did not actually make any performance improvements - they did, but hardware advances helped a lot for sure.
It is a while back, but wasn't W2K intended to merge the domestic Win98 with the business NT4? I think a significant part of that was moving to pre-emptive interrupts (W3.x was cooperative, can't recall W98 properly but I think it still retained that). Small matter of booting Windows from DOS too, so satisfying both sides of that particular 'feature' was going to be a bit tricky.
As far as i remember that was Windows ME. ME was a hybrid of the old DOS based Windows 95/98, with several Features of NT added on.
2000 was never a home consumer OS. It was for servers and workstations. The consumer line went 95->98->ME->XP.
Most home users never experienced 2k because it wasn't typically sold to home consumers by companies like dell or preloaded on brick and mortar pcs. 2000 and XP were both good operating systems.
win95 to XP SP2 were the original "windows" codebase different from NT, 2000.
Windwos XP SP3 used the same codebase as "NT" . After XP SP3, to today 2026 W11... "It's all NT"
.permissions, registry entries/product keys determine home/ pro/server flavor; "rauch und spiegel" as they say in my village :)
No. Windows XP was always, from the beginning, a full fledged Windows NT. Essentially XP was Windows 2000 Part 2.
How little the Kernel changed was back then still visible looking at the Kernel version number.
Windows 2000 was NT 5. Windows XP was NT 5.1. Windows Vista was NT 6.0, Windows 7 was 6.1, Windows 8 even stayed on NT 6.1. Only with Windows 10 they upped the Kernel Version to 10.0, only to abandon this again with Windows 11, which is still identifying as NT 10.0
You can mostly still run ages old 16-bit Windows 3 software
If only :(
W7 on basically killed off the 16-bit stuff. Be good if nlsnipes would work again.
32-bit Versions of Windows 10 should also still be able to run 16bit applications.
-
32-bit Versions of Windows 10 should also still be able to run 16bit applications.
Fair enough. Trade-off of nostalgia vs no RAM limit :-\
-
win95 to XP SP2 were the original "windows" codebase different from NT, 2000.
That is completely wrong.
The DOS-based stream went: 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 95, 98, ME (ignoring service packs)
The NT-based stream went: NT3.1, NT4, W2K, XP, Vista, W7, W8, W8.1, W10, W11 (ditto)
This is such basic stuff, DimitriP. You can read all about it in Wikipedia.
-
ME and Xp, operating system or virus?
-
ME and Xp, operating system or virus?
<YAWN>
-
As a side note, Windows 2000's original name was NT 5.0 and it was meant as a continuation of NT, not as an OS for home users.
-
As a side note, Windows 2000's original name was NT 5.0 and it was meant as a continuation of NT, not as an OS for home users.
As history has shown us, those two things are not mutually exclusive.
-
As a side note, Windows 2000's original name was NT 5.0 and it was meant as a continuation of NT, not as an OS for home users.
Yes, for most of the development period it was NT 5.0. They renamed it Windows 2000 really late in the project and while it was targeted at professionals, their goal was already to gather a wider user base than what NT 4.0 workstation had.
And that's what happened. Many PC manufacturers started to ship with Windows 2000 even for their "non-pro" machines. At work we were using NT 4 at the time and we switched to Win 2000 very quickly as it supported USB natively, which NT 4 did not. But I also installed it on my home machines around the same time and I remember many people had it on their home machines before XP got released, but it was short-lived in the "home" market.
MS decided to develop XP for the home market as the 9x line was clearly EOL, but I think it was a fierce fight within MS. IIRC, Dave Plummer has a video talking about that with some guests from MS.
-
win95 to XP SP2 were the original "windows" codebase different from NT, 2000.
That is completely wrong.
The DOS-based stream went: 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 95, 98, ME (ignoring service packs)
The NT-based stream went: NT3.1, NT4, W2K, XP, Vista, W7, W8, W8.1, W10, W11 (ditto)
This is such basic stuff, DimitriP. You can read all about it in Wikipedia.
...the comment was in the vain of consumer vs server , not whether the OS was loading dos or NT.
As for reading it up on Wikipedia...we have an emoji for that ... :-DD
Thanks!
-
win95 to XP SP2 were the original "windows" codebase different from NT, 2000.
That is completely wrong.
The DOS-based stream went: 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 95, 98, ME (ignoring service packs)
The NT-based stream went: NT3.1, NT4, W2K, XP, Vista, W7, W8, W8.1, W10, W11 (ditto)
This is such basic stuff, DimitriP. You can read all about it in Wikipedia.
...the comment was in the vain of consumer vs server , not whether the OS was loading dos or NT.
No it wasn't. You specifically referred to the codebase for versions up to and including XP SP2, saying it was "original Windows" and "different from NT, 2000".
That's wrong. XP was built on the NT codebase.
It's much better to own your mistakes - people will respect you more.
-
OK, Linux fans and users: in my quest to switch to Linux I need help choosing a photo and bitmap graphics editing app. I expect this is a question several ex-W11 users would like advice on.
I've done the usual searches but keep coming back to GIMP. I tried it out this afternoon, confident I was smart enough to eat the learning curve for breakfast. WRONG!! WOW, that is one seriously steep curve! I think it would take days of working through tutorials and wrestling with the user interface to get properly up to speed with it. Also, it doesn't seem to handle high resolution displays properly - it appeared on my screen in miniature, like it doesn't do scaling.
Now, like you all, I've used loads of different graphics editors in Windows; there is a great choice, from simple stuff like Paint up to fully professional tools like the Adobe range. Between those levels are probably dozens of intermediate-level applications which vary in their work flow, their UI, their capabilities.... When it comes to photo and bitmap graphics editing almost everyone will find their needs met by one of the numerous choices. My choice for now is Paint Shop Pro, because I've been using it since version 3.
So, Linux: is it really all about GIMP? Is there not something intermediate-level with a clean, modern and easy UI that would feel familiar to a Windows refugee?
-
OK, Linux fans and users: in my quest to switch to Linux I need help choosing a photo and bitmap graphics editing app.
Short answer: save yourself the trouble and go back to Windows.
I've done the usual searches but keep coming back to GIMP.
Still not gone back to Windows? All right. So GIMP was created by aliens for aliens. It can be used, of course, and it's a very powerful tool, but it requires perseverance bordering insanity to become a power user. They managed to make simple things difficult and every damn action is designed to work upside down and inside out from what any normal person would expect. On top of that, they keep making the UI worse with each release. Some changes, like the all-grayscale tool icons that you can't tell one from another, can be reverted, though.
Try Krita (available in standard debian repos and I think in every mainstream distro it's the same), you'll probably like it better. It's targeted at painters/artists, IIRC. I tried it, I liked it, it's much more conventional than GIMP, and yet the latter is still my usual go-to editor (and yet I regret launching it every single time). I guess I haven't had a chance to develop enough muscle memory with Krita, because I rarely need to edit bitmaps, so I just keep using the few techniques I learned with GIMP when I need to edit/draw something.
There are more tools, some curious ones like mypaint, some paintbrush-like simple ones (don't know the names, but they are out there).
-
OK, Linux fans and users: in my quest to switch to Linux I need help choosing a photo and bitmap graphics editing app. I expect this is a question several ex-W11 users would like advice on.
I've done the usual searches but keep coming back to GIMP. I tried it out this afternoon, confident I was smart enough to eat the learning curve for breakfast. WRONG!! WOW, that is one seriously steep curve! I think it would take days of working through tutorials and wrestling with the user interface to get properly up to speed with it. Also, it doesn't seem to handle high resolution displays properly - it appeared on my screen in miniature, like it doesn't do scaling.
Now, like you all, I've used loads of different graphics editors in Windows; there is a great choice, from simple stuff like Paint up to fully professional tools like the Adobe range. Between those levels are probably dozens of intermediate-level applications which vary in their work flow, their UI, their capabilities.... When it comes to photo and bitmap graphics editing almost everyone will find their needs met by one of the numerous choices. My choice for now is Paint Shop Pro, because I've been using it since version 3.
So, Linux: is it really all about GIMP? Is there not something intermediate-level with a clean, modern and easy UI that would feel familiar to a Windows refugee?
I'm not really a fan of any OS, but under Windows I've been using mostly Paint.net, for Linux I heard about Pinta which was based on Paint.net. I haven't tried it myself as I use Linux for specific purposes which don't include graphics design, but you can give it a try and see if it's going to be enough. It's nowhere near feature-rich for a professional use, but it's been more than enough for my needs over last several years. And it's free and open-source: https://www.pinta-project.com/ (https://www.pinta-project.com/)
-
So GIMP was created by aliens for aliens. It can be used, of course, and it's a very powerful tool, but it requires perseverance bordering insanity to become a power user. They managed to make simple things difficult and every damn action is designed to work upside down and inside out from what any normal person would expect.
I would love to read your take on Blender. :)
-
It depends. Some things are very well standardised: file formats, much more so than proprietary platforms, others not so much.
The two things I hate most about Windows are the desktop and they way updates are handled. It would be good if someone were to develop their own desktop environment for Windows, which is fully customisable and doesn't change random things when updated.
I moved to Linux Mint about ten years ago and I am quite satisfied. I do not quite understand the complaints about "so many Linux versions". I have one and that is it. The existence of others does not affect me. I install Mint and I use it. I have installed more than a dozen in computers of friends and family and so far everybody is happy. They use it and that's it.
My main reasons to leave MS Windows were and still are:
- Spyware. No thanks. Not interested
- Bloatware and HW requirements. Linux can run on older machines which cannot run MS Windows any more. I am not going to buy a new computer just to run MS spyware and bloatware. No thanks. Not interested.
- Update handling. 'nuff said.
In summary, I want to own and control my OS, my machine; I do not want my machine, my data, to be controlled by someone else.
I do miss a few thing from Windows, like the device manager, but for me Linux Mint still wins big. As I say, ten years and counting.
-
OK, Linux fans and users: in my quest to switch to Linux I need help choosing a photo and bitmap graphics editing app. I expect this is a question several ex-W11 users would like advice on.
GIMP is OK if you do relatively little / easy photo editing occasionally. If you expect nothing, it may be a positive surprise. If you expect Photoshop level capability, you are of course seriously disappointed and not able to do your job.
If you need Windows-only software, then it's obvious: just keep running Windows.
With hybrid needs, it gets more interesting. Like, you do programming/development and are much more productive on an unix-like environment, than on Windows, so you use that. But you also need, say, Photoshop, Solidworks, Altium, whatever. What do you do? Dual boot offers best performance for all those tasks, but pretty costly switching between them. Finding alternative software - e.g. running Cygwin on Windows, or running Gimp on linux - means half of your work is now cumbersome and really you are just working around, instead of working. I'm now relatively happy running a full VM, i.e. Windows 11 on VMWare, so that I can run Altium on it. 95% of my workload is still in the host linux.
But maybe this isn't for you. As you clearly are fine with Windows, and need Windows-only software, it is blatantly obvious to me you should be just keep using Windows. Me, I'm not fine with Windows, but I still need Windows-only software, so I limit my exposure to it by running the VM only when I need Windows software.
-
OK, Linux fans and users: in my quest to switch to Linux I need help choosing a photo and bitmap graphics editing app.
Short answer: save yourself the trouble and go back to Windows.
I've done the usual searches but keep coming back to GIMP.
Still not gone back to Windows? All right. So GIMP was created by aliens for aliens. It can be used, of course, and it's a very powerful tool, but it requires perseverance bordering insanity to become a power user. They managed to make simple things difficult and every damn action is designed to work upside down and inside out from what any normal person would expect. On top of that, they keep making the UI worse with each release. Some changes, like the all-grayscale tool icons that you can't tell one from another, can be reverted, though.
Try Krita (available in standard debian repos and I think in every mainstream distro it's the same), you'll probably like it better. It's targeted at painters/artists, IIRC. I tried it, I liked it, it's much more conventional than GIMP, and yet the latter is still my usual go-to editor (and yet I regret launching it every single time). I guess I haven't had a chance to develop enough muscle memory with Krita, because I rarely need to edit bitmaps, so I just keep using the few techniques I learned with GIMP when I need to edit/draw something.
There are more tools, some curious ones like mypaint, some paintbrush-like simple ones (don't know the names, but they are out there).
Yes. I also find GIMP impossible to use, so much so, I mostly use KolourPiaint. GIMP gets used when I need to do something KolourPaint can't, in which case I Google it, follow the often long-winded procedure, then forget about it.
-
OK, Linux fans and users: in my quest to switch to Linux I need help choosing a photo and bitmap graphics editing app. I expect this is a question several ex-W11 users would like advice on.
GIMP is OK if you do relatively little / easy photo editing occasionally. If you expect nothing, it may be a positive surprise. If you expect Photoshop level capability, you are of course seriously disappointed and not able to do your job.
Have you ever tried using Photoshop? IIRC Photoshop is notoriously difficult to drive. AFAIK Gimp is started as an alternative for Photoshop so don't expect Gimp to be easy to use all of the sudden. Bottom line: if you want to do hardcore photo editing, expect a steep learning curve either way.
-
OK, Linux fans and users: in my quest to switch to Linux I need help choosing a photo and bitmap graphics editing app. I expect this is a question several ex-W11 users would like advice on.
GIMP is OK if you do relatively little / easy photo editing occasionally. If you expect nothing, it may be a positive surprise. If you expect Photoshop level capability, you are of course seriously disappointed and not able to do your job.
Have you ever tried using Photoshop? IIRC Photoshop is notoriously difficult to drive. AFAIK Gimp is started as an alternative for Photoshop so don't expect Gimp to be easy to use all of the sudden. Bottom line: if you want to do hardcore photo editing, expect a steep learning curve either way.
Of course, I have used Photoshop for its intended purposes, namely photo editing, and its strong point compared to Gimp is that the controls are normal and intuitive, so normal human being used to normal computer things can use it.
I'm sure 99.999% of people who have used Photoshop and Gimp would agree, but good trolling :-+
-
I use many "advanced" programs but I can't use GIMP :--
+1 for KolourPaint. I found it randomly but it is what I needed. It has the same workflow of MS paint and supports transparency
By default the toolbar is useless, you should customize it:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/windows-11-is-dying/?action=dlattach;attach=2733879;image)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
I moved to Linux mint mate since 1 year. It gives problems from time to time, but I can't stand windows 11 anymore.
Here some usesful programs:
Freecad 3D drawing
KiCad
LibreCad
Blender (not used yet)
Visual Studio Code (not happy about it) with Platform IO
Double Commander file explorer
Qimgv image viewer
Curtail Image compressor
KolourPaint Image editor
VLC video player
Shotcut video editor
OBS studio screen recorder...l
Cheese webcam
Audacity
Mousepad ligth text editor
Gnumeric fast simple xlsx editor
OnlyOffice (just installed, still to test, not satisfied with libreoffice)
Okular pdf reader
PDF Arranger
Xournal++ pen writing, annotation, PDF annotation
DigiKam organize photos....
ScreeRuler, a.... screen ruler ;D
Tracker Measure stuff from images and videos
ConvertAll offline converter
KmPlot plot functions
stopwatch
Diodon multi copy paste (shortcut: super+V)
Flameshot screen shot
NormCap extract text from images (shortcut: super+C)
FSearch instant file search! (shortcut: alt+spacebar)
>Measurements
PulseView
TestController
CuteCom serial port terminal
>Misc
OrganicMaps offline maps
Google Earth
Syncthing ! synchronize files (in my case between linux, android and windows)
>No gui
ffmpeg video compression
exiftool
git
yt-dlp download youtube videos... (yt-dlp -N 6 -f ba+bv -S "+codec:avc:m4a,res:720" --parse-metadata "description:(?s)(?P<meta_comment>.+)" --embed-metadata --embed-thumbnail --embed-chapters "LINK")
*Many of these programs need some customization (lots of settings)
-
OnlyOffice (just installed, still to test, not satisfied with libreoffice)
LibreOffice has excellent functionality, but I simply cannot enjoy using it so it's a no-no for me. OpenOffice offers only a subset of MS Office's functionality, so I recommend you give it a good going over before committing to it.
My favourite is SoftMaker Office - it has virtually all the functionality of MS Office but none of the cloud-oriented, touch-oriented bullshit Microsoft imposes on us. So - speaking only for myself - I prefer SoftMaker Office NX over OpenOffice, and even over MS Office.
The downside is you have to pay for it. But that's fine by me - I don't expect great quality software for nothing. You can have a subscription, or pay a one-off fee. EDIT: Oh, I forgot to say - they do a freeware version as well with reduced functionality.
ANOTHER EDIT: Don't be put off SoftMaker Office by the mention of 'AI'. They've done it properly: people who like it can use it; people who don't want it can eliminate all mention of it. That's what I've done.
-
OnlyOffice (just installed, still to test, not satisfied with libreoffice)
LibreOffice has excellent functionality, but I simply cannot enjoy using it so it's a no-no for me. OpenOffice offers only a subset of MS Office's functionality, so I recommend you give it a good going over before committing to it.
My favourite is SoftMaker Office - it has virtually all the functionality of MS Office but none of the cloud-oriented, touch-oriented bullshit Microsoft imposes on us. So - speaking only for myself - I prefer SoftMaker Office NX over OpenOffice, and even over MS Office.
The downside is you have to pay for it. But that's fine by me - I don't expect great quality software for nothing. You can have a subscription, or pay a one-off fee. EDIT: Oh, I forgot to say - they do a freeware version as well with reduced functionality.
Have you used LibraOffice recently? The UI can now be made more MS Office like. What functionality was missing? Office software has had excess functionally for a long time. Most users, even those who've being using it for a long time, are only aware of a small percentage of the features.
-
My favourite is SoftMaker Office - it has virtually all the functionality of MS Office but none of the cloud-oriented, touch-oriented bullshit Microsoft imposes on us. So - speaking only for myself - I prefer SoftMaker Office NX over OpenOffice, and even over MS Office.
I agree that SoftMaker Office comes closest to Microsoft Office, in terms of functionality and UI. Including a pretty decent "ribbon" UI, which is what I have come to prefer with MS Office. The similarity was important for me since I still use the MS suite at work.
Still, it was not close enough for me, and was one of the reasons why I ended my recent "let's move to Linux Mint" experiment and grudgingly installed Windows again. Many details are still rougher than in the Microsoft programs -- e.g. SoftMaker still relies on modal properties dialogs for all kinds of things (where your changes only take effect when you close the dialog), whereas MS has non-modal sidebars. And don't get me started on SoftMakers's printer dialog!
The other "killer app" for me was Fusion 360. I had assumed I would be able to use the browser version, but you need a commercial license for that. And yes, I know about FreeCad but don't like using it.
-
Yes. I also find GIMP impossible to use, so much so, I mostly use KolourPiaint. GIMP gets used when I need to do something KolourPaint can't, in which case I Google it, follow the often long-winded procedure, then forget about it.
I use Linux Mint and I am still mainly using MS Paint and Irfanview with WINE and they do more than 99% of what I need. Than I also have Inkscape, mainly for vector graphics, Pinta, Drawing, Pix, Blender, Gimp, etc that I have downloaded at one time or another for something specific and never really used much.
I have now installed KolourPaint and will have a look. Thanks. Maybe in my next install of Mint I will not bother with Pait-Wine.
-
I moved to Linux mint mate since 1 year. It gives problems from time to time, but I can't stand windows 11 anymore.
Here some usesful programs:
[...]
All of them free?
It's nice to have free stuff but I wonder what would happen if everyone used only free apps. Perhaps it's the same as many other things where a relatively small number are different so don't have a big effect. Ad blockers, for instance, were great when not many people used them, but once the numbers got big enough to register things changed quite a bit. If everyone used effective ones now, I bet the interweb would be quite different.
I have no problem paying for something that is useful to me, but that isn't saying I would pay a subscription or not throw a wobbly at online activation. I use free stuff and adblockers too, of course :)
-
Yes. I also find GIMP impossible to use, so much so, I mostly use KolourPiaint. GIMP gets used when I need to do something KolourPaint can't, in which case I Google it, follow the often long-winded procedure, then forget about it.
Hmmm. I am going to have to give gimp a try, now :o
-
Have you used LibraOffice recently? ... What functionality was missing? Office software has had excess functionally for a long time.
Yes, I'm on version 24. I'm sure that it has all the functions, but they don't work well.
I'm searching something with only the basic but reliable and fast.
gnumeric is an example: is not complete, but the basics are there, it's fast (instant launch, no delays) and reliable.
abiword, gnumeric's cousin, was basic, fast but totally unreliable (I really wanted to use it but I uninstalled it because of all the work I had lost due to errors...).
LibreOffice is not fast and worst is not consistent. Basic stuff, like resizing images, tables styles sometimes they work, sometimes no :palm: (for example, when you resize an image, sometimes it leaves a invisible object and you have to go back and resize it again)(or when you select text there's a delay before the formattation fields gets updated).
MS offfice is not that far: bloated, slow often inconsistent. For this reason I'm thinking of learning LaTeX
All of them free? It's nice to have free stuff but I wonder what would happen if everyone used only free apps...
Yes, most of them can be installed directly from the software manager, most of them accept donations. I'm 100% with you. At the moment I'm a student and I'm limited in $$. But for example I don't use an adblocker on youtube because I don't find it right (for creators and the expense of hosting the huge amount of data for "free"). I'm writing down all these program on a list to remeber them and do donations in the future.
Still, many of these apps are done with passion, not money. See microsoft, basically infinite budget, but all their new apps are almost unpresentable (put some rounded corners, AI and call it a day. Who cares about performance or bugs...).
To have effect.. having the money to add your programs by default on everyone PC helps...
-
It gets funny sometimes. My thoughts as I've been reading your post:
LibreOffice is not fast and worst is not consistent. Basic stuff, like resizing images, tables styles sometimes they work, sometimes no :palm: (for example, when you resize an image, sometimes it leaves a invisible object and you have to go back and resize it again)(or when you select text there's a delay before the formattation fields gets updated).
WYSIWYG sucks. Works well for super simple one or two-page documents only. LaTeX is the ultimate solution.
...and then
MS offfice is not that far: bloated, slow often inconsistent. For this reason I'm thinking of learning LaTeX
As though you read my thoughts.
The underlying TeX engine is near perfect (see who created it). LaTeX is an excellent user-facing wrapper for it. However, it really requires getting and reading a good book on it before even starting. And don't even think of using WYSIWYG frontends for it, because see above.
-
One of the pitfalls is trying to use a word processor to do (complicated) layouts. A word processor is for creating documents, not desktop publishing.
-
Have you used LibraOffice recently? The UI can now be made more MS Office like. What functionality was missing? Office software has had excess functionally for a long time. Most users, even those who've being using it for a long time, are only aware of a small percentage of the features.
Yep, I was using LibreOffice in Linux Mint just a couple of days ago. I think its functionality is basically complete (it's the closest to MS Office in that respect that I've tried) but I find the UI to be a scrappy mess - even the latest version.
I've just signed up to a SoftMaker Office NX Home subscription. I'm generally anti subscription software, but it's so cheap at GBP24 per year. That's 50 pence a week - a bargain. Furthermore, that price allows you to install it on five separate machines. They do a version for Windows, Linux, Android, and a couple of Apple OSs as well. So for 50p a week I can run it on my Windows workstation, my Android tablet, my Windows laptop, my Linux system and still have a spare licence.
The UI is basically as good as MS Office (actually better because I like the more colourful elements) but without the non-standard Open... and Save... dialogs and without the OneDrive integration. I love it. To be specific, I love it way more than any other office suite, including Microsoft Office.
I can't dump MS Office altogether, though, because I'm a serious fan of OneNote, and nobody has come close to cloning it. Finally, there's another MS product I cannot live without: Visio. It is a fantastic diagramming and technical drawing tool*, and again, nobody makes anything like it.
*Microsoft acquired Visio from Shapeware, and messed it up by converting it into a data visualisation tool, hiding away all the powerful drawing tools. Luckily you can customise it back to being a great diagramming tool and switch off the ribbons you don't need.
-
One of the pitfalls is trying to use a word processor to do (complicated) layouts. A word processor is for creating documents, not desktop publishing.
I agree, but MS Word gets pretty close if you use frames and text boxes.
-
WYSIWYG sucks. Works well for super simple one or two-page documents only. LaTeX is the ultimate solution.
I don't agree with you about WYSIWYG, and I doubt very many people would. Not that I'm knocking your preference, just disagreeing with it. I've done a 1000-page training document full of diagrams and photos as well as lots of text using MS Word and it worked great. To be fair, the manual was divided into twelve lessons, which made it a bit more wieldy.
-
I use Linux Mint and I am still mainly using MS Paint and Irfanview with WINE and they do more than 99% of what I need. Than I also have Inkscape, mainly for vector graphics, Pinta, Drawing, Pix, Blender, Gimp, etc that I have downloaded at one time or another for something specific and never really used much.
Today I installed the Windows versions of Pinta and Paint.Net. I started them up side-by-side for a detailed comparison. I hate to say it, but it was another big disappointment: Paint.Net wipes the floor with Pinta. Whoever said Pinta was basically a clone of Paint.Net.... well, I respectfully disagree. The Pinta UI is definitely weird, with icons in non-standard locations, and a row of teeny little icons - in black-and-white - up on the top right that do various important things. Once again it's a typical Linux app: reasonably good functionality, but a geeky UI.
Soldar: will Paint.Net run under WINE? If so you might want to try it - I was quite impressed and I'm going to use it for the smaller jobs. I use Paint Shop Pro for the big stuff, just because I'm very familiar with it. I wouldn't recommend it, though - "bloatware" is a massive understatement.
-
I have been using Apache OpenOffice for years and it's MS word compatible. It's basically a clone of MS Office with most of the same features. I'm running it on windows right now but have also loaded it on a Linux system/Raspberry Pi.
https://www.openoffice.org/ (https://www.openoffice.org/)
-
I can't dump MS Office altogether, though, because I'm a serious fan of OneNote, and nobody has come close to cloning it.
Are you using it for handwriting?
Xournal++!
I started with onenote (on windows 11) , but I got annoyed by the continuous updates breaking and changing stuff and the gigantic files.
I installed xournal++ before getting into linux. I started using it and I never turned back. Perfect to annotate pdf, take notes...
The default toolbar is not great but you can modify it (see mine) and you should disable autosave (it has given issues to me, I prefer to save manually).
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/windows-11-is-dying/?action=dlattach;attach=2733993;image)
Today I installed the Windows versions of Pinta and Paint.Net. I started them up side-by-side for a detailed comparison. I hate to say it, but it was another big disappointment
Everyone talks about Pinta and an other one, but I didn't liked them. You have to move a lot the mouse, click a lot of stuff, confirmations...
KolourPaint satisfied me, for me It's better than paint. It should be available also for windows
-
KolourPaint looks like an interesting tool indeed! I'll give it a go :-+
-
One of the pitfalls is trying to use a word processor to do (complicated) layouts. A word processor is for creating documents, not desktop publishing.
I agree, but MS Word gets pretty close if you use frames and text boxes.
I can attest to Micro$oft Word being an excellent tool for writing lengthy manuals.
That was my job at the company I worked for in the 1990s, writing user manuals (plus other stuff) for our products, media duplication systems.
I started out using Ventura Publisher, which was kinda-sorta OK for producing manuals, but clearly deficient in many ways.
I even had kind of a direct line to Rick Altman, who was the reigning Ventura guru at the time, since my boss knew him. Rick gave me some very helpful pointers.
But then I thought: why not give Word a spin? I had rejected that program out of hand, thinking it wasn't up to the job. I was surprised to find that I was wrong, and that it was even better in most respects than Ventura. So I switched.
Now this was the earlier version of Word that shipped with the Office that came with Windoze 2000. It was powerful, but also buggy: I remember several times opening my document and finding that all the dozens of pictures I had put in were replaced by boxes with a big red "X" in it. Goddamn it, have to replace all those pics! (This no longer happens with Word.)
My manuals all had tables of contents and indexes which were auto-generated by Word, as well as in-text references (e.g., "see page XX"). Very powerful. Many, many pictures, all with captions, some with graphic callouts, as well as text boxes used for pointers. Once you get used to the somewhat strange formatting capabilities you can do practically anything with Word. Almost as much as, say, with something like Adobe InDesign.
My complaint about the current Word that I use (Word 2003) is that Micro$oft boogered up the user interface, which was laid out just right in the previous version. Typical.
Oh, and I was able to take advantage of Word macros, another very powerful capability.
-
One of the pitfalls is trying to use a word processor to do (complicated) layouts. A word processor is for creating documents, not desktop publishing.
I agree, but MS Word gets pretty close if you use frames and text boxes.
I can attest to Micro$oft Word being an excellent tool for writing lengthy manuals.
I'm using it too. It is the only one which works properly with my patent agent's files and our highlighted group edit tracking. Every time I tried using using another word processor such as OpenOffice, tables and page breaks/margins got messed up, highlight colors and editor notes always get all messed up when I try to save it as a .docx.
Though I am using an old offline MS-Word and MS-Excel, I would have to say the original products are very capable. I do not know about the new online junk, but I can take a guess.
-
Former hard user of LaTeX here. Thanks to it learned the benefits of separating content from format, and thanks to it now able to use MSWord in a way that produces complex and pretty documents in a simple and painless way. OK, (La)TeX may be perfect, but also a pain in the arse if you want or need to do anything different from using a pre-canned template.
In any case, lately the complexity of the documents I must produce has decreased and now Markdown is enough much of the time (and Typora is a md editor I like. Available in Win/Linux/Mac, not free, but affordable and single payment. In fact it is the only non free software in my Linux machines).
-
Why do you want to "escape Windows"? It sounds too emotional, too irrational. The apps are where the work gets done, not the OS. And the apps in the Windows world are, in general, better than Linux apps. Why? Because Windows users are willing and accustomed to pay for software, whereas Linux users pretty much insist that their software must be free.
Sorry for the late answer, I just don't feel this matter is worth my time. So didn't check this thread in some days.
I want to escape windows because I don't want to pay for being screwed. Like, having to sign into a microsoft account, being fed with publicity or spied upon. Also I don't want to use any antivirus software. An so on. May be you don't care about these things, but I do.
What about buying an Ipad that couldn't open a PDF, because Steve Jobs hoped to earn more money that way? As you can see, this isn't just about windows. I was a MacOS guy before discovering Linux. If you were in the printing business in 1990, you got a Mac.
OTOH, when I discovered what one could do with the command line, my productivity got about a 10.000% impulse. Any Linux program, even GUI ones, can be called from the command line, and set to do things automatically the way you want. I know, you think that's a geeky thing. And following your thinking, I guess geeky things are bad things. Wrong.
If you need to apply, say, a sharpen mask and resize some hundreds-thousands pictures, having to do one by one is a very big PITA. One can craft a little script in about 20 lines of shell code that will do it all for you. Just an example. No need to look for any app able to work with batches. Just make an script to send the commands you want to your app. So I'm all for that (and others) type of geeky things. I guess, that's not your case. Fine.
The biggest microsoft success was to sink Nokia, i think. IIRC, it was the number1 cell phone OEM back then? Put windows on them ant down the drain it goes. The most unforeseeable thing 20 years ago was desktop PC becoming a niche, down from mainstream. That's the only niche where windows remains leader. And losing market share with each new version. There's a reason for that. So much for you 1.4 billion users argument.
Come on, man. Get over it and give us a break.
Well, that's enough from me on this matter. Your arguments only reflect your bias towards windows and can't be taken seriously.
Have a nice day.
-
I have been using Apache OpenOffice for years and it's MS word compatible. It's basically a clone of MS Office with most of the same features. I'm running it on windows right now but have also loaded it on a Linux system/Raspberry Pi.
https://www.openoffice.org/ (https://www.openoffice.org/)
I tried it a long time ago, so I can't remember what put me off it now. Now that I've paid SoftMaker I must resist the temptation to keep trialling other options. 😄
By the way, there is this in Wikipedia:
"As of July 2025, the Apache Software Foundation has classed its security status as "red" with multiple unfixed security issues over a year old."
-
I can't dump MS Office altogether, though, because I'm a serious fan of OneNote, and nobody has come close to cloning it.
Are you using it for handwriting?
Xournal++!
Yes. It offers an infinite sheet upon which I can put handwriting, typed text, pictures, voice notes, hyperlinks, diagrams. It will OCR text in pictures and my handwriting in the background. It has vector drawing tools... Basically I think it is brilliant. However, I will take a serious look at Xournal++. Thanks for the tip. 👍😀
-
I have been using Apache OpenOffice for years and it's MS word compatible. It's basically a clone of MS Office with most of the same features. I'm running it on windows right now but have also loaded it on a Linux system/Raspberry Pi.
https://www.openoffice.org/ (https://www.openoffice.org/)
BTW LibreOffice is a fork of OpenOffice, which in turn was a successor of StarOffice.
Apparently at some point OpenOffice started to be considered not good enough from the whatever kind of purity standpoint, so they had to fork it.
-
GIMP = GNU Image Manipulation Program
It's really not the same kind of application as "Paint". It has got freehand tools, but they are not really for drawing, they are for masks, overlays, tints, burns, etc. while editiing images/photos.
I tried to use it for drawing things and quickly gave up.
For image processing I moved to RawTherapee though.
For basic diagrams I use "dia".
-
And losing market share with each new version. There's a reason for that. So much for you 1.4 billion users argument.
<... >
Your arguments only reflect your bias towards windows and can't be taken seriously.
I think it's more true to say that I'm biased towards Windows applications, and that is based on years testing out various Linux distros, most frequently Mint.
I haven't explored the command line much at all, but your description does sound impressive. I wonder if the Windows equivalent has any similar functionality.
Is it true that Windows is losing market share? It rules only on the desktop, and I haven't seen a massive move towards Linux or MacOS in that segment. And although you are sniffy about the 1.4 billion number, it is still a seriously big number.
-
Apparently at some point OpenOffice started to be considered not good enough from the whatever kind of purity standpoint, so they had to fork it.
That's not true. A bit of history:
Star Office's developers (Star Division) was purchased by Sun Microsystems, because it was cheaper for them to buy the whole company, rather than an MS Office licence for all of their employees. They then decided to release an open source version, OpenOffice.org, whilst selling the propitiatory Star Office.
Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems who abandoned the development of OpenOffice.org and discontinued Star Office. The voluntary developers forked it and continued working on it under LibreOffice. They couldn't use the name OpenOffice.org because Oracle owned the trademark.
Oracle donated OpenOffice.org to the Apache Software Foundation, who continued working on it, under the Apache OpenOffice name.
Well, that's enough from me on this matter. Your arguments only reflect your bias towards windows and can't be taken seriously.
Have a nice day.
Being objective. Both of your arguments are emotional and that's not a bad thing.
-
WYSIWYG sucks. Works well for super simple one or two-page documents only. LaTeX is the ultimate solution.
WYSIWYG: Can't get images where you want them, can't get text flow like you want it. Fight and rage click randomly for 30 minutes until satisfied. Then don't touch anything.
LaTeX: Can't get images where you want them, can't get text flow like you want it. Google for Stack Overflow posts and apply them randomly, only to see nothing works and there are 9001 different ways to achieve what you want. Find snarky comments that you are not even supposed to choose where you want your images and how your text flows. It is apparently fine and normal that a Figure related to text on page 9 is on page 36. Finally, one of the proposed solutions nearly works and you spent half a day.
I'm back to WYSIWYG editors. Yes, they suck almost as much as LaTeX but not quite.
-
One of the pitfalls is trying to use a word processor to do (complicated) layouts. A word processor is for creating documents, not desktop publishing.
I agree, but MS Word gets pretty close if you use frames and text boxes.
I can attest to Micro$oft Word being an excellent tool for writing lengthy manuals.
I'm using it too. It is the only one which works properly with my patent agent's files and our highlighted group edit tracking. Every time I tried using using another word processor such as OpenOffice, tables and page breaks/margins got messed up, highlight colors and editor notes always get all messed up when I try to save it as a .docx.
Though I am using an old offline MS-Word and MS-Excel, I would have to say the original products are very capable. I do not know about the new online junk, but I can take a guess.
Google docs works excellent for collaborating on documents. You can work on the same document with multiple people at the same time. It has been made for collaboration from the ground up.
-
WYSIWYG: Can't get images where you want them, can't get text flow like you want it. Fight and rage click randomly for 30 minutes until satisfied. Then don't touch anything.
I find that, when I always use the pre-defined formats in Word (headlines, pictures, figure legends...) and adapt them to my needs, I get consistent and predictable outcomes.
I do adjust the position of larger figures and tables relative to the text manually, to ensure they are in meaningful positions and don't cause stupid page breaks -- which means I might have to move them slightly when revisions make the text significantly longer or shorter. It would be neat to have an automatic formatting option to "keep this figure as close as possible to text marker X, while maintaining good text flow across page boundaries". Maybe that option even exists. But the need for manual adjustments arises rarely enough for me not to care...
-
The biggest microsoft success was to sink Nokia, i think.
Well, Nokia was already spiraling to death at that point due to earlier mistakes (and to be fair, keeping that sort of company running when technology changes all the time and you need to react correct and timely, is not easy task at all). Just maybe it could have been saved (as a large scale mobile phone manufacturer) with some genius-level management changes, but Microsoft involvement was obviously a conscious decision to do the opposite: to kill it deliberately, pull the plug so to speak.
And "being nasty" is definitely in Microsoft's DNA.
IMHO doing anything just to be able to avoid using Microsoft products is morally a sensible thing to do; I won't make fun about those "linux fanboys" whose primary motivation of using linux is only to avoid Microsoft, even though my motivation isn't. I'm pragmatic enough to keep using MS products when I clearly see the benefit of doing so. So I'm closer to the mindset of Torvald's himself: linux happens to quite suitable for the things I do with a computer, it's not an anti-MS statement.
But for some, it is, and that's alright.
One thing in this linux vs. Windows discussion is forgetting the Mac ecosystem. Many of those supposedly "Windows-only" programs (as enumerated in this thread) are available on Mac and work well there, in fact some were originally considered Mac-only (even though Windows versions existed, but professionals did not prefer to use them) - basically all related to photography, publishing, video editing etc. But clearly Apple lost some of the professional market dominance there.
-
WYSIWYG sucks. Works well for super simple one or two-page documents only. LaTeX is the ultimate solution.
WYSIWYG: Can't get images where you want them, can't get text flow like you want it. Fight and rage click randomly for 30 minutes until satisfied. Then don't touch anything.
LaTeX: Can't get images where you want them, can't get text flow like you want it. Google for Stack Overflow posts and apply them randomly, only to see nothing works and there are 9001 different ways to achieve what you want. Find snarky comments that you are not even supposed to choose where you want your images and how your text flows. It is apparently fine and normal that a Figure related to text on page 9 is on page 36. Finally, one of the proposed solutions nearly works and you spent half a day.
I'm back to WYSIWYG editors. Yes, they suck almost as much as LaTeX but not quite.
Laughed out loud to that one. Sorry if I disturbed anyone!
I think there are really two issues here that we see also in programming. First is that driving via text (a la LaTex) was the only choice since there were really no graphics around, and certainly no WYSIWYG. It's not that it was better; it was the only choice.
But WYSIWYG suffers from the author/developer thinking at the WYSIWYG level. That is, if there is a paragraph that needs particular formatting, it is so easy to just highlight it and apply the format. Eventually the document becomes an unwieldy mess of local formats, probably all the same be treated individually. In programming, the equivalent would be a button place on a form which, when clicked, causes some action to be performed. So the developer places the button where it should be, makes it look nice (the same as every other button like that, but with its own custom values), and then puts the action code in the OnClick event.
tl;dr: I think the mindset that could utilise LaTex is needed to properly use WYSIWYG tools, and WYSIWYG mitigates against that.
-
Well, Nokia was already spiraling to death at that point due to earlier mistakes (and to be fair, keeping that sort of company running when technology changes all the time and you need to react correct and timely, is not easy task at all). Just maybe it could have been saved (as a large scale mobile phone manufacturer) with some genius-level management changes, but Microsoft involvement was obviously a conscious decision to do the opposite: to kill it deliberately, pull the plug so to speak.
Do you really think so? To me it seemed like an honest attempt to rescue two losing technology positions:
Nokia had great phones with buttons, but the future was in touch-screen-only devices. Microsoft had a desktop OS with huge market share, but an increasing user base was moving to mobile devices. So a joint effort to "re-invent" Nokia phones with a Microsoft touch UI seemed like a worthwhile effort.
The fact that it was not well-executed, and maybe was too late to stand a chance in a market already dominated by Apple and Android, is another matter. But "kill it deliberately"? How would MS have expected to benefit from that?
-
I have been using Apache OpenOffice for years and it's MS word compatible. It's basically a clone of MS Office with most of the same features. I'm running it on windows right now but have also loaded it on a Linux system/Raspberry Pi.
Better move on to LibreOffice as OpenOffice is basically dead (on life support).
-
One thing in this linux vs. Windows discussion is forgetting the Mac ecosystem. Many of those supposedly "Windows-only" programs (as enumerated in this thread) are available on Mac and work well there, in fact some were originally considered Mac-only (even though Windows versions existed, but professionals did not prefer to use them) - basically all related to photography, publishing, video editing etc. But clearly Apple lost some of the professional market dominance there.
I considered moving into the Apple ecosystem. At risk of over-simplifying: Windows has the widest choice of applications, Apple has the best quality applications, and Linux has mostly free-of-charge applications. I was put off by the "walled garden" business model Apple employs, even though that works great for very many users. I prefer to specify and build my own PC, and then select my OS. Can't do that with Apple kit.
-
Nokia had great phones with buttons, but the future was in touch-screen-only devices. Microsoft had a desktop OS with huge market share, but an increasing user base was moving to mobile devices. So a joint effort to "re-invent" Nokia phones with a Microsoft touch UI seemed like a worthwhile effort.
The fact that it was not well-executed, and maybe was too late to stand a chance in a market already dominated by Apple and Android, is another matter. But "kill it deliberately"? How would MS have expected to benefit from that?
I agree - it surely wasn't part of the plan because Microsoft faced a big write-down that year which must have pissed off the shareholders.
By the way, I might be the only person on the planet who thought Windows Phone 7 was excellent, verging on outstanding. It was the bravest thing I've ever seen a phone manufacturer do. Apple iPhone and Android phones were then - and remain to this day - unimaginative and boring. Windows Phone 7 on my Nokia 1520 was profoundly, radically different and I loved it. I mourn its passing.
Microsoft made two arguments: firstly, there is only room for two ecosystems in the mobile phone market, and they were too late to take number 2. Secondly, the fundamental architecture of the Windows Phone OS wasn't sufficiently scalable and flexible to handle apps with high functionality and a large feature set. I strongly disagree with that second point: I think it could have been if they'd invested more effort into it.
-
I have been using Apache OpenOffice for years and it's MS word compatible. It's basically a clone of MS Office with most of the same features. I'm running it on windows right now but have also loaded it on a Linux system/Raspberry Pi.
Better move on to LibreOffice as OpenOffice is basically dead (on life support).
Or SoftMaker Office if you want a cleaner and more modern UI. The downside is it's not free (but it is very cheap).
-
I'm in a lucky position, it's me who is mainly sending stuff and for other direction I can always ask PDFs.
So I'm fine with LibreOffice and GIMP, but for personal reasons PDF reader must still be from Mordor.
For professionals a new MS Office is a must if it is in use.
For vector graphics new PDF capability is also a must.
One problem is that generally people can't really use their OS.
They can use the application, but anything after that starts being out of bounds.
One major bad thing was hiding an extension of a filename.
-
The downside is it's not free (but it is very cheap)
Does it require online activation?
I am thinking about if/when the company goes bust or otherwise goes AWOL. Also part of the reason why subscriptions, even at £24/yr, are bad news: you can be arbitrarily prevented from using something you rely upon.
-
The topic of "command line" came up. Command line / shell is all about repeatability. Repeatability lends to script able which lends to automation. Even just hitting "UP" a few times to recall a previous command (or history | grep thing and a !1234 bang to rerun).
Automating a pointy-cilcky-draggy-droppy interface is not really worth doing, well outside of large commercial applications with macros etc.
As a software dev I am not the "average" user, but the basic tooling include a CLI or some form.
On Linux I use "Konsole" to have a multi-pane, multi-tab command line and "bash".
On Windows I use "git bash", which comes with the "git" package. It gives me a pretty functional bash shell on windows. For anything more involved there is WSL if you can't use a remote VM instead.
On Mac it defaults to zsh, but it's easy enough to just run "bash" or set the default to bash.
-
Or SoftMaker Office if you want a cleaner and more modern UI. The downside is it's not free (but it is very cheap).
"very cheap" is an subjective concept. For me, 49.99 €/year is not cheap at all for a cleaner and more modern UI.
-
Being objective. Both of your arguments are emotional and that's not a bad thing.
Well you are free to think so. But, even if that's not a bad thing, please note i, some time ago, recommended on this forum, to have some windows machine(s) for things like ...electronics, just because many times you can't drive some interesting gadget with linux.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-computing/ee-bench-pc-what-os-suggestions/msg5624037/#msg5624037 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-computing/ee-bench-pc-what-os-suggestions/msg5624037/#msg5624037)
Now, for use as an EE bench system, you already learned that many devices have Windows-only firmware. You can use virtualbox; it has settings to connect to different peripherals out of the virtual machine. This means another learning curve however. Or you could have a dual-boot system and restart into the system you need at any moment. But, IMO, to have another machine for windows is the handiest thing to do. Usually we have more than a PC, and to have and old PC with, say, windows XP/7 and even perhaps another one with 10/11to be started if/when needed will probably be the most trouble-free way to go. Assuming you have the space in your workshop, of course
I still have that PowerBook G3 I paid an unholy amount of money for in 1998. The reason? "Desktop publishing" with QuarkXPress. WYSYWIG, absolute control of anything: picture placement, flow text, etc, etc. That's what was used professionally on any company in the printing business in the 90s. So perhaps I shouldn't say "desktop publishing", but i used it for that, for years. I still haven't found anything even near as good. I didn't need to do that, for more than a decade, but it's still there (should check if it still boots i guess)
About LaTex: working as IT guy for a music school, they choosed a LaTex based software for music sheets. They tried any WYSYWIG software I could suggest to them, but all were defective in some way. But the LaTex based one did the job perfectly at each test. So they hired a guy and trained him in LaTex just for that.
BTW, IIRC, LaTex was also used by Therion https://therion.speleo.sk (https://therion.speleo.sk) This is the cave mapping software i mentioned on a previous post. It was sewed together by two Czech guys using what was available in Linux. The result is a software that saves you a lot of work each time you close a loop in your centreline. Before, you had to redraw by hand all the contours effected by the error in your centreline, error that can't be found until you close a loop. Perhaps your error was just a few meters, but you had to redraw. With Therion this doesn't matter: even if the error is big, the cavity countours you draw with therion around your centreline, are automatically adapted to the new corrected centreline.
Yes, it was geeeky and the first time i tried it, i failed miserably. Had to ask for help in their forum. But after a couple hints, it was easy, and saved me from little to huge amounts of work, more than once, all the time I remained young and slim enough to consider caving worth my weekend time. So, viva las vegas los geeks
Call me emotional if you wish, but I'm all for anything that can do what I want with less work and best results. This seems quite objective to me.
-
The downside is it's not free (but it is very cheap)
Does it require online activation?
I am thinking about if/when the company goes bust or otherwise goes AWOL. Also part of the reason why subscriptions, even at £24/yr, are bad news: you can be arbitrarily prevented from using something you rely upon.
You have to enter a licence number to activate it, so I guess that gets sent to SoftMaker for validation. As for whether it needs an Internet connection beyond that, I don't know. If I get time I'll try it and report back.
Regarding the company going AWOL: I have a couple of thoughts. Firstly, who cares? There are plenty of other Office suites that do much the same job. If something went wrong I would use the online version of Office or download LibreOffice until I'd got the situation straightened out.
Secondly, "What if...?" isn't usually a great argument because you need to know the probability of it happening before it becomes a useful or meaningful argument. So of course the company might go bust, but there are lots of things in life, and in computing, that could go wrong. If you allow these unquantified possibilities to dominate your thinking you will miss out on all kinds of things in life.
My assessment is that the probability of the company going AWOL is low, and the consequence of that is low as well.
risk = probability x consequence = low x low = "Don't worry about it"
-
Or SoftMaker Office if you want a cleaner and more modern UI. The downside is it's not free (but it is very cheap).
"very cheap" is an subjective concept. For me, 49.99 €/year is not cheap at all for a cleaner and more modern UI.
Half that if you use the five-machine "Home" licence, like me.
But I really appreciate your comment! Instead of calling me a Windows fanboy, or saying I'm biased against Linux, you present a simple and irrefutable argument: for you, the benefits don't outweigh the costs. Good for you, and I totally respect that. For me they do. We're all different.
We've been discussing in this thread whether Windows 11 is dying. A big factor in that is whether there is a viable alternative. Without an alternative, W11 wont die. Is Linux a viable alternative? For me, yes, definitely. There is nothing about W11 that I would really miss, and Linux Mint definitely floats my boat.
But I'm much more interested in the applications ecosystem, and it is that, not the OS itself, that strongly dissuades me. I love using good quality, elegant, well designed tools, both at my workbench and at my workstation. The reason I keep banging on about it is because I believe most other Windows desktop users will come to the same conclusion. That's why I think it will be the ecosystem that keeps Windows alive, not the merits of the OS itself.
-
Automating a pointy-cilcky-draggy-droppy interface is not really worth doing, well outside of large commercial applications with macros etc.
I agree with that, although there are tools which will achieve that. But you need to separate the processes of designing and building. For design you would typically do one-off things. Create a form, shove a gadget here, etc. You're not going to repeat that on a scale that would demand (or be achievable) with automation (normally!). But building you do often and mostly the same way. So your design tool(s) would be graphical but build tools CLI based and ripe for automation.
-
I think there are really two issues here that we see also in programming. First is that driving via text (a la LaTex) was the only choice since there were really no graphics around, and certainly no WYSIWYG. It's not that it was better; it was the only choice.
I'm really fine with the concept. I have programmed for ages and I am fine modifying code, then producing outputs from it.
What I don't like is my figure related to text on page 9 being on page 36, and after adding the recommended keywords to the code, it still being on page 36, or maybe on page 33 or 37, then only to find another package after package.
Some programming languages / frameworks are similar - and I don't like them either.
Also the \ {syntax} is heavy, especially with Finnish keyboard layout which needs AltGr for {}. Maybe I just want to align text. It is utterly excessive I have to write \ begin{align} and \ end{align} to achieve that. HTML-esque <align> </align> is much more manageable, for example. No wonder people rather click one button or hit tab or whatever.
The concept of reusable styles that can be configured from one place is of course excellent, when properly implemented - easy to use. Many WYSIWYG editors also fall into the trap of making using those styles requiring weirdly many clicks. Then we are back to applying styles one by one, and not being able to modify them all at once again. That's life.
-
Just a note regarding image creation under Windoze:
Someone here mentioned how GIMP wasn't really up to this task.
For creating images I use two programs:
- For pure bitmaps, Paint Shop Pro, version 7.00
- For images with geometric elements, Corel Draw, version 12
Both of these are outdated.
Both work wonderfully well for the image-creation work I do.
Anyone else here use these?
-
Just a note regarding image creation under Windoze:
Someone here mentioned how GIMP wasn't really up to this task.
For creating images I use two programs:
- For pure bitmaps, Paint Shop Pro, version 7.00
- For images with geometric elements, Corel Draw, version 12
AK, may I ask what OS you are using? Paint Shop Pro has grown into a bloat-monster, and I am very tempted to wind back a few versions but I don't know which are compatible with W11.
-
My impression is that Corel Draw is a one way street.
It's fine if you control the whole life cycle of production.
Nowadays many print shops don't accept stuff without Disteller at all.
-
Just a note regarding image creation under Windoze:
Someone here mentioned how GIMP wasn't really up to this task.
For creating images I use two programs:
- For pure bitmaps, Paint Shop Pro, version 7.00
- For images with geometric elements, Corel Draw, version 12
AK, may I ask what OS you are using? Paint Shop Pro has grown into a bloat-monster, and I am very tempted to wind back a few versions but I don't know which are compatible with W11.
Windows 7. The latest version that I will tolerate.
Yes, the newer versions of PSP (post being acquired by Corel) are horrible bloatware.
This is basically the old XP version produced by Jasc software.
I have no idea where one would get this: I've just carried the executables along with me since Windows 2000.
It requires no installation, just run the .exe from whereever it lives on your disk.
My impression is that Corel Draw is a one way street.
It's fine if you control the whole life cycle of production.
Nowadays many print shops don't accept stuff without Disteller at all.
Corel can export to a lot of formats. Besides the usual bitmap and vector formats there's EPS and AI (Adobe Illustrator), so there should be some pathway to the print shop's page placement software. (When I owned a print shop I used Adobe InDesign, where I could almost always just "place" the customer's PDF into a document and burn plates from it.)
-
Just a note regarding image creation under Windoze:
Someone here mentioned how GIMP wasn't really up to this task.
For creating images I use two programs:
- For pure bitmaps, Paint Shop Pro, version 7.00
- For images with geometric elements, Corel Draw, version 12
Both of these are outdated.
Both work wonderfully well for the image-creation work I do.
Anyone else here use these?
I use PaintShop Pro for images with stencils and multiple layers to generate final bitmaps with alpha channel transparency layer for my embedded devices which have bitmap displays and FreeBasic/C coding.
For fancier bitmap stuff, I use Adobe Photoshop Elements as it came for free with my laptop. It also supports alpha channel stencils.
For technical illustrations and drawings, I use Open Office Draw. Though, this work is usually just for flow charts. I'm still looking a better tool designed specifically for flow-chart generation.
-
Windows 7 here, it does what I tell it to.
Runs CATIA not Fusion360, Kicad not Altium
-
Blimey! CAITA is more expensive than Altium plus a month in a 5-star holiday apartment.
-
Anyone else here use these?
Once upon a time, but not for a very long while. Currently use either Affinity Photo (1.x since 2+ don't like W7) for manipulating images.
Or XNView MP for fixing up luminance, contrast, etc. of jpegs before posting, and adding furniture like arrows, text, etc. XNView MP is nice for screen captures too. I guess everything that PSP did, but is actually supported and bug fixed.
-
If Windows 11 is dying, well this thread is certainly quite alive.
And I think this thread might be staying on continuously for rather longer than a Windows 11 (or Windows 10 for that matter) machine with mandated updates can.
But mostly I'm commenting here to give anyone who is saying "Linux isn't a good OS for me because the inbuilt programs that $distro ships with aren't up to scratch", a reminder that Wine (now in a new release, Wine 11, which claims further increases in compatiblity for Windows programs that couldn't be Wine'd before) exists. As do Windows virtual machines (in to which you can put whichever version of Windows you prefer, security vulnerabilitirs in legacy versions don't matter if the VM is staying offline).
I am quite the Linux evangelist (Mint, MATE desktop, it just works... genuinely, it just works, the only time I've ever NEEDED to do terminal tinkering was when initially installing some programs) , but Linux fans who start saying that coming to Linux means you should only be using Linux tools, instead of those you are already familiar with, are doing the Linux community quite the dis-service. People want an OS which runs the programs they already know. Fleeing from Windows shouldn't mean you have to leave all your programs behind, nor does it.
P.S. I've never met a printing shop which couldn't take jpg (or svg where vectors are concerned, and even then a sufficiently high resolution jpeg can always be used for any given size of printing) images. These don't guarantee the precise colours the way that some proprietary colour models do, but for most printed graphics you probably don't care whether a colour on screen is precisely the same as on paper/canvas/cotton/mugs/shirts/coasters/posters...
On Linux I've used GIMP for advanced image editing, I've never used Photoshop so didn't have to unlearn it to learn GIMP, though I have had to force the latest GIMP versions to return to the older style of GIMP user interface (with lots of pop-up windows for various tools). I've also used KolourPaint (adding to Zero999 and TizianoHV 's recommendations) for the sorts of quick, simple tasks that old M$ Paint was good for. And there's a tool called Xournal for when I've needed to make annotations upon pdf documents.
P.P.S. Flowcharts... I have found this in the past https://www.yworks.com/yed-live/ (https://www.yworks.com/yed-live/) I'm not sure if there is a downloadable version, or if any downloadable version is fully standalone (can be activated on a new PC without a need to phone home), so I couldn't say whether this can be relied upon long-term... but for occasional one-off uses I've found it suitable.
P.P.P.S. Regarding claims of Linux being crash-prone vs Windows being stable... I've had close to zero real problems since leaving Windows for Linux in about 2017, all the more detailed technical tinkering has been when settings things up, once something is working on Linux I've found it stays working. And I've found Linux Mint has been perfectly happy with being cloned by dd between different machines, or having the same HDD swapped between different machines (though all the machines had some similarities, all UEFI, all similar era of CPU, all intel CPU, all SATA connection for HDD, all using inbuilt graphics of the CPU not dedicated graphics cards) and just booted without any modifications. And I've switched elderly relatives to Linux Mint from Windows, the sort of people who use nothing more than a browser, an email client, a document editor for simple text and a file browser. Did so because I found I couldn't assist them when Windows crashed as I couldn't keep up with all the ways Windows kept changing things, I've had zero requests for help since.
-
If Windows 11 is dying, well this thread is certainly quite alive.
And I think this thread might be staying on continuously for rather longer than a Windows 11 (or Windows 10 for that matter) machine with mandated updates can.
But mostly I'm commenting here to give anyone who is saying "Linux isn't a good OS for me because the inbuilt programs that $distro ships with aren't up to scratch", a reminder that Wine (now in a new release, Wine 11, which claims further increases in compatiblity for Windows programs that couldn't be Wine'd before) exists. As do Windows virtual machines (in to which you can put whichever version of Windows you prefer, security vulnerabilitirs in legacy versions don't matter if the VM is staying offline).
I am quite the Linux evangelist (Mint, MATE desktop, it just works... genuinely, it just works, the only time I've ever NEEDED to do terminal tinkering was when initially installing some programs) , but Linux fans who start saying that coming to Linux means you should only be using Linux tools, instead of those you are already familiar with, are doing the Linux community quite the dis-service. People want an OS which runs the programs they already know. Fleeing from Windows shouldn't mean you have to leave all your programs behind, nor does it.
A self-proclaimed Linux evangelist immediately talks about running Windows while "Fleeing from Windows". Do you also believe the fairytale that Linux is more secure? Does Linux never change?
As I see it, your argument is that one can ditch Windows and run Linux and Windows. What a concept. Thanks, but, uhm, no.
-
But mostly I'm commenting here to give anyone who is saying "Linux isn't a good OS for me because the inbuilt programs that $distro ships with aren't up to scratch", a reminder that Wine (now in a new release, Wine 11, which claims further increases in compatiblity for Windows programs that couldn't be Wine'd before) exists. As do Windows virtual machines (in to which you can put whichever version of Windows you prefer, security vulnerabilitirs in legacy versions don't matter if the VM is staying offline).
There is a published compatibility list showing what Windows applications will run under WINE. To be honest it isn't that great. As you know I don't care much about the OS, much more about the apps, so I might as well run Windows apps in Windows. I do use VMs, but they aren't really very convenient, so I've pretty much stopped using them. For example, I had a Windows XP VM because I loved a particular version of Visio, but it was too much messing about and in the end I moved to a more recent version.
I am quite the Linux evangelist (Mint, MATE desktop, it just works... genuinely, it just works...
So does Windows, for me. Probably for hundreds of millions of others, too.
Regarding claims of Linux being crash-prone vs Windows being stable... I've had close to zero real problems since leaving Windows for Linux in about 2017, all the more detailed technical tinkering has been when settings things up, once something is working on Linux I've found it stays working.
I haven't found Linux to be crash-prone in recent times, but it has happened to me in the past. It was probably running in a VM, so it hardly counts. I think both OSs are extremely stable and very difficult to crash unless you install a bad kernel-mode driver, which - let's be honest - can mess up any OS.
I found I couldn't assist them when Windows crashed as I couldn't keep up with all the ways Windows kept changing things, I've had zero requests for help since.
OK, but I don't believe Windows "crashed". We throw that word around like it's a normal thing, but both OSs are built to be uncrashable by the end user, and I think 99% of "crashes" - in both OSs - are nothing of the sort. Far more likely is an application crash or freeze, or some other event that the user didn't expect or know how to handle.
In my experience, the only way to crash either OS is to install a bad kernel-mode driver OR have a hardware fault. And when it comes to the applications, there's no reason why either Windows or Linux apps should be any more stable than the other.
-
A self-proclaimed Linux evangelist immediately talks about running Windows while "Fleeing from Windows". Do you also believe the fairytale that Linux is more secure? Does Linux never change?
As I see it, your argument is that one can ditch Windows and run Linux and Windows. What a concept. Thanks, but, uhm, no.
I think you are misunderstanding what he is trying to say. Or, at least, I understand it differently.
I understand that you can transition smoothly from one to the other and I agree with that.
I have been using Linux Mint as my main OS for about 10 years now and I am very satisfied with it but I still use a couple of Windows programs with WINE.
-
I have been using Linux Mint as my main OS for about 10 years now and I am very satisfied with it but I still use a couple of Windows programs with WINE.
Which was the last Windows version you used exclusively?
-
It doesn't matter much if we like or dislike Windows. The most obvious problem with Windows (actually Microsoft overall) is that it has become a liability with the way Microsoft envisions its future, the monthly update disasters, the security debacles, data collection, enforced Microsoft accounts, general enshitification, and many things more. It's up to you to decide if you want to own your PC or being owned.
-
but for most printed graphics you probably don't care whether a colour on screen is precisely the same
Heh.
When I owned a print shop...
Back in the day external and EPS meant just a size of it as a preview for a rotation.
No wonder Distiller was invented.
Old Corel had also its own coloring system, still ICC of something, no idea how general it is today.
Adding that to JPGs of the-only-possible-original-of-the-week and possibly "exotic" electric printing, no wonder mixing ecosystems is not a desirable state.
Other possibility for original may have been a PDF, but the same JPG in it is then a thump size.
Did you have a process camera?
Here all cameras were practically gone when color scanners appeared.
I saw one of the last old ones, with meters long chassis and stack of large rasterizing films of initially who knows how expensive.
No wonder electrical scanners were loudly greeted.
Did you do film printing or straight to plate?
Here my fist interaction was Linotronic 100 and multiple Mac something feeding it through 10base2.
Software was PageMaker and output obviously Postscript, no daylight film either.
I advised them to do RIP per workstation and send a bitmap, but maybe alpha channel didn't cooperate, something transparent became solid and they kept on struggling.
It was a new system and workers were still learning how to do it with PageMaker, very powerful union behind them also.
Pretty much a different world back then, where yesterday was scissors, glue sticks, light table and so on.
-
A self-proclaimed Linux evangelist immediately talks about running Windows while "Fleeing from Windows". Do you also believe the fairytale that Linux is more secure? Does Linux never change?
As I see it, your argument is that one can ditch Windows and run Linux and Windows. What a concept. Thanks, but, uhm, no.
I think you are misunderstanding what he is trying to say. Or, at least, I understand it differently.
I understand that you can transition smoothly from one to the other and I agree with that.
I have been using Linux Mint as my main OS for about 10 years now and I am very satisfied with it but I still use a couple of Windows programs with WINE.
I think we are close. To be clear about my perspective. I want an OS to do OS stuff and provide a platform that runs the applications I use most efficiently. The friction of getting the applications I need to use is important to me.
If the applications I wish to run are best or easiest on Windows, it seems contrived to get WINE working on Linux and then get my preferred Windows app working on WINE on Linux, vs. just starting the computer and running the application on Windows.
Also, I should be clear. I don't run Windows. I use macOS for my user interface. I use Windows and Linux on other systems. I have at least 40 systems running at any given time, between hardware and VMs on my servers. All of the apps that I want to run as a user are native to macOS and no VM/WINE is required.
The other implications I've seen and addressed are that people believe a myth that Linux is more secure than Windows, and that Linux doesn't change. Both of these are falsehoods as far as I know. In fact, Linux tops the charts in most breached and most vulnerabilities.
And as for changes, the Linux desktop is so splintered that it's amazing anything works across them all. It would be better to say "move to linux where if you can't find a distro that currently does things the way you want, you're not looking." It's anything but consistent and stable.
-
I think we are close. To be clear about my perspective. I want an OS to do OS stuff and provide a platform that runs the applications I use most efficiently. The friction of getting the applications I need to use is important to me.
If the applications I wish to run are best or easiest on Windows, it seems contrived to get WINE working on Linux and then get my preferred Windows app working on WINE on Linux, vs. just starting the computer and running the application on Windows.
Also, I should be clear. I don't run Windows. I use macOS for my user interface. I use Windows and Linux on other systems. I have at least 40 systems running at any given time, between hardware and VMs on my servers. All of the apps that I want to run as a user are native to macOS and no VM/WINE is required.
The other implications I've seen and addressed are that people believe a myth that Linux is more secure than Windows, and that Linux doesn't change. Both of these are falsehoods as far as I know. In fact, Linux tops the charts in most breached and most vulnerabilities.
And as for changes, the Linux desktop is so splintered that it's amazing anything works across them all. It would be better to say "move to linux where if you can't find a distro that currently does things the way you want, you're not looking." It's anything but consistent and stable.
Maybe it's just me but I seem to detect a confrontational tone. It's like you are looking for someone to contradict you. As far as I am concerned you can do and think whatever you want and whatever makes you happy and works for you. I'm not here to argue. If you are looking for the Monty Python Argument Clinic I'm afrarid it's not me.
The "Linux desktop is so splintered" I do not understand. I have used Mint (with the default Cinnamon desktop) for about ten years now and have yet to see any splinters on my desktop. The existence of other distros of Linux and other desktops affects me just as much as the existence of Windows or Apple: exactly zero.
I do not understand the complaint that there are too many distros of Linux. Well, I only use one and I don't care how many others exist. They don't affect me in the least. Just like the existence of Windows or Apple or Android or anything else.
The "it seems contrived to get WINE working on Linux and then get my preferred Windows app working on WINE on Linux" I do not understand. When I installed Linux Mint, I install WINE and my desired Windows program and from then on they just work. I click on the icon and it starts. Someone who does not know better would think the program is running natively. It's like installing a driver. You install it it once and then forget it. I really do not understand the complaint.
The "Linux doesn't change" seems like a strange thing to say either in the affirmative or the negative. In my experience everything changes. So Linux changes... so what? I dislike change but I just have to get used to change because I have no other option. The fact that I dislike change is the main reason I am running some Windows programs with Linux because there are other Linux programs which could serve the same purpose.
To each his own. I have chosen Linux because I dislike "telemetry" (spying), I dislike Windows' heavy handed update policies, and because Linux requires less resources and can run on older computers which can no longer run Windows. I have more control over my own computer and I like that.
If other people prefer Windows or Apple or other Linux distros or a walk in the park, well, more power to them. They do not affect me in the least.
-
Well, Nokia was already spiraling to death at that point due to earlier mistakes (and to be fair, keeping that sort of company running when technology changes all the time and you need to react correct and timely, is not easy task at all). Just maybe it could have been saved (as a large scale mobile phone manufacturer) with some genius-level management changes, but Microsoft involvement was obviously a conscious decision to do the opposite: to kill it deliberately, pull the plug so to speak.
Do you really think so?
Yes. Really it seemed obvious to most people inside the corporation and also to most others that the MS deal is not going to end up working, like chances of success are exactly 0%. Now doing anything else could have been chances close to 0%, but still non-zero. Selling out to MS was obviously looking like total surrender, in a tight situation where fighting with own, sensible product line still was a remote possibility. In a desperate situation, doing something brave and unique could have worked, but nah, the whole demise of Nokia was problem of poor management - and bloated middle management - and when a large ship is going down because it's too large, it's very hard to save. Selling out to MS probably saved personal careers of many, and just like "no one got fired by buying IBM", no one also got fired for selling out to Microsoft, so then we can just look at the obvious result and say "oh we did our best".
But that also reflects the root issue, lack of passion, lack of interest of delivering excellent result for end users.
-
Just a note regarding image creation under Windoze:
Someone here mentioned how GIMP wasn't really up to this task.
For creating images I use two programs:
- For pure bitmaps, Paint Shop Pro, version 7.00
- For images with geometric elements, Corel Draw, version 12
Both of these are outdated.
Both work wonderfully well for the image-creation work I do.
Anyone else here use these?
I used Paint Shop Pro, I think it was version 6.0 or something (maybe from 1999?), for a very long time, up until 2015 or so. It was - and still is - a program with very decent feature set for its age, and UX was just excellent - very intuitive. Corel Draw I didn't use but hear mostly positive comments, it seems to have similar cult following to Paint Shop Pro.
Good software is delight to work with - no matter the license, cost or age.
-
The "Linux desktop is so splintered" I do not understand. I have used Mint (with the default Cinnamon desktop) for about ten years now and have yet to see any splinters on my desktop. The existence of other distros of Linux and other desktops affects me just as much as the existence of Windows or Apple: exactly zero.
I do not understand the complaint that there are too many distros of Linux. Well, I only use one and I don't care how many others exist. They don't affect me in the least. Just like the existence of Windows or Apple or Android or anything else.
Logically you are right of course, but you are missing the point these people make: they think that with fewer "splintering" and fewer distros the same amount of resources would be put into doing less of the repeated work, so that a better quality software would be delivered instead. Whether this is true at all is another question; I don't think it is. In world of free / open source software, many people/companies do whatever they want to do exactly because they can do what they want; they would not be doing something else instead just because someone directed them to. Plus, competition drives innovation, too. Duplicated work, while inefficient, increases security against single points of failure.
-
The "Linux desktop is so splintered" I do not understand. I have used Mint (with the default Cinnamon desktop) for about ten years now and have yet to see any splinters on my desktop. The existence of other distros of Linux and other desktops affects me just as much as the existence of Windows or Apple: exactly zero.
I do not understand the complaint that there are too many distros of Linux. Well, I only use one and I don't care how many others exist. They don't affect me in the least. Just like the existence of Windows or Apple or Android or anything else.
Logically you are right of course, but you are missing the point these people make: they think that with fewer "splintering" and fewer distros the same amount of resources would be put into doing less of the repeated work, so that a better quality software would be delivered instead. Whether this is true at all is another question; I don't think it is. In world of free / open source software, many people/companies do whatever they want to do exactly because they can do what they want; they would not be doing something else instead just because someone directed them to. Plus, competition drives innovation, too. Duplicated work, while inefficient, increases security against single points of failure.
Actually, the distros aren't that important. They are like fixed menus in a restaurant. The chef selected courses and drinks which go well together. It is the underlying software that is being developed which is important. Distros can be conservative and choose proven recepies while other distros are on the cutting edge of fusion cooking.
-
The "Linux desktop is so splintered" I do not understand. I have used Mint (with the default Cinnamon desktop) for about ten years now and have yet to see any splinters on my desktop. The existence of other distros of Linux and other desktops affects me just as much as the existence of Windows or Apple: exactly zero.
I do not understand the complaint that there are too many distros of Linux. Well, I only use one and I don't care how many others exist. They don't affect me in the least. Just like the existence of Windows or Apple or Android or anything else.
Logically you are right of course, but you are missing the point these people make: they think that with fewer "splintering" and fewer distros the same amount of resources would be put into doing less of the repeated work, so that a better quality software would be delivered instead. Whether this is true at all is another question; I don't think it is. In world of free / open source software, many people/companies do whatever they want to do exactly because they can do what they want; they would not be doing something else instead just because someone directed them to. Plus, competition drives innovation, too. Duplicated work, while inefficient, increases security against single points of failure.
Oh, OK, thanks, I see the point.
-
Yes. Really it seemed obvious to most people inside the corporation and also to most others that the MS deal is not going to end up working, like chances of success are exactly 0%. Now doing anything else could have been chances close to 0%, but still non-zero. Selling out to MS was obviously looking like total surrender, in a tight situation where fighting with own, sensible product line still was a remote possibility. In a desperate situation, doing something brave and unique could have worked, but nah, the whole demise of Nokia was problem of poor management - and bloated middle management - and when a large ship is going down because it's too large, it's very hard to save. Selling out to MS probably saved personal careers of many, and just like "no one got fired by buying IBM", no one also got fired for selling out to Microsoft, so then we can just look at the obvious result and say "oh we did our best".
My memory of this is very different. At that time Microsoft was desperately trying push Windows Phone 7, and Nokia were one of the very few mobile phone manufacturers to have adopted it, turning out great products like the 1520 - probably my favourite mobile phone of all time.
Microsoft thought that buying a phone manufacturer would provide them with the same benefits Apple had with their relatively new iPhone: complete control over the software, the hardware, the marketing. It was a very reasonable strategy - they did not want the adoption of WP7 to be entirely at the whim of the phone manufacturers. Google did the same thing for Android: they started selling Google-branded phones as "exemplars" of what an Android phone could be. Seeding the market, if you like. Luckily for them they were pushing at an already open door, unlike Microsoft with WP7.
In more recent times Microsoft became frustrated with the fairly boring, fairly crappy Windows laptops that were being sold at that time. Chromebooks looked like they could make inroads into the mobile computing market, which was making them nervous. The market lacked a Windows laptop fit to be a competitor to the Apple range, so Microsoft "did a Google" and developed a range of top flight, premium portable computers to demonstrate that you didn't need to buy Apple if you wanted a top quality product.
It worked: the Surface range set a new standard for top flight, desirable Windows computers and - in my opinion - definitely raised the perceived value and status of Windows machines for portable computing.
So it worked with Surface: taking control of the hardware, software and marketing is a powerful tool for success - something Apple have enjoyed since the beginning. Unfortunately it didn't work with Nokia and Windows Phone 7.
I don't know what the management culture was like in Nokia at that time, but their phone products were right up there with the best. I also don't really understand why Microsoft failed with Nokia but succeeded with Surface.
-
The "Linux desktop is so splintered" I do not understand.
Indeed,perhaps they need some sandpaper.The desktop im using now looks very similar the the desktop i was using when i first jumped ship 20ish year ago,yes the buggers tried to change things but a magic incantation put it back to how i wanted things,can you say the same for windows 11 ?
-
The "Linux desktop is so splintered" I do not understand.
Indeed,perhaps they need some sandpaper.The desktop im using now looks very similar the the desktop i was using when i first jumped ship 20ish year ago,yes the buggers tried to change things but a magic incantation put it back to how i wanted things,can you say the same for windows 11 ?
"How I want things" changes over time. I'm quite proud to be open to change, provided it feels like change for the better. Sometimes it does, sometimes not. I've never resisted change for 20 years, though!
Even if the benefit seems questionable, I'll sometimes embrace it just to avoid boredom.
-
but for most printed graphics you probably don't care whether a colour on screen is precisely the same
Heh.
When I owned a print shop...
Did you have a process camera?
Here all cameras were practically gone when color scanners appeared.
Not in this shop.
Up to this point I had only worked in shops (including one I set up when I was just a kid in a graphic-designer mentor's basement with a Multi 1250) which shot everything on litho film using a process camera and then burned plates from stripped flats. You know, Rubylith, red spotting ink, amber stripping sheets, all that stuff.
(I'll have to tell you about my camera setup I had in that old shop in a follow-up post. It was too weird to be true ...)
Did you do film printing or straight to plate?
Straight to plate.
The shop I owned was based on a Heidelberg Speedmaster 52-2. Incredible fucking piece of machinery (and also an incredible financial burden, since I was paying for it with a monthly lease).
The workflow was from computer (a Windows machine that I used, and a Mac that was used by a guy who came in and did prepress stuff for me) direct to an AB Dick platemaker that made polyester plates.
99% of the time, when customers came in with a PDF of their piece, I could just open up InDesign, plop their PDF into a blank document and send it to the platemaker. No adjustments needed, including page bleeds or any other imposition choices.
-
A bit off-topic, I know, but I just wanted to describe my process camera I had when I was just a kid (20s) in my basement print shop with my Multi 1250.
The "press" (actually an offset duplicator) belonged to a graphic designer I ended up working for. It was sitting unused in his basement, not working.
He told me I could use it if I could get it working.
Luckily it came with a service manual. Not an official A-M (Addressograph Multigraph) book but a 3rd party one with complete teardown and rebuild instructions and lots of pictures.
I was able to get the thing running with the help of that book.
So then I needed some way to make plates for it.
This was in Chicago, so we went down to this place on Wabash Ave. ("Printer's Row") that sold used equipment.
There I found an ancient process camera, nice big horizontal jobbie, for $cheap$, so we bought it.
Turned out that this camera was once part of the original Xerox process.
It didn't take film; instead, the target was a polished metal plate at the back.
At that time, the xerography process consisted of these steps:
- This metal plate was inserted in a device that placed a high-voltage charge on the plate. (Dunno whether positive or negative.)
- The plate was put in a dark slide and inserted in the back of the camera.
- The plate was exposed to the copy material in the camera.
- The plate was taken (in the dark slide) to a thing that covered the plate with toner; the toner stuck to the unexposed (dark) areas of the plate and didn't stick to the exposed (background = white) parts.
- The plate was put into yet another device that imparted the toner to the copy paper, just like modren Xeroxes do: a hot fuser melted the toner into the paper, and voila! there's your copy.
Obviously this wouldn't work for my application; I needed to expose litho film.
So I took that silvery metal plate and drilled a bunch of small holes in a grid pattern.
Built an airtight enclosure onto the back of the plate holder using Masonite.
Attached a vacuum-cleaner hose outlet to the back of this box.
Ran an ancient Hoover to the box with a hose.
Now I could put a piece of film on the plate, turn on the vacuum, load it into the back, expose it, then develop the film.
It worked great.
My "platemaker" was just a wooden contact frame with a piece of glass and some foam rubber to squish the stripped flat onto the plate (I used foil plates) and a quartz lamp to burn it.
I loves ancient technology ...
I found a page that describes all this equipment (https://xeroxnostalgia.com/2024/02/12/xerox-standard-equipment/), which apparently was combined into what Xerox called the "Xerox standard equipment". All the separate steps were done by separate modules within one cabinet.
-
Even if the benefit seems questionable, I'll sometimes embrace it just to avoid boredom.
And when it impacts productivity?i don't want to hover at the left hand side of the screen ,to click an icon on a side panel that pops out , to bring up a window to search for the program i want to run,whoever came up with that idea should be forced to run windows 2.0 ,for life,I'll stick with the "classic" look thanks
-
Even if the benefit seems questionable, I'll sometimes embrace it just to avoid boredom.
And when it impacts productivity?i don't want to hover at the left hand side of the screen ,to click an icon on a side panel that pops out , to bring up a window to search for the program i want to run,whoever came up with that idea should be forced to run windows 2.0 ,for life,I'll stick with the "classic" look thanks
There speaks someone who hasn't used Windows in 20 years. You've no idea what you are talking about - that is not how Windows works (unless you deliberately frig it, but of course you can frig Linux to make it unusable as well). You might be interested to know that it takes just two clicks to launch any of the 20-odd programs on my Start menu - one for the menu, one for the icon.
This is what seems so sad to me: the most resolutely anti-Windows pundits here have clearly not used it for so long their opinions are completely outdated. And yet they still keep hating. It's as if their self-esteem depends on it, which is why they defend it to the last.
Fucking weird, if you ask me.
-
A bit off-topic, I know, but I just wanted to describe my process camera I had when I was just a kid (20s) in my basement print shop with my Multi 1250.
The "press" (actually an offset duplicator) belonged to a graphic designer I ended up working for. It was sitting unused in his basement, not working.
He told me I could use it if I could get it working.
Luckily it came with a service manual. Not an official A-M (Addressograph Multigraph) book but a 3rd party one with complete teardown and rebuild instructions and lots of pictures.
I was able to get the thing running with the help of that book.
So then I needed some way to make plates for it.
This was in Chicago, so we went down to this place on Wabash Ave. ("Printer's Row") that sold used equipment.
There I found an ancient process camera, nice big horizontal jobbie, for $cheap$, so we bought it.
Turned out that this camera was once part of the original Xerox process.
It didn't take film; instead, the target was a polished metal plate at the back.
At that time, the xerography process consisted of these steps:
- This metal plate was inserted in a device that placed a high-voltage charge on the plate. (Dunno whether positive or negative.)
- The plate was put in a dark slide and inserted in the back of the camera.
- The plate was exposed to the copy material in the camera.
- The plate was taken (in the dark slide) to a thing that covered the plate with toner; the toner stuck to the unexposed (dark) areas of the plate and didn't stick to the exposed (background = white) parts.
- The plate was put into yet another device that imparted the toner to the copy paper, just like modren Xeroxes do: a hot fuser melted the toner into the paper, and voila! there's your copy.
Obviously this wouldn't work for my application; I needed to expose litho film.
So I took that silvery metal plate and drilled a bunch of small holes in a grid pattern.
Built an airtight enclosure onto the back of the plate holder using Masonite.
Attached a vacuum-cleaner hose outlet to the back of this box.
Ran an ancient Hoover to the box with a hose.
Now I could put a piece of film on the plate, turn on the vacuum, load it into the back, expose it, then develop the film.
It worked great.
My "platemaker" was just a wooden contact frame with a piece of glass and some foam rubber to squish the stripped flat onto the plate (I used foil plates) and a quartz lamp to burn it.
I loves ancient technology ...
When the printers moved to single-floor buildings in da ‘burbs, Printers’ Row high rises were converted to loft condos. The main selling point was huge floor loading, suitable for multiple pianos, since heavy presses were housed on upper floors.
-
Even if the benefit seems questionable, I'll sometimes embrace it just to avoid boredom.
And when it impacts productivity?i don't want to hover at the left hand side of the screen ,to click an icon on a side panel that pops out , to bring up a window to search for the program i want to run,whoever came up with that idea should be forced to run windows 2.0 ,for life,I'll stick with the "classic" look thanks
Is that what W11 is now? Here on W7 there is the start menu where things not used too often are easily found (assuming one has organised it sensibly). For often used things there are shortcuts (aka icons) on the desktop, sometimes in a folder on the desktop. There's the 'pin to taskbar' feature if you like that (I don't), the search where you can type in (or start to type in) the name of the program (if you can remember it). Plenty of options.
There are start menu replacement utils that provide W7 and earlier start menus on W10, if you really do want the W3 look and feel.
Thing I really hate is a bunch of icons wasting space along the bottom of the screen. Taskbar with actual running apps is fine if they disappear when the app does, otherwise really annoying.
(But, of course, that's just the raw unenhanced Windows. I have some utils that make things even nicer for me.)
-
There speaks someone who hasn't used Windows in 20 years.
Actually i wern't on about windows,i was explaining the reasoning for sticking with the old ways in linux instead of trying something new to relieve the boredom
-
There speaks someone who hasn't used Windows in 20 years.
Actually i wern't on about windows,i was explaining the reasoning for sticking with the old ways in linux instead of trying something new to relieve the boredom
Hmmm... I don't think so, but whatever.
-
I think we are close. To be clear about my perspective. I want an OS to do OS stuff and provide a platform that runs the applications I use most efficiently. The friction of getting the applications I need to use is important to me.
If the applications I wish to run are best or easiest on Windows, it seems contrived to get WINE working on Linux and then get my preferred Windows app working on WINE on Linux, vs. just starting the computer and running the application on Windows.
Also, I should be clear. I don't run Windows. I use macOS for my user interface. I use Windows and Linux on other systems. I have at least 40 systems running at any given time, between hardware and VMs on my servers. All of the apps that I want to run as a user are native to macOS and no VM/WINE is required.
The other implications I've seen and addressed are that people believe a myth that Linux is more secure than Windows, and that Linux doesn't change. Both of these are falsehoods as far as I know. In fact, Linux tops the charts in most breached and most vulnerabilities.
And as for changes, the Linux desktop is so splintered that it's amazing anything works across them all. It would be better to say "move to linux where if you can't find a distro that currently does things the way you want, you're not looking." It's anything but consistent and stable.
Maybe it's just me but I seem to detect a confrontational tone. It's like you are looking for someone to contradict you. As far as I am concerned you can do and think whatever you want and whatever makes you happy and works for you. I'm not here to argue. If you are looking for the Monty Python Argument Clinic I'm afrarid it's not me.
I believe you've read more there than is there. I started with "I think we are close, " which translates to you as "confrontational"? As you had an argument with my take on Infraviolet's post, wouldn't that have been you who came looking for the argument clinic? I can only assure you that I have no interest. I am just participating in the conversation and posting my experience and observations. I do not expect or ask that you agree with me. But to clear things up, I started by saying I thought we were close on takes of Infraviolet's post. Since you had provided yours, I clarified my views. They weren't directed at you. You have to remain in the context to make sense of it. Also, consider that text and writing are rarely very good at portraying emotion or inflection. It may be that you are emotionally attached to Linux and feel that my observations are negative about something you care about.
The "Linux desktop is so splintered" I do not understand. I have used Mint (with the default Cinnamon desktop) for about ten years now and have yet to see any splinters on my desktop. The existence of other distros of Linux and other desktops affects me just as much as the existence of Windows or Apple: exactly zero.
My statement isn't directed at you. You have to maintain the context. Put Infraviolet, mine, yours, and mine again into a notepad if it helps.
I do not understand the complaint that there are too many distros of Linux. Well, I only use one and I don't care how many others exist. They don't affect me in the least. Just like the existence of Windows or Apple or Android or anything else.
It's not a complaint. It's an experience and observation. I didn't say any of this impacted you at all, did I?
Again, the context of this thread is Windows 11 dying, and the sub-thread we are in is with a self-proclaimed Linux evangelist Infraviolet. I don't know why you feel I've attacked you. I am not attacking you or Linux. Just stating opinions, facts, and observations from experience. Don't take it personally.
The "it seems contrived to get WINE working on Linux and then get my preferred Windows app working on WINE on Linux" I do not understand. When I installed Linux Mint, I installed WINE and my desired Windows program, and from then on they just work. I click on the icon and it starts. Someone who does not know better would think the program is running natively. It's like installing a driver. You install it it once and then forget it. I really do not understand the complaint.
It isn't my experience that using WINE is as simple as you portray it. As late as last week, it took me over an hour to get a Windows program running in the setup I needed to test. The way I've seen evangelists post, one might think it's a double click, and away you go.
The "Linux doesn't change" seems like a strange thing to say either in the affirmative or the negative. In my experience everything changes. So Linux changes... so what? I dislike change but I just have to get used to change because I have no other option. The fact that I dislike change is the main reason I am running some Windows programs with Linux because there are other Linux programs which could serve the same purpose.
Again, in context Infraviolet had implied that Windows is always changing as a significant down side to using Windows. So I guess that's "what".
To each his own. I have chosen Linux because I dislike "telemetry" (spying), I dislike Windows' heavy handed update policies, and because Linux requires less resources and can run on older computers which can no longer run Windows. I have more control over my own computer and I like that.
If other people prefer Windows or Apple or other Linux distros or a walk in the park, well, more power to them. They do not affect me in the least.
I'm glad you got that off your chest. Maybe you and Infraviolet share that Linux evangelism? I am not an OS evangelist of any kind. I use all of them to the best of their abilities. I do think that Linux Distros are just as "heavy-handed" as you claim Microsoft is with Windows. There have been so many holy wars in Linux and in the distros that one can't even imagine counting them. Many were started because the distro maintainer decided to make changes.
I'm not trying to change your mind.
-
for some reason SteveThackery decided to edit his post to removed from his original post
That's about Windows, isn't it? Doesn't sound like any Linux distro I've used.
No its not,were you using ubuntu when they first moved away from gnome back in 2011?
-
The "Linux desktop is so splintered" I do not understand.
Indeed,perhaps they need some sandpaper.The desktop im using now looks very similar the the desktop i was using when i first jumped ship 20ish year ago,yes the buggers tried to change things but a magic incantation put it back to how i wanted things,can you say the same for windows 11 ?
Yes, you can maintain a desktop you want in Windows. Funny how this thread bounces between the User interface and the OS.
Windows' Explorer interface has had available replacements for a very long time. Total Commander is the one that comes to mind as one of the oldest, like 30 years?
So you could, if you wished, have run Total Commander for the past 30 years and never complained about Windows Explorer.
-
for some reason SteveThackery decided to edit his post to removed from his original post
That's about Windows, isn't it? Doesn't sound like any Linux distro I've used.
No its not,were you using ubuntu when they first moved away from gnome back in 2011?
I edited it because I realised it was just continuing the argument to no benefit. I've never adopted Linux as my workaday OS, even though I can't resist endlessly fiddling about with it, and I'm afraid I don't remember what I was messing with back in 2011.
-
Indeed,perhaps they need some sandpaper.The desktop im using now looks very similar the the desktop i was using when i first jumped ship 20ish year ago,yes the buggers tried to change things but a magic incantation put it back to how i wanted things,can you say the same for windows 11 ?
Yes, you can maintain a desktop you want in Windows. Funny how this thread bounces between the User interface and the OS.
Windows' Explorer interface has had available replacements for a very long time. Total Commander is the one that comes to mind as one of the oldest, like 30 years?
So you could, if you wished, have run Total Commander for the past 30 years and never complained about Windows Explorer.
I like to think of the programs that come with Windows as just examples of what a desktop computer can do for people to learn basic concepts from. They are not really supposed to be the best in their class. In fact, Microsoft got in trouble for packaging a (relatively) high quality web browser software with their operating system once.
I replaced all the sub-standard software that comes with Windows long ago. Wouldn't anybody who appreciates good software do the same? There are plenty of alternatives to Notepad, Windows Explorer, Terminal, Paint, Media Player, Outlook, and even the Start Menu. All the important operating system parts of Windows 11 still work as well as they ever did as far as I can tell. Compatibility with old software is still good, Power Shell is good, all the Windows tools like Regedit and Task Manager are still fine. The tracking and forced updates are a problem, but they can be mitigated to some extent. I somehow managed to get Windows update stuck on version 22H2, but security updates still come through, which suits me just fine.
Aesthetically, I find Windows 11 excellent. I think this is important as I've got to look at it for hours every day! This is what prevented me from updating from Windows 7 to 10 (8 was a joke and not even considered). Window 10 user interface looked unfinished, like place holder graphics. I tried 10 on a laptop for a few days but just couldn't get used to how ugly everything looked compared to 7. The title bars of programs didn't change colour or have any shadow so it was impossible to tell which window had keyboard focus. I would lose the find dialog in a text editor on the screen or think the program I was using had locked up when there was just a small modal dialog box was open that I didn't notice because everything looked 'flat'. Windows 11 looks much better, slightly rounding the corners on the windows and buttons makes all the difference. Changing title bars colours and window shadows are also back. It looks like an evolution of Windows 7 now, rather than some awful mistake, and I appreciate the change after looking at the 7 interface for so many years! I do have some software that was made during the Windows 10 era and they look like alien programs amongst rest of my software.
OTOH, when I discovered what one could do with the command line, my productivity got about a 10.000% impulse. Any Linux program, even GUI ones, can be called from the command line, and set to do things automatically the way you want. I know, you think that's a geeky thing. And following your thinking, I guess geeky things are bad things. Wrong.
If you need to apply, say, a sharpen mask and resize some hundreds-thousands pictures, having to do one by one is a very big PITA. One can craft a little script in about 20 lines of shell code that will do it all for you. Just an example. No need to look for any app able to work with batches. Just make an script to send the commands you want to your app. So I'm all for that (and others) type of geeky things. I guess, that's not your case. Fine.
Command line programs are excellent for doing repetitive tasks in an automated way, but I would question how often you need to do this. I have lots of command line tools installed on my computer, but typically don't use any of them day to day. Each one has a different syntax, so I need to read the manual for a while before use every time. I remember once using Image Magick (and perhaps Gostview) to cut the shipping address out of an automatically generated shipping label and insert it into another one of my own design. I got it all to work in the end, but it took several hours of work. If I only wanted to do it just once, could have done it in minutes with the GUI tools I'm already familiar with. If I'm making a document with images normally I would need some diagrams, which I can make with CAD or paint software, some photos which I will crop, adjust gamma, sharpen, etc on a per image basis. Some photos need to be annotated with arrows or text, which I have software for too. Then I can assemble them into my document with a HTML editor or word processor or whatever. I don't see how the process could be improved upon by using the command line.
I did use Linux an my primary operation system about twenty years ago (three years 2005-2007) thinking it was the future and Windows was on the way out. I gave it a good shot, but I had to come back to Windows when I realised that I just wasn't very productive on my computer. The only other guys I knew who used Linux in real life at the time were as some kind of play toy or system admin. At least at the time, the quality of the best GUI productivity programs was very low compared to what was available on Windows. The real problem was there was almost no commercial software available. I think I bought only one commercial Linux program in the entire time I used it which was the Opera web browser. I remember had to select which distribution of the ten or so it supported from a list, then the exact version. They must have had to maintain dozens of binaries to make that work!
It wasn't just the lack of commercial software - older Linux software was a problem too. If the latest version of a program was more than a couple of years old the likelihood of successfully compiling it was greatly reduced due to some compatibly problem with a library or the compiler itself. I didn't know programming at the time so I had limited ability to fix these problems. When I did manage to fix one I would usually break something else, so at any give time there was always something broken on my computer.
An there were some quite poor decisions than didn't make any sense. On thing that I remember was that typically in Linux programs 'open' and 'save as' dialog boxes didn't allow just copy pasting the full path of the file and hit enter, like Windows dialogs. You had to manually browse to the location every time. Then there was the excessive use of the middle mouse button, which is typically the scroll wheel, which is difficult to press and good way to get carpel tunnel syndrome. I could go on and on, but I don't want to rant.
It was really great to get back to Windows after that experience. I don't take it for granted any more. Windows is slowly deteriorating, it's undeniable. Linux has do doubt improved since I last used it, but I saw how rough it was a the time all the while other Linux users were saying how wonderful it was. Makes me wary of others opinion of it now... There still isn't much commercial GUI user software is there? What little there is often multi-platform and available for Windows too. A lot of the command line programs that were Linux only are now available for Windows.
The topic of "command line" came up. Command line / shell is all about repeatability. Repeatability lends to script able which lends to automation. Even just hitting "UP" a few times to recall a previous command (or history | grep thing and a !1234 bang to rerun).
Automating a pointy-cilcky-draggy-droppy interface is not really worth doing, well outside of large commercial applications with macros etc.
Oh, it absolutely is worth doing! I do it a lot with Auto Hotkey. It's a kind of secret weapon for Windows users. You can use it to toggle a feature that is buried in a menu somewhere with a function key, make five different schematic entry programs that each have their own way to zoom and pan behave the exact same way, add mouse gestures to programs that don't have them, swap key around for some programs only (good for games). I use a lot of different microcontrollers and other programmable parts. They all have their own programming dongles and associated software. Sometimes there is a command line tool available, but sometimes there isn't or it's broken or limited in some silly way (low cost silicon hardware companies are not known for quality software). It's easy enough to press a dodgy vendor supplied GUI programming tool into use for IDE integration or bulk device programming with an Auto Hotkey script. There was nothing like this available for Linux back in the day, I don't know the situation now.
-
I like to think of the programs that come with Windows as just examples of what a desktop computer can do for people to learn basic concepts from. They are not really supposed to be the best in their class. In fact, Microsoft got in trouble for packaging a (relatively) high quality web browser software with their operating system once.
Yep, exactly that.
<wall o'text>
Excellent contribution, thank you. Gave me something to think about I wouldn't otherwise.
-
As a general observation, it seems those, in this thread, who complain about things the most are also those who have the greatest inertia to change.
-
You make that sound pejorative. Of course, if someone has spent many years refining their environment then they've not going to appreciate being forced to change and break it. Change isn't in and of itself great, good or desired. And those that aren't invested, get easily bored or like new shiney will think it great to often be trying something new.
-
You make that sound pejorative. Of course, if someone has spent many years refining their environment then they've not going to appreciate being forced to change and break it. Change isn't in and of itself great, good or desired. And those that aren't invested, get easily bored or like new shiney will think it great to often be trying something new.
I get it in drips and drabs too. Or rather I have inertia to change, just a lot less of it, or I have to learnt to get started on that route before it hits you.
My "Mac for a Windows/Linux" user thread is an example where I am struggling with MacBook's conventions being utterly WRONG. Not wrong in opinion but wrong in the shape of people's hands and that some people can actually touch type.
-
Aesthetically, I find Windows 11 excellent. Window 10 user interface looked unfinished, like place holder graphics.
Same. At first it was basically windows 10 with a new skin (setting app and taskbar renovated). When I got my pc it came with windows 11. I could have downgraded to 10 but I preferred 11.
I don't know why 10 is so praised. The settings app looked like a depressing gray office, the taskbar too. When it just came out made so many older PC unusable because it was so bloated.
When praising win 10 people forget of Cortana, all ads in the start menu, one drive, online seach in the start menu, bing by default always...
Up to 2 years ago I was happy with win 11. I just removed the unnecessary stuff and ok. But then they upgraded the file explorer, task manager, photo viewer, paint, notepad and many other to the current mess. Now they take a considerable amount of time just to launch and load. File explorer, when going through folders uses 10 times more CPU than before, while being slow. The CPU usage is comparable to a web browser. No comment :palm:
So I discovered TotalCommander file explorer, everything search and many other third party programs to substitute the new windows crap. But I couldn't completely replace the file explorer. Every time I had to "save as" I had to wait for the thing to load... and then they started removing many settings (windows snapping...)! If they want to be apple, I won't stay with them. So now I have a second SSD on my laptop with Linux. I use windows a few hours a month for university.
Regarding the "fail" of many: going on linux on one step (removing windows completely, without getting used to alternative programs) is a bit crazy. Many linux programs can be installed on windows. better to get used to them before trying a transition. And then is better to keep windows with double boot for emergency.
(I would use win 7 if I they continued support)
-
Just another observation. In my experience Windows users tend to be "Single boxed" users. They debate on whether to install Windows 7 or Windows 10/11.
Linux aficionados tend to be multi-box, and/or dual boot.
So when it comes to "dedicated boxes for dedicated software/environments" that's just "normal". Here Linux's reality comes into play. The kernel, not the distro. You basically make an OS dedicated to that task. Look at Wifi Routers these days. Custom Linux OS, built to do what it does and nothing else.
I run dozens of custom OSes constantly. Each with their own purpose. From Nano-Linux's like "Alpine" in containers, to Ubuntu Server, KBuntu. Not just the OS or it's distro, but the purpose of the OS.
I have a completely separate set of dev machines on VMs. A Linux Dev machine and a Windows 10 dev machine. Both have 16Gb of RAM and 6 cores. Both can co-exist on either my "physical" Linux or WIndows desktop side by side. Why are the separate to my 'daily driver'? Which one? The office has a Linux + Windows, separate machines. The bedroom has Linux and the living room has Windows 10. I can access the VMs from all of them. They move to me.
Right now, at home, I spend most of my time in Linux, KUbuntu on a "litre PC" or the Windows 10 gaming PC. However I always have access to the dev servers (full graphical desktops on them in 4K 30fps).
Now I also have 2 Macs to sheppard in. The networking, power, USB, displays all went without any manually intervention except a wifi password and accepting the docking stations.
They have pros and cons across the board and the best solution is not "This over that", it's both, or all of them together.
-
On running Windows 7. As long as you are aware of the risks are able to mitigate what you can and avoid what you can't. Sure.
If I had a need to run Windows 7 it will likely be some dumb USB device or interface to an old bit of hardware that only runs on Windows 7. So I appreciate that scenario exists. I have even seen Windows 98 on computers in commercial premises often running machines/printers/cutters etc.
Windows 7 however is unique for a specific reason. It is around that time that everything began "offline and local" and began moving at pace to "online, cloud and dynamic". The straggling dialup users became the minority. People were now online 24/7.
What I'm getting at is... as long as you remain on the "offline and local" focused use case for the Windows 7 box, you will be fine. Obviously your NAT firewall. However I would also add a Windows side "Personal firewall" and block ALL internet outbound traffic and then approve what you actually use/need. Treat it as a "normally offline, dials up if it needs it" style box.
Could "I" user Windows 7 in the day job? No. If I did it would be negligence.
-
Linux aficionados tend to be multi-box, and/or dual boot.
That's a bit confusing, particularly given the rest of that post. It's not the stuff you run in a VM or headless in a rack that we are talking about here. This is about your primary machine, the one you use all the time. So, for instance, when I say I run W7 that's what I use all the time. It's my primary workhorse. But I have other PCs that run Linux and W10, and VMs that run all of that and some other stuff. It's that primary - W7 for me - that is being discussed.
Now, having got that out of the way, I can't believe that anyone dual booting is invested in their machine OS. Why? Because there is no possibility of just running up that app on the other OS for a moment to check something. No, it's a shut this down and everything I'm doing, wait for the reset, then the reboot, select the other OS, bo....ot, and now for a couple of seconds run that app and damn, I forgot what I was checking.
-
Just another observation. In my experience Windows users tend to be "Single boxed" users. They debate on whether to install Windows 7 or Windows 10/11.
Linux aficionados tend to be multi-box, and/or dual boot.
......
..
As I read this, I was initially nodding. But after some thought, I don't think I agree completely with who the single-box people are.
In my experience, most technical people are multi-OS as you describe. I am for sure, I have hundreds of OSes running in my house, from a Proxmox server with the majority of the VMs, Kubernetes, Linux containers, Windows XP, 7, 10, and 11, to 2 Lab Windows 10 and 11 computers for my EE hobby. I have a Raspberry Pi for GPIB, one on my 3D printer, and 4 laptops, 2 running Windows and 2 running macOS. A dedicated DVR host, a Linux box running a firewall, and one running Home Assistant. And then the macOS daily driver that is my corp laptop. Those are just the ones I can think of right away.
People who treat their PCs as appliances are more likely to use macOS or Windows, and that's it. Linux desktop users will be hobbyists for sure. I think it will be rare to find Linux as the base OS on corporate desktops. It isn't compatible with MDM and so many other fleet management systems. Corporate IT/InfoSec would not allow it. I'm sure someone will say they use Linux at work, and that's fine, here's your corner case.
So, I'd refine a bit. The vast majority of people in the world see a computer as an appliance, and those are very much Windows and macOS.
There are going to be a few Linux users who somehow got there and still use the computer as an appliance. They could still be single-box users, but will lean in as hobbyists and likely have more diversity, as you mentioned. Then there's the larger group of hobbyists and professionals who use Windows, macOS, and Linux daily and have tons of diverse OSs everywhere.
I don't know, after writing the wall of text, I still may land with your generalization being best. :D
-
Linux aficionados tend to be multi-box, and/or dual boot.
That's a bit confusing, particularly given the rest of that post. It's not the stuff you run in a VM or headless in a rack that we are talking about here. This is about your primary machine, the one you use all the time. So, for instance, when I say I run W7 that's what I use all the time. It's my primary workhorse. But I have other PCs that run Linux and W10, and VMs that run all of that and some other stuff. It's that primary - W7 for me - that is being discussed.
Now, having got that out of the way, I can't believe that anyone dual booting is invested in their machine OS. Why? Because there is no possibility of just running up that app on the other OS for a moment to check something. No, it's a shut this down and everything I'm doing, wait for the reset, then the reboot, select the other OS, bo....ot, and now for a couple of seconds run that app and damn, I forgot what I was checking.
Fair points. I didn't really see the thread as being about "your primary machine". It seemed to be mostly about bashing Windows or Microsoft. :)
But if it is only about the primary, are we only talking primary as in during work or after? I spend almost all of my time on my corporate laptop since I travel a lot, and there's no way I'm lugging two computers around the world. As I mentioned in my prior post, no corporations that I'm aware of are allowing their users to generally use Linux. They wouldn't allow your favored Windows 7 either.
-
But if it is only about the primary, are we only talking primary as in during work or after? I spend almost all of my time on my corporate laptop since I travel a lot, and there's no way I'm lugging two computers around the world.
That's a good question. I could imagine someone spending all day on a corporate PC and then doing hobby stuff in the short time between dinner and bed. I think by 'primary' we would say that it is the on they have a choice over, so that PC doing the hobby stuff is the primary.
But that's a very different usage scenario to someone who, say, works for themselves or has a choice in their work-time machine (or maybe just doesn't work). If I used something for a couple of hours a few times a week it wouldn't have much impact on me and so what if the file manager was basic. But if I'm using it all the time then I would be much more intolerant of flaws, and appreciate smoother operating.
-
My daily working from home is
* Personal Kubnutu on a 43" 4K HDR1000 144Hz monitor. A tiny little MinisForum with a 5600U laptop CPU in it. It is more than capable of keeping up with modern webbrowsing and 4K streamed videos.
* Corp laptop, 16" Macbook Pro
* Customer laptop, 14" Macbook Pro w/ 34" UltraWide which switch between the macs.
* 2 external keyboards and 2 external mice. All 3 channel switchable so can operate 3 different computers each.
So, while I am waiting on a build, deploy, test or something I can read the EEVBlog forum, or prompt claude on the personal PC or go catchup on admin on the corp laptop.
Travelling is where it becomes a bit more annoying. Like heading into the office. Then I have to lug 2 laptops for now. When things get settled and I setup "Customer->Corp eco system" logins and MFAs I should be able to do with one 90% of the time. It also means I have to use the corp or customer laptop for personal browsing/comms... which goes through corporate monitoring.
VPNs allowing full access into my home from work accounts, just don't work. Nobody's firewall is going to let you VPN to a random IP and create a bridge, 95% of the corp laptops I have sheparded have the networking more locked down than that. If not on the device itself at the first router.
When I connect corporate devices to my network, they go on a VLAN and are kept separate from my LAN, because laptops are nosey and MacBooks especially will go digging through anything they can find and upload it to your Apple cloud account.... or the companies account.
-
It isn't my experience that using WINE is as simple as you portray it. As late as last week, it took me over an hour to get a Windows program running in the setup I needed to test. The way I've seen evangelists post, one might think it's a double click, and away you go.
Let me clarify about WINE. I have a few programs I run with WINE and they work flawlessly since the day I installed them. I know they work with WINE and I install them with every new Mint install I do. I am just saying that those Windows programs known to work, probably a minority of them, work fine once installed.
At the same time, my experience is WINE is not going to run reliably most Windows programs so if you just try a random Windows program with WINE not knowing if it works then my guess is that it most probably won't or, if it does, it might need tinkering which I am not going to even try.
So what you say about trying a random Windows program with WINE and having problems does not surprise me at all.
When i need to run something Windows which will not run on WINE then I either run it on a VM or even fire up a real Windows machine.
But, just to be clear, if I try to install a Windows program in WINE and it does not work right away, then I do not spend one more minute trying and I just assume it is not worth the effort. And I just run it with Windows.
Same as some programs which only run with Linux: I just run them with Linux.
I just wish they would make versions for both worlds.
-
If you want to know if a Windows application runs with Wine you can check https://appdb.winehq.org/ for compatibility and additional info.
-
Windows has been around for 30 years so its bound to get a competitor at some point.
I write Windows software and design websites so use Visual Studio.
So moving from Windows would be a nightmare.
Being a programmer makes me an unusual case though.
Most people just want a web browser and email client and a word processor.
If Linux covers that then go for it.
-
Speaking of Wine, since the update to Wine 11.0, LTSpice suddenly shows a number of GUI issues, including occasional crashes. Has anyone run into that? It ran flawlessly on Wine 10.x.
-
The shop I owned was based on a Heidelberg Speedmaster 52-2. Incredible fucking piece of machinery (and also an incredible financial burden, since I was paying for it with a monthly lease).
All self aware pros know Heidelberg is the way.
Maybe a decade ago a friend still did some occasional sheets with a single GTO 46 unit.
And a bucket waited on a shelf if the bank needed envelopes.
Locally a fully functional SM 52-4 is for sale, 45k€ excluding VAT, times change.
99% of the time, when customers came in with a PDF of their piece, I could just open up InDesign, plop their PDF into a blank document and send it to the platemaker. No adjustments needed, including page bleeds or any other imposition choices.
I'd say that Windows and Indesign is not a mixed ecosystem, Windows is irrelevant here.
Did you do any prepress graphics with Corel from customer's original?
That would be a mixed ecosystem.
-
The shop I owned was based on a Heidelberg Speedmaster 52-2. Incredible fucking piece of machinery (and also an incredible financial burden, since I was paying for it with a monthly lease).
All self aware pros know Heidelberg is the way.
Yep, pretty much can't be beat.
Maybe a decade ago a friend still did some occasional sheets with a single GTO 46 unit.
And a bucket waited on a shelf if the bank needed envelopes.
Bucket? What, the plates were in the bucket? or the envelopes?
Locally a fully functional SM 52-4 is for sale, 45k€ excluding VAT, times change.
Really? 45K?
Is it running? I'm guessing that piece of gear here (U.S.) would fetch about 10 times that if in good operating condition.
It's not at all like those are obsolete pieces of equipment.
One of my dreams (never to be realized) would be to have a small basement shop with a Heidelberg windmill and a bunch of type cabinets ...
(In one job I had I learned how to make photopolymer plates for the owner's windmill; he made a lot of $$$ printing wedding invitations and such on letterpress. People like the tactile indentations ...)
-
Color bucket.
Some big companies were supporting local small ones, like printing stuff.
That's pretty much gone now, everything is centralized.
Aluminum plates were also stored, but straight, short side up and covered with protection wax.
Pretty messy if you thought you'll reuse them on day.
For 52-4,
fully functional can have levels, I'd expect it's also for demand and installation difficulties, small country.
Windmill,
I think I've commented of it earlier somewhere, incredible machine when you see it operating first time.
It can also cover elevations, if you can match the position.
-
Color bucket.
You mean like premixed PMS inks?
Some big companies were supporting local small ones, like printing stuff.
That's pretty much gone now, everything is centralized.
Tell me about it. When I owned my shop (ca. 2004), offset printing was just going away as a craft.
It has since become just a commodity.
Most of the work I would have done is now done by online companies who gang up jobs (sell sheets, brochures, etc.) on a big 4-color press.
They do good work but it's no longer craft-oriented.
Press checks? Fuggedaboudit.
Aluminum plates were also stored, but straight, short side up and covered with protection wax.
Pretty messy if you thought you'll reuse them on day.
I think you mean gum arabic instead of "wax". I've coated many a plate with that, buffed them dry and they're good to go for the next run. No mess at all.
Windmill,
I think I've commented of it earlier somewhere, incredible machine when you see it operating first time.
It can also cover elevations, if you can match the position.
Elevations?
-
Color bucket.
You mean like premixed PMS inks?
Yes.
I think you mean gum arabic instead of "wax". I've coated many a plate with that, buffed them dry and they're good to go for the next run. No mess at all.
Yes, rubber of sorts.
Messy as disorganized short, middle and long time storage, finally including who knows what of regular shelved stacks.
Elevations?
Embossing.
It's an old area of technicalities, so we also have dedicated words for many parts and specific exclusive words for detailed operations.
Vocabulary is partially so that outsider just don't know what's happening, or is misled by their normal wrong context.
Language example.
Noun 'duuni' is a slang word for work, 'duunari' is a blue collar worker, the word is so regular that it's not really a slang word anymore.
Verb 'duunata' is originally an exact description of smearing ink of offset press, clearly a loan or maybe a sibling of Swedish slang.
-
:palm: |O
Notepad, seriously......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMTq8TK-qIc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMTq8TK-qIc)
:bullshit:
-
I felt happy using Linux. After watching that video, it dawned to me I'm stuck with Linux if I want to get work done :scared:
-
I'm stuck with Linux if I want to get work done :scared:
Yup, I'm going to do a major all of my systems upgrade this spring. Everything I own now is Win7 and I am glad these machines served me for 12 years only needing minor memory and HD upgrades once. I'm also glad I never went beyond Win7, even with M$ attempt to force Win10 on me.
Screw Win11, this spring, all new, everything Linux, and that will be it.
However, Apple's Macbook offerings are truly enticing, it just how do you do software and hardware development on those devices. I'm not interested in re-learning what programming is like.
At least with Linux, I have some familiarity with the available C/C++ compilers and root USB access.
-
I'm stuck with Linux if I want to get work done :scared:
Yup, I'm going to do a major all of my systems upgrade this spring. Everything I own now is Win7 and I am glad these machines served me for 12 years only needing minor memory and HD upgrades once. I'm also glad I never went beyond Win7, even with M$ attempt to force Win10 on me.
Screw Win11, this spring, all new, everything Linux, and that will be it.
However, Apple's Macbook offerings are truly enticing, it just how do you do software and hardware development on those devices. I'm not interested in re-learning what programming is like.
At least with Linux, I have some familiarity with the available C/C++ compilers and root USB access.
It was when they tried to force me to Win7 that i started double booting with Linux Mint and i very soon saw that i almost never used Win7 so i disconnected the Win7 HDD just to save energy and it just sits there. I have not connected it in many years.
I am very satisfied with Mint and I recommend it. I have installed it in many computers for family and friends and all have been satisfied. For a user experience it is the closest to Windows.
-
Screw Win11, this spring, all new, everything Linux, and that will be it.
However, Apple's Macbook offerings are truly enticing, it just how do you do software and hardware development on those devices. I'm not interested in re-learning what programming is like.
At least with Linux, I have some familiarity with the available C/C++ compilers and root USB access.
Which of the 50 flavors of Linux? Debian Ubuntu LTS / Mint, or RedHat Rocky or Alma, maybe Slack? Maybe freeBSD, or one of each. lol.
I have to say, I am no crapple fan, but then again, millions of others have made crapple very rich. I think it's more like owning Levi over Amazon Basics (the mentatlity, "Von Dutch").
Agreed though, Windoze is a Mycrudsoft thing that is moving into the realm of just monitoring your every key click. I mean, if you just take the defaults then MS has all the keys to you OS & hardware.
-
My solution:
Windoze 7
No phoning home.
No upgrades possible, or needed.
No endless diddling with configuration files and tweaking the OS (looking at you, *nix).
Does what I need it to do well.
Disclaimer: I'm a hobbyist, so I'm not constrained by needing the latest and greatest either in the OS or applications.
-
My solution:
Windoze 7
No phoning home.
No upgrades possible, or needed.
No endless diddling with configuration files and tweaking the OS (looking at you, *nix).
Does what I need it to do well.
Disclaimer: I'm a hobbyist, so I'm not constrained by needing the latest and greatest either in the OS or applications.
Who's applyig fixes to windows 7 when that 0day pops up? Are you calling Gates?
Plus, what about the "min" specs that programs come with?
Win10 is basically obsolete now.
-
My solution:
Windoze 7
No phoning home.
No upgrades possible, or needed.
No endless diddling with configuration files and tweaking the OS (looking at you, *nix).
Does what I need it to do well.
Disclaimer: I'm a hobbyist, so I'm not constrained by needing the latest and greatest either in the OS or applications.
Who's applyig fixes to windows 7 when that 0day pops up? Are you calling Gates?
Plus, what about the "min" specs that programs come with?
As I explained, not a problem, since I don't anticipate needing any fancy new software that won't run on 7.
I'm happy with my motley assortment of apps.
Zero day for Windows 7? Is that a real thing, or just some peoples' supposition?
I mean, that would require some kind of active counter within the OS that disables it when it reaches zero, right?
Like a ticking time bomb.
Now, I have a very low opinion of Micro$oft, but I really can't see them doing something nasty like that.
-
Screw Win11, this spring, all new, everything Linux, and that will be it.
However, Apple's Macbook offerings are truly enticing, it just how do you do software and hardware development on those devices. I'm not interested in re-learning what programming is like.
At least with Linux, I have some familiarity with the available C/C++ compilers and root USB access.
Which of the 50 flavors of Linux? Debian Ubuntu LTS / Mint, or RedHat Rocky or Alma, maybe Slack? Maybe freeBSD, or one of each. lol.
It is kind of funny how people think there are many flavours of Linux. In reality there are less than a handful of window managers and the underlying software is all the same. A Linux distribution is nothing more than a playlist on Spotify. Some are better curated than others and have different defaults but all can be made to look & feel the same.
-
Screw Win11, this spring, all new, everything Linux, and that will be it.
However, Apple's Macbook offerings are truly enticing, it just how do you do software and hardware development on those devices. I'm not interested in re-learning what programming is like.
At least with Linux, I have some familiarity with the available C/C++ compilers and root USB access.
Which of the 50 flavors of Linux? Debian Ubuntu LTS / Mint, or RedHat Rocky or Alma, maybe Slack? Maybe freeBSD, or one of each. lol.
It is kind of funny how people think there are many flavours of Linux. In reality there are less than a handful of window managers and the underlying software is all the same. A Linux distribution is nothing more than a playlist on Spotify. Some are better curated than others and have different defaults but all can be made to look & feel the same.
Not only that but I do not understand why some people want to make the availability of choices into something negative. Like saying "I will stick with my horse and buggy because there are just too many brands of automobiles to choose from".
Ten or twelve years ago I decided to try Linux and I asked around a bit and i saw Mint was said to be easy to transition to from Windows. So I gave it a try and today I am still using Linux Mint. I have not tried any other distros. I do not need to. Their existence does not bother me in the least. If I wanted to tinker with things I suppose I could find them useful. But I don't. i just want a computer that works for my simple needs.
Mint is simple to install and will run on computers than cannot run Windows. And it does all I need.
-
Who's applyig fixes to windows 7 when that 0day pops up? Are you calling Gates?
Plus, what about the "min" specs that programs come with?
It's interesting - the "no security updates" mantra is rolled out all the time when people talk about keeping their Windows 7 machines running. But where is the evidence? When was the last time a showstopper virus or malware brought the W7 community to its knees? The answer: never. Windows 7 just works, and although there might be theoretical risks there seem to be little or no real risks. Sitting behind a NAT router makes an enormous difference. After that, a reasonable degree of security hygiene by the users seems to be enough.
-
Not only that but I do not understand why some people want to make the availability of choices into something negative. Like saying "I will stick with my horse and buggy because there are just too many brands of automobiles to choose from".
In general, the availability of choices is negative, or at least the research says this is the case. I can only speak to the research I've read and the experiments I've run, but both indicate that more choices lead to less satisfactory outcomes.
There's plenty to read on the subject if you are so inclined. I'd recommend "The Paradox of Choice" by Barry Schwartz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice).
-
My solution:
Windoze 7
No phoning home.
No upgrades possible, or needed.
No endless diddling with configuration files and tweaking the OS (looking at you, *nix).
Does what I need it to do well.
Disclaimer: I'm a hobbyist, so I'm not constrained by needing the latest and greatest either in the OS or applications.
Who's applyig fixes to windows 7 when that 0day pops up? Are you calling Gates?
Plus, what about the "min" specs that programs come with?
Win10 is basically obsolete now.
----AND---
Who's applyig fixes to windows 7 when that 0day pops up? Are you calling Gates?
Plus, what about the "min" specs that programs come with?
It's interesting - the "no security updates" mantra is rolled out all the time when people talk about keeping their Windows 7 machines running. But where is the evidence? When was the last time a showstopper virus or malware brought the W7 community to its knees? The answer: never. Windows 7 just works, and although there might be theoretical risks there seem to be little or no real risks. Sitting behind a NAT router makes an enormous difference. After that, a reasonable degree of security hygiene by the users seems to be enough.
For Win7, once a month, just go here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/defenderupdates (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/defenderupdates)
And download 'Microsoft Security Essentials 64bit'.
You'll get the latest Microsoft Security Essentials virus definitions and security patches all the way up to today's Win11. You just need to download and install once in awhile & Windows 'Action Center' will stop bugging you about you PC being unprotected.
I know the patches are only on the firewall and virus scans, but its still something.
Also, in my networking, I have completely disabled any support for IPV6...
-
For Win7, once a month, just go here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/defenderupdates (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/defenderupdates)
And download 'Microsoft Security Essentials 64bit'.
You'll get the latest Microsoft Security Essentials virus definitions and security patches all the way up to today's Win11. You just need to download and install once in awhile & Windows 'Action Center' will stop bugging you about you PC being unprotected.
Brian,
I tried that. Went to that page and downloaded both the Microsoft Security Essentials and the Windows Defender in Windows 7 and Windows Vista (different executables).
Neither one did anything.
I checked in Task Manager, and both of them ran for a few seconds, then closed themselves. No dialog appeared, no clue of any kind. It appeared they did nothing.
I guess my copy of Windows 7 is truly obsolete now, to the point where not even these updates will work?
Oh well.
-
Also, in my networking, I have completely disabled any support for IPV6...
Why? It's new and scary? Don't trust your router? Well then, you can't trust it with IPv4 either..
-
For Win7, once a month, just go here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/defenderupdates (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/defenderupdates)
And download 'Microsoft Security Essentials 64bit'.
You'll get the latest Microsoft Security Essentials virus definitions and security patches all the way up to today's Win11. You just need to download and install once in awhile & Windows 'Action Center' will stop bugging you about you PC being unprotected.
Brian,
I tried that. Went to that page and downloaded both the Microsoft Security Essentials and the Windows Defender in Windows 7 and Windows Vista (different executables).
Neither one did anything.
I checked in Task Manager, and both of them ran for a few seconds, then closed themselves. No dialog appeared, no clue of any kind. It appeared they did nothing.
I guess my copy of Windows 7 is truly obsolete now, to the point where not even these updates will work?
Oh well.
After you run it, go into defender and check the 'Update' tab. It should now read the latest date.
Next, all you need to do is a 'Quick Scan' and once your system is scanned, all the orange/red defender stats will go green, unless it find a virus...
Remember, you need Microsoft Security Essentials installed and running...
-
Here:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/windows-11-is-dying/?action=dlattach;attach=2740435)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/windows-11-is-dying/?action=dlattach;attach=2740431)
I know the downloads say nothing after running... I think it is on purpose.
-
Also, in my networking, I have completely disabled any support for IPV6...
Why? It's new and scary? Don't trust your router? Well then, you can't trust it with IPv4 either..
IPV6 has many more security holes as it is newer and has many more sophisticated commands leading to many more attack vectors.
Never had problems exclusively running V4 exclusively for over a decade.
-
Which of the 50 flavors of Linux? Debian Ubuntu LTS / Mint, or RedHat Rocky or Alma, maybe Slack? Maybe freeBSD, or one of each. lol.
It is kind of funny how people think there are many flavours of Linux. In reality there are less than a handful of window managers and the underlying software is all the same. A Linux distribution is nothing more than a playlist on Spotify. Some are better curated than others and have different defaults but all can be made to look & feel the same.
It's not quite that simple.
Some time ago when I was seriously looking to migrate off Windows I gave some of the popular repos a proper trial. Obviously, I would need to use them in anger for a while to find out what they are really like, so I figured I should arrange things so my data and configs would remain the same for all repos, and I could then just swap in which one took my fancy at the time. They are all much of a muchness after all, right? Nope. I never successfully transplanted my stuff from one repo to another. Looked very much you made your choice and that was it unless you wanted to do a proper migration each time.
-
Zero day for Windows 7? Is that a real thing, or just some peoples' supposition?
I mean, that would require some kind of active counter within the OS that disables it when it reaches zero, right?
Like a ticking time bomb.
Now, I have a very low opinion of Micro$oft, but I really can't see them doing something nasty like that.
Not sure what you are thinking of -- but a "zero-day exploit" or "zero day vulnerability" is something different: a vulnerability that the bad guys find and exploit before the developers learn about it, or before the developers have an opportunity to fix it. With an unmaintained piece of software like Windows 7, the time window for "before the developers fix it" essentially becomes infinitely long.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-day_vulnerability
-
I tried that. Went to that page and downloaded both the Microsoft Security Essentials and the Windows Defender in Windows 7 and Windows Vista (different executables).
Neither one did anything.
If you need an AV which is being updated and actually works, take a look at Bitdefender. Costs, but quite reasonable if you buy from somewhere like Amazon.
-
Zero day for Windows 7? Is that a real thing, or just some peoples' supposition?
I mean, that would require some kind of active counter within the OS that disables it when it reaches zero, right?
Like a ticking time bomb.
Now, I have a very low opinion of Micro$oft, but I really can't see them doing something nasty like that.
Not sure what you are thinking of -- but a "zero-day exploit" or "zero day vulnerability" is something different: a vulnerability that the bad guys find and exploit before the developers learn about it, or before the developers have an opportunity to fix it. With an unmaintained piece of software like Windows 7, the time window for "before the developers fix it" essentially becomes infinitely long.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-day_vulnerability
This is true and something to think about. But... W7 has been unmaintained for a long while, which tips the odds:
1. If there's a hole it will likely have been found by now.
2. If no-one is dicking with it they're not adding potential holes.
But, against that, look at the recent log4j issue which has been static for many, many years. W7 also came from a time when Microsoft actually seemed to test and fix stuff, not just roll it out to see what breaks.
-
Also, in my networking, I have completely disabled any support for IPV6...
Why? It's new and scary? Don't trust your router? Well then, you can't trust it with IPv4 either..
I also disable IPV6 in all my routers. It forces the use of NAT which is a powerful defense.
-
I don't use IPv6 because I can't remember any of the addresses. And it always looks like a corrupted output from a misconfigured serial port ;)
-
Who's applyig fixes to windows 7 when that 0day pops up? Are you calling Gates?
Plus, what about the "min" specs that programs come with?
It's interesting - the "no security updates" mantra is rolled out all the time when people talk about keeping their Windows 7 machines running. But where is the evidence? When was the last time a showstopper virus or malware brought the W7 community to its knees? The answer: never. Windows 7 just works, and although there might be theoretical risks there seem to be little or no real risks. Sitting behind a NAT router makes an enormous difference. After that, a reasonable degree of security hygiene by the users seems to be enough.
Try the FBI, Security Week, or Kapersky.
When wanna cry came out, 98% of the computers which got infected where Windows 7 machines. M$ even released an emergency patch for it after end-of-life. That was in 2020 though.
A manufacturing firm for the UK defense agencies lost 10Gb of "secured" data because the attackers got a bot onto a Windows 7 machine running a CNC machine and worked from there.
Most botnets run on Windows 7 and other out of date windows. You probably wouldn't even know you were infected, they don't want you to know they are using your machine and internet connection for their own means.
This is what annoys me. You all seem worried about what your out of date system will do to YOU. I am more worried about it being an infected mess of bot nets and we all have to deal with it.
-
This is what annoys me. You all seem worried about what your out of date system will do to YOU. I am more worried about it being an infected mess of bot nets and we all have to deal with it.
Very good point. As of today, I think it is safe to assume that hardly any Windows 7 computers are used for mission-critical tasks and data in companies. Hence, no point in attacking the owners with some ransomware attack.
But conversely, many Windows 7 machines will be used by people who don't care, or have them run some background tasks and have more or less forgotten about the computer. So they are great targets for botnets, where many bots will go unnoticed by the machine's owner for a long time.
-
This is what annoys me. You all seem worried about what your out of date system will do to YOU. I am more worried about it being an infected mess of bot nets and we all have to deal with it.
Very good point. As of today, I think it is safe to assume that hardly any Windows 7 computers are used for mission-critical tasks and data in companies. Hence, no point in attacking the owners with some ransomware attack.
But conversely, many Windows 7 machines will be used by people who don't care, or have them run some background tasks and have more or less forgotten about the computer. So they are great targets for botnets, where many bots will go unnoticed by the machine's owner for a long time.
When the bots are installed on the Windows 7 machine which does the label printer on the shop floor... how likely is it that the box has a valid "LAN" 'green zone' connection to the company wider networks? How long do you think it will take them to scan that for "routes of exploration" and suddenly they find themselves on Sharepoint and able to download the company accounts and payments or payroll data?
Also. After making off with the goods, do you think they are going to leave a note or crash your systems to tell you? An amateur or a nut job who wants to "leave a mark" and "get noticed" might, but a professional will just leave the bot net silent and sell the data immediately on Tor.
Imagine when an exec team member bursts into your lab and yells, "Your osciliscope running Windows 7 did WHAT EXACTLY to our company?"
-
The vector of attack when there is a firewall is usually someone, somewhere in the company, maybe even on Windows 11 or Mac clicks a phishing link or installs a malware screensaver.
That malware, if potent, will immediately look for other machines to infect via open LAN ports and services like SMB on old windows machines.
So while the initial "dumb" was a human, which are usually the weakest list in security statistically, the "lateral movement" that immediately follows infects the out-of-support machines easily, providing more access to install more tooling to elevate the attack.
Targetting. No you are not special. This is why you get attacked not why you can't. It's not someone or somegroup thinking, "Let's attack ebastlers Windows 7 machine.", it's a bot net of thousands of computers running simple scripts scanning everyone for vuls. As a first order it might just be a bot running "Detect OS" scans and logging Windows 7 computers IPs and details. Another script feeds off those logs, maybe on someone elses infected PC and runs, "Discover known Win7 exploits" and reports those back.
Eventually a human gets a list of potential targets and their vulneribilities and the IP space discovered etc.
If you are on that list, they may spend a while manually digging around in your stuff to see what they can find or just use it to attack other vulnerible computers. The attacks all appear to come from random IPs from random users, because they are the ones already infected with the bots.
Some bots are just while(true){Scan(); Report()} However, others are: "Notify owner. Await login response. Launch hack toolkit shell"
-
and yells, "Your osciliscope running Windows 7 did WHAT EXACTLY to our company?"
At least it was running. With W10+ it'd still be offline updating :-DD
-
This is true and something to think about. But... W7 has been unmaintained for a long while, which tips the odds:
1. If there's a hole it will likely have been found by now.
2. If no-one is dicking with it they're not adding potential holes.
7 almost certainly still has numerous serious local and remote exploitable flaws. What tips the odds is the lack of people looking for them, as it's not really a meaningful target any more - but, if it shares any with newer products, they will never get fixed in 7.
I also disable IPV6 in all my routers. It forces the use of NAT which is a powerful defense.
It's no more powerful a defense than a basic firewall rule.
I don't use IPv6 because I can't remember any of the addresses. And it always looks like a corrupted output from a misconfigured serial port ;)
DNS has been around for 40 years..
-
To PlainName's question, the Windows version I was using before fleeing the Microsoft disaster-zone as a refugee to Linux was 8.1. 8.1 wasn't particularly good, but I got it to do what was needed. 8/8.1 had a dreadful idea with the tablet-style interface as well as the regular one, but it still gave you a lot more levers of control over your own system than 10 did. Then Microsoft started mucking around with GWX.exe and I realised they couldn't be trusted, I blocked it from actually harming my systems but trust was gone. Then seeing that Win 10 would forcibly update you with whatever Microsoft wanted, whenever they wanted it, I knew I had to escape. Started trying live Linux distros then (circa 2015-2016). Made the full migration of my personal systems in 2017-2018, haven't operated a Windows machine of my own (I've used Windows accounts on shared systems and can tell from those that the Windows OS continues to get messier and more confusing from an actually-getting-it-set-up-as-you-want perspective even as its split-personality 8/8.1 UI has been faded out) since then, and very glad of it.
I wouldn't say I've simply been simply "lucky" in terms of Linux (Mint in my case) being so crash-proof and reliable, I've put very similar installs on multiple different hardware and they've all worked nearly flawlessly. Maybe people who try more bleeding-edge distros have a tougher time. But I use Linux as a working system, I use the terminal but I don't spend my time tinkering there for the sake of it. I like an OS which works, I need it to be under my control, I need to be able to debug common easy things, and for serious things have the option to debug by the last resort of rolling back a system to an earleir saved state (have thankfully never had to do this on Linux, did have to several times with Win 8/8.1) is essential. Linux (Mint) fulfils all of these, when I evangelise about it I'm doing so from the perspective of a user, not a kernel developer.
When I talked about helping elderly relatives get away from "crash-prone" Windows, I guess "crash" was the wrong work. Some of the Windows troubles he was having would have been PEBCAK errors, the kinds which Windows really exacerbated by constantly switching things around. Perhaps "crashes" are the wrong way to think of most Windows errors, but "It was able to do what I wanted, yet it changed something and now it won't" is common with an OS where the user's level of control is less than the level of control which a remote corporation can exert. I cannot regard an operating system which you can't keep set up in just the way you like it as being "stable", even if the faults aren't crashes in the classical sense.
As for Linux being "more secure", for desktop purposes it probably is. Most examples of Linux machines being hacked are servers running Linux. Securing a server which is operated specifically so it can be remotely connected to (or serve webpages, run web services...) is a much harder prospect than simply securing a local machine. I'd say that for local desktop machine Linux does manage better security than Windows, but perhaps mostly because targeting Linux desktop machines isn't what malware-writers are interested in, they want to go after high-value webservers (which often are Linux) or the most widely used desktop machines (which are still Windows).
On the topic of:
"Again, in context Infraviolet had implied that Windows is always changing as a significant down side to using Windows. So I guess that's "what"."
I would say would anyone want a hammer where the length of the handle and shape of the head varied from day to day? Would anyone want a power drill where the direction they have to turn the chuck to tighten it swaps every week? A computer is a tool, does anyone want to regularly need to relearn how to use a tool they already have? Historically Windows was quite like a stable tool, not much changed all that drastically for the normal-to-somewhat-power level of user between the start of XP and the later days of 7. 8 and onwards though has been constant, and usually unwelcome from most users, change. That's why I'd saying maintaining long-term consistency is a good thing, Mint at any rate has certainly excelled in this regard.
On the topic of:
"In my experience Windows users tend to be "Single boxed" users"
I certainly find that true from experience, but its about the worst way to be. When a computer goes wrong you need another computer to be able to fix it, if for no other reason than to online to look up how. I have multiple boxes (one for daily use, one to pack quickly for travel...), but they're all running almost identical Linux systems (some even truly identical, dd copies of one another's HDD). The only time, since running Linux, I've ever had to hurriedly switch over from my main one to a spare was when the main one's HDD started dying, a hardware fault that any OS can succumb to, and I needed another PC to go online, order a new HDD/SSD, and then use the backup one until the new drive arrived and I'd completed all the reinstall and copying back across of files. Atleast with Linux the going-online-to-lookup-the-fix part is easy with a live USB for some types of fault, I know Windows live USBs can be made, but they're not as widely known to the Windows user community as live USBs are to the Linux community. Being single-boxed seems actively dangerous for anyone, but even worse so for Windows... that said if it's a forced Windows update that takes the main box out of service then the others might be affected at the same time too, with Linux if an update messes up a system you simply choose not to run updates on any other boxes until you've worked out how to mitigate or a new patch-for-the-problem-patch has been released.
Regarding Windows 7 security updates, the MS Security Essentials tool is an antivirus, it isn't a substitute for patches to vulnerabilities in the OS. If you're using a non-microsoft browser then keeping this up-to-date (for as long as they won't refuse to update themselves on an old Windows version) mitigates a lot of the risks. But in general, simply because Windows does seem to suffer a lot more vulnerabilities (of the really important kind related to remote code execution) in the desktop OS than Linux does, I'd be a lot happier going online with a seriously obsolete Linux distro than with a Windows OS that was even just a little out-of-date. Offline usage ofcourse, Win 7 , or Win XP can be perfect for some people.
"Your osciliscope running Windows 7 did WHAT EXACTLY to our company?"
The question isn't why was it running 7, the question is why it was connected to the internet and/or company internal networks.
-
My basic workflow in Windows 11 is still the same as it was in Windows 7 - I turn it on, log in, press "Win" key on a keyboard, start typing first characters of a software I want to launch, select it from the results, and that's basically it. For file management I've been using Total Commander for the past 20 years or so, so I don't even know if built-in explorer got any better or not. My main desktop has an installation of Windows which is super old - it was originally Windows 8.1 (I bought a boxed version when I was building a new PC), which was later upgraded to Win 10, and recently to Win 11. It successfully survived a full platform change (from Intel x99 3930K to AMD AM4 5950X), numerous upgrades to a system drive (from SATA SSD 256GB to 1 TB to 2 TB, then to NVMe M.2 SSD 2 TB in a new platform to 4 TB) and many less significant upgrades (like GPU upgrades from dual 680 in SLI to Titan X to 2070 Super to 3080 Ti and recently to 5080, or addition of fingerprint sensor and many other things) without having to reinstall the system. People complain about setting and such, which makes me wonder what are you doing with your PC that you need to change settings so often. I can't remember last time I went there at all.
-
People complain about setting and such, which makes me wonder what are you doing with your PC that you need to change settings so often. I can't remember last time I went there at all.
I don't use Windows but I think the complaint here is that it is MS who keeps changing things, pushing "updates" which break things which no longer work. And users wish MS would leave well enough alone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMTq8TK-qIc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMTq8TK-qIc)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84OuG-vZaCA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84OuG-vZaCA)
-
I don't use Windows but I think the complaint here is that it is MS who keeps changing things, pushing "updates" which break things which no longer work. And users wish MS would leave well enough alone.
I've seen these videos, but I never actually experienced any of it on any of win machines in my family. I'm not saying it does not happen, I know that with the user base as large as diverse as that of Windows, just about any change will have a pretty good chance to break something for somebody somewhere no matter how much effort you put into QA. What I'm saying it does not seem to affect my systems. Maybe because I usually don't install update immediately as they become available, but wait a bit - kinda like what most companies do :-//
So putting these clickbait videos aside, when was last time a Windows update actually broke something for you on your machine? Not "I heard about it/seen a video/read on a forum", but in your own personal experience? I can't be the only lucky one for whom everything just works for years without any problems whatsoever?
-
The Win7 MSE can still be updated manually.
But the technology under MSE is legacy (all the static def tech is). You can walk around static definitions by changing a malware file just slightly.
It's like Norton AV from 1990 vs Crowdstrike of 2026.
In other words, you may be updating Win7 MSE defs, but it's mostly useless in 2026.
MS should be responsible and backport MS Defender knowing the world still uses their crud that was released 30yrs ago. But MS is not responsible that way.
AVG is probably way better than MSE, and, AVG still works and auto-updates in Win7.
Do you still have a stack of win3.11 install floppies? ;)
Detection and Protection. AVG vs MSE
AVG offers real-time protection, heuristic scanning, and behavior-based detection, making it effective against emerging threats. It supports full, custom, and scheduled scans.
MSE provides solid core antivirus protection with real-time scanning and regular definition updates. However, independent tests from 2014 onward show MSE lagged behind AVG in detection rates, especially in proactive and retrospective malware tests
-
So putting these clickbait videos aside, when was last time a Windows update actually broke something for you on your machine? Not "I heard about it/seen a video/read on a forum", but in your own personal experience? I can't be the only lucky one for whom everything just works for years without any problems whatsoever?
You aren't - my experience is the same. To the very best of my recollection I don't think I've ever had an update break something. Also, I literally cannot remember the last time my machine had a BSOD. It has happened, definitely, but it must be a heck of an long way back - 20 years, probably.
Last time I said that, the Windows haters decided I must only use my machine for emails and web browsing, but they'd be wrong. I've posted elsewhere what I use my workstation for, so I won't go into it again, but I pretty much count as a "power user" (dreadful term), having used Windows almost every day since W3.1 for a wide range of work, including CAD, video editing, software development, blah blah. To be fair, I moved to NT as soon as NT4 came out, so I guess I've enjoyed the superior stability it delivers.
-
Just for fun, still available if you want it
POSready 2009 ("XP Professional") - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=11196 (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=11196)
POSready 7 ("Win7") - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=26558 (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=26558)
Have at it.
Note the ID numbers in URL, you can find other stuff with different ID's
-
Last Win10 problem I remember is from last year when quick launch lost some functionality.
But that's not actually an OS thing.
Last closer to OS thing I can remember now is corrupting icon cache, it's now gone.
For that I have an explorer restarter from '22.
Crashing OS is practical history.
-
You can exit Explorer (window shell) without any third-party software. Just google "how to exit explorer in windows 11", and you will get an answer - it's basically a combination of magic keypresses. This is sometimes useful - for example to avoid a restart when you update some shell extension (like Tortoise Git for example) - you can just exit and restart explorer.
-
You can exit Explorer (window shell) without any third-party software. Just google "how to exit explorer in windows 11", and you will get an answer - it's basically a combination of magic keypresses. This is sometimes useful - for example to avoid a restart when you update some shell extension (like Tortoise Git for example) - you can just exit and restart explorer.
You can kill the explorer.exe process in Task Manager. It will restart automatically.
-
I don't use Windows but I think the complaint here is that it is MS who keeps changing things, pushing "updates" which break things which no longer work. And users wish MS would leave well enough alone.
I've seen these videos, but I never actually experienced any of it on any of win machines in my family. I'm not saying it does not happen, I know that with the user base as large as diverse as that of Windows, just about any change will have a pretty good chance to break something for somebody somewhere no matter how much effort you put into QA. What I'm saying it does not seem to affect my systems. Maybe because I usually don't install update immediately as they become available, but wait a bit - kinda like what most companies do :-//
So putting these clickbait videos aside, when was last time a Windows update actually broke something for you on your machine? Not "I heard about it/seen a video/read on a forum", but in your own personal experience? I can't be the only lucky one for whom everything just works for years without any problems whatsoever?
I have not had any problems with Windows in the last decade. Mainly because I have not used Windows in the last decade.
The "it doesn't happen to me so it is not important and could even be non existent" attitude irks me.
I do not have cancer, I have not suffered any terrorist attacks, I have not been shot in Minneapolis. I do not know anybody who has been affected by those things. I guess I must be one of the lucky ones. I guess there is something wrong with people who suffer those things. They probably deserve them.
-
I have not had any problems with Windows in the last decade. Mainly because I have not used Windows in the last decade.
The "it doesn't happen to me so it is not important and could even be non existent" attitude irks me.
I do not have cancer, I have not suffered any terrorist attacks, I have not been shot in Minneapolis. I do not know anybody who has been affected by those things. I guess I must be one of the lucky ones. I guess there is something wrong with people who suffer those things. They probably deserve them.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Everybody with a working brain cell knows that they are but one data point, which cannot represent the general population. But that does not disqualify them from describing their experience, because sweeping generalisations are EXACTLY what Linux fan boys do all the fucking time: they bang on about security, stability, reliability, blah blah, as if these are widespread problems for Windows users. And what is so ironic is that most of them haven't a fucking clue what they are talking about because they haven't used Windows in ten or twenty years!
So if you want to make sweeping statements, then it is reasonable for someone swept up to point out that it doesn't include them.
-
So putting these clickbait videos aside, when was last time a Windows update actually broke something for you on your machine?
Remember the WinRE partition size issue (triggered by an update and causing its installation to fail)? I had to manually repartition the disk (Microsoft's published solution) of a Win10 VM. The WinRE partition was originally created by the Win10 setup automatically.
If you're looking for more substantial feedback about update issues please ask people working in corporate IT. They will happily share their experience.
-
I have not had any problems with Windows in the last decade. Mainly because I have not used Windows in the last decade.
The "it doesn't happen to me so it is not important and could even be non existent" attitude irks me.
I do not have cancer, I have not suffered any terrorist attacks, I have not been shot in Minneapolis. I do not know anybody who has been affected by those things. I guess I must be one of the lucky ones. I guess there is something wrong with people who suffer those things. They probably deserve them.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Everybody with a working brain cell knows that they are but one data point, which cannot represent the general population. But that does not disqualify them from describing their experience, because sweeping generalisations are EXACTLY what Linux fan boys do all the fucking time: they bang on about security, stability, reliability, blah blah, as if these are widespread problems for Windows users. And what is so ironic is that most of them haven't a fucking clue what they are talking about because they haven't used Windows in ten or twenty years!
So if you want to make sweeping statements, then it is reasonable for someone swept up to point out that it doesn't include them.
I love Linux, use it all the time; a lot of people do. But the fanboy is very different as you describe.
Linux, by CVE count, is the most vulnerable platform on the planet (https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php), yet fanboys insist it's more secure. When confronted with that fact, they will say it's because open source allows more CVEs, but then provide no evidence.
It also, in my experience, has regular breaking updates. Every time I turn around lately, I have to recompile the NVIDIA CUDA drivers, for instance. And no Windows user ever heard of "dependency hell."
On the other hand, all of my friends outside of work run Windows, and none of them are "nerds". Hell, two still run AOL until recently.
I'm their tech support (SIGH), but it is rare that they have any issues.
The last big issue that caused the Windows platform pain was the virus/malware crap, maybe 10 years ago, which MS solved by purchasing and running an AV in the platform because users couldn't be bothered. Apple did the same thing with macOS, though they have regularly claimed macOS doesn't get viruses/malware.
I'm guessing no Linux user needs Anti-Virus or security software because they believe the myths. But Linux is the number one platform for malware, botnets, crypto-jacking, and ransomware. Just type any of these queries into google for instance:
"What is the most compromised OS?"
"what OS suffers the most botnets?"
"what OS suffers the most cryptojacking"
-
Last Win10 problem I remember is from last year when quick launch lost some functionality.
Big bloated, spaced further apart taskbar with way to add no compact sub menu's (quicklaunch).
Nothing in my favour and all works against me.
When I saw the animated skeleton placeholders in LTSC 2021 plastered over the menu's testing it in 2022 where they'd spike a CPU core as they appear, flash then disappear and that stupid app store I considered it lost it's useful functionality to me.
Now I think it's all about them on what promotional advertising crap they can link to and dump on that taskbar to make shoving it in my face easier from that stupid appstore nevermind the things I want on there that I could put there before.
I might have a browser profile shortcut so I wonder what's that going to do?
Not copy shortcut or paste shortcut to the program with no parameters which would just load up the default browser profile if it go on there.
It's as good as dead to me.
Crappy Chrome copied interface where when I see a dialogue somewhere, it dims and cuts me off from the background which hurts my eyes due to the sudden and excessive change. Like the operation was so complicated I need to be cut off from the surroundings and background.
Sarcasm: Advanced thinkers for the mass majority! Mass majority = stupid and confused, don't know what they're doing and naturally born with a very low IQ level that they need to be protected with these decorating things to make them feel more secure. The mass majority don't use quicklaunch, they use "APPS on your PC" like a North London parent down talking in a low condescending tone to their child.
-
So putting these clickbait videos aside, when was last time a Windows update actually broke something for you on your machine?
Remember the WinRE partition size issue (triggered by an update and causing its installation to fail)? I had to manually repartition the disk (Microsoft's published solution) of a Win10 VM. The WinRE partition was originally created by the Win10 setup automatically.
If you're looking for more substantial feedback about update issues please ask people working in corporate IT. They will happily share their experience.
I've spent the last 30+ years in corporate IT. Linux desktops are not a thing, so asking me to provide experience based on a comparison of managing fleets of Android, iOS, macOS, Windows, and Linux would be problematic, since Linux isn't used in any significant corporate IT shop that I know of. All of the others are. Any guesses as to why that's the case?
As for partition table sizing, to my memory, OEMs avoided Microsoft's Windows 10 sizing recommendations (450-500 when released) because they felt users would complain about the "wasted" space. So, there's a problem with the update, but who owns the failure is at best nebulous. I don't mind blaming MS for some of that, as they could, and we all can, do a better job. But the OEMs seemed to get out of that without many folks complaining. I do know a couple of shops that took Dell out back the woodshed over that.
-
Big bloated, spaced further apart taskbar with way to add no compact sub menu's (quicklaunch).
Nothing in my favour and all works against me.
When I saw the animated skeleton placeholders in LTSC 2021 plastered over the menu's testing it in 2022 where they'd spike a CPU core as they appear, flash then disappear and that stupid app store I considered it lost it's useful functionality to me.
Now I think it's all about them on what promotional advertising crap they can link to and dump on that taskbar to make shoving it in my face easier from that stupid appstore nevermind the things I want on there that I could put there before.
I might have a browser profile shortcut so I wonder what's that going to do?
Not copy shortcut or paste shortcut to the program with no parameters which would just load up the default browser profile if it go on there.
It's as good as dead to me.
I'll tell you what this is: it's a person who has decided in advance that he hates Windows, vomiting a stream of furious, incoherent invective as some kind of justification. I can feel the raw anger in every word!!
@MrMobodies: just calm down, take a breath, and open up your mind to the possibility that you might need to spend 20 seconds familiarising yourself with the new arrangement (whatever it is, I can't tell).
And think about this: there are 700 million people using Windows 11. Seven. Hundred. Million. Surely they can't all be smarter than you, can they? Of course not! So where is all this anger really coming from? It is massively out of proportion to the issues you are reporting.
Honestly, I thought educated, qualified (often) engineers and scientists - the members of this forum - were supposed to be reasonable, logical, and above all rational people. And yet I've seen more raw emotion, more prejudice, more sheer dogmatism, more contrived rationalisation in this thread than a typical day on 'X'.
What the FUCK?
(PS: I made up the bit about 'X' - I've never used it. But I'm sure you get my gist.)
-
Most people don't use Windows through choice. I wonder how many Windows 11 users like it, or have even considered there might be an alternative?
Microsoft simply don't care about Windows any more. It's only around 10% of their revenue and will shrink in the future, as they invest more in data centres and AI. They don't have the same reward for investing in it as they used to. Windows has a monopoly over the desktop platform, so people aren't going to switch anytime soon. Microsoft are just going to keep running Windows into the ground by pumping it full of adware, data collection and AI in a bid to boost profits from their other sectors.
-
700 million people using Windows 11. Seven. Hundred. Million.
I have learned to type on a Dvorak keyboard. It was hell to rewire the brain with a new keyboard layout.
Now, I love it and my hands are more relaxed after a lot of typing.
Dvorak is much better than QWERTY, and we all know why the Dvorak layout is not as popular as it should.
More people using A instead of B does not imply A is better than B.
-
Most people don't use Windows through choice. I wonder how many Windows 11 users like it, or have even considered there might be an alternative?
Microsoft simply don't care about Windows any more. It's only around 10% of their revenue and will shrink in the future, as they invest more in data centres and AI. They don't have the same reward for investing in it as they used to. Windows has a monopoly over the desktop platform, so people aren't going to switch anytime soon. Microsoft are just going to keep running Windows into the ground by pumping it full of adware, data collection and AI in a bid to boost profits from their other sectors.
110% this.
-
700 million people using Windows 11. Seven. Hundred. Million.
I have learned to type on a Dvorak keyboard. It was hell to rewire the brain with a new keyboard layout.
Now, I love it and my hands are more relaxed after a lot of typing.
Dvorak is much better than QWERTY, and we all know why the Dvorak layout is not as popular as it should.
More people using A instead of B does not imply A is better than B.
VHS anyone? :popcorn:
-
More people using A instead of B does not imply A is better than B.
Indeed. It implies A is perfectly tolerable.
If every user of A was as incandescent with rage as @MrMobodies, then I'm pretty sure the situation would be different and B would rise to the top.
-
Honestly, I thought educated, qualified (often) engineers and scientists - the members of this forum - were supposed to be reasonable, logical, and above all rational people.
This is the "General Chat" section after all, where we let it all hang out. ;D
-
If every user of A was as incandescent with rage as @MrMobodies, then I'm pretty sure the situation would be different and B would rise to the top.
As usual, you seem to be having a significant emotional reaction to others differing opinions, and are projecting an extreme emotional response onto them.
I'm not sure you quite know what being incandescent with rage means..
-
Most people don't use Windows through choice. I wonder how many Windows 11 users like it, or have even considered there might be an alternative?
Funnily enough, I agree with you. You have managed to make your argument without the slightest bit of rage or invective, which is all an operating system warrants.
I would think most workplace users of Windows 11 PCs are pretty indifferent to the OS. That's because they have more interesting things to think about. I am confident that if it were a serious impediment to their productivity, the shareholders would have something to say about it and changes would be afoot.
I think that is probably true of most home users, too. I think they will find the adverts and other crud mildly-to-fairly annoying. Some of them might find out how to reduce them. But most of the time they are thinking about the application they are using, because that is where their work gets done.
We would do well to remember that for the great majority of users, Windows is just an app launcher. Oh, and some of them are interested in managing their files, too. But in general, the OS is just not that important.
-
If every user of A was as incandescent with rage as @MrMobodies, then I'm pretty sure the situation would be different and B would rise to the top.
As usual, you seem to be having a significant emotional reaction to others differing opinions, and are projecting an extreme emotional response onto them.
Actually, it depends on what you mean by "emotional". If you read my posts you will find they are generally mild-mannered, mostly polite, and you will never, ever, find anything resembling the incoherent rant @MrMobodies presented us with.
However - I do admit to this (and I'm not sure if these are emotions) : astonishment and disappointment. Astonishment at the strength of feelings expressed in this thread, and disappointment at the level of prejudice and dogmatism. Discussions around Windows vs Linux take on a religious fervour - which I say is totally ridiculous.
Now go back through my posts and see if you can find any emotions other than astonishment and puzzlement.
-
I'm not sure you quite know what being incandescent with rage means..
It's what we call a metaphor. Look it up.
-
Most people don't use Windows through choice. I wonder how many Windows 11 users like it, or have even considered there might be an alternative?
Microsoft simply don't care about Windows any more. It's only around 10% of their revenue and will shrink in the future, as they invest more in data centres and AI. They don't have the same reward for investing in it as they used to. Windows has a monopoly over the desktop platform, so people aren't going to switch anytime soon. Microsoft are just going to keep running Windows into the ground by pumping it full of adware, data collection and AI in a bid to boost profits from their other sectors.
At first glance, this seems easy to agree with. I believe that this generalization was once absolutely true. But, I don't think it survives today as it may have in in the past.
At the companies I have worked for over the past 15 years, since macOS became an option, people have had a choice at work. That choice lands with Windows about the same amount of time as you see it depicted in the consumer market. Some even have chosen not to use Windows or macOS and instead use their phones or tablets. Those options and more are available. Over the last 6 years, I've seen virtual desktops as an option, so you can run whatever you like and use the corporate computer as a remote VM. In the past 10 years, I've worked at companies that have 10k users, 30 users, and now 5k users. I also visit and talk to companies across the size spectrum.
Linux isn't an option because it isn't fleet manageable. Companies spend a lot of money trying to secure it as a server, and they are not going to try to do it on a desktop because it's not manageable. Most of the secure environments that I know of and have worked in wouldn't even let you use a Linux system on their network. Linux does survive in one fashion on enterprise networks. It's through the WLS (Windows Linux Subsystem) that I've used the crap out of it. I have also grown used to PowerShell.
Similarly, many at home have chosen to move from a computer to a tablet/phone, and options for macOS or Windows are widely available. Linux, too, in that environment.
How many people run their Linux desktop with secure boot and security software running? Most people immediately disable secure boot, disable the default firewall, and often run everything as root or a user with direct access via sudo with no password.
-
I'm not sure you quite know what being incandescent with rage means..
It's what we call a metaphor. Look it up.
You read extreme emotions into every word - this is called projection. Look it up.
-
Microsoft simply don't care about Windows any more. It's only around 10% of their revenue and will shrink in the future, as they invest more in data centres and AI. They don't have the same reward for investing in it as they used to. Windows has a monopoly over the desktop platform, so people aren't going to switch anytime soon. Microsoft are just going to keep running Windows into the ground by pumping it full of adware, data collection and AI in a bid to boost profits from their other sectors.
Once again I completely agree! But as an aside, let me just clarify this:
For me the biggest annoyance in W11 is the Start menu. Not only its structure and the way it works, but because of the "adverts" and other crud in it.
Did I go online and rant about how UTTERLY AWFUL it was? No! :-DD That would be ridiculous and pointless. I gave five bucks to Stardock and installed Start11. And it transformed my experience of using Windows 11. Best five bucks I've spent. So now, unlike several people on this thread, I am relaxed and cheerful while using my Windows PC; my blood pressure remains steady, and I reserve my emotional energy for things that actually matter.
But to your main point, @Zero999: I agree that Windows as an operating system is less and less valuable to Microsoft, and more and more a platform for generating alternate revenue streams. My cunning avoidance of its worst aspects by installing Start11 won't last, I'm sure. I can see me moving to Mint before too long, despite my dislike of most Linux apps.
What puzzles me is why Microsoft hasn't given up already and re-engineered Windows as a compatibility layer running on top of Linux. Yes, I do appreciate that such a thing would be a BIG job. But look at it like this: the people who develop WINE have got, what, maybe half way there? And that's without any assistance from Microsoft and observing the "clean room" constraints imposed by the licensing rules.
Think what Microsoft could do if they took over WINE and finished it off so it worked for the other half. Nobody knows the inner workings of Windows better, and frankly Microsoft knows the inner workings of Linux pretty well, too.
Once they'd got "super-WINE" working, they could pretty much walk away. Freeze the Windows API - every Windows app developed from then on would be bound to work forever. No need to keep messing with the Start menu or File Explorer: that's all done by Linux.
-
You read extreme emotions into every word - this is called projection. Look it up.
Do me a favour: go back and read reply #332. Really, please do.
If you are honest with yourself you will have to agree that it expresses a level of incoherent rage that I have never even got close to in my posts. You are welcome to check.
-
You read extreme emotions into every word - this is called projection. Look it up.
Do me a favour: go back and read reply #332. Really, please do.
If you are honest with yourself you will have to agree that it expresses a level of incoherent rage that I have never even got close to in my posts. You are welcome to check.
No, I'm afraid I don't have to submit to your opinion and interpretation.
Incoherent? Somewhat. Incoherent rage? No. Again, you're seeing extremes which aren't there. You've done it to me, too. What amounts to mild annoyance you perceive as apoplexy.
Do me a favour and don't tell me what I have to think, say, or feel. That does tend to cause a more emotional response, why, in person you might even receive a one finger salute. I'm sure you'd need to report that as a death threat.
-
But to your main point, @Zero999: I agree that Windows as an operating system is less and less valuable to Microsoft
That's not true - Windows is their foot in a door to corporate environments, which require server versions of Windows to operate this infrastructure, as well as Exchange as a de-facto standard for corporate communications. That is also their door into selling private cloud infrastructure software (the buzzword is "hyperconverged") and other server solutions. I don't know if it's their biggest cash cow (it used to be, but I don't know if it still is), but it's definitely significant enough for them.
Consumer Windows is basically a side product of that corporate Windows world, since they make very little money from it. Even corporate version of desktop Windows (I think it's now called "Windows 11 Enterprise", which is almost the same as Windows 11 Pro) is sold for peanuts due to massive volume discounts, but you need to have a certain amount of server Windows products to operate a fleet of client Windows machines - and those cost some real money if we talking about big enterprises.
-
If you are honest with yourself you will have to agree that it expresses a level of incoherent rage that I have never even got close to in my posts. You are welcome to check.
Do me a favour and don't tell me what I have to think, say, or feel. That does tend to cause a more emotional response, why, in person you might even receive a one finger salute. I'm sure you'd need to report that as a death threat.
(The bolding is mine.)
You are quite right (although I know you know it's a figure of speech). But yes, I should have said, "I feel sure you will agree". Thanks for pointing it out - I'll try to keep on top of that one.
-
You read extreme emotions into every word - this is called projection. Look it up.
I don't think it's obvious who is doing the projecting.
-
Big bloated, spaced further apart taskbar with way to add no compact sub menu's (quicklaunch).
Nothing in my favour and all works against me.
When I saw the animated skeleton placeholders in LTSC 2021 plastered over the menu's testing it in 2022 where they'd spike a CPU core as they appear, flash then disappear and that stupid app store I considered it lost it's useful functionality to me.
Now I think it's all about them on what promotional advertising crap they can link to and dump on that taskbar to make shoving it in my face easier from that stupid appstore nevermind the things I want on there that I could put there before.
I might have a browser profile shortcut so I wonder what's that going to do?
Not copy shortcut or paste shortcut to the program with no parameters which would just load up the default browser profile if it go on there.
It's as good as dead to me.
I'll tell you what this is: it's a person who has decided in advance that he hates Windows, vomiting a stream of furious, incoherent invective as some kind of justification. I can feel the raw anger in every word!!
Y'know, Steve, it is possible for two things to be true at once:
- That previous Windoze versions, say up to 11, are actually pretty damn stable and usable (I'm very happy with W7 and intend to stay here for as long as possible)
- That Windows 11, on the other hand, is a total POS, is broken, and becoming more and more enshittified by the day (which after all is what this thread is all about)
If I were required to use Windows 11 I'd be every bit as angry and bitter that such a thing was being foisted upon me.
-
Most people don't use Windows through choice. I wonder how many Windows 11 users like it, or have even considered there might be an alternative?
Microsoft simply don't care about Windows any more. It's only around 10% of their revenue and will shrink in the future, as they invest more in data centres and AI. They don't have the same reward for investing in it as they used to. Windows has a monopoly over the desktop platform, so people aren't going to switch anytime soon. Microsoft are just going to keep running Windows into the ground by pumping it full of adware, data collection and AI in a bid to boost profits from their other sectors.
True, but the current backlash is taking epic proportions. Looks pretty serious. Even if Windows is now only a small part of their business, it's going to harm MS in terms of image. And I think it goes beyond MS. This is just showing everyone that placing all your business bets on massive AI-everywhere and unsolicited ads is making people angry.
-
You aren't - my experience is the same. To the very best of my recollection I don't think I've ever had an update break something. Also, I literally cannot remember the last time my machine had a BSOD. It has happened, definitely, but it must be a heck of an long way back - 20 years, probably.
Well I remember air transport having big troubles because of a windows update -or that's what we were told at least- much less than 20 years ago
-
But to your main point, @Zero999: I agree that Windows as an operating system is less and less valuable to Microsoft
That's not true - Windows is their foot in a door to corporate environments, which require server versions of Windows to operate this infrastructure, as well as Exchange as a de-facto standard for corporate communications. That is also their door into selling private cloud infrastructure software (the buzzword is "hyperconverged") and other server solutions. I don't know if it's their biggest cash cow (it used to be, but I don't know if it still is), but it's definitely significant enough for them.
Consumer Windows is basically a side product of that corporate Windows world, since they make very little money from it. Even corporate version of desktop Windows (I think it's now called "Windows 11 Enterprise", which is almost the same as Windows 11 Pro) is sold for peanuts due to massive volume discounts, but you need to have a certain amount of server Windows products to operate a fleet of client Windows machines - and those cost some real money if we talking about big enterprises.
I would have agreed with you five years ago, but that no longer appears to be the case with Windows 11. I know this is anecdotal but, most people in the IT department hate Windows 11 and find it a nightmare to administer. Microsoft do appear to be starting to annoy their corporate customers.
But to your main point, @Zero999: I agree that Windows as an operating system is less and less valuable to Microsoft, and more and more a platform for generating alternate revenue streams. My cunning avoidance of its worst aspects by installing Start11 won't last, I'm sure. I can see me moving to Mint before too long, despite my dislike of most Linux apps.
What puzzles me is why Microsoft hasn't given up already and re-engineered Windows as a compatibility layer running on top of Linux. Yes, I do appreciate that such a thing would be a BIG job. But look at it like this: the people who develop WINE have got, what, maybe half way there? And that's without any assistance from Microsoft and observing the "clean room" constraints imposed by the licensing rules.
Think what Microsoft could do if they took over WINE and finished it off so it worked for the other half. Nobody knows the inner workings of Windows better, and frankly Microsoft knows the inner workings of Linux pretty well, too.
Once they'd got "super-WINE" working, they could pretty much walk away. Freeze the Windows API - every Windows app developed from then on would be bound to work forever. No need to keep messing with the Start menu or File Explorer: that's all done by Linux.
They won't do that, because it will cost a lot of money and they won't see a return on their investment.
-
Y'know, Steve, it is possible for two things to be true at once:
- That previous Windoze versions, say up to 11, are actually pretty damn stable and usable (I'm very happy with W7 and intend to stay here for as long as possible)
- That Windows 11, on the other hand, is a total POS, is broken, and becoming more and more enshittified by the day (which after all is what this thread is all about)
You need to be more specific here.
I use Windows 11 every day on two different computers, and I can tell you honestly that Windows 11 is not "a total POS" and not "broken". It's awfully like W10 with a new Start menu, task bar and minor changes to File Explorer. Honestly, you'd be surprised by how trivial and superficial the differences are between W10 and W11, from a user's perspective.
Having said that, I should point out that "a total POS" and "broken" are imprecise and undefined, so ultimately a matter of opinion. For example, imagine someone clicking on 'Start', seeing an unexpected message pop up, and immediately going on Facebook and posting "I hate Windows 11, it's a piece of shit!!"
Would you agree that it's a bit of an over-reaction to an unexpected message about OneDrive? Especially as for five bucks you need never see any of that nonsense again, PLUS you get a taskbar that works like in W10, including being able to attach it to the left side of the screen. Yes, yes, I know you shouldn't have to pay anything to make W11 work as you want it, but it is pragmatic and almost free.
Where I do agree is that there seems to be a degree of enshittification, if being offered AI assistance counts as "shit". It's not that difficult to ignore it, to be honest. For me, though, I can imagine it eventually getting in the way enough for me to move to Mint. I can feel a mild sense of disappointment about that, not because I don't like Mint (I slightly prefer it over W11) but because I don't like most of the Linux apps I've tried.
-
They won't do that, because it will cost a lot of money and they won't see a return on their investment.
In a sense they would - they could lay off the entire Windows team (almost).
-
I would have agreed with you five years ago, but that no longer appears to be the case with Windows 11. I know this is anecdotal but, most people in the IT department hate Windows 11 and find it a nightmare to administer. Microsoft do appear to be starting to annoy their corporate customers.
That surprises me, to be honest. From what I've read about Windows 11, there doesn't seem to be much chat about Microsoft changing the way the OS is managed in a corporate environment. Most of the criticism seems to revolve around the changes to the UI: the Start menu and the task bar. Plus the creeping AI assistance, of course. I should say I am not involved in the corporate world so I might be completely wrong about that.
Mind you, think about the workload involved in moving all your corporate Windows users to Linux. Oof!
-
That surprises me, to be honest. From what I've read about Windows 11, there doesn't seem to be much chat about Microsoft changing the way the OS is managed in a corporate environment. Most of the criticism seems to revolve around the changes to the UI: the Start menu and the task bar.
Really? What about that recent update that made user's systems unbootable?
That seems a bit more serious than just some quibbles with how the user interface looks/works.
-
Linux, by CVE count, is the most vulnerable platform on the planet (https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php), yet fanboys insist it's more secure. When confronted with that fact, they will say it's because open source allows more CVEs, but then provide no evidence.
That would be very good news to me. It would mean Linux has become mainstream. However that statement doesn't ring true to me, please see what the answer about "the most compromised OS" i got from Google, following your suggestion.
It also, in my experience, has regular breaking updates.
To me that means you are doing something wrong, like fiddling with repositories or something. No harsh critic here, but if you have "regular breaking updates", there is something wrong, no doubt about it.
Every time I turn around lately, I have to recompile the NVIDIA CUDA drivers, for instance.
Yes, of course. NVIDIA is infamously not linux friendly and you'll have to hack the support back into the kernel each time a new version (either kernel's or NVIDIA's) gets released. Should I need to use anything from NVIDIA, I would be using a windows machine.
And no Windows user ever heard of "dependency hell."
If you get in "dependency hell", you have messed up your APT. Otherwise it just works. Just leave it alone to do the work. Windows users usually have a hard time grasping that, because they aren't used to have a way to install software that does the work for them
The last big issue that caused the Windows platform pain was the virus/malware crap, maybe 10 years ago, which MS solved by purchasing and running an AV in the platform because users couldn't be bothered. Apple did the same thing with macOS, though they have regularly claimed macOS doesn't get viruses/malware.
I purchased my last Mac on 1998, so I don't know about it right now. But for me, having the antivirus hogging my system's resources is a big issue. YMMV.
I'm guessing no Linux user needs Anti-Virus or security software because they believe the myths. But Linux is the number one platform for malware, botnets, crypto-jacking, and ransomware. Just type any of these queries into google for instance:
"What is the most compromised OS?"
I just checked the first question and I got this answer from Google:
"Windows is currently the most targeted operating system for online attacks, although Linux has also faced significant vulnerabilities. The level of compromise often depends on the system administrator and the software used, rather than the OS itself"
So I didn't bothered to check the remaining questions. I still remember about melissa and i love you, when the high ranking IT staff from a basque capital city, after seeing their systems go shit, called the city music school where i was working, to ask about what antivirus we were using, and the answer was "none"
No windows user has cojones big enough to browse Internet without running an antivirus, but Linux users do, because it isn't about cojones.
-
Really? What about that recent update that made user's systems unbootable?
That seems a bit more serious than just some quibbles with how the user interface looks/works.
Yes, I read about that. Do we know how many systems were affected? It's seems worryingly incompetent to me.
EDIT: Ah, yes, KB5074109. Unfortunately there is no data available on how many users were affected. Microsoft say "A limited number of reports" - make of that what you will.
I would happily agree that the quality of recent upgrades seems to be significantly worse, although without actual numbers we can't know how bad it is.
-
No windows user has cojones big enough to browse Internet without running an antivirus, but Linux users do, because it isn't about cojones.
I don't suppose any Windows user does do that, do they? Windows has an antivirus built in, along with several other security elements. I've never tried switching it off. What I can tell you is that I've relied on the inbuilt security software for many years (since W7, I think) and have had no problems whatever.
Having said that, there is no doubt in my mind that Linux has always been "harder" against attack than Windows, right back to when they were both conceived.
-
It's awfully like W10 with a new Start menu, task bar and minor changes to File Explorer. Honestly, you'd be surprised by how trivial and superficial the differences are between W10 and W11, from a user's perspective.
Don't you have to have a Microsoft account now just to install it and then log in? That's a massive difference from previous versions.
-
Linux, by CVE count, is the most vulnerable platform on the planet (https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php), yet fanboys insist it's more secure. When confronted with that fact, they will say it's because open source allows more CVEs, but then provide no evidence.
That would be very good news to me. It would mean Linux has become mainstream. However that statement doesn't ring true to me, please see what the answer about "the most compromised OS" i got from Google, following your suggestion.
You do realise that Google answers are AI generated and could be right or very wrong, and you have no idea which (otherwise you wouldn't be asking)? You need to stop with the asking Google and then believing it as gospel.
Seriously, who is best placed to know this: the actual CVE compilers with the actual data, or Google via some copypasta pattern matching?
Further, you haven't even twigged that the answer Google gave you is to a different question than the relevant to the above? Sure, Windows has the most attacks because most PCs are Windows. But the question was how many CVEs, not how many times something was attacked.
-
Don't you have to have a Microsoft account now just to install it and then log in? That's a massive difference from previous versions.
I don't know, I'm afraid. I'm happy enough to enter my MS account details - can't see the problem. After all, have you tried using an Android phone or tablet without entering your Google account details?
After installation you can create a local user account and delete the original. (I've read this - haven't tried it myself.)
-
That's classic whataboutery, and irrelevant.
-
Sorry, not that I would have no idea. Instead I choosed to ask exactly the question suggested and that's the answer I got. Which had nothing to do with what it was supposed to be.
Now anyone can say, well, whatever. Google's AI could be wrong (or not), but I'm not naive enough to think I need to demonstrate, to any windows fanboy that, having the source code accessible to anyone, will inevitably mean more vulnerabilities are uncovered.
That's quite different from being the most vulnerable OS, and, as Google's answer point out, the most attacked. OTOH, one could say the most compromised OS is the one with the most effected machines. To me that argument, and others stated in the same post, sweat bad faith and desperation through each pore. It's really funny.
I got my conclusion a couple decades ago, and it is good enough for me. Windows diehard guys can spew all bullshit they want on threads like this. It doesn't matter, because the trend is very clear.
Two decades ago windows gurus just laughed at linux. Not anymore.
-
After all, have you tried using an Android phone or tablet without entering your Google account details?
I have an Android phone. I never do anything that requires any Google account on it.
Of course, that's because I only use it as a phone (phone & texting).
I may have had to set one up when I bought it (can't remember), but now it's nothing but an unused vestige.
-
have you tried using an Android phone or tablet without entering your Google account details?
Just put LineageOS -which is still android- on it, and you won't need any google account. At all.
-
Linux, by CVE count, is the most vulnerable platform on the planet (https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php), yet fanboys insist it's more secure. When confronted with that fact, they will say it's because open source allows more CVEs, but then provide no evidence.
That would be very good news to me. It would mean Linux has become mainstream. However that statement doesn't ring true to me, please see what the answer about "the most compromised OS" i got from Google, following your suggestion.
Glad you have good news, I guess? Here's your trophy, most CVEs. Yay.
It also, in my experience, has regular breaking updates.
To me that means you are doing something wrong, like fiddling with repositories or something. No harsh critic here, but if you have "regular breaking updates", there is something wrong, no doubt about it.
This is ignorant and likely due to your inexperience. Do you do any real work on your system or just use a browser?
Every time I turn around lately, I have to recompile the NVIDIA CUDA drivers, for instance.
Yes, of course. NVIDIA is infamously not linux friendly and you'll have to hack the support back into the kernel each time a new version (either kernel's or NVIDIA's) gets released. Should I need to use anything from NVIDIA, I would be using a windows machine.
You are obviously not doing any modern application development or anything related to AI.
And no Windows user ever heard of "dependency hell."
If you get in "dependency hell", you have messed up your APT. Otherwise it just works. Just leave it alone to do the work. Windows users usually have a hard time grasping that, because they aren't used to have a way to install software that does the work for them
I'm as much a Windows user as you're not a Linux user, which is to say, uhm, no. If you've not been in dependency hell, you don't do any development on the platform. Are you just using a browser?
The last big issue that caused the Windows platform pain was the virus/malware crap, maybe 10 years ago, which MS solved by purchasing and running an AV in the platform because users couldn't be bothered. Apple did the same thing with macOS, though they have regularly claimed macOS doesn't get viruses/malware.
I purchased my last Mac on 1998, so I don't know about it right now. But for me, having the antivirus hogging my system's resources is a big issue. YMMV.
So you have no idea if you're infected or not. That's the oblivious nature of fanboys. Security software "hogging" system resources? What is this 2002?
I'm guessing no Linux user needs Anti-Virus or security software because they believe the myths. But Linux is the number one platform for malware, botnets, crypto-jacking, and ransomware. Just type any of these queries into google for instance:
"What is the most compromised OS?"
I just checked the first question and I got this answer from Google:
"Windows is currently the most targeted operating system for online attacks, although Linux has also faced significant vulnerabilities. The level of compromise often depends on the system administrator and the software used, rather than the OS itself"
So I didn't bothered to check the remaining questions. I still remember about melissa and i love you, when the high ranking IT staff from a basque capital city, after seeing their systems go shit, called the city music school where i was working, to ask about what antivirus we were using, and the answer was "none"
This is the nature of fanboys, I'm not surprised. But the truth is, you did check those questions. Didn't ya?
No windows user has cojones big enough to browse Internet without running an antivirus, but Linux users do, because it isn't about cojones.
So, is it your "cojones" you want to talk about? Let's see what conjones you have.
How about you bring your cojones and your Linux machine to Def Con, Black Hat, or RSA? I'll be at all three. Maybe we can even make a bet? If you can remain unhacked, I'll buy your ticket and accommodations. How does that sound?
-
Sorry, not that I would have no idea. Instead I choosed to ask exactly the question suggested and that's the answer I got. Which had nothing to do with what it was supposed to be.
Now anyone can say, well, whatever. Google's AI could be wrong (or not), but I'm not naive enough to think I need to demonstrate, to any windows fanboy that, having the source code accessible to anyone, will inevitably mean more vulnerabilities are uncovered.
That's quite different from being the most vulnerable OS, and, as Google's answer point out, the most attacked. OTOH, one could say the most compromised OS is the one with the most effected machines. To me that argument, and others stated in the same post, sweat bad faith and desperation through each pore. It's really funny.
I got my conclusion a couple decades ago, and it is good enough for me. Windows diehard guys can spew all bullshit they want on threads like this. It doesn't matter, because the trend is very clear.
Two decades ago windows gurus just laughed at linux. Not anymore.
Two decades ago, no Windows "gurus" laughed at Linux. Where did you get that? This seems more emotional to you than it should be. Why is that?
2 decades ago, I was an HPUX, AIX, Solaris Administrator and worked on multimillion-dollar UNIX systems. I can guarantee we made fun of Linux and Windows. Many of my friends still do. I think that both OSes have come a long way. Much of Linux's design was taken from Solaris and BSD. If you want security, you are a real *NIX nerd who knows there's no place like NetBSD. There's a reason that NetBSD was the OS that ran IRC networks. There's a reason the TCP stack in NetBSD was outright copied into both Linux and Windows. Oh yeah, BSD is better than Linux. That ought to trigger you. :)
-
I have an Android phone. I never do anything that requires any Google account on it.
Of course, that's because I only use it as a phone (phone & texting).
I may have had to set one up when I bought it (can't remember), but now it's nothing but an unused vestige.
Just put LineageOS -which is still android- on it, and you won't need any google account. At all.
I also have Android phones that I only use as a phone, mainly because I do not want to be in the "googlesphere".
I looked into installing LineageOS or other similar OS but it is not simple and I am not going to spend a lot of time on it. It is most definitely not for your average, non technical, user. I asked at several repair places how much they would charge me to do it and none of them would do it at all.
I totally dislike the environment where I need to have a Google account to download and use apps, etc.
Unlike Linux Mint which I download and install and run anonymously and can download and run all sorts of software anonymously. I am very satisfied with Mint which I have been using for over ten years now. I update what I want when I want. No forced updates. I totally control my computer.
I wish there was a similar environment for phones.
-
Most people don't use Windows through choice. I wonder how many Windows 11 users like it, or have even considered there might be an alternative?
Microsoft simply don't care about Windows any more. It's only around 10% of their revenue and will shrink in the future, as they invest more in data centres and AI. They don't have the same reward for investing in it as they used to. Windows has a monopoly over the desktop platform, so people aren't going to switch anytime soon. Microsoft are just going to keep running Windows into the ground by pumping it full of adware, data collection and AI in a bid to boost profits from their other sectors.
At first glance, this seems easy to agree with. I believe that this generalization was once absolutely true. But, I don't think it survives today as it may have in in the past.
At the companies I have worked for over the past 15 years, since macOS became an option, people have had a choice at work. That choice lands with Windows about the same amount of time as you see it depicted in the consumer market. Some even have chosen not to use Windows or macOS and instead use their phones or tablets. Those options and more are available. Over the last 6 years, I've seen virtual desktops as an option, so you can run whatever you like and use the corporate computer as a remote VM. In the past 10 years, I've worked at companies that have 10k users, 30 users, and now 5k users. I also visit and talk to companies across the size spectrum.
Linux isn't an option because it isn't fleet manageable. Companies spend a lot of money trying to secure it as a server, and they are not going to try to do it on a desktop because it's not manageable.
I strongly doubt that. It actually is the business model of Redhat: supply secure and manageable Linux for both server and workstation. But it ain't free.
-
I totally dislike the environment where I need to have a Google account to download and use apps, etc.
Unlike Linux Mint which I download and install and run anonymously and can download and run all sorts of software anonymously. I am very satisfied with Mint which I have been using for over ten years now. I update what I want when I want. No forced updates. I totally control my computer.
I wish there was a similar environment for phones.
There is F-Droid (https://f-droid.org/en/), which is the non-Google store for dowloading apps. Some apps are better installed from there, even if they are on Play, because those versions don't have to pander to Google's advertising requirements.
You can install when you want - indeed, it is trivial to turn off the F-Droid app completely when not being actively used, but even left running it is your choice when or if to update. Further, you can roll back to previous versions of an app.
-
I strongly doubt that. It actually is the business model of Redhat: supply secure and manageable Linux for both server and workstation. But it ain't free.
I believe this is the business model for Linux Mint and lots of other software. They offer a free, unsupported, software for casual use and offer support for a price. Teamviewer and Anydesk come to mind.
-
Most people don't use Windows through choice. I wonder how many Windows 11 users like it, or have even considered there might be an alternative?
Microsoft simply don't care about Windows any more. It's only around 10% of their revenue and will shrink in the future, as they invest more in data centres and AI. They don't have the same reward for investing in it as they used to. Windows has a monopoly over the desktop platform, so people aren't going to switch anytime soon. Microsoft are just going to keep running Windows into the ground by pumping it full of adware, data collection and AI in a bid to boost profits from their other sectors.
At first glance, this seems easy to agree with. I believe that this generalization was once absolutely true. But, I don't think it survives today as it may have in in the past.
At the companies I have worked for over the past 15 years, since macOS became an option, people have had a choice at work. That choice lands with Windows about the same amount of time as you see it depicted in the consumer market. Some even have chosen not to use Windows or macOS and instead use their phones or tablets. Those options and more are available. Over the last 6 years, I've seen virtual desktops as an option, so you can run whatever you like and use the corporate computer as a remote VM. In the past 10 years, I've worked at companies that have 10k users, 30 users, and now 5k users. I also visit and talk to companies across the size spectrum.
Linux isn't an option because it isn't fleet manageable. Companies spend a lot of money trying to secure it as a server, and they are not going to try to do it on a desktop because it's not manageable.
I strongly doubt that. It actually is the business model of Redhat: supply secure and manageable Linux for both server and workstation. But it ain't free.
I am not sure what part you doubt, as it looks like you provided an example of my point. In the end, the manageability of a desktop platform comes down to cost. If committed, it could be done but as you said, "it ain't free".
I don't do MDM for a living (primary job), but I am very aware of it because it is directly in my domain of work: enterprise cybersecurity. I have previously deployed the two most popular ones, JAMF and MS Intune. These two MDM platforms and VMWare One dominate the market. For a number of reasons, I see VMware heading down around the time of Broadcom's purchase of the company.
Any given computer from any major seller can be purchased by enterprises pre-enrolled in MDM for both macOS and Windows. During my last MDM project, the end result was that the OEM shipped directly to the user. Upon boot, since it's already enrolled, the user signs in. The MDM platform then downloads and installs the required corporate software needed for the user's role. To my knowledge, only macOS and Windows are supported for this process (pre-enrollment).
A company that manages fleets must spend money to create and maintain the profiles of those fleets. These aren't easy. Users do not like their computers controlled, so a lot of work is done to try to balance the corporate security policy and user "comfort".
Can an enterprise deploy Linux Desktop? YES. Let me change the term " manageable " to "feasible", maybe? There is only one company I know of that has significant use of Linux on desktops, and that's Google. It's been years since I was under an NDA with them, so it's likely changed a lot.
Edit:
I also meant to mention that the ability to use Linux or similar environments is available on both macOS (NIX native) and Windows (WSL), and remains very manageable in pre-enrollment and MDM. In particular, WSL took much of the wind out of the sails for the Linux desktop "need," and most people in enterprises that offer macOS will simply go with it if they are avoiding Windows.
-
However - I do admit to this (and I'm not sure if these are emotions) : astonishment and disappointment. Astonishment at the strength of feelings expressed in this thread, and disappointment at the level of prejudice and dogmatism. Discussions around Windows vs Linux take on a religious fervour - which I say is totally ridiculous.
Back then it was Amiga vs. ST. ;D
-
Windows diehard guys can spew all bullshit they want on threads like this. It doesn't matter, because the trend is very clear.
I don't think we've got any "Windows diehard guys" on this thread, have we? I think Windows diehards are a rare thing, because it doesn't warrant that kind of passion. It's just an OS, not a religion.
Two decades ago windows gurus just laughed at linux. Not anymore.
No they didn’t! Two decades ago Ballmer was ranting about Linux being a "cancer"! Nobody laughed at it*: it was seen as a threat.
I've been harangued for "projecting" anger onto others, but honestly I don't think that's true. Check out this sentence:
"Windows supporters can say what they like on threads like this."
"Windows diehard guys can spew all bullshit they want on threads like this."
Which sentence is portraying strong emotions? Which sentence uses "spew all bullshit" instead of "say"?
Correct! @tatel's sentence. I'm not projecting - there is real anger here.
*EDIT: I take Cyclotron's point about the professionals laughing at both of them; I was thinking about Microsoft and the world of Windows.
-
After all, have you tried using an Android phone or tablet without entering your Google account details?
I have an Android phone. I never do anything that requires any Google account on it.
Of course, that's because I only use it as a phone (phone & texting).
I may have had to set one up when I bought it (can't remember), but now it's nothing but an unused vestige.
Well it's hardly a good or representative example, is it! 😄 I wonder why you didn't just buy a.... what are they called - a feature phone?
-
Linux, by CVE count, is the most vulnerable platform on the planet (https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php), yet fanboys insist it's more secure. When confronted with that fact, they will say it's because open source allows more CVEs, but then provide no evidence.
That would be very good news to me. It would mean Linux has become mainstream. However that statement doesn't ring true to me, please see what the answer about "the most compromised OS" i got from Google, following your suggestion.
You do realise that Google answers are AI generated and could be right or very wrong, and you have no idea which (otherwise you wouldn't be asking)? You need to stop with the asking Google and then believing it as gospel.
Seriously, who is best placed to know this: the actual CVE compilers with the actual data, or Google via some copypasta pattern matching?
Further, you haven't even twigged that the answer Google gave you is to a different question than the relevant to the above? Sure, Windows has the most attacks because most PCs are Windows. But the question was how many CVEs, not how many times something was attacked.
Please don't take CVE numbers too serious as they come with some caveats. Each CVE has a score which has to be considered. Some CVEs are blatant marketing for the security industry (we have x CVEs). Typically they look for low hanging fruits, i.e. open source, to boost their CVE count.
-
Linux, by CVE count, is the most vulnerable platform on the planet (https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php), yet fanboys insist it's more secure. When confronted with that fact, they will say it's because open source allows more CVEs, but then provide no evidence.
That would be very good news to me. It would mean Linux has become mainstream. However that statement doesn't ring true to me, please see what the answer about "the most compromised OS" i got from Google, following your suggestion.
You do realise that Google answers are AI generated and could be right or very wrong, and you have no idea which (otherwise you wouldn't be asking)? You need to stop with the asking Google and then believing it as gospel.
Seriously, who is best placed to know this: the actual CVE compilers with the actual data, or Google via some copypasta pattern matching?
Further, you haven't even twigged that the answer Google gave you is to a different question than the relevant to the above? Sure, Windows has the most attacks because most PCs are Windows. But the question was how many CVEs, not how many times something was attacked.
Please don't take CVE numbers too serious as they come with some caveats. Each CVE has a score which has to be considered. Some CVEs are blatant marketing for the security industry (we have x CVEs). Typically they look for low hanging fruits, i.e. open source, to boost their CVE count.
I agree. "Counting" CVEs is not going to give you the indicator you think it will. For example you will see many widely used components with histories like:
Monday V1.0.1 - CVE12345
Tuesday V1.0.2 - CVE12348
Wed.... another CVE Thurs.... another
They can regenerate 3 or 4 new CVEs while fixing the previous one. Secure code is hard. Especially when it's open source.
This is not a sign of a badly insecure package.
A sign of a badly insecure package looks like:
2022 - CVE12345, CVE12324
... nothing.... even if one or both are "high ranked" critical.
If you simple count the number of CVEs the first component might look far worse, which is the opposite of the reality. "High profile" components, field a LOT of security researchers trying to see if they can break them. This generates CVEs, but they get fixed in hours or days.
Counting "Active" CVEs by aggregate ranking/criticality after individual components and then grouping those components to OS's might get you something better, but there is effort in that, so while I'm sure the data exists and the analysis has been done, it will likely cost you to access it... or hope a researchers publishes it on the Register.
-
I've attempted to convey that Linux, like macOS, is no more secure than Windows.
Claiming Linux is superior to Windows can only be a subjective call.
I remain convinced that Linux won't be in general use on corporate desktops.
You can run any of these OSs securely. If you enable secure boot, run good secure software.
-
I remain convinced that Linux won't be in general use on corporate desktops.
Indeed Windows has "always had" huge market share there and continue to do so. With the exception of Apple being relevant in media/film/photography/news sector of things.
However do note that when we look at all the freelancers hired by those corporations to get something actually done (which they hate to publicly admit, and as such not very well known, but it's really a HUGE thing, much larger phenomenon many here can even imagine), then the choice of operating system varies wildly. I would even dare to say it's like 33% - 33% - 33% Windows - Mac - Linux. Their self-maintained computers, their own choice - they are most productive with that. I'm an example of one such freelancer using Linux and know some others. I also know people using Mac and even Windows. All are happy with their choices. Each have different strong points. If you try to force these people into a certain OS - or certain working hours - or certain process (e.g. ticket system or whatever), their productivity plummets. Possibly by 10x or so! There is a reason why they remain freelancers - and a reason why corporations need to hire them to get work done.
-
I've attempted to convey that Linux, like macOS, is no more secure than Windows.
Claiming Linux is superior to Windows can only be a subjective call.
I remain convinced that Linux won't be in general use on corporate desktops.
You can run any of these OSs securely. If you enable secure boot, run good secure software.
SElinux vs Win11?
Win11 has at best UAC (which is legacy, now it's WAP) and Defender.
Win11 is far cry from security vs SElinux.
-
As an aside. With work moving to Mac my life has been Windows free for a few weeks, except for the gaming machine I use a few hours a day at most.... thats now directly insight for Linux conversion too. Maybe, maybe not with a "root virtualiser" boot. As long as I can allocate the 3080 to a single VM...if I install a "boot GPU" $30 card.
It feels good... slightly tainted by Apple, but I am so bubble wrapped up in corporate VPNs and OSS tooling I see little of that.
-
I'm looking forward to finding a collection of really good* Linux applications so I can move to Mint and leave Windows behind. For me there is no rush because Start11 has transformed W11 and removed most of the annoyances, but I can imagine the creeping AI integration will bug me too much in the end.
I've found a great office suite - SoftMaker - and paid for a licence, but the rest isn't so easy, sadly. I can live with KiCAD, but FreeCAD isn't easy to live with and I haven't found a photo editor I like. There's loads of other bits and bobs I need to sort out, too. It's a damn shame Visual Studio and Delphi don't run on Linux because I love them both for Arduino and Windows development respectively.
*For me, "good" Linux apps are ones with a clean, elegant, modern UI; a smooth learning curve; a simple and logical workflow; intuitive and rewarding to use. I want to enjoy using them - that is very important to me. These are all subjective, of course, but they matter to me and the difficulty of finding such apps is the main thing keeping me on Windows.
-
Glad you have good news, I guess? Here's your trophy, most CVEs. Yay.
@Cyclotron:I really hope, you are saying all this shit -which i won't even quote- in bad faith, anger and desperation.
@SteveThackery: wink wink, is that post what you were speaking about? That's the definition of spewing if you ask me, but please note I'm not a native english speaker, so i could be missing some nuance... but i don't think so... It seems, there is at least some diehard windows user here after all. I'm calling this bullshit because it is bullshit.
@Cyclotron: Otherwise I would have to asses a fellow forum member is mentally ill, and since you are experiencing regularly broken updates, stated that linux is a bad ecosystem to do fleet management, challenged us to ask google about "the most compromised OS" and got, not the answer you were guaranteeing we would get, but just the contrary, your statements being invariably debunked, and so on, and on, and on, since the first reply in this thread... just let me say, at this time, you can't be taken seriously anymore.
:-DD :-DD :-DD
As previously said, anything windows diehards could say, doesn't matter. Windows is going south anyway, faster and faster at every new release, and i just don't care. Please have another look at the video linked in the OP. Enjoy.
-
Please have another look at the video linked in the OP. Enjoy.
The video in the OP is a bunch of LLM hallucinated crap looking to make a quick buck on Youtube out of people's discontent with the direction of Windows.
-
As previously said, anything windows diehards could say, doesn't matter.
And as I previously said, I don't believe we have any Windows diehards on this thread, do we? In my opinion neither Windows nor Linux warrant the religious fervour that diehards indulge themselves in.
-
And as I previously said, I don't believe we have any Windows diehards on this thread, do we? In my opinion neither Windows nor Linux warrant the religious fervour that diehards indulge themselves in.
I think it's a classic projection. Linux diehards see diehards in anyone who even sightly disagrees with their religion.
-
There are numerous items that convert the OS gui back to something else, like Win7. Start11 is just one of many.
It's kinda odd though, can we not learn the new ways and new shortcuts to do the same? Even gnome and kde get updating where people like the old ways.
-
There are numerous items that convert the OS gui back to something else, like Win7. Start11 is just one of many.
It's kinda odd though, can we not learn the new ways and new shortcuts to do the same? Even gnome and kde get updating where people like the old ways.
I guess it depends on how different people use OS. I can speak for myself - I use OS as a launcher for applications, and 99.(9)% of my time is spent there, and not with anything related to the actual OS. And that's pretty much the same as how I use Linux. The only time I notice OS I'm working in is when it comes to different behavior of windows manager (I really like windows snapping in Win 11, that's a big improvement over Win 10). Or when I need to do OS maintenance. So as long as OS doesn't stand in a way of my applications, and maintenance does not create too many headaches, I'm happy with it. My Linux machine is still running Ubuntu 20 LTS, I tried upgrading it to 22 but it didn't work for some reason, and I never found enough time to figure out why or to do a fresh reinstall, but since it does what I need it to do (run my apps), I don't see any urgency to do anything about it. One humorous issue with my Linux install is that their appstore always fails trying to update itself ;D
-
Glad you have good news, I guess? Here's your trophy, most CVEs. Yay.
@Cyclotron:I really hope, you are saying all this shit -which i won't even quote- in bad faith, anger and desperation.
@SteveThackery: wink wink, is that post what you were speaking about? That's the definition of spewing if you ask me, but please note I'm not a native english speaker, so i could be missing some nuance... but i don't think so... It seems, there is at least some diehard windows user here after all. I'm calling this bullshit because it is bullshit.
@Cyclotron: Otherwise I would have to asses a fellow forum member is mentally ill, and since you are experiencing regularly broken updates, stated that linux is a bad ecosystem to do fleet management, challenged us to ask google about "the most compromised OS" and got, not the answer you were guaranteeing we would get, but just the contrary, your statements being invariably debunked, and so on, and on, and on, since the first reply in this thread... just let me say, at this time, you can't be taken seriously anymore.
:-DD :-DD :-DD
As previously said, anything windows diehards could say, doesn't matter. Windows is going south anyway, faster and faster at every new release, and i just don't care. Please have another look at the video linked in the OP. Enjoy.
@tatel On the contrary, I think you're amusing. The hate you exude for an OS is fascinating. Weird, but fascinating.
Calling me names or anyone else isn't going to change anything about the facts.
Linux: With 32 years of adoption, it is a primary target for ransomware and malware, particularly in cloud and server environments.
Android, another Linux OS, is by far the most malware-infested mobile platform. That's not Apple's marketing; that's a fact.
It's a myth that open source means all bugs are shallow.
I don't use Windows as my primary OS. But I can have a solid conversation about the pros and cons of all OSs.
If all you do is use a browser, you can do that on an Android tablet and still feel good about yourself running a Linux OS.
-
After all, have you tried using an Android phone or tablet without entering your Google account details?
I have an Android phone. I never do anything that requires any Google account on it.
Of course, that's because I only use it as a phone (phone & texting).
I may have had to set one up when I bought it (can't remember), but now it's nothing but an unused vestige.
Well it's hardly a good or representative example, is it! 😄 I wonder why you didn't just buy a.... what are they called - a feature phone?
What, pray tell, is a "feature phone"?
My current phone was/is about as cheap as one can get phone service for these days.
Phone itself cost something like $25, and I pay $15 a month for the privilege of using it.
I defy anyone to find anything cheaper.
And I simply don't use the other "features" of the phone (like web browsing).
Well, maybe very rarely if I need to look something up while on the road.
Or take a picture (w/shitty camera) if I don't have my "real" camera with me.
But other than that, just phone calls and text messages.
-
And as I previously said, I don't believe we have any Windows diehards on this thread, do we? In my opinion neither Windows nor Linux warrant the religious fervour that diehards indulge themselves in.
I think it's a classic projection. Linux diehards see diehards in anyone who even sightly disagrees with their religion.
I guess I someone repeated this in my observations of the posts and behavior before I read the whole set of replies. Color mine redundant and less insightful than this one.
I said it in the thread. If I had to pick one OS I would avoid, I think it might be AIX. But I think that was mostly due to lack of regular exposure/inexperience.
A thread and discussion about what OSs are "superior" would be interesting. I think there are good fits for many tasks, but a generalized single superior OS doesn't exist in my opinion.
-
@SteveThackery: wink wink, is that post what you were speaking about? That's the definition of spewing if you ask me, but please note I'm not a native english speaker, so i could be missing some nuance... but i don't think so... It seems, there is at least some diehard windows user here after all. I'm calling this bullshit because it is bullshit.
Speaking only for myself here, I'd describe myself as a satisfied Windows user.
But don't get me wrong, certainly not a diehard Windows user nor a fanboi.
And it's because I use an obsolete version, Windows 7. I love that it no longer phones home or asks for upgrades--indeed, it cannot be upgraded. Which is fine with me.
I'm careful what I do, so my security needs are minimal: I'm not promiscuous with email or web usage.
My "real" email account (i.e., accessed through a SMTP client instead of the web) gets zero spam.
My other email account (web-based) gets only minimal spam. Quite manageable.
Windows Defender wards off any evil spells that might come my way.
-
There are numerous items that convert the OS gui back to something else, like Win7. Start11 is just one of many.
It's kinda odd though, can we not learn the new ways and new shortcuts to do the same? Even gnome and kde get updating where people like the old ways.
(My bolding)
For me it is definitely NOT about going backwards, or converting anything back to what went before. Stardock Start11 offers seven different layouts for the Start menu. Four of those are "improved" or "updated" versions of the W11 menu, and there's a couple of menus based on W7 and an improved W10 version. On top of that, each of the seven choices is further customisable. So the choice and level of control is exceptional.
The "Windows Pro" style is my favourite, and it is not in any sense a throwback to a previous version of the Start menu: it is unique and - for me - is better than any current or past Windows Start menu.
I also want to emphasise that this is not about resistance to change, as @Randy222 seems to suggest. I have happily learned and embraced every version of Windows since V3.1. No, it is simply that I like the Start11 "Windows Pro" menu more than the standard W11 menu.
Plus, most of the "adverts" nonsense is completely wiped out. Excellent!
[attachimg=1, width=700]
-
There's probably a reason why MS does not build in a skin framework for gui. Support.
Try calling MS support when you have Stardock theme installed. MS not gonna be of much help because they are expecting their Win11 gui. And, MS will probably just say the Stardock install is the problem to your Wifi issue.... :-DD :-DD
Different realms for different folks.
-
What, pray tell, is a "feature phone"?
Well, I had to check the terminology myself. Basically it means "not a smartphone". I guess you could say a phone that just does mobile telephony and SMS messaging. That pretty much describes all the phones prior to the smartphone era, but there is a degree of overlap. The later pre-smart phones usually had on-board calendar and contacts functions, plus the occasional weird game like Snakes. My work phone was pre-smart: a Nokia 6310i, and I loved it. Plus it went a week between charges - wonderful!
There was a wonderfully naff feature called 'WAP' - wireless application protocol. Do you remember it? A protocol for accessing online material over the mobile network, designed to minimise network data loading and to work on minute phone screens.
Anyway, I mentioned it because a "feature phone" (horrid name) would probably tick all your boxes.
-
There's probably a reason why MS does not build in a skin framework for gui. Support.
Try calling MS support when you have Stardock theme installed. MS not gonna be of much help because they are expecting their Win11 gui. And, MS will probably just say the Stardock install is the problem to your Wifi issue.... :-DD :-DD
Different realms for different folks.
Oh, absolutely! I can't see it being relevant in the corporate space.
-
What, pray tell, is a "feature phone"?
Well, I had to check the terminology myself. Basically it means "not a smartphone". I guess you could say a phone that just does mobile telephony and SMS messaging. That pretty much describes all the phones prior to the smartphone era, but there is a degree of overlap. The later pre-smart phones usually had on-board calendar and contacts functions, plus the occasional weird game like Snakes. My work phone was pre-smart: a Nokia 6310i, and I loved it. Plus it went a week between charges - wonderful!
There was a wonderfully naff feature called 'WAP' - wireless application protocol. Do you remember it? A protocol for accessing online material over the mobile network, designed to minimise network data loading and to work on minute phone screens.
Anyway, I mentioned it because a "feature phone" (horrid name) would probably tick all your boxes.
And would probably be more expen$ive than what I have now.
Remember: $15/month. Sometimes less when they have "specials".
(And phone itself was $25.)
I'm willing to pay less and just not use all the "features" at my disposal.
And it's probably better to have access to them in the event I need some kind of emergency service, like a tow.
-
The hate you exude for an OS is fascinating. Weird, but fascinating.
^^^^^^^^^^
THIS! 1000%
It seems religion - with all the swivel-eyed fervour and irrationality that goes with it - is thriving here on EEVblog. 🫤
-
And would probably be more expen$ive than what I have now.
Yeah, sure - I wouldn't presume to suggest you change. Just wanted to point out that you are not a typical or representative Android user.
-
I had a recollection of someone making a great video on the fanboy topic in the gaming industry.
I think I rediscovered/found it.
https://youtu.be/Sj2lOeO9qy8?si=y4XU7AvX1gbaH3i1 (https://youtu.be/Sj2lOeO9qy8?si=y4XU7AvX1gbaH3i1)
This is why I try very hard to define my own things through my identity, not the other way around.
I recalled a book that explores psychology in much greater depth.
https://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909 (https://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909)
-
And would probably be more expen$ive than what I have now.
Yeah, sure - I wouldn't presume to suggest you change. Just wanted to point out that you are not a typical or representative Android user.
Well, I don't think I am either. But who knows? I sure don't.
Maybe there are a lot more of us phone Luddites than you suspect.
-
I was just scanning Arstechnica, and what do you know? Windows 11 has surpassed 1 billion users, doing so faster than Windows 10. (https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/01/windows-11-has-hit-1-billion-users-just-a-hair-faster-than-windows-10-did/)
That seems to debunk the AI-generated video, doesn't it?
-
I was just scanning Arstechnica, and what do you know? Windows 11 has surpassed 1 billion users, doing so faster than Windows 10. (https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/01/windows-11-has-hit-1-billion-users-just-a-hair-faster-than-windows-10-did/)
That seems to debunk the AI-generated video, doesn't it?
I don't think I'm surprised. Not because W11 is good, and not because the criticisms are unjustified, but because the great majority of Windows users:
1/ Vaguely recall hearing about 'Linux' but aren't sure what it is.
2/ Don't feel competent to fix their Windows installation if they broke it, never mind install Linux.
3/ Honestly can't be arsed, because it's only their PC and basically not that interesting.
4/ Have got used to the pop-ups and don't really notice them any more.
5/ Are not that comfortable with change, especially when it feels like a step into the unknown.
6/ Don't watch AI-generated nerdy videos declaring Windows to be a "dead OS walking".
I think, without the guidance of a family or local expert, most Windows users wouldn't dream of vaporising their OS and starting over with a different one. The perceived risks are too high.
And as for corporate users:
1/ Changing out 5,000 desktops from Windows to Linux is a helluva big job with little obvious benefits in terms of productivity.
2/ The support desk will be SWAMPED with complaints and questions for a few weeks.
3/ The entire suite of business applications needs to be replaced with Linux equivalents, and they would need stitching together to replicate all the existing PC-based data flows and business processes. Licensing issues need sorting out and support contracts changed or newly set up.
4/ The support desk personnel all need training in administering Linux.
5/ The support desk tools and techniques need changing out for Linux equivalents.
The migration towards Linux will continue at the edges, but it's only nibbling away. I can't see a wholesale move for many years to come, if ever.
-
I was just scanning Arstechnica, and what do you know? Windows 11 has surpassed 1 billion users, doing so faster than Windows 10. (https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/01/windows-11-has-hit-1-billion-users-just-a-hair-faster-than-windows-10-did/)
That seems to debunk the AI-generated video, doesn't it?
It's not surprising it's being downloaded faster than Windows 10, because the number of computer users is still growing. Probably due to the increase in developing countries.
-
Boo-hoo, you're all just a bunch of MS haters, Windows rulz, lolz!
-
Boo-hoo, you're all just a bunch of MS haters, Windows rulz, lolz!
Better out than in, eh? Do you feel better for that? 😁👍
-
I bet you 1/2 of those people accidentally clicked the update button when it does the full screen scarevertizement, I guess they got that from malware developers lol
microsoft : lets reset their computers and put a big splash screen that looks like it does not have a 'exit' button
User : please stop locking me out of the computer with pop ups !!
reminds me of IRL mail spam that was like a pinup picture of some crap service that looked like a stop sign
god at this point I see them like one of those pushy salespeople at best buy if you were stupid enough to walk in there to get robbed in the early 2000's . Oh lets try to intimidate people by making our employees look and act like security, I wonder how many TV's they sold when high people walked in the store and thought they are getting shaken down by the police. Stand up strait so they think you just came out the police academy!
its like a stick-bug, also common in home alarm companies
-
I'll tell you what this is: it's a person who has decided in advance that he hates Windows
I didn't decide, it just seems to be getting that way after every build, I mean going to back in 2019 to a Windows 10 Pro that came with a computer I got from a skip, which I put in an I5, SSD and it still slowed down and it shut down behind my back with no warning, nothing, to do an update (where I thought the PSU might be faulty as I just put that in). So of course I am going to be furious.
vomiting a stream of furious, incoherent invective as some kind of justification.
I did not say it was justification.
I can feel the raw anger in every word!!
Yes, I am angry at things done to like the user is stupid, need the background behind dialogues cut off and dimmed, as if the information somehow confuses them like with webpages and that animations that slow it down. I see these things getting worse and worse pretty much frequently with web design on pointless things that appear, flash, annoy me, slow down the page load now embedded in Windows so yes of course I'll be.
MrMobodies: just calm down, take a breath, and open up your mind to the possibility that you might need to spend 20 seconds familiarising yourself with the new arrangement (whatever it is, I can't tell).
I shouldn't have to "familiarize myself" of navigating to something that takes a lot longer than it took to get to before.
No familiarising will help when an essential function that I rely on has been removed and in it's place is something I have no much use for.
Google News went through many many changes with it's news which I used in the early 2000's, improving everytime, somethings I didn't like but it didn't affect my using or functionality of it until one day in 2017 they ruined it for me and some others according to comments:
https://www.ghacks.net/2017/06/28/google-news-redesign-whitespace-and-scrolling-galore-on-desktop/ (https://www.ghacks.net/2017/06/28/google-news-redesign-whitespace-and-scrolling-galore-on-desktop/)
And think about this: there are 700 million people using Windows 11. Seven. Hundred. Million. Surely they can't all be smarter than you, can they? Of course not! So where is all this anger really coming from?
It is massively out of proportion to the issues you are reporting.
It MASSIVELY affects me a lot with my using of it, where things become further away and takes me a lot longer than it did before is the proportion you may not be seeing.
Just because 700 million are using it doesn't mean they are all going to be happy especially if they are forced to use something that could give them problems, no control over what they had before and they may feel they have no choice. Similar with some locked in with contracts from Adobe who were switched over the subscription a few years ago. I heard and read things like them saying it'd cost them to retrain their staff to use another product.
I have had a lot of people who brought laptops to me like in the 2010's that they use a mouse and don't like their touchpads, they say like didn't understand why, just they found it difficult to use. After finishing the work, I'd do something extra, I turned, tap to click, gestures, flicks, scrolling, turned off acceleration, slowed it down a bit if it was too fast and I say please give it a go and they find they start liking it. I don't think they understand or know how to go about adjust it or or know what these features are to furn them off and a few of these laptops didn't seem to have the drivers installed to adjust them where I'd find them.
Now pretty much most of them got rid of the buttons, options not present, that I remember create other buttons within the touchpad area and another panel and prevent movement in those parts.
I don't want Windows to, install/reinstall things like a game of Candy Crush and things behind my back, shutdown Windows with no warning, apply dimming overlays to dialogues so things go dark excessively, say if I am doing a whole load of things, now that is the proportion I am talking about too.
I mean go in Regedit, enlarge or maximise it, and try deleting a whole load of keys of things (intended), then I see a dialogue "are you sure you want to delete this" and the background goes dark then back to light after yes, and that is not very nice to my eyes. Imagine if I played around your without brightness and contrast controls excessively depending on what you were doing, now how would you feel?
Honestly, I thought educated, qualified (often) engineers and scientists - the members of this forum - were supposed to be reasonable, logical, and above all rational people. And yet I've seen more raw emotion, more prejudice, more sheer dogmatism, more contrived rationalisation in this thread than a typical day on 'X'.
I never said I was educated.
There is nothing rational about sticking CPU hogging animations, such as skeletons placeholders everywhere, that can hog up a cpu core and slow the whole thing down or make it stall a bit.[/quote]
What the FUCK?
Yes, animated skeleton placeholders copied from Chrome & webpages stuck all over the place, does nothing useful, not essentially needed, slows it down, can cause annoyance, no way I can find to switch it off. Dialogues that dim the background that weren't there before also copied across, cutting me off from what I am might still be trying to look at and making my eyes uncomfortable.
I should not also have to "see other options" to get to things that were there before.
It's not a case of "deciding" I don't like it. I feel the things I could do before are being taking away and replaced with bloat and garabage you'd find this thread:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/badbloated-web-design/225/?viewresults (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/badbloated-web-design/225/?viewresults)
In fact they have infected today Amazon as infected the Amazon order page with animation skeleton placeholders, 10 of them that cause like 10 to 15% usage paused. Apparently killing them off and there is another skeleton, a static one behind that skeleton but it is still slow compared to before when it loaded instantly.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/badbloated-web-design/225/?viewresults (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/badbloated-web-design/225/?viewresults)
Imagine you reading an article, I distract you, come along and cover up what you're reading, now how would you feel?
Same with the typical behaviour on some websites with the dialogues and the dimming overlays behind them that appear when I am in the middle of reading an article cutting me off. I don't like that behaviour.
I feel it is getting worse. One in a while a good thing happen, like Youtube removed that horrid picture obscuring gradient acting as a border over the player controls that obscure the picture way past what it was covering up and I might be trying to look there whilst seeking. Recently they removed date upload and replaced it with popularity which is disappointing and limits my choices of search.
Sorry if you perceive my anger It's not directed at you or anyone here it's not you I am angry with.
-
Quite frankly, the forced updates thing at the worst moment seems to have originated with Windows 10 and that's when I decided to keep Windows 7 until things would get straigthened out... I remember several events where people would get a forced update right when they wanted to leave with their laptop, would then have to force shutdown it to just be able to go because on top of that, the update would take forever, and then that would just "brick" the whole thing, requiring a full reinstall.
It doesn't seem to have gotten any better over time. These days I really recommend switching to Linux or macOS depending on your needs and preferences, and using Wine or a VM for those Windows apps you really need to run.
-
haha forced updates its like someone just came into your house and said you can't use the living room because I am gonna be replacing your windows
Same with the car-advertisements, I imagined the HVAC guy showing up to service the building and also sliding some chinese food advertisements and credit card offerings under peoples doors. Security would so get rid of him
Does no one remember the people that used to climb the fire escapes and throw adverts through your window and shit like that?
a GENEROUS building might have some area in the front with a little table to let people put some advertisements down, maybe, for a few days, if they did some work on a building, but no one would allow what is happening on computers. Like at work I am at a meeting and I get some stupid built-into-windows taskbar popup. Who let the vacuum cleaner salesman into the building? Can the secretary hide magazine clippings in my bosses day planner?
like fucking advertisers have been doing shady stuff for thousands of years, and they just got let into computers like some how they are like, in any way, wanted. "sir, my wind shield is not a bill board for you to use"
And socially its like typically seen as total dead beat behavior. Like if you tell someone you are having a party and they think that means you told them that they can start selling shit there to guests. Get a fucking job instead dead beat ! Like if someone just showed up to ask everyone there if they want to buy a car and left. Like get out, thats not for you, I have no obligation to let you do that. Please notice I said selling, not giving away, which is a different story ('charity' advertisement to prevent waste). Of course they will still do it, but at least its like.. dampened, they need some kind of cover, mingle a little, etc..but with computers its like that is their right to push paper. And you can't even ask them about their commission, etc.. its all obfuscated.
-
Quite frankly, the forced updates thing at the worst moment seems to have originated with Windows 10 and that's when I decided to keep Windows 7 until things would get straigthened out... I remember several events where people would get a forced update right when they wanted to leave with their laptop, would then have to force shutdown it to just be able to go because on top of that, the update would take forever, and then that would just "brick" the whole thing, requiring a full reinstall.
It doesn't seem to have gotten any better over time. These days I really recommend switching to Linux or macOS depending on your needs and preferences, and using Wine or a VM for those Windows apps you really need to run.
I have a friend who has a Windows laptop which he only fires up once every few months and it is practically unusable because it is very slow and when he starts it the thing will just start updating and take forever and is unusable in the meanwhile.
This is what it's like:
-
Quite frankly, the forced updates thing at the worst moment seems to have originated with Windows 10 and that's when I decided to keep Windows 7 until things would get straigthened out...
Exactly what I did with LTSC 2019 Enterprise and still pleased with it today. After 2 years of customizing it from 2020 to about 2022, ripping things like telemetry, and setting permissions to stop UpdateOrchestrator from recreating the task scheduler jobs that it uses to shut it down with no warning and then defaulting the permissions they set to deny changes to alter or remove it's tasks from the user accounts when it is running. Also ripped out things like Waasmedic and the other one that kept on switching the Windows updater back on but it doesn't matter now as it is on and I have it under control and when I want another I just extract the disc image to a blank disc and order the key. Everything is preset and the thing I want installed. Also removed the animations from new user accounts and made a template and seems so much quicker especially without the privacy questionnaire thing popping up.
Windows 10 Pro:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-computing/windows-10-update-aggro/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-computing/windows-10-update-aggro/)
Never again.
I remember a Violin man getting frustrated with his Windows 10, do you want to pay for one drive, do you want to try Office 365, Copilot thing he described and interference when he was doing some audio editing. I installed that LTSC on another disc a few years ago and he told me, "it runs like a dream." which I thought was really nice in contrast, he's left alone and just gets security updates and a few fixes.
I installed it on this old Duo core he had on an SSD and he couldn't understand why it was quick and outperformed his i5 on starting up. I said it was due to less overhead and a lack of the Appstore it I observe it taking up resources to check each installed "app" at startup or every so often.
Sorry about the frustration, anger and how it came across whoever felt it. You may feel it is trivial, out of proportion but it affects me in ways that leaves me at great disadvantage that you may not see and that is how I feel... there is no smoke without fire.
I am glad this has been raised and thoughts how some people can feel by changes that can totally work against them especially when the disadvantage it causes them can appear to be hidden and out of porportion.
Checkout the latest ATI drivers, I installed it and put a 2014 copy on it (lowest it will work), without the animations. Quick to load, no animations or social networking things. I was given a computer with one in and shocked with how large and bloated the drivers were, full of animations and things. Even the Nvidia one from 2019 loads in like less than a second on my other compared to a 2019 copy of the ATI one. I think there are two drivers sets but both appear bloated to me and not clear to find things.
If people can't express how they feel or do it well enough then they'd be no opportunity for it to be heard for those listening and willing to help.
-
Quite frankly, the forced updates thing at the worst moment seems to have originated with Windows 10 and that's when I decided to keep Windows 7 until things would get straigthened out... I remember several events where people would get a forced update right when they wanted to leave with their laptop, would then have to force shutdown it to just be able to go because on top of that, the update would take forever, and then that would just "brick" the whole thing, requiring a full reinstall.
It doesn't seem to have gotten any better over time. These days I really recommend switching to Linux or macOS depending on your needs and preferences, and using Wine or a VM for those Windows apps you really need to run.
I have a friend who has a Windows laptop which he only fires up once every few months and it is practically unusable because it is very slow and when he starts it the thing will just start updating and take forever and is unusable in the meanwhile.
This is what my experience is from Windows 10 in a VM years ago. I needed to leave the VM running for 1 or 2 hours before the VM became useful after it had been shutdown for a couple of months. Utterly useless.
-
Quite frankly, the forced updates thing at the worst moment seems to have originated with Windows 10 and that's when I decided to keep Windows 7 until things would get straigthened out... I remember several events where people would get a forced update right when they wanted to leave with their laptop, would then have to force shutdown it to just be able to go because on top of that, the update would take forever, and then that would just "brick" the whole thing, requiring a full reinstall.
It doesn't seem to have gotten any better over time. These days I really recommend switching to Linux or macOS depending on your needs and preferences, and using Wine or a VM for those Windows apps you really need to run.
I have a friend who has a Windows laptop which he only fires up once every few months and it is practically unusable because it is very slow and when he starts it the thing will just start updating and take forever and is unusable in the meanwhile.
This is what it's like:
Lets be real, you show up late to work, don't know you calendar to know if you have some meeting, have a urgent email and then that fucker decides to update. I feel a little more like batman is taking his pants off and telling me to bend over
Corporate treats that calendar like a bible. Microsoft knows this, and they treat it like its something comedic. Its like a teletype message that tells you that you are about to get pearl harbor at 11:15. And the people high up know this, and live in terror and misery because they will get up at 4:15 just to check the emails incase the microsoft automaton decides to run amok. Feels like one of those detective movies when they have the big fight in the draw bridge/clock/crazy factory full of death traps that form some kind of circuit
-
If literally anything else was causing that much trouble within an organization it would like be promptly hunted down and removed
and the answer you get is "well you have to learn to function within some malfunctioning kafkaesque bullshit no one wants to change because that would be going against the glory of the status quo and I personally got pretty good at it when I decided to waste a bunch of my life adapting instead of thinking "why?" "
-
forced updates its like someone just came into your house and said you can't use the living room because I am gonna be replacing your windows
No smoke without fire and of course it'd cause outrage and the frustration and time spent of finding solutions.
When I set permissions, I expect it to stay like that and I am not even talking about the updates here. Service updateorchestrator, when started, defaults the permissions in the task scheduler folder, recreates the tasks, then set permissions to deny administrators and users to alter them. I found by denying system account access to it stops that happening and trusted installer for the taskscheduler ones it creates in registry.
When I was finding this out in 2019 it was rage for weeks that drove me observe what it was doing and find a solution and it wouldn't go until I found the causes. All which seems set to work against the user and undo things the user intentionally sets.
-
I don't think I have ever had an issue with Windows updates. I set Active Hours, and I don't care if it updates during the other hours.
My Windows systems run continuously when I use them regularly, so I never see them update. It seems to work well for me since I never feel like I need to stop and go patch and watch grass grow while it's patching.
-
I don't care if it updates during the other hours
Some people don't have the PC powered on when they're not using it. One could argue that leaving it powered all the time is a fire risk, security risk and climate killer to boot :P
-
I don't think I have ever had an issue with Windows updates. I set Active Hours, and I don't care if it updates during the other hours.
Often I do logging during night, or I don't shut it down because I have a lot of programs running.
So many times I came in the morning just to see an empty screen because the thing restarted by itself to do some updates, without even asking. I don't know how this is even accettable. :wtf:
---------------------------
To "hide" the impact of all the services that piled up in the years, most services are set up to run when the PC is idle. Basically, every time I stop interacting with the pc for a few minutes the fans go to full speed because it is updating stuff, running telemetry, antivirus and more. I don't know why they need to have such impact (high CPU for long).
-
I don't care if it updates during the other hours
Some people don't have the PC powered on when they're not using it. One could argue that leaving it powered all the time is a fire risk, security risk and climate killer to boot :P
That's true, but it is powered on all the time, regardless of the level of operation, unless you unplug it. Well, for a laptop, you'd have to remove the battery.
-
I don't care if it updates during the other hours
Some people don't have the PC powered on when they're not using it. One could argue that leaving it powered all the time is a fire risk, security risk and climate killer to boot :P
That's true, but it is powered on all the time, regardless of the level of operation, unless you unplug it. Well, for a laptop, you'd have to remove the battery.
1. In the circumstance you envision, where there is power to the PSU, the point is that Windows is dead. It cannot update, crash, form a botnet, cry for help. Nothing.
2. In my case, and I suspect many others, there is no power to anything at all - it is completely electrically isolated from mains power in any form.
-
regardless of the level of operation, unless you unplug it.
And there be a big advantage of our switched sockets,cant remember the last time i unplugged my pc and associated stuff.
-
regardless of the level of operation, unless you unplug it.
And there be a big advantage of our switched sockets,cant remember the last time i unplugged my pc and associated stuff.
But I can remember the last time I replaced a CR2032 because of 'em. And the many times before that. I hate am mildly annoyed by people who turn things off for no reason..
Another experience, of course, alien to the user who doesn't manage any meaningful number of machines in real-world environments.
-
I don't care if it updates during the other hours
Some people don't have the PC powered on when they're not using it. One could argue that leaving it powered all the time is a fire risk, security risk and climate killer to boot :P
That's true, but it is powered on all the time, regardless of the level of operation, unless you unplug it. Well, for a laptop, you'd have to remove the battery.
1. In the circumstance you envision, where there is power to the PSU, the point is that Windows is dead. It cannot update, crash, form a botnet, cry for help. Nothing.
2. In my case, and I suspect many others, there is no power to anything at all - it is completely electrically isolated from mains power in any form.
Dell machines will still wake one a day to check for updates. Unless you do remove the power. The same happens for most TVs these days, they power on once a day, download the TVGuide and run a "Scan" on the DVB. Unless you turn that feature off or remove the power entirely.
-
Dell machines will still wake one a day to check for updates. Unless you do remove the power.
Yes, power is removed. Once the PC shuts down it triggers a timeout on a mains socket which then turns off and isolates everything automatically. If Dell, or any other manufacturer, can force an update after that I will give my cat a blow job and document same on Youtube TikTok.
---
Edit: used to use a 13A spur switch to turn every thing off. And I mean everything: PC, monitors, TV, PSUs, printers, etc. But that got to be a hassle when the monitor grew big enough to hide the switch behind it, and over time the contacts went off. As did the replacement switch. So eventually I got a "remote sensor power down plug (https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00VKU57D4)" which has an IR dongle to turn it on and off. But I never use that and, instead, just press the button to start everything up in the morning, turn the PC off and it all powers down at night. Lasts forever since there's no mechanical switch to wear out, saves money (400W for 12 hours isn't to be sneezed at over a year) and gives peace of mind that nothing untoward, software or thermal, might be happening.
-
I don't care if it updates during the other hours
Some people don't have the PC powered on when they're not using it. One could argue that leaving it powered all the time is a fire risk, security risk and climate killer to boot :P
That's true, but it is powered on all the time, regardless of the level of operation, unless you unplug it. Well, for a laptop, you'd have to remove the battery.
1. In the circumstance you envision, where there is power to the PSU, the point is that Windows is dead. It cannot update, crash, form a botnet, cry for help. Nothing.
2. In my case, and I suspect many others, there is no power to anything at all - it is completely electrically isolated from mains power in any form.
Dell machines will still wake one a day to check for updates. Unless you do remove the power. The same happens for most TVs these days, they power on once a day, download the TVGuide and run a "Scan" on the DVB. Unless you turn that feature off or remove the power entirely.
You can disable this. My wife's laptop used to do this every other night at like 4 in the morning. Very annoying!
-
But I can remember the last time I replaced a CR2032 because of 'em. And the many times before that. I hate am mildly annoyed by people who turn things off for no reason..
Another experience, of course, alien to the user who doesn't manage any meaningful number of machines in real-world environments.
I agree. And I think it is not really accurate to say a computer is just as "ON" when it is working as when it is off. When it is off the processor is not working, and only some very minor and negligible standby power is being used.
I keep computers I do not use still plugged in.
-
I don't care if it updates during the other hours
Some people don't have the PC powered on when they're not using it. One could argue that leaving it powered all the time is a fire risk, security risk and climate killer to boot :P
That's true, but it is powered on all the time, regardless of the level of operation, unless you unplug it. Well, for a laptop, you'd have to remove the battery.
1. In the circumstance you envision, where there is power to the PSU, the point is that Windows is dead. It cannot update, crash, form a botnet, cry for help. Nothing.
2. In my case, and I suspect many others, there is no power to anything at all - it is completely electrically isolated from mains power in any form.
Hmm, well, I was considering your fire-risk statement. The fire risk of a powered device, battery, or wall. Most desktop computers sold today are laptops. These are always powered unless the batteries go completely dead. The circuitry may not have the main cpu on. These will wake periodically and check for updates too.
All the desktop applications I use save state and return to their original state when updates are complete. I wouldn't really consider running long-term applications, for say, drift logging or analysis, on my laptop.
-
Dell machines will still wake one a day to check for updates. Unless you turn that feature off or remove the power entirely.
Just reminded me of this which I forgot about:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/windows-modern-standby-bullshit-that-dont-sleep-but-pretends-to/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/windows-modern-standby-bullshit-that-dont-sleep-but-pretends-to/)
I hate that word "modern standby"... newer=better for the mass majority. This is where I think they treat the user as stupid when they name features after these generic words which might not mean anything in future. What's next after that when that is no longer "modern"?
Why couldn't they call it something like dynamic standby?
Just like when instead of like "file not found", "*WE*cannot find that file." It is NOT human and they seem to dress it up like that, as if it is "smarter" and the user is dumb and will always be which I find insulting and degrading.
First time i saw this degrading behaviour was from someone who brought a laptop to me in late 2015 with a failed attempt of an automatic Windows 7 to 10 upgrade that altered the boot partition. After restoring it it started the setup and later I saw, "We're just POLISHING YOUR PC!" That bit infuriated me and I was thinking "so they think I am stupid!" rather than show me something useful like the setup progress.
-
You can exit Explorer (window shell) without any third-party software.
I have a batch file, it's fastest.
taskkill /IM explorer.exe /F
start explorer.exe
Just remembered a nasty "feature" that was absent for years, network connections are not refreshed after boot, that's a W10 to W10 disk share and red 'X' remains until you refresh it.
So before that refresh all network share batch processes will fail.
Command line can't do it, you must use resource manager.
For sometime some powershell commands could do it, but later that also stated failing.
Must ask known product environment how it is today.
Guess is that the state is unknown since users have adapted and go clicking red 'X'es away after start.
It's pretty incredible that those kind of once fixed things are popping back here and there.
-
First time i saw this degrading behaviour was from someone who brought a laptop to me in late 2015 with a failed attempt of an automatic Windows 7 to 10 upgrade that altered the boot partition. After restoring it it started the setup and later I saw, "We're just POLISHING YOUR PC!" That bit infuriated me and I was thinking "so they think I am stupid!" rather than show me something useful like the setup progress.
Don't take it so personally! "They" don't think you are stupid. "They" thought the average user would be more content with that than watching the setup progress. Sounds a bit patronising to me, but it's not personal.
By the way, the actual message is, "We just need to get a few more things polished up for you, and Windows will be all yours."
-
"... and Windows will be all yours."
They fibbed.
-
I have noticed the infantilisation of windows and how it conveys information to the user over the years. I think it is closely tied to the change in corporate culture in silicon valley, namely the younger workforce bringing their Californian politics.
I prefer my machines to act like machines:
Old Windows
IRQ CONFLICT
ILLEGAL OPERATION
0x0EB6ADF770ABA015C056794F774CD2C4
New Windows:
There's been an oopsie poopsie :( :( :(
We're just fixing that up to get you right back on track
We're almost done setting you up to get you nice and comfy
-
I shut my PC down every evening. Am I in the minority here?
Why leave it running all night, sucking up power but doing nothing useful?
Windows 7 startup is plenty fast enough.
-
I put mine into Sleep mode. Pretty much instant turn on. The main thing is I can leave all sorts of work in progress.
-
Joke:
I have noticed the infantilisation of windows and how it conveys information to the user over the years... culture in silicon valley, namely the younger workforce bringing their Californian politics trying to be smarter thinking that they are better than everyone else through their arrogance and fixed perception of the user and how the user should use their software in the way they want.
There's been an oopsie poopsie :( :( :(
* We're just fixing that up to get you right back on track
We're almost done setting you up to get you nice and comfy
* Reminds me of this:
https://youtu.be/xyi11gjOuIg?t=4848
Freeway 1996 youtube transcript
1:20:39 oh wait he went to get a beef treatment mesquita and and *and he'll be right back you can't get by the both of us
.
-
Regarding January updates:
Some devices might fail to shut down or hibernate - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/release-health/status-windows-10-22h2#3764msgdesc
Windows 11 23H2 is also affected.
-
regardless of the level of operation, unless you unplug it.
And there be a big advantage of our switched sockets,cant remember the last time i unplugged my pc and associated stuff.
But I can remember the last time I replaced a CR2032 because of 'em. And the many times before that. I hate am mildly annoyed by people who turn things off for no reason..
Another experience, of course, alien to the user who doesn't manage any meaningful number of machines in real-world environments.
I turn my PC off via a switchable power strip, every evening when i'm done with it.
My current PC is already 4 1/2 years old. While if haven't measured it, the CR2032 hasn't failed yet. On the PC i had before that, i swapped the CR2032 when i did a full overhaul of the machine when i swapped cases. The PC was around 4 years old at that point.
While i have heard of mainboards that have issues with draining the battery if unplugged, it is usually, in normal PC lifetimes, not always an issue.
At my work we have few Desktops left. Empty BIOS batteries are a very rare occurence. Modern Laptops usually don't even have one anymore. They use residual power of the main battery to keep settings.
Heck... keeping settings isn't even the use for a CR2032 anymore. Any UEFI i know nominally saves its stuff in non-volatile memory. AFAIK the "wipe settings on battery power loss" is just a failsafe mode.
The battery just keeps the clock ticking.
-
I have noticed the infantilisation of windows and how it conveys information to the user over the years. I think it is closely tied to the change in corporate culture in silicon valley, namely the younger workforce bringing their Californian politics.
I prefer my machines to act like machines:
Old Windows
IRQ CONFLICT
ILLEGAL OPERATION
0x0EB6ADF770ABA015C056794F774CD2C4
New Windows:
There's been an oopsie poopsie :( :( :(
We're just fixing that up to get you right back on track
We're almost done setting you up to get you nice and comfy
I'm not sure what the problem is here. Neither messages are informative as to what you should do to correct the issue. You'd need to go online hoping somebody else had that error code and posted the solution.
-
I shut my PC down every evening. Am I in the minority here?
Why leave it running all night, sucking up power but doing nothing useful?
My PC is always on. I have way too many programs and VMs open for a quick start. And it allows the PC to do backups during the night.
-
All this makes we wonder, remember when Microsoft had an antitrust lawsuit to keep their Internet Explorer separate from Windows? If that case never happened and Microsoft went full on web browser as an OS back then... They might have lost more customers who just needed an OS... Maybe that antitrust lawsuit actually saved them back then.
With the AI thing today, no antitrust case to save their asses this time...
-
I shut my PC down every evening. Am I in the minority here?
Why leave it running all night, sucking up power but doing nothing useful?
My PC is always on. I have way too many programs and VMs open for a quick start. And it allows the PC to do backups during the night.
The upgrade from that is a "busy box' server. I used proxmox.
My gaming PC, when idle pulls 94W. That's about the same cost as hosting a server in the cloud 24/7.
The basic desktop pulls 17W idle 45W flat out.
The server, 24/7 pulls 47W. That mostly gets spent on discs and 128Gb of RAM. It is the only one left on 24/7.
Everything is backed up nightly by "snapshot" and full shutdown and backup weekly.
An old Dell Optiplex with a 3x ZFS Raid array with Wake on LAN acts as "Onsite backup server'. A single command wakes the backup server goes to all machines and collects the backups onto the redundant discs and shuts down.
Off site backups I do more selectively to AWS S3.
-
I have noticed the infantilisation of windows and how it conveys information to the user over the years. I think it is closely tied to the change in corporate culture in silicon valley, namely the younger workforce bringing their Californian politics.
I prefer my machines to act like machines:
Old Windows
IRQ CONFLICT
ILLEGAL OPERATION
0x0EB6ADF770ABA015C056794F774CD2C4
New Windows:
There's been an oopsie poopsie :( :( :(
We're just fixing that up to get you right back on track
We're almost done setting you up to get you nice and comfy
I'm not sure what the problem is here. Neither messages are informative as to what you should do to correct the issue. You'd need to go online hoping somebody else had that error code and posted the solution.
It's about psychology. The former irritates large group of nontechnical people - "why it is giving this technical mumbo jumbo to me". The latter irritates nearly everyone, including technical and nontechnical people.
-
All this makes we wonder, remember when Microsoft had an antitrust lawsuit to keep their Internet Explorer separate from Windows? If that case never happened and Microsoft went full on web browser as an OS back then...
They wouldn't have gone full on web browser. They had no interest in it other than to have a browser to kill off Netscape. The only reason it got embedded in the OS is so they could legitimately say it's part of Windows. But it wasn't really and wouldn't have been had the antitrust not taken place.
Of course, many years down the line they may have finally cottoned on to what everyone else was doing and then gone overboard with trying to catch up. They have form for that - suddenly noticing everyone was doing Internet, so promptly went all in and straight away assumed every user had T1 link (when most were still on max 9k6 over dial-up). Other examples abound. But at the time of the antitrust, having webapps wasn't on their radar, never mind a web GUI for the OS.
-
I have noticed the infantilisation of windows and how it conveys information to the user over the years. I think it is closely tied to the change in corporate culture in silicon valley, namely the younger workforce bringing their Californian politics.
I think the most infantilised version of Windows was XP. You must recall how much criticism it got for the Fisher-Price colour scheme (also described as looking like a bag of sweets) and the nauseating sound scheme (do you remember the giggling children?).
-
I have noticed the infantilisation of windows and how it conveys information to the user over the years. I think it is closely tied to the change in corporate culture in silicon valley, namely the younger workforce bringing their Californian politics.
I prefer my machines to act like machines:
Old Windows
IRQ CONFLICT
ILLEGAL OPERATION
0x0EB6ADF770ABA015C056794F774CD2C4
New Windows:
There's been an oopsie poopsie :( :( :(
We're just fixing that up to get you right back on track
We're almost done setting you up to get you nice and comfy
I'm not sure what the problem is here. Neither messages are informative as to what you should do to correct the issue. You'd need to go online hoping somebody else had that error code and posted the solution.
It's about psychology. The former irritates large group of nontechnical people - "why it is giving this technical mumbo jumbo to me". The latter irritates nearly everyone, including technical and nontechnical people.
But the latter three are made up, arent they? Certainly the first one is. What possible use is there in discussing a fictitious error message?
-
I have noticed the infantilisation of windows and how it conveys information to the user over the years. I think it is closely tied to the change in corporate culture in silicon valley, namely the younger workforce bringing their Californian politics.
I prefer my machines to act like machines:
Old Windows
IRQ CONFLICT
ILLEGAL OPERATION
0x0EB6ADF770ABA015C056794F774CD2C4
New Windows:
There's been an oopsie poopsie :( :( :(
We're just fixing that up to get you right back on track
We're almost done setting you up to get you nice and comfy
I'm not sure what the problem is here. Neither messages are informative as to what you should do to correct the issue. You'd need to go online hoping somebody else had that error code and posted the solution.
It's about psychology. The former irritates large group of nontechnical people - "why it is giving this technical mumbo jumbo to me". The latter irritates nearly everyone, including technical and nontechnical people.
But the latter three are made up, arent they? Certainly the first one is. What possible use is there in discussing a fictitious error message?
No shit Sherlock! Maybe you didn't notice the "old" IRQ CONFLICT thing was made-up, as well.
But John B captured the spirit of those actual messages very well, which are almost too close to that parody. This is called crossing the parody horizon - when you cannot be certain if something was actually made up, or true. Even you as a Windows specialist and MS fanboy were not quite sure if they were bogus or not.
-
But the latter three are made up, arent they? Certainly the first one is. What possible use is there in discussing a fictitious error message?
Windoze users would probably be a bit concerned if they booted their fresh Win install (or new laptop or pc) and started to look at the Win Event Viewer. Start installing new stuff or activating new features and then watch all the errors showing in event logs.
I mean, are you concerned about all the EventID 1801 errors that your Win11 is showing this very second? Would you know how to sign efi image, would you even know if you could ignore 1801 error, or what happens in a few months if you do ignore it?
I do agree with other posts, MS now hides errors/issues behind nice words. "Looks like we ran into an issue, will reboot to attempt a fix", which then just lands in some weird recovery mode that nobody knows how to use.
I do recommend anyone with Windoze to run a manual Restore Point (thats a "create a restore point" from any Win search area, and give it a date name. Always do this before Win updates get installed. I turn off all auto-updates, download-&-notify is as close as I get.
-
No shit Sherlock! Maybe you didn't notice the "old" IRQ CONFLICT thing was made-up, as well.
But John B captured the spirit of those actual messages very well, which are almost too close to that parody. This is called crossing the parody horizon - when you cannot be certain if something was actually made up, or true. Even you as a Windows specialist and MS fanboy were not quite sure if they were bogus or not.
The fact is, I can't recall the wording of any BSOD because it must be 15, perhaps even 20 years since I've seen one. But I agree with you and others: some of the messages from Windows are distinctively unctuous and I dislike them. But the BSODs are so rare I cannot bring myself to care much at all.
But far more important: why do you say I'm an MS fanboy? I challenge you to find one example from all my posts in this thread, or anywhere else, to support that assertion. In fact here is a test question for you: which OS do I prefer - Windows 11 or Linux Mint?
I've stated the answer at least twice in this thread. Go and have a look then come back and eat humble pie.
So that's the OS. As for Microsoft itself, I honestly cannot stir up any strong feelings about the company. Why would I? I don't have any shares, I don't know any of the staff. I don't like very much what they are doing to Windows, but Windows is only an OS, so I can't get exercised about it. I dislike what they've done to Office more strongly, but I definitely don't care much because I've moved to SoftMaker Office.
-
But the latter three are made up, arent they? Certainly the first one is. What possible use is there in discussing a fictitious error message?
Windoze users would probably be a bit concerned if they booted their fresh Win install (or new laptop or pc) and started to look at the Win Event Viewer. Start installing new stuff or activating new features and then watch all the errors showing in event logs.
"Windoze"!! That is so smart! Your schoolmates must hero worship you.
FYI, every installation of Mint I've ever used shows error messages while it is booting. Most of them, in Windows or Linux, mean nothing and if you ignore them, everything just works fine.
What I don't get - truly - is why you Linux fanboys get so worked up about Windows when most of you don't even use it. It makes me think you are insecure in your position. You guys are fucking weird. It's an OS, for fuck's sake. Grow up.
-
Regarding January updates:
My W10 22H2 had an 26-Jan-26 update, can't find it anymore.
System is installed Dec-19, possibly as W7->W10, no idea what is forked after that.
Some days ago it lost its HDD, some sort of wake up failure, it didn't come back, ctrl-alt-del gave an error dialog, had to power it off.
Events have some TPM and Kernel-General happenings.
One other W10 machine I use so seldom I switch its mains off.
Not a long ago it stopped booting, previous time is so long ago that for a moment I had to wonder why, memory battery was empty.
General location of the machine is very easy so not a real problem.
-
"Windoze"!! That is so smart! Your schoolmates must hero worship you.
"Windoze" "MyCrudSoft" are well know labels since about 1980.
I use lots of OS. Crapple MAC (NeXTSTEP/BSD :-DD), Jobs trying to be Gates, "something different to do same task". It's human nature to reinvent the wheel in effort to get a piece of that money pie.
At least with Linux I can control what tracking crap is in it or not. Windows will soon become completely CopilotOS , this way MS and whomever they sell your meta data too .............. etc.
Right now I am working on server build, Ubuntu 24.04.3LTS Server, default install (no luks, using xfs not ext4), built on a cheap mini pc (n150 16GB ram 500GB nvme). Boot time is between 4-5sec. I have tried stripping down Win installs just to see if I could get fast booting with no gui, even with cheating with hiberboot, takes forever to get a Windoze to boot to multi-user prompt.
-
But far more important: why do you say I'm an MS fanboy?
Come on, your aggressiveness is just bubbling vigorously under the surface, and some is escaping under the lid of that pressure cooker in every other message or so ;D
If you can't see it yourself, fine. Everyone else can see it. You are exactly similar to those "linux fanboys" you so much enjoy to ridicule. They certainly exist, somewhere, too, but clearly not in this thread - the asymmetry here is just hilarious - like, you rambling on your own. Then again, I ignore Randy222 so maybe I miss something. I don't ignore you because you are a perfectly sensible person despite this funny angry spot directed at your mental image of "linux fanboys", which, clearly for you, means everyone who dares to criticize Microsoft. You don't say that directly, but it leaks out. It is just obvious. It's kinda funny, even. Then again, when you get yourself together, I have nothing against your arguments. You are factually correct in this thread most of the time.
I mean, getting triggered from an actually funny and accurate joke about the infantilization of MS error messages - come on! Most of us can enjoy making fun of stuff we like!
-
What I don't get - truly - is why you Linux fanboys get so worked up about Windows when most of you don't even use it. It makes me think you are insecure in your position. You guys are fucking weird. It's an OS, for fuck's sake. Grow up.
Not so difficult I think... we use it when it is the easiest way, i.e, when there are no linux modules for some hardware, and we don't like the windows experience, particularly from the last releases.
What I truly don't get is why we are wasting our time, in a thread where some windows diehards are making fools of themselves. There are people here that already migrated, there are people here that, like OP, just decided to migrate, and there are a few very thick, armored skulls unable to see anything bad, at all. So they simply can't understand why the rest of us don't like that "lovely" windows OS (let's not even mention how many times their "arguments" have been debunked, or how they get into calling names while pretending to be objective, that's what is really hypocritical, so, despicable)
To me, it's amazing this thread continues alive. Only sensible thing to do here would be trolling windows diehards, but I have better things to do with my time. They can eat all the shit they want, and then some, and continue doing so in the future, I'm fine with that.
As said in spain, "Sarna con gusto no pica" (A willing scabies doesn't itch)
-
I do recommend anyone with Windoze to run a manual Restore Point (thats a "create a restore point" from any Win search area, and give it a date name. Always do this before Win updates get installed.
I turn off restore points (saves space if nothing else). A restore point only winds back some parts of your machine and I've previously had a restore point not even manage to do that. So I don't bother.
Instead I rely on my backups. An image backup is fast and exact, but for this kind of job it would be a differential backup. Typically it will take moments and then, when you have a problem you are much better positioned to fix it.
Why is this better? Well, for one, with a restore point if you fix it and fail you are stuffed. The image backup means you can just whip the drive out and restore on another, and it will be the exact same filesystem with the exact same bits in the exact same locations as when you did the backup (not the case with a file-by-file backup). Screw it up and you still have the original disks which is not borked, so you can put that back in and do a proper fix. Or clone it and try again. Or do another restore. Many more options to not end up in tears.
-
Only sensible thing to do here would be trolling windows diehards, but I have better things to do with my time.
And yet you couldn't stop yourself doing exactly that. :-//
-
But far more important: why do you say I'm an MS fanboy?
Come on, your aggressiveness is just bubbling vigorously under the surface, and some is escaping under the lid of that pressure cooker in every other message or so ;D
If you can't see it yourself, fine. Everyone else can see it. You are exactly similar to those "linux fanboys" you so much enjoy to ridicule. They certainly exist, somewhere, too, but clearly not in this thread - the asymmetry here is just hilarious - like, you rambling on your own. Then again, I ignore Randy222 so maybe I miss something. I don't ignore you because you are a perfectly sensible person despite this funny angry spot directed at your mental image of "linux fanboys", which, clearly for you, means everyone who dares to criticize Microsoft. You don't say that directly, but it leaks out. It is just obvious. It's kinda funny, even. Then again, when you get yourself together, I have nothing against your arguments. You are factually correct in this thread most of the time.
I mean, getting triggered from an actually funny and accurate joke about the infantilization of MS error messages - come on! Most of us can enjoy making fun of stuff we like!
ahhh, "Ignore", the whiners feature that many board sites have. :-DD
-
Only sensible thing to do here would be trolling windows diehards, but I have better things to do with my time.
And yet you couldn't stop yourself doing exactly that. :-//
You can think what you want, but i'm much better at trolling that anything i posted on this thread... 8)
-
I mean, getting triggered from an actually funny and accurate joke about the infantilization of MS error messages - come on! Most of us can enjoy making fun of stuff we like!
"Triggered"? :-DD That's funny. Here is what I wrote: "What possible use is there in discussing a fictitious error message?" Do you seriously consider that triggered? It was expressing puzzlement at the weird turn of the conversation. That isn't triggered.
I enjoyed this next bit, although sadly it is all ad hominem, which is surely beneath you. You have misunderstood something important - see my explanation after this.
Come on, your aggressiveness is just bubbling vigorously under the surface, and some is escaping under the lid of that pressure cooker in every other message or so ;D
If you can't see it yourself, fine. Everyone else can see it. You are exactly similar to those "linux fanboys" you so much enjoy to ridicule. They certainly exist, somewhere, too, but clearly not in this thread - the asymmetry here is just hilarious - like, you rambling on your own. Then again, I ignore Randy222 so maybe I miss something. I don't ignore you because you are a perfectly sensible person despite this funny angry spot directed at your mental image of "linux fanboys", which, clearly for you, means everyone who dares to criticize Microsoft. You don't say that directly, but it leaks out. It is just obvious. It's kinda funny, even. Then again, when you get yourself together, I have nothing against your arguments. You are factually correct in this thread most of the time.
OK, listen:
1/ I believe completely in the value of rational thinking, freedom from prejudice, logic and reason, and all of my arguments have been about that, not about Linux.
2/ Throughout this thread I have not criticised ANYONE for preferring Linux over Windows, or the other way round. I challenge you to find anything to the contrary.
3/ I have DEFINITELY criticised the astonishing amount of irrational hatred for Windows and Microsoft; the prejudice (judging without finding the facts), and the complete lack of reasoned discussion.
That is what triggers me: not Linux, not Windows, not Microsoft - what triggers me is people behaving with religious fervour about a fucking operating system. But worse: people ranting about things that aren't even true (or haven't been true for 15 years or more).
I thought engineers were supposed to be reasonable, logical, rational people. But there is something weird about you Linux fanboys: all those qualities disappear when it comes to Windows. Instead of criticising it in a factual way, like I do, you rant in a hateful way about shit that isn't even true! That is what is so fucking weird - you make shit up and then hate it!
It doesn't seem possible to have a discussion about the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two operating systems, because Linux fanboys treat Linux like a religion. That is what triggers me: supporting any OS with religious fervour, and hating any OS with religious fervour.
It is totally over the top behaviour, and I don't understand it. For saying that you're supposed to be an engineer, I wouldn't come to you for rational, reasonable, logical advice on any subject.
In summary: I am not a supporter of Windows or of Linux. I am a supporter of rationality, logic, facts, freedom from prejudice, and reason.
It is very disappointing that you are not.
-
"Windoze"!! That is so smart! Your schoolmates must hero worship you.
"Windoze" "MyCrudSoft" are well know labels since about 1980.
I know. I was using what we call irony. That's another thing you might want to look up.
-
What I truly don't get is why we are wasting our time, in a thread where some windows diehards are making fools of themselves.
WRONG!! There are no Windows diehards in this thread.
Go on: prove me wrong. Find me just one Windows diehard. Not someone who merely uses Windows; an actual diehard.
In fact I'll even let you define what a diehard is, so it should be easy. Come back with one or more names of Windows diehards. Let's see you put your money where your mouth is.
-
[...] there are a few very thick, armored skulls unable to see anything bad, at all. So they simply can't understand why the rest of us don't like that "lovely" windows OS (let's not even mention how many times their "arguments" have been debunked, or how they get into calling names while pretending to be objective, that's what is really hypocritical, so, despicable)
As in the above message: find me anyone who:
1/ Cannot see anything bad about Windows.
2/ Thinks of Windows as a "lovely" OS.
Off you go: put your money where your mouth is.
EDIT: Meanwhile, while you are searching for non-existent quotes, let me reveal the one thing I have criticised: not the Linux operating system, the app ecosystem. And I will stand by that - in my opinion most Linux apps are old-fashioned, ugly, with obscure UIs and steep learning curves. I made it clear that this is a subjective opinion.
-
I use Windows, I like the experience,I develop software with Visual Studio.
Also, I work with high-end CAD/CAM/CAE systems: these are available for Windows mainly due to graphics drivers and user experience.
I use Linux as well and I generally dislike it. There are so many distributions, packet managers, etc. You want to use some software, chances are you need to compile it yourself. But then you discover you need some dependencies, which need other dependencies. And then there are chances that a particular d pendency is not available for your Linux distribution. Oh, you have Ubuntu? Should have installed Fedora...
Honestly, Linux sucks for those that need to use professional/commercial software.
I understand it is a great nerd OS, where you can install what ever GNU licensed open source or hack your new tool using all the available resources. But as soon as you need support,get stuck or wonder why it doesn't work, you are on your own.
Android is ok for mobile devices until you want to run apps in multitasking or need to handle files. It is a mystery why there is not a regular file structure for your files. Downloaded a PDF? Good luck finding it after a few weeks.
MacOS has a nice user interface and runs on a BSD/Unix system. Nothing wrong here. But if you complain about Microsoft spying on the user, then Apple is not better.
So, I would conclude that all OS have pros and cons. The main factor in choosing the OS should be what you need to accomplish, what apps you need to run.
Choosing an OS for the sake of the OS is like choosing some shoes without considering if you are going to a ball, to work, jogging or sitting at home watching TV.
-
I don't use Windows at home. I have to use it at work, but the badness is somewhat mitigated by the fact the IT department have to fix it, when it goes wrong.
I also find the patronising error messages annoying. Any crash or unwanted reboot will annoy anyone, but it's not difficult to design an error screen which provides technical information, as well as conveying the message to a non-technical user.
Windows has encountered a problem and needs to halt in order to minimise data loss.
Technical information:
Segmentation Fault at memory address 23AF9F1B0E5D5691
-
Honestly, Linux sucks for those that need to use professional/commercial software.
That is entirely in the hands of the developers of said software.
-
Honestly, Linux sucks for those that need to use professional/commercial software.
That is entirely in the hands of the developers of said sofware.
EXACTLY! That's the very thing I've been complaining about throughout this thread: in my opinion Mint (in my case) is a fine OS, but the apps are anything but. In my opinion that's because there is a strong culture in the Linux desktop world that apps must be free. There is little or no business case for the big players to develop, or port, their apps to Linux. If Linux wants to compete on the desktop, it must attract the big software houses by embracing paid-for software.
-
Honestly, Linux sucks for those that need to use professional/commercial software.
That is entirely in the hands of the developers of said sofware.
EXACTLY! That's the very thing I've been complaining about throughout this thread: in my opinion Mint (in my case) is a fine OS, but the apps are anything but. In my opinion that's because there is a strong culture in the Linux desktop world that apps must be free. There is little or no business case for the big players to develop, or port, their apps to Linux. If Linux wants to compete on the desktop, it must attract the big software houses by embracing paid-for software.
:palm:
Can't embrace what isn't being offered. And when they do offer it, and they've done such a terrible job you're better off going back to software written by people who wanted to write it, you'll blame the users..
There's been a pretty consistent pattern to proprietary desktop offerings: Vendor 'ports' to Linux, puts on the market. Users try it, find it doesn't work properly, has weird and unnecessary distro compatibility issues due to a poor understanding of the platform, performs badly, has compatibility issues with other versions or doesn't support any of their existing files in openly documented formats, and users stop wasting their time with it. Vendor sees poor uptake because it's a worse option than what's already available, stops offering it.
Some time later, people blame the users for making rational choices, frame it as irrational religion.
-
Can't embrace what isn't being offered. And when they do offer it, and they've done such a terrible job you're better off going back to software written by people who wanted to write it, you'll blame the users..
You embrace the principle. I assumed you were smart enough to glean that.
Not sure what you mean about the other point: the only paid-for Linux desktop software I have found that is relevant to me is SoftMaker Office, and I will happily explain why I prefer it over any of the open source offerings.
So that's one example of what I mean. Are you saying that there have been other paid-for offerings where "they've done such a terrible job you're better off going back to software written by people who wanted to write it"? Can you give examples?
Here is why I think your argument is faulty. First: are you seriously suggesting that the people who develop Adobe software don't want to do it? That's ridiculous. Or do you think wanting to develop software for free somehow makes that software better? This is your assertion, so evidence, please!
Second: how do you know what drove these software users back to free software? Was it really "terrible", or was it because it wasn't free and the users had confirmation bias?
Third: but in any case, paid-for software failing is just an example of the free market in action. In the Windows world, software developers have competitors, so the best rise to the top. I would expect this to happen in the Linux desktop ecosystem just the same.
I agree: I do partially blame the users for the dire (in my opinion) state of Linux desktop software. If said users expect all software to be free, then they'll forever be stuck with software developed and maintained by hobbyist in their spare time.
-
There's been a pretty consistent pattern to proprietary desktop offerings: Vendor 'ports' to Linux, puts on the market. Users try it, find it doesn't work properly, has weird and unnecessary distro compatibility issues due to a poor understanding of the platform, performs badly, has compatibility issues with other versions or doesn't support any of their existing files in openly documented formats, and users stop wasting their time with it. Vendor sees poor uptake because it's a worse option than what's already available, stops offering it.
Examples, please! Remember, we are talking about Linux desktop software here, not the stuff that IT Support uses.
-
I suppose I must be a diehard. I am not surprised this thread lives on. Holy wars don't end quickly.
Isn't there about two groups here? Linux Desktop users (the enlightened true believer) in one group, and those who use pretty much anything, including Linux, in the other?
The thread's subject is "Windows 11 is dying," but we've refuted that with the latest data showing it's growing. I didn't go back to see where someone took the thread to "Linux is better than Windows," but I'm guessing it was a Linux fan. I think I've seen it posted in this thread or others that you can't have a conversation about Windows online without a Linux advocate steering the conversation that way.
Even if someone were to say "But but, where are the users going if Windows 11 is dying?", the article points out the number one competition to Windows 11 is Windows, like 5 times before you get to macOS, and then way, way, way down the line Linux, in some places.
Windows 11 has 6 versions, and that's just the Desktop market. The vast majority of users sit in the "Windows 11 Home" license. For most folks, the computer is an appliance at best. Another boob-tube from yesteryear. It is best that their systems be patched for them and not allowed to get out of it because they won't do it, and it will make the whole internet more shitty. Windows 11 Home wasn't designed for everyone. That's why they have 5 other versions plus the server stuff.
I don't condone corporate greed and the incessant desire to spy on and collect data of users. But user, all of us are making that deal. If you use the internet, pay with a credit card, use a coupon, or carry a membership card, you are being tracked. It's not possible to avoid it altogether. The mega machine that is working to track you is many, talented, and resilient, and it's all legal. When presented with a pile of cash just waiting to be collected, companies collect it. So moving from Windows to anything else to avoid your data being collected is flatulence in a cyclone. If you want change, advocate for law changes.
Now, if stating those facts above makes me a "Diehard"; Well, Yippee Ki Yay!
-
Can't embrace what isn't being offered. And when they do offer it, and they've done such a terrible job you're better off going back to software written by people who wanted to write it, you'll blame the users..
You embrace the principle. I assumed you were smart enough to glean that.
And how are we to communicate this to companies who make decisions based upon quarterly sales figures and tenuously legal data collection from their software?
I assumed you were smart enough to realise you can't buy a product which isn't being sold, and that isn't the fault of the people who would buy it.
First: are you seriously suggesting that the people who develop Adobe software don't want to do it? That's ridiculous.
They want to get paid. Whether that's the sort of software they're interested in working on is another matter. Have you wanted to do every paid task you've ever done? I doubt it.
Or do you think wanting to develop software for free somehow makes that software better? This is your assertion, so evidence, please!
That is your assertion. I'm sure at some point you've decided to do a job yourself because it was easier to get it right yourself than pay someone else to, however.
Second: how do you know what drove these software users back to free software? Was it really "terrible", or was it because it wasn't free and the users had confirmation bias?
Experience? For example, I stopped using any version of Acrobat Reader many years ago on any platform because it was a fat, ungodly mess which gets in the way of doing what I came to do - read the document. Acrobat itself was, at the time, the same fat, awful mess with more buttons. I don't recall that they ever found the full version worthwhile to sell - presumably because the majority refused to use what they offered for free, because it wasn't good. What it looks like today I actually can't say - I have tools which do what I need, I'll need serious convincing to pay someone who already made a mess of a job to have another go at it.
Third: but in any case, paid-for software failing is just an example of the free market in action. In the Windows world, software developers have competitors, so the best rise to the top. I would expect this to happen in the Linux desktop ecosystem just the same.
Let me know when it does - they'll have to offer some competition to the existing options first.
-
I think I've seen it posted in this thread or others that you can't have a conversation about Windows online without a Linux advocate steering the conversation that way.
And just as equally, you can't have a conversation online about Linux without a Windows or proprietary software advocate steering the conversation to how Windows is better and free software is ruining everything.
-
I suppose I must be a diehard. I am not surprised this thread lives on. Holy wars don't end quickly.
Isn't there about two groups here? Linux Desktop users (the enlightened true believer) in one group, and those who use pretty much anything, including Linux, in the other?
Yep, that second one is me. I use Windows most of the time because I really appreciate the wide choice of high quality applications. (Of course there are poor applications as well, but that's fine - I just don't use them). I'm vaguely unhappy with the way Windows is going, but not enough to leave it behind just yet. I can see that time coming, though. On balance I slightly prefer Linux Mint over W11 because it reminds me of my all-time favourite, Windows 7, but I really struggle to find a suite of Linux desktop applications that I like.
So yes: I'll use pretty much anything that supports the apps I want to use, and I don't feel strongly which OS hosts them.
I think I've seen it posted in this thread or others that you can't have a conversation about Windows online without a Linux advocate steering the conversation that way.
Yeah, big time! Find any article about Windows on ZDNet or similar, and in the BTL comments you can be pretty sure of finding a Linux advocate saying hateful things about Windows. How fucking weird is that?
Now, if stating those facts above makes me a "Diehard"; Well, Yippee Ki Yay!
Unfortunately, no, I'm afraid you haven't earned the "diehard" badge just yet. You made the dreadful mistake of expressing yourself in reasonable, measured tones. Plus you acknowledged the validity of different points of view. Honestly, there's no hope for you.
-
And just as equally, you can't have a conversation online about Linux without a Windows or proprietary software advocate steering the conversation to how Windows is better and free software is ruining everything.
No, not "just as equally". I've checked and it is very rare for a Windows fanboy to intrude into a discussion forum or article about Linux. Not saying it never happens, but it is pretty rare.
I think it is mostly because most Windows users aren't fanboys, so they can't be arsed to get into an argument over it.
-
But far more important: why do you say I'm an MS fanboy?
Come on, your aggressiveness is just bubbling vigorously under the surface, and some is escaping under the lid of that pressure cooker in every other message or so ;D
If you can't see it yourself, fine. Everyone else can see it. You are exactly similar to those "linux fanboys" you so much enjoy to ridicule. They certainly exist, somewhere, too, but clearly not in this thread - the asymmetry here is just hilarious - like, you rambling on your own. Then again, I ignore Randy222 so maybe I miss something. I don't ignore you because you are a perfectly sensible person despite this funny angry spot directed at your mental image of "linux fanboys", which, clearly for you, means everyone who dares to criticize Microsoft. You don't say that directly, but it leaks out. It is just obvious. It's kinda funny, even. Then again, when you get yourself together, I have nothing against your arguments. You are factually correct in this thread most of the time.
I mean, getting triggered from an actually funny and accurate joke about the infantilization of MS error messages - come on! Most of us can enjoy making fun of stuff we like!
In the context of the thread, SteveThackery has talked about his use of Mint and praised it. I see the frothy you see, but I smell frustration, a lot of it.
I get frustrated myself and have often let myself get overly passionate when I'm trying to push back against the incorrect imposition of my views.
I can't fault your view, or your ignore list though. I'm probably on it. 8)
-
I think I've seen it posted in this thread or others that you can't have a conversation about Windows online without a Linux advocate steering the conversation that way.
And just as equally, you can't have a conversation online about Linux without a Windows or proprietary software advocate steering the conversation to how Windows is better and free software is ruining everything.
This thread provides one example; provide your example of the opposite. I am not saying it's never happened. But that's going to be an awesome find, and I'm ready to read it.
-
Second: how do you know what drove these software users back to free software? Was it really "terrible", or was it because it wasn't free and the users had confirmation bias?
Experience? For example, I stopped using any version of Acrobat Reader many years ago on any platform because it was a fat, ungodly mess which gets in the way of doing what I came to do - read the document. Acrobat itself was, at the time, the same fat, awful mess with more buttons. I don't recall that they ever found the full version worthwhile to sell - presumably because the majority refused to use what they offered for free, because it wasn't good. What it looks like today I actually can't say - I have tools which do what I need, I'll need serious convincing to pay someone who already made a mess of a job to have another go at it.
But that is exactly the same in the Windows world. I completely agree that Acrobat Reader is a fat, ungodly mess, and I hope never to use it again. But I would point out that it isn't paid-for software, so I'm not sure where we are going with this.
Anyway, I believe that the Linux desktop culture of expecting software to be free discourages the corporate developers, because they must answer to shareholders, and that pretty much precludes them working for free. And thus we have a shortage of high quality desktop software.
-
First: are you seriously suggesting that the people who develop Adobe software don't want to do it? That's ridiculous.
They want to get paid. Whether that's the sort of software they're interested in working on is another matter. Have you wanted to do every paid task you've ever done? I doubt it.
I think it's a bit weak to assume that wanting to work on a piece of software means you'll do a better job. As a (near) singleton you don't have access to the requirements capture team, like you do in the corporate world. You don't have access to user interface designers, you dont have access to a usability lab, and you don't have access to a team of professional testers.
As for me, well no, I haven't always wanted to do every job I was given. But I honestly think that my professional pride motivated me to do something pretty close to my best, even when I was less than enthused about the task. I don't think I'm much different from most employees working in the field of their choice.
-
instead of "Windows", I would like to see MS make a "Doors OS".
"Windows" is itself ironic, there are no windows in the gui (except the MS slogo), just rectangular panes everywhere that you can resize, why cant they make them ovals? I guess they couldn't call it "Panes OS", too close to "pain OS", or like thinking 1/3 is less than 1/4 (which most people think). :-DD
-
why cant they make them ovals?
Massive waste of space, resources and processing power. Plus it would look bad.
Lay out a desktop using ovals and see what you think about it in reality.
-
@SteveThackery
I shouldn't be wasting my time, but i'm finding this so hilarious i couldn't resist. The name of the number one windows diehard on this thread is SteveThackery. The proof? Just count how many replies have been posted since my last post, then count how many of these came from you.
You look like Conan the barbarian trying to fight the evil zombie hordes intending to rape his girlfriend. I wonder how much time you are spending in a so useless argument.
-
No, not "just as equally". I've checked and it is very rare for a Windows fanboy to intrude into a discussion forum or article about Linux. Not saying it never happens, but it is pretty rare.
I think it is mostly because most Windows users aren't fanboys, so they can't be arsed to get into an argument over it.
Ah, "you've checked". Some of us have lived it, as actual users and occasional developers who are around such discussions. Trolls make sport of it everywhere. Few last long in any places of serious discussion, no matter which side they're attacking.
But that is exactly the same in the Windows world. I completely agree that Acrobat Reader is a fat, ungodly mess, and I hope never to use it again. But I would point out that it isn't paid-for software, so I'm not sure where we are going with this.
I made that clear - Acrobat was the same fundamental code base as Acrobat Reader. Had they tried to offer that as a paid option for Linux (I seem to recall they did not), it would have fallen flat on its face as a worthless joke just as their free offering did. That is not the fault of the platform or users, and yet it is the latter you continue to blame for companies not offering products.
Anyway, I believe that the Linux desktop culture of expecting software to be free discourages the corporate developers, because they must answer to shareholders, and that pretty much precludes them working for free. And thus we have a shortage of high quality desktop software.
And I know that the lack of proprietary software prevents people from purchasing it. That is not a cultural problem, because there cannot be a culture of not purchasing something which doesn't exist.
I'm sure there would be less uptake of proprietary options such as Acrobat, Photoshop, Microsoft Office, and so forth should they be offered in a competent, usable form. That will be partially due to users who, to use your pejorative terms, are 'religious', but in large part due to the lack of capture. People already on alternative platforms are no longer the ignorant newcomer, taking bundled software with the OS or computer package as it comes. They've seen they have choices, have made some already, and will continue to make them for their own reasons - cost, familiarity, usability, compatibility..
As for me, well no, I haven't always wanted to do every job I was given. But I honestly think that my professional pride motivated me to do something pretty close to my best, even when I was less than enthused about the task. I don't think I'm much different from most employees working in the field of their choice.
And by your professed age I would expect that naïveté to have been thoroughly vanquished..
-
@SteveThackery
I shouldn't be wasting my time, but i'm finding this so hilarious i couldn't resist. The name of the number one windows diehard on this thread is SteveThackery. The proof? Just count how many replies have been posted since my last post, then count how many of these came from you.
And you still have missed three things. I'm not arguing in favour of Windows, I'm arguing against the irrational religious fervour that seems to overcome Linux fanboys. That includes you. It is unbecoming.
Secondly, I'm not arguing against Linux; I'm arguing against what I think are the cruddy desktop apps that Linux users are lumbered with.
Thirdly, I have stated repeatedly that I don't feel strongly about either OS per se, but I have a slight preference for Mint because it is closer to my all-time favourite, Windows 7. I also explained that the poor choice of Linux desktop apps is what keeps me using Windows.
So I'm sorry, but I'm just not the guy you seem to need me to be.
You look like Conan the barbarian trying to fight the evil zombie hordes intending to rape his girlfriend. I wonder how much time you are spending in a so useless argument.
I'm spending time in this useless argument for two reasons. Firstly, I'm rather enjoying it. Secondly, my self-appointed job in this forum is to challenge every instance of unreasonable, irrational, prejudiced behaviour, along with all signs of dogmatism and religious fervour. Why? Because this forum is a haven of science, reason and rationality - that is what makes it so incredibly valuable. And people like you, with your swivel-eyed lunatic rants, are poisoning it.
-
Secondly, my self-appointed job in this forum is to challenge every instance of unreasonable, irrational, prejudiced behaviour, along with all signs of dogmatism and religious fervour.
You do this by making a point of involving yourself in every mention of Linux or criticism of Windows.
And people like you, with your swivel-eyed lunatic rants, are poisoning it.
:-DD
How many pages of this would not exist if certain people (admittedly, myself included!) could just leave alone things they disagree with? The only reason I get involved is because you never stop. Every thread I visit where people might like to discuss software options, you derail with moaning about UIs in software you don't use. You *could* put your time into making them better, but instead..
-
why cant they make them ovals?
Massive waste of space, resources and processing power. Plus it would look bad.
Lay out a desktop using ovals and see what you think about it in reality.
Wait just 1sec.
20sq.cm oval is different than 20sq.cm of rectangle,........ how?
I always wondered how 10lb of brick weighs more than 10lb of feathers. Maybe a quantum answer to that.
Just saying, if you wated to take a Jobs approach of just trying to slice bread with a bling machine, an oval laptop display could be it. :-//
-
ahhh, "Ignore", the whiners feature that many board sites have. :-DD
I don't use the actual feature, I just skip over the messages of a few (less than 5) posters.
-
How many pages of this would not exist if certain people (admittedly, myself included!) could just leave alone things they disagree with? The only reason I get involved is because you never stop. Every thread I visit where people might like to discuss software options, you derail with moaning about UIs in software you don't use. You *could* put your time into making them better, but instead..
Fair point, although specifically and only about Linux apps, because I feel frustrated by the quality of them (a subjective judgement on my part). If they were as good as Windows apps, I'd have moved to Mint by now. That is why I feel frustrated.
I don't believe I have derailed this thread. My argument is clear: Windows won't die until there is a viable alternative. Right now Linux is definitely a viable alternative operating system, but Linux's app ecosystem is not. As for your other point, you are right that I don't use Linux applications very much, but that's because I prefer using my Windows apps, as already explained.
In fairness, I should point out that I have tried quite a number of Linux applications. For example, every office suite I could find. I ended up choosing the only paid-for one: SoftMaker Office. I discovered Inkscape the other day and liked it very much, so that's another app in the bag (though I find Visio suits me better for technical drawings). I've yet to find a suitable bitmap/photo editor. I've used FreeCAD and KiCAD and could live with them. Strangely, I'm struggling to find an email client that I like - Thunderbird is definitely not it.
Anyway, my quest continues...
PS: I'm not a good enough programmer to contribute to app development in the Linux world. 😕
-
I use Linux as well and I generally dislike it. There are so many distributions, packet managers, etc. You want to use some software, chances are you need to compile it yourself. But then you discover you need some dependencies, which need other dependencies. And then there are chances that a particular d pendency is not available for your Linux distribution. Oh, you have Ubuntu? Should have installed Fedora...
Really? Hasn't happened to me in, i don't know, more than 10 years? I run debian at home, and dual boot at work, and everything i use has a package available for it. All the new software i develop for us (done with Qt) is multiplaftorm by design, because i want to use linux as much as i can, the other dev has a macbook, but all the other colleagues and clients use windows.
Honestly, Linux sucks for those that need to use professional/commercial software.
That is entirely in the hands of the developers of said software.
though recently there was a wave of ubuntu users being unable to install certain software, because it would fail an integrity check. The file was correct, the reason was canonical jumping on the rust bandwagon (because - unless it was updated very recently - current ubuntu's rust-coreutils are a shitshow: sha doesn't calculate the correct sha, but it does so with memory safety)
One point for Bicurico, i guess.
-
There's been a pretty consistent pattern to proprietary desktop offerings: Vendor 'ports' to Linux, puts on the market. Users try it, find it doesn't work properly, has weird and unnecessary distro compatibility issues due to a poor understanding of the platform, performs badly, has compatibility issues with other versions or doesn't support any of their existing files in openly documented formats, and users stop wasting their time with it. Vendor sees poor uptake because it's a worse option than what's already available, stops offering it.
Examples, please! Remember, we are talking about Linux desktop software here, not the stuff that IT Support uses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzl1B7nB9Kc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzl1B7nB9Kc)
-
EXACTLY! That's the very thing I've been complaining about throughout this thread: in my opinion Mint (in my case) is a fine OS, but the apps are anything but. In my opinion that's because there is a strong culture in the Linux desktop world that apps must be free.
A common misconception and oversimplification. There are multiple groups with different views, sometimes overlapping. For example, the open source faction wants access to the source code while many are willing to pay for software. My personal POV differs a bit, I've spent a four figure sum on linux desktop apps (commercial closed source) so far.
There is little or no business case for the big players to develop, or port, their apps to Linux. If Linux wants to compete on the desktop, it must attract the big software houses by embracing paid-for software.
IIRC, linux desktops have a market share of about 2% which is hardly an incentive (or business case) for big players to port their apps to linux. Despite this low market share there are companies writing and selling software for linux and many of them are quite successful, i.e. they have paying customers.
-
There's been a pretty consistent pattern to proprietary desktop offerings: Vendor 'ports' to Linux, puts on the market. Users try it, find it doesn't work properly, has weird and unnecessary distro compatibility issues due to a poor understanding of the platform, performs badly, has compatibility issues with other versions or doesn't support any of their existing files in openly documented formats, and users stop wasting their time with it. Vendor sees poor uptake because it's a worse option than what's already available, stops offering it.
Examples, please! Remember, we are talking about Linux desktop software here, not the stuff that IT Support uses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzl1B7nB9Kc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzl1B7nB9Kc)
Thanks for sharing. Linus is always reliably direct.
@tatel should watch it because they think that dependency hell doesn't exist. Even to the extent to claim I have mental problems if I have this issue.
@Cyclotron: Otherwise I would have to asses a fellow forum member is mentally ill, and since you are experiencing regularly broken updates, stated that linux is a bad ecosystem to do fleet management,
As I mentioned, if you do any real work on Linux, you'll run into this issue. It's unlikely to sway them as they have a holy war to fight.
-
It's true that the Linux desktop sucks. Problem is, the alternatives suck even more (for different/various reasons) so I prefer to stick with the devil I know.
-
It's true that the Linux desktop sucks. Problem is, the alternatives suck even more (for different/various reasons) so I prefer to stick with the devil I know.
I think it's fair to say they all suck and are great in certain ways. Outside of our nerd niches, the "unwashed masses" care very little if at all for the pedantries that characterize much of the "Great/Suck" war threads.
An appliance that functions without requiring them to draw time and attention away from their drool-faced TikTok watch time is what they want. Corporate IT wants ease of management and a fleet as secure as possible. The last segment comprises the folks who require applications to do work or to develop applications for others. These markets are what produce revenue.
macOS, Windows, and ChromeOS have the appliance modes well in hand. Windows and macOS are extraordinarily well-equipped for fleet management. As Linus describes in the video, application developers aim to build binaries for Windows and macOS. Linux can be adopted to do much of the primary markets that I mention, but it isn't likely that the person wishing to pursue that objective is actually a good fit for those markets, so you end up as a niche user on a niche OS.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Linux being your preferred OS for the desktop. The same with Windows, macOS, etc., etc. They all Suck/are Great!
-
Corporate IT wants ease of management and a fleet as secure as possible.
I don't care about what corporate IT wants and so far I have never been fired. Probably I'm lucky...
But I agree that many people are using windows because they have to.
-
As for your other point, you are right that I don't use Linux applications very much, but that's because I prefer using my Windows apps, as already explained.
Which is fair enough, but when others use those applications and prefer not to switch to the paid-for alternatives (remember the majority of 'apps' which are not proprietary are portable, so you're actually attacking users of every OS), you decide that must be because of their religion and blame them for your preferred apps not being available, rather than the people who actually decide that.
PS: I'm not a good enough programmer to contribute to app development in the Linux world. 😕
You don't need to be a programmer to contribute. But first you'll have to embrace the idea that paying a corporate entity money and praying they do what you want with it is not the only way to get good software. And then second, you'll have to not belittle people willing to give you their work for free for their own reasons..
Of course, this is all ground we've covered before, and you remain stubbornly resolute in doing nothing unless a company sells you what you want.
-
Corporate IT wants ease of management and a fleet as secure as possible.
I don't care about what corporate IT wants and so far I have never been fired. Probably I'm lucky...
But I agree that many people are using windows because they have to.
If you're able to operate in your corporate world without being required to comply, you're lucky. It seems everyone I work with has some compliance requirements, and if they are audited, they have real problems if there's non-compliance.
I don't think people are using Windows because they "have to". Corporate environments often offer macOS or Windows, but Windows remains the number one choice. In my past two companies, that was the case. People can easily buy Windows, macOS, or ChromeOS, and Windows is the choice of the majority.
It doesn't make sense to me to frame this as if Windows is forced onto people. Why people choose Windows may be myriad, but they choose it over macOS and ChromeOS.
-
But first you'll have to embrace the idea that paying a corporate entity money and praying they do what you want with it is not the only way to get good software. And then second, you'll have to not belittle people willing to give you their work for free for their own reasons..
Of course, this is all ground we've covered before, and you remain stubbornly resolute in doing nothing unless a company sells you what you want.
Yeah. The actual mechanism for popularity of open source software is neither absence of price tag, nor nerds in their mother's basements doing work for others for free just for getting kicks out of replacing closed source software by their inferior open source counterparts people then use as a "free of cost" low-quality replacements.
The most important mechanism is as follows:
1) You - individual or company need something yourself
2) It does not quite exists
3) So you pick open-source project, or pieces of open source code which help you solve the problem, for yourself
4) You solve your own problem
5) You release your added work, either because you want to (at that point, it's not much extra effort), or because the license forces you to
6) Rinse and repeat, and everyone benefits
This is exactly why corporations want to use open-source software, too.
-
IIRC, linux desktops have a market share of about 2% which is hardly an incentive (or business case) for big players to port their apps to linux. Despite this low market share there are companies writing and selling software for linux and many of them are quite successful, i.e. they have paying customers.
Are we now constraining the argument to just "desktop"?
What apps for big players? Apps alone are not an underlying metric, workload-$ is.
Context is needed.
Most desktops don't do much workload-$ at all. The things they connect to do (server backends).
World market share (server OS), 63% Linux, 36% Windows, rest Other.
The OS responsible for workload-$ is predominately NOT Windoze.
-
Which is fair enough, but when others use those applications and prefer not to switch to the paid-for alternatives (remember the majority of 'apps' which are not proprietary are portable, so you're actually attacking users of every OS), you decide that must be because of their religion and blame them for your preferred apps not being available, rather than the people who actually decide that.
Thank you for this: a properly considered criticism expressed in polite but firm language, with none of the angry tirade to which I've been repeatedly subjected. I appreciate it.
I think you make a good point. I think the issue with Linux desktop apps is a bit like the chicken and the egg: Linux-on-the-desktop won't attract new users with the apps currently available; and potential app developers won't develop apps for such a small user base. I'm not sure how to break out of that loop.
I realise we will differ on this, but I think the current model for producing Linux desktop applications doesn't work very well. In general the apps look klunky and old-fashioned, with poorly thought-through UIs, bumpy workflows, and challenging learning curves. (My opinion.)
I think this is because writing a good application needs more than just coders. Designing the workflow and the UI are highly skilled jobs, whereas in the Linux desktop world it seems like all the work is done purely by coders, with no real involvement of those other skills. I don't know why that is. As you know, I believe that the only way out of this is to point the spending power of the big corporates at the problem, but I admit I don't know how to achieve that. And I embrace your point that it's not just the users expecting software to be free, but also the corporates seeing a tiny user base.
You don't need to be a programmer to contribute. But first you'll have to embrace the idea that paying a corporate entity money and praying they do what you want with it is not the only way to get good software. And then second, you'll have to not belittle people willing to give you their work for free for their own reasons.
Second point first: I don't recall belittling them, but I have described them as geeks, and I think that is probably reasonable. Coding is a singular skill that seems to attract a specific type of person. I was surrounded by them when I worked at BT Labs, so I am familiar with them. I've noticed that, because of their high intelligence, applied with a laser focus, they aren't that good at seeing things from a layperson's perspective. Hence the issue with workflows and UIs: they can't understand what the difficulty is. Of course I am making a sweeping generalisation, and each individual is unique, but I think it is a fair observation. Also, I would challenge your assertion that they give me their work for free. I think they do their work for other geeks, not for people like me. Again, I'm making a generalisation and I might well be wrong.
First point second: I don't give a company money and pray they do what I want. I evaluate their offering - along with that of their competitors - and if it already does what I want, then I give them money. If their product doesn't float my boat, it's tough shit on them - there are always alternatives.
You say that paying money to a software company is not the only way to get good software. Hmmm... I remain to be convinced. A lot depends on how you define "good". If "good" means software that does one, perhaps obscure, thing exceptionally well, without all the overhead of a mass-appeal UI, then yes - a basement geek working for the community can deliver that. If "good" has to include accessibility for a wide range of average punters like me, thus requiring a transparent, logical workflow and an open, attractive and easy UI, then no, I don't think the current model can deliver that. Simply because I see little evidence of it.
Of course, this is all ground we've covered before, and you remain stubbornly resolute in doing nothing unless a company sells you what you want.
OK, as I say, the evidence I have seen suggests I am not wrong. However, I believe you are implying that I shouldn't complain about something unless I'm prepared to be part of the solution. It's a commonly made argument. Let me put a counter argument to you: it is absolutely legitimate to position myself as a consumer only, which is what 99% of computer users around the world do. As a consumer it is reasonable to mention that the applications in this particular ecosystem don't seem very appealing or easy to use, whereas the apps in that ecosystem are generally more appealing. It is also legitimate for said consumer to speculate on why that is.
-
Are we now constraining the argument to just "desktop"?
Yeah, we have been doing, because the thread is really about Windows 11, and that is resolutely a desktop OS.
Most desktops don't do much workload-$ at all. The things they connect to do (server backends).
World market share (server OS), 63% Linux, 36% Windows, rest Other.
The OS responsible for workload-$ is predominately NOT Windoze.
I wonder if that is true. Certainly in some big companies the desktop PC is little more than a dumb terminal used for kicking off various database queries and reports. But in the corporation I worked, a hell of a lot of work got done locally on the desktops: writing reports in Word, analysing data in Excel, preparing presentations in PowerPoint, drawing complex diagrams in Visio, writing small software tools in Visual Studio. All this was done on the PC itself, albeit the work was stored on managed servers.
And yes, for stuff like project management and financial management, we used server-hosted software.
So, I don't think what you've said is really true; I think PC-based MS Office does a lot of heavy lifting in the corporate world.
-
IIRC, linux desktops have a market share of about 2% which is hardly an incentive (or business case) for big players to port their apps to linux. Despite this low market share there are companies writing and selling software for linux and many of them are quite successful, i.e. they have paying customers.
Are we now constraining the argument to just "desktop"?
What apps for big players? Apps alone are not an underlying metric, workload-$ is.
Context is needed.
I don't care (within limits) about desktop workload. I do care about how smooth it is to do stuff, without sharp edges. For instance, I loath those apps where you change some setting and it's saved. No second thoughts - it is done and you're stuffed if it was the wrong thing. Similarly, apps where changes cannot be undone - does wonders for discoverability.
Those are apps and that kind exist on all OSs, but the same thing happens on the desktop. I dislike the MacOS global menu, the single-button mouse (yes, it's gone but it's an example). Windows 10 inability to reverse up a settings thread without making you restart at every level. Do I care if a nice one takes 1% more CPU? Of course not - a crappy system just won't be used so resource usage is irrelevant.
Most desktops don't do much workload-$ at all. The things they connect to do (server backends).
Uh... not everyone is umbilically attached to the cloud. Here, everything is local. I can do everything I normally would (except get to EEVBlog) if my network was unplugged.
But you're talking about apps there, not the desktop. There are things the OS-as-desktop does that is different between systems. The aforementioned global menu being an example. There are utils that can change how the desktop works (the excellent Listary, for example, which I would really hate to be without), but these are not apps per se - they are things that support apps.
World market share (server OS), 63% Linux, 36% Windows, rest Other.
Yes, no doubt. But we are not talking servers. You might as well discuss world market share for chocolate buttons for all that statement is relevant.
The OS responsible for workload-$ is predominately NOT Windoze.
Who cares besides you? The world preference for drinking plain tap water isn't going to make me stop drinking coffee or sparkling bottled and flavoured water in preference.
-
The most important mechanism is as follows:
1) You - individual or company need something yourself
2) It does not quite exists
3) So you pick open-source project, or pieces of open source code which help you solve the problem, for yourself
4) You solve your own problem
5) You release your added work, either because you want to (at that point, it's not much extra effort), or because the license forces you to
6) Rinse and repeat, and everyone benefits
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
100% THIS
And this is exactly why Linux apps end up as such a patchwork mess, with random bits of functionality bodged on here and there, wherever there's a gap; a menu entry or toolbar icon hastily tacked onto the end of something vaguely related; and no real effort made to make this new feature easy to use because the boss is on at you to get it done and anyway, this is your problem and your solution, so as soon as it's done you're on to the next thing.
Software developed like this, with no proper "ownership" or stewardship of the whole, has no chance of staying smooth, clean, elegant, coherent. For that to happen a software product needs an owner, a steward, who has a compelling interest in the quality and wide appeal of the product, and the authority to direct and control it. Much like everything Adobe produces. Ditto the other big software houses.
Also, exactly like Torvaulds does for Linux. We need a mini-Torvaulds for each Linux desktop application.
-
The OS responsible for workload-$ is predominately NOT Windoze.
Who cares besides you? The world preference for drinking plain tap water isn't going to make me stop drinking coffee or sparkling bottled and flavoured water in preference.
workload-$ is how money is made from computing. If you don't care about that and are painting a play field in some far corner, so be it.
99+% of desktop cpu cycles, and IIRC somewhere near 75% of server cpu cycles, are wasting tons of kWh doing nothing.
So in real world, workload-$ does matter to those interested in making money. Way too many $400+ laptops out there doing nothing but reading email and spying on you (probably more cpu cycles spying).
The whole desktop argument (market share, etc) is a bit pointless.
Windoze vs Other arguments need to be fairly constrained to specific realms, like efficient computing, or security, or flexibility, etc etc.
Have I had Windoze crash on me? Yep, lots of times, freezes, problems, etc.
Have I had a nix core dump, yes, but rare instances of installation of app being bad.
A few moths back my upgrade from win10 to win11 seemed to go ok, then all of a sudden it would boot into a "we have a problem" then reboot into "recovery". I could never fix the issue, so I had to re-install Win11 with the "save my sheet" option. Now it's more stable but I don't have confidence in it.
In corp world, end-users don't care if there's an issue, they call IT Helpdesk to get a new machine asap. It's not their stuff, so the extra 4hr coffee break is welcomed. If it were their hardware and their money, then I suspect the tune they fiddle would be a bit different.
Windows is a dominant desktop OS? Surely yes, but end-users only bang keys on what they are given. Give them a Mint desktop with the apps they need, and they'll do the work just the same.
-
And this is exactly why Linux apps end up as such a patchwork mess, with bits of functionality bodged on wherever there's a gap, a menu entry or toolbar icon hastily tacked onto the end of something vaguely related, and no real effort made to make this new feature easy to use because the boss is on at you to get it done and anyway, this is your problem and your solution, so as soon as it's done you're on to the next thing.
What is a "Linux app" though? Most software I use, both major projects and small ones, are all cross platform now. For small dedicated projects, it's hardly a function of the OS whether it's a bodge job or not.
Software developed like this, with no proper "ownership" or stewardship of the whole, has no chance of staying smooth, clean, elegant, coherent. For that to happen a software product needs an owner, a steward, who has a compelling interest in the quality and wide appeal of the product, and the authority to direct and control it. Much like everything Adobe produces. Ditto the other big software houses.
Also, exactly like Torvaulds does for Linux. We need a mini-Torvaulds for each Linux desktop application.
That's a huge generalisation. Even in community based projects, people naturally will form hierarchies.
A good example I like to examine is in the home automation space. Home Assistant is controlled by a company, OpenHAB is a community project. Both maintain their own character and coherent direction, but HA being run by a company hasn't necessarily made it better off in a technical sense, however it does add additional monetary priorities.
As a counterpoint, is Windows coherent now? W11 seems to have a mish-mash of new and legacy settings applications, UI changes and alterations to core legacy programs that were neither needed nor wanted.
-
The most important mechanism is as follows:
1) You - individual or company need something yourself
2) It does not quite exists
3) So you pick open-source project, or pieces of open source code which help you solve the problem, for yourself
4) You solve your own problem
5) You release your added work, either because you want to (at that point, it's not much extra effort), or because the license forces you to
6) Rinse and repeat, and everyone benefits
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
100% THIS
And this is exactly why Linux apps end up as such a patchwork mess, with bits of functionality bodged on wherever there's a gap, a menu entry or toolbar icon hastily tacked onto the end of something vaguely related, and no real effort made to make this new feature easy to use because the boss is on at you to get it done and anyway, this is your problem and your solution, so as soon as it's done you're on to the next thing.
Software developed like this, with no proper "ownership" or stewardship of the whole, has no chance of staying smooth, clean, elegant, coherent. For that to happen a software product needs an owner, a steward, who has a compelling interest in the quality and wide appeal of the product, and the authority to direct and control it. Much like everything Adobe produces. Ditto the other big software houses.
Also, exactly like Torvaulds does for Linux. We need a mini-Torvaulds for each Linux desktop application.
Just for clarity sake, not every app compiled down for use on any specific OS, is opensource or patchwork or bodged.
Just as one pays for some CAD or simulation app for Windows, the same is done for Linux.
For something to be good, it has to involve money. So then we get to talk about...... are you happy with what you're paying for?
I have used plenty pay-for apps where there's an installer for Windows and Debian, some work way better on Windoze, some better on the Linux.
Is opensource different than "free"? All opensource is "free", but not all "free" is opensource. Some don't like the free Acrobat Reader, maybe they should make that opensource?
-
albeit the work was stored on managed servers.
Networked disk space.
for stuff like project management and financial management, we used server-hosted software.
Workload-$.
I think PC-based MS Office does a lot of heavy lifting in the corporate world.
Dumb terminal.
-
What is a "Linux app" though? Most software I use, both major projects and small ones, are all cross platform now. For small dedicated projects, it's hardly a function of the OS whether it's a bodge job or not.
I was talking about open source apps, which almost all Linux desktop apps are but you are right - I should have made that clear.
Actually I'm not such a fan of cross-platform apps because each OS has its own look-and-feel and UI philosophy, and it's hard to observe those when using a cross-platform tool chain. I think some apps do it better than others. SoftMaker Office, for example, looks almost identical on every platform it targets, including Android, and as such looks distinctly odd on an Android tablet because it ignores most of the Android look-and-feel and ways of working.
I felt the same way about the Affinity suite: it was too obviously a MacOS application first, ported to Windows. Therefore the functionality was almost all accessed via menus and keyboard shortcuts, with very little exposed on toolbars - the opposite from typical Windows apps.
Anyway, sorry, this is off-topic, but an interesting aside.
As a counterpoint, is Windows coherent now? W11 seems to have a mish-mash of new and legacy settings applications, UI changes and alterations to core legacy programs that were neither needed nor wanted.
In my opinion Windows went seriously off the rails after Windows 7, and it remains a mess to this day. I think Microsoft made a massive mistake by trying to make Windows all things to all people. They decided to change it to a touch-first UI with the launch of W8. Actually I really liked W8 on my Windows 2-in-1 - the touch UI was exciting and new, with some innovative elements - but it was a car crash for mouse and keyboard users. Then they launched W8.1, which rolled back some of the more out-there features of W8 and proved how little courage Microsoft had in its convictions.
Windows 10 was solid but still had a largely touch-oriented UI* except, that is, for all the W7-style stuff in the background that they hadn't got round to converting. Quite the mess. And personally I find W11 quite underwhelming - a lot of noise for little more than a new Start menu and task bar. Plus hundreds of trivial and largely pointless tweaks.
Microsoft's biggest mistake was to try making Windows work for both touch-oriented users and keyboard/mouse users. They ended up with an enormous mess. Apple got it right: different horses for different courses: macOS for the desktop workstation, iPadOS for the tablets, iOS for the phones, and watchOS for the watches. Of course they are all derived from the same Unix core, but each one is meticulously tuned to its target platform. APIs are made as shared as possible, but with zero leaway where sharing is inappropriate.
Apple got it absolutely spot on, technically, and Microsoft got it wrong: one OS and one UI can never work well across the whole piste. Fluent* is a failure. The expression "jack of all trades, master of none" comes immediately to mind.
Phew! Quite the rant. But that's why I look longingly at Linux Mint - it resembles Windows before it all fell apart.
------
* I'm talking about Fluent. From ChatGPT:
Fluent is Microsoft’s cross-platform UI design system intended to scale across:
Desktop (Windows)
Web
Mobile
Mixed reality (HoloLens)
Here is another excerpt from ChatGPT, summarising the different philosophies:
You can summarise the three philosophies like this:
Apple: “The UI should disappear.”
Google: “The UI should explain itself.”
Microsoft: “The UI should adapt to everything.” <------- stupid idea (not ChatGPT)
-
I think PC-based MS Office does a lot of heavy lifting in the corporate world.
Dumb terminal.
No - installed and running on the desktop PCs.
-
These Windows vs. Linux discussions almost never go anywhere because a basic framework is never established beforehand. People end up talking past each other.
First question: what context are we even talking about?
Generic OS vs. desktop OS
Are we talking about operating systems in general (servers, embedded devices, routers, appliances, mobile), or are we specifically talking about desktop PC usage?
I consider Unix/Linux/BSD excellent for servers, embedded systems, and infrastructure. Being able to SSH into a router, run BusyBox on a satellite receiver, or manage a headless system remotely is exactly where these systems shine.
Linux as a desktop OS for my personal workstation is a completely different matter. In fact, my opinion is almost the opposite. So yes, I can simultaneously think Linux is excellent and terrible—depending entirely on the use case.
If this distinction isn’t made upfront, the discussion is already broken.
Open source vs. commercial software
Are we discussing open-source tooling, or professional commercial software?
I have no issue using GNU Radio on Linux or Windows—the experience is essentially the same. The same applies to SDRangel, which is a brilliant open-source project.
But when I need to work, I use software like Autodesk PowerMILL, which only exists on Windows. In my view, it is the best all-purpose CAM software for 3- to 5-axis milling and robot programming. There is nothing remotely comparable on Linux.
So the choice is trivial: I use the OS that runs the software I need.
This is no longer “hacker/nerd” territory where the answer is “just write your own CAM software.” Professional, high-end industrial software is extremely expensive to develop and must be commercially exploited to justify that investment.
Linux fundamentally struggles here. At its core, everything is built on GNU compilers and libraries, which effectively pushes projects into a GNU/open-source ecosystem by default. That severely reduces the incentive to develop true commercial desktop software for Linux. Yes, there are paid Linux products—but they usually monetize services, cloud access, or add-on binaries, not fully proprietary desktop applications in the traditional sense.
Drivers, certification, and liability
Then there is the proprietary driver problem.
As far as I know, Linux still does not offer the same level of GPU driver support as Windows—largely because the best drivers are closed source. In CAD/CAM/CAE environments, this matters enormously.
In aerospace and other regulated industries, certified drivers are mandatory. If you don’t use them, your work can be rejected outright.
Now imagine a finite-element simulation where a GPU driver has a subtle numerical error. That error propagates through a chain of decisions, and eventually something fails catastrophically. That is not a hypothetical risk—it’s exactly why certification exists.
This alone disqualifies Linux desktops from many professional workflows, regardless of ideology.
Which “user” are we talking about?
When people praise the greatness of Linux, which user are they evaluating it for?
A power user / nerd who enjoys debugging systems?
Or a professional who just wants to get the job done and is otherwise not OS-literate?
From a user-experience perspective, most Linux distributions are simply bad. They work fine if you stick to the preinstalled software (browser, office suite). The moment you introduce less common hardware—SDRs, satellite tuners, specialized IO cards—or try to install non-trivial software, everything starts to fall apart.
Wrong kernel. Wrong headers. Missing dependencies. Conflicting package versions.
And suddenly you are completely on your own.
There is no real support chain. The developer of software X depends on library Y, which depends on Z, and nobody knows why Z isn’t available on your system. At that point, you’re not being productive—you’re debugging the OS.
So the real question is: what are we actually debating?
Because “Linux vs. Windows” is meaningless without first agreeing on:
the use case (server vs. desktop),
the software model (open source vs. commercial),
the regulatory environment (certification, liability),
and the type of user involved.
Without that framework, these discussions are just noise.
-
I can only speak for myself, a home user with only basic needs, internet surfing, email, office suite, Google Earth, Emule, etc.
For me and those basic needs Linux Mint is working fine and better than Windows ever did.
Compared with Windows, Linux Mint
- Requires less resources and will run on HW which will not run Windows.
- Runs faster that Windows
- Has no telemetry or other annoying features of the sort
- No need for any account with MS or anybody
- I can control updates 100%. I choose if and when.
- I am totally in control of my computer
Again, just me. People do not care about OS, they care about apps or programs. If you want a program which only runs on Windows then Windows is what you need. But I do not specifically need any Windows program.
I am running a 15 year old computer which does everything I need at lightning speed. No accounts, no telemetry, no ads, it only does what I need.
The alternative is buying a new computer every few years just to please MS. No thanks.
I install Linux Mint and it just works and does what I need. Most of my friends and family are in the same situation and I have installed Mint on their computers when they would no longer run Windows and they are all happy. They have only basic needs, like myself. For me, as a home user, no expert, I prefer Linux Mint to Windows by a long shot.
My wife has a Windows laptop for work because it is what her employer requires and provides. When she has problems, and she does have them once in a while, she talks to their IT people and sometimes they resolve it and sometimes they just say they will look into it.
-
Yesterday I downgraded my Lab EE PC from W11 to W10 and deactivated the TPM in the BIOS.
All the rest of my computers will run Linux.
I also sold all my Microsoft stocks.
Thanks Microsoft for the ride! Bye bye for now.
-
As a sidenote, RAM prices are insane at the moment (AI bubble). 32 GB DDR5 was about 80 bucks last summer and now it's 400 bucks. Anyone needing a new PC for Win11 will be delighted. >:D
-
As a sidenote, RAM prices are insane at the moment (AI bubble). 32 GB DDR5 was about 80 bucks last summer and now it's 400 bucks. Anyone needing a new PC for Win11 will be delighted. >:D
This is absolutely awful. If you use DDR RAM in one of your own products, this is also delightful. Unless you had stock for at least a year or two.
-
These Windows vs. Linux discussions almost never go anywhere because a basic framework is never established beforehand. People end up talking past each other.
First question: what context are we even talking about?
Generic OS vs. desktop OS
Are we talking about operating systems in general (servers, embedded devices, routers, appliances, mobile), or are we specifically talking about desktop PC usage?
[ENORMOUS SNIP]
Without that framework, these discussions are just noise.
So you haven't read the thread.
The question was "Is Windows 11 dying?" The thread seemed to acknowledge that W11 can only die if there is a viable alternative, otherwise people will stay with Windows. The discussion then made the logical step to debating whether Linux is a viable alternative to Windows.
I don't accept that the things in your list have to be nailed down first. Here is where we are:
- the use case (server vs. desktop) We are discussing W11, so desktop
- the software model (open source vs. commercial) We've been discussing both
- the regulatory environment (certification, liability) Not something W11 users think, care, or know about
- and the type of user involved It is generally accepted that W11 is for typical end users, not system admins
-
I think PC-based MS Office does a lot of heavy lifting in the corporate world.
Dumb terminal.
No - installed and running on the desktop PCs.
Document generator loaded from local storage.
Nothing heavy, merely a typewriter of today.
-
I can only speak for myself, a home user with only basic needs, internet surfing, email, office suite, Google Earth, Emule, etc.
For me and those basic needs Linux Mint is working fine and better than Windows ever did.
With the exception of Office, these are pretty much all content consumption applications. You could use almost any OS for that, including Linux of course.
Personally I wouldn't recommend Windows or Linux for that workload - it is better served by Android or even ChromeOS. If you and your friends want to continue using (relatively) ancient desktop computers, then Linux is a much better option than Windows.
However, I find that an Android tablet is much more convenient for a consumption-based workload of the type you describe. Get rid of those prehistoric desktops and you will liberate a significant and useful amount of space in your homes. 😀👍
-
you can subst everything, os office tools, emails etc ...
but no access to any Msoft 365 services like onedrive, sharepoint etc ....
we tried linux, does not cope well on our business infrastructure ... credentials security deployment management ... and lastly business central ...
-
but no access to any Msoft 365 services like onedrive, sharepoint etc ....
What's the downside? 8)
-
but no access to any Msoft 365 services like onedrive, sharepoint etc ....
What's the downside? 8)
Scarepoint sharepants. But make sure and open a ServiceNever request to access shitepoint.
Similar to confobulence.
Jira-niyoru Pikachu?
-
These Windows vs. Linux discussions almost never go anywhere because a basic framework is never established beforehand. People end up talking past each other.
First question: what context are we even talking about?
Generic OS vs. desktop OS
Are we talking about operating systems in general (servers, embedded devices, routers, appliances, mobile), or are we specifically talking about desktop PC usage?
[ENORMOUS SNIP]
Without that framework, these discussions are just noise.
So you haven't read the thread.
The question was "Is Windows 11 dying?" The thread seemed to acknowledge that W11 can only die if there is a viable alternative, otherwise people will stay with Windows. The discussion then made the logical step to debating whether Linux is a viable alternative to Windows.
I don't accept that the things in your list have to be nailed down first. Here is where we are:
- the use case (server vs. desktop) We are discussing W11, so desktop
- the software model (open source vs. commercial) We've been discussing both
- the regulatory environment (certification, liability) Not something W11 users think, care, or know about
- and the type of user involved It is generally accepted that W11 is for typical end users, not system admins
In this case, my answer is: no Windows is not dying.
People may be swapping out HOME USE computers/laptops for mobile devices (smartphones and tablets running Android or iOS), but the vast majority of WORKING people will continue to use Windows for times to come, simply because this is what drives the professional/commercial applications they rely on.
Percentage-wise, a noticeable drop will be noticed, especially if you consider ALL use cases: the drop is against mobile devices.
But "dying" assumes it will disappear, and I am 100% sure it won't disappear in the foreseeable future.
-
Regarding January updates:
Some devices might fail to shut down or hibernate - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/release-health/status-windows-10-22h2#3764msgdesc
Windows 11 23H2 is also affected.
Yup my brand new business HP laptop is affected.
In the good ol days you just removed the battery, nowadays fail.
I used the ten second power button press hard shutdown just to find out the next day it booted with a blue keylocker fail screen.
-
@tatel should watch it because they think that dependency hell doesn't exist. Even to the extent to claim I have mental problems if I have this issue.
@Cyclotron: Otherwise I would have to asses a fellow forum member is mentally ill, and since you are experiencing regularly broken updates, stated that linux is a bad ecosystem to do fleet management,
As I mentioned, if you do any real work on Linux, you'll run into this issue. It's unlikely to sway them as they have a holy war to fight.
You are quoting me about you experiencing regularly broken updates and you stating linux is a bad ecosystem for fleet management. but trying to spin it, to be about dependency hell. Ludicrous.
Let's be clear: do you realize you are the only one guy here complaining about broken linux updates? That speaks volumes.
About linux fleet management, not surprising you are not happy with it, because you seem to be expecting your employer to pay dearly for some GUI app to do it. This does add up with your statements about OS being just an (GUI, of course) app launcher.
Truth is, people that do real linux work, know one of its main strengths is into the system itself, under the form of no-GUI apps, but command line utilities. It allows us to do so many things -like fleet management- with simple shell scripting. No need to pay dearly for any fancy GUI app, able to do only what the developers thought about the task. We can create our own things, perfectly taylored to suit our needs. People coming from GUI platforms like windows and mac usually fail to grasp that. They rant about that. They should learn instead. You claimed to have *nix legacy, didn't you? So much for that nice legacy, man.
About dependency hell, almost the only way to get into that is by messing up the apt repositories, like adding ubuntu shit to a different distro, or trying to mix packages from two releases, or, generally speaking, by not knowing what you are doing. In a previous post, i linked another thread, where a long-time windows user was complaining about dependency hell, the first time he tried to use linux in a raspberry pi, to have some ham radio thing, some SDR IIRC. Just a glimpse to the output from apt he pasted, revealed he had messed up apt, by having two repositories, for different releases of raspbian. So he got dependency hell. Of course.
He got quite a few answers, from supposedly "seasoned" linux users coming from windows, yet nobody could signal the obvious. You messed it up, this is not windows, you put two repositories for different raspbian releases in yout apt configuration, please perform a clean install again and just accept the defaults proposed to you. It will work. And it worked. No more dependency hell. Quite easy, huh?
Now, you are the guy who decided anyone not agreeing with you, must be a nerd doing just web browsing, and agressively stated that multiple times, based on nothing. Very different from me extracting conclusions from statements made by you. So, you seem to be unable to update a linux system, have not a clue about how to do fleet management with system utilities, and don't know how to avoid dependency hell. Quite basic things. Sounds utterly incompetent to me. Yet you are making statements about other's professional competence, based exclusively in the turds you pull up right from your asshole..
So i'll stick to my guns. You must be mentally ill. Don't whine. You gave us a rough treatment, so you get the same. Tit for tat, as they say. But I'm not making up anything as you do, but using your own statements against you.
Well, have a nice day.
-
And you still have missed three things. I'm not arguing in favour of Windows, I'm arguing against the irrational religious fervour that seems to overcome Linux fanboys. That includes you. It is unbecoming.
Bullshit. You are arguing in favour of windows, period. We all can clearly see that. You can try to spin that, but it's in vain.
Secondly, I'm not arguing against Linux; I'm arguing against what I think are the cruddy desktop apps that Linux users are lumbered with.
That's just your opinion. Many people do not think so. To state that libreoffice calc is bad because excel has a beautiful macro interface reveals you are arguing in favour of windows then and again, using any bullshit available.
Thirdly, I have stated repeatedly that I don't feel strongly about either OS per se, but I have a slight preference for Mint because it is closer to my all-time favourite, Windows 7. I also explained that the poor choice of Linux desktop apps is what keeps me using Windows.
Mint is not an OS, is just a part of debian disguised to look somehow familiar to poor windows users evicted by microsoft's behaviour. You clearly have a lot to learn. And you *do feel strongly* about windows, or you wouldn't be replying to each and every post from the opposition.
So I'm sorry, but I'm just not the guy you seem to need me to be.
At this time I already know your statements are full of shit.
You look like Conan the barbarian trying to fight the evil zombie hordes intending to rape his girlfriend. I wonder how much time you are spending in a so useless argument.
I'm spending time in this useless argument for two reasons. Firstly, I'm rather enjoying it. Secondly, my self-appointed job in this forum is to challenge every instance of unreasonable, irrational, prejudiced behaviour, along with all signs of dogmatism and religious fervour. Why? Because this forum is a haven of science, reason and rationality - that is what makes it so incredibly valuable. And people like you, with your swivel-eyed lunatic rants, are poisoning it.
Now you look like Jesus getting those merchants out of the temple by using that whip. Or like a crusader going to the holy land to massacre women and kids in the name of god. If there's somebody in this thread showing religious fervor, that's you.
You'd be better off, getting back to your usual intent about manufacturing consent for a war, against these evil chinese, that do nothing but to plot the demise of the most fair country in the planet -that united kingdom that never imposed opium trafficking on any other nation, you were just defending freedom of trade globally.
Do you think we are going to accept any self-appointed Messiah? Perhaps are you forum's owner? Are you a moderator? Have you any authority to impose your opinions here? You are the one experiencing religious fervor and giving lunatic rants. Please go pound sand.
Now i'm pretty sure your brains are really FUBAR. You need professional help. Please go see a doctor and take any pills he could order to you, even if the list of secondary effects is as long as your arm.
-
[...]
Maybe if you look out of your window instead of into the mirror? :-//
-
Yesterday I downgraded my Lab EE PC from W11 to W10 and deactivated the TPM in the BIOS.
All the rest of my computers will run Linux.
I also sold all my Microsoft stocks.
Thanks Microsoft for the ride! Bye bye for now.
What happened, did you find something you really didn't like or it inhibit you trying to do something?
-
And you still have missed three things. I'm not arguing in favour of Windows, I'm arguing against the irrational religious fervour that seems to overcome Linux fanboys. That includes you. It is unbecoming.
Bullshit. You are arguing in favour of windows, period. We all can clearly see that. You can try to spin that, but it's in vain.
Well, @tatel, it looks like you desperately need to demonise me! In particular you seem to need me to be a Windows fan. I find this fascinating. It's like you need an "enemy" or "opponent" to rant at, and because there is no such person on this thread, you have to create one. And you've chosen me! 😂
Unfortunately, doing so means you have to lie about what I said. Here are some inconvenient facts which expose your lies:
1/ Nowhere in this thread have I said anything nice about Windows (apart from W7) .
2/ Nowhere in this thread have I said anything unkind about Linux.
3/ The only Linux-related thing I have criticised is the app ecosystem, not the OS itself.
Those are FACTS. You CANNOT DENY THEM. So how on earth can you conclude that I am "arguing in favour of Windows"? Honestly, @tatel, this super-weird behaviour makes you look very irrational.
To state that libreoffice calc is bad because excel has a beautiful macro interface reveals you are arguing in favour of windows….
LIE. I said no such thing. You are putting words in my mouth, and then disagreeing with them! :-DD
Mint is not an OS, is just a part of debian disguised to look somehow familiar to poor windows users evicted by microsoft's behaviour. You clearly have a lot to learn.
Mint is not an OS?! O-o-o-kay. So I take it Ubuntu isn't an OS either?
This next bit is brilliant:
Now you look like Jesus getting those merchants out of the temple by using that whip. Or like a crusader going to the holy land to massacre women and kids in the name of god. If there's somebody in this thread showing religious fervor, that's you.
You'd be better off, getting back to your usual intent about manufacturing consent for a war, against these evil chinese, that do nothing but to plot the demise of the most fair country in the planet -that united kingdom that never imposed opium trafficking on any other nation, you were just defending freedom of trade globally.
:clap: <--------(well deserved)
Mate, maybe you should calm yourself or we'll be reading your eulogy. Having said that, it's clear you are projecting stuff onto me (AGAIN) in order to give yourself an enemy to shout at. Extraordinary, but a bit sad.
Now i'm pretty sure your brains are really FUBAR. You need professional help. Please go see a doctor and take any pills he could order to you, even if the list of secondary effects is as long as your arm.
And we finish with an ad hominem! Well done, @tatel! That was one of the most bizarre but enjoyable posts in this entire thread. Thanks for sharing. :-+
-
@tatel should watch it because they think that dependency hell doesn't exist. Even to the extent to claim I have mental problems if I have this issue.
@Cyclotron: Otherwise I would have to asses a fellow forum member is mentally ill, and since you are experiencing regularly broken updates, stated that linux is a bad ecosystem to do fleet management,
As I mentioned, if you do any real work on Linux, you'll run into this issue. It's unlikely to sway them as they have a holy war to fight.
You are quoting me about you experiencing regularly broken updates and you stating linux is a bad ecosystem for fleet management. but trying to spin it, to be about dependency hell. Ludicrous.
Well, have a nice day.
@tatel, You took sentences out of a paragraph about dependency hell and spun that, and then tried to gaslight me and everyone else into you being correct. You are not. You don't get to put words in my mouth and then call me mentally ill.
Here's my paragraph about dependency hell with full context.
It also, in my experience, has regular breaking updates. Every time I turn around lately, I have to recompile the NVIDIA CUDA drivers, for instance. And no Windows user ever heard of "dependency hell."
If you don't understand these concepts, you should ask. I get paid for my work, and I work on Linux. See Linus's video.
You posted here to gin up support for your favorite Linux Desktop, and only just now say you don't use a GUI. You need to think more and say less.
Why do you claim I want my employer to buy something? That's strange. I posted facts. If you have an argument with facts, I have a wall too.
Let's be clear, you are arguing for the superiority of Linux in a thread about Windows 11 dying. It's off topic. The thread already proved that the subject line is a false statement. Linux Desktop does not compete with Windows Desktop, and for the reasons Linus stated and more. Your claims have been proven false.
Where did I "give you rough treatment"? :-DD
Is that more things you've imagined or taken out of context?
Calm down, take a breath. There's no reason to use profanity or call me mentally ill.
-
Calm down, take a breath. There's no reason to use profanity or call me mentally ill.
Ah, that's two of us who are mentally ill just because we disagree with him.
-
Calm down, take a breath. There's no reason to use profanity or call me mentally ill.
Ah, that's two of us who are mentally ill just because we disagree with him!
You know, when you see that much hand-waving, name-calling, and hostility, one has to wonder.
I have posted reasoned, well-supported points. Provided a fair Good/Bad for all OSs. One might say I've been a die-hard reasonable person.
It gave me a good chuckle that wall of meaningless words. When I read their diatribe and consider this previous quote.
You can think what you want, but i'm much better at trolling that anything i posted on this thread... 8)
Maybe there are some real gems out there in other threads or on the interwebs; they do claim they are better at trolling than they've been in this thread.
One would hope so, as this showing has been amateur at best.
@Tatel, pro-tip, trolling is supposed to upset others, not yourself. And it's not supposed to be obvious. All of us see what you're doing; the amusement only lasts so long.
-
@tatel: just a quick question:
Why does your little avatar picture look like a penis head?
Is that intentional?
-
You know, when you see that much hand-waving, name-calling, and hostility, one has to wonder.
[snip]
@Tatel, pro-tip, trolling is supposed to upset others, not yourself.
Poor old @tatel - he does seem to have got himself into a right old state.
-
@tatel: just a quick question:
Why does your little avatar picture look like a penis head?
Is that intentional?
AK, no, no, no, now I'm worried. We both saw that. Maybe we do have common ground. :-DD
-
@tatel: just a quick question:
Why does your little avatar picture look like a penis head?
Is that intentional?
AK, no, no, no, now I'm worried. We both saw that. Maybe we do have common ground. :-DD
You mean our minds run in the same gutter?
Frightening thought, that.
-
Yesterday I ran an update (kernel), and now my Owon USB oscilloscope stopped being recognized :palm:. It will work only after sending a command on the terminal.
Stuff like that happens also on windows. With computer I always had good and bad periods alternating (when you think it is working too well suddenly something bad appens).
But I expect this kind of probems on something so complicated (In this case is due to Owon using the same ID for different devices, and linux adding support for one of them and not considering the others).
At least on linux you can easily delay an update and run it only when you are ready. (Unlike windows often running updates in the worst moment).
What pisses me off with windows is that often they aren't adding shit by "mistake" ("it was a mistake" classic excuse)
-
Yesterday I ran an update (kernel), and now my Owon USB oscilloscope stopped being recognized :palm:. It will work only after sending a command on the terminal.
Stuff like that happens also on windows.
Not if you favour Windows 7 - no more updates :-DD
-
Sorry, no more time for nonsense now. Perhaps next week end... 8)
-
Yesterday I ran an update (kernel), and now my Owon USB oscilloscope stopped being recognized :palm:. It will work only after sending a command on the terminal.
You have obviously rebooted? I know it's not a common thing for Linux to ask to reboot, but a kernel is one exception.
Do you know the modules the owon is/was using? If any were added by you from external sources they would need recompiled usually.
Linux is a monolithic kernel, do not let the "modules" fool you. They are statically linked effectively.
On not loading until "provoked". It could be udev rules waiting until they see the whites of it's eyes before allocating a drvier. This is common with use devices with multiple end points.
A hardcoded udev rule for the owon might fix this.
-
Yesterday I ran an update (kernel), and now my Owon USB oscilloscope stopped being recognized :palm:. It will work only after sending a command on the terminal.
Perhaps related to this;
https://github.com/florentbr/OWON-VDS1022/issues/109
https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=162942
-
Perhaps related to this;
https://github.com/florentbr/OWON-VDS1022/issues/109
https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=162942
Yes, for now I added a keyboard shortcut to get it working.
mate-terminal -e "sudo rmmod usb_serial_simple"
It's a pity because you can download the software directly from the mint store, and it was plug and play (much better than windows where you had to mess with drivers)
Not if you favour Windows 7 - no more updates :-DD
We have a win7 PC, always impeccable, never an issue. It has an uptime of months and the only restarts it gets are due to power outages :-DD
You have obviously rebooted? I know it's not a common thing for Linux to ask to reboot, but a kernel is one exception.
Yes, known issue. It is Owon fault really :-[. Too bad I love this scope
-
The thing is, all computer systems have irritating things you can't really call bugs, because things are just so complicated and everything interacts with everything else. Touch somewhere, and something else breaks - need to google for a workaround, apply magical commands or clicks to solve...
Fanboys tend to be certain such nuisances don't exist in their systems. Windows and Mac fanboys are worst here, linux fanboys usually admit linux needs tinkering on command line to keep normal things operating - many even supposedly like it (Stockholm syndrome?)
Perfect example would be a friend who believes that Apple products are those perfectly polished little things where everything Just Works, with polished UI and core features. And yet, he arrives to every Teams meeting with microphone down to nearly mute levels, and lately he explained that now he found a workaround, involving restarting the sound service, guess what, from command line, but that still doesn't do the trick every time, and that maybe a hotkey could be assigned for restarting the sound service.
Sounds familiar? Sounds similar to what life was on Windows back when I used it (except, maybe clicking around regedit instead of command line); or what life is on linux, which I have been using as the desktop OS since 2014-2015 or so, sometimes is.
But in the big picture quirks like that are not too serious to kill productivity in any of those systems. Similarly for blue screens which are mostly non-issue, and in rare cases where they affect your life seriously it's just actually broken hardware.
Which is why I mention forced and slow updates being the real problem of Windows since 7 or so - to me it doesn't matter even if MS fixes every bug in both OS and every driver, 3rd party included with some unicorn magic dust so that it never crashes again; the fact that shutdown may take 2 hours and start-up another 2 hours when I least expect it, or that it restarts on its own, is orders of magnitude worse as productivity killer. The fact it's intentional doesn't help the slightest, in fact the opposite, it irritates me even more, "they chose to do that to me, deliberately - they think my time is worth absolutely nothing".
And so it's the question of paying. SteveThackery reminds us repeatedly how he is willing to pay for good software, well who isn't? But put a cost to your time as well, and things get interesting. Solving audio problem on command line? Less than $0.50, probably? Windows crashing to bluescreen? Not much, you reboot, start some applications again, hopefully you saved your work (if not, you are the only to blame), so maybe $2? Windows applying updates for 2 hours? Dunno, like $100-$1000 depending on your job title? Forced reboot during night when your development PC is datalogging - can be anything, say, $10000? Probably own fault using Windows for datalogging, then again this is what happens in real life, maybe you are interfacing with some specialty sensor which came with Windows-only datalogging tool :-DD
So in the full price of everything, serious incidents to workflow/productivity will always dominate above any buying price of the software itself.
-
Yes this is why I am on win7-64 for doing actual work, have been for years and probably will be for 10 more years.
Win10 also works fine... if you put Classic Shell (win7 lookalike) on it :)
Win10 runs OK in a VM, provided the host is top level spec.
Simplix still updates win7-64 which is amazing. I've just updated my various win7-64 VMs.
The problem with the above is
- you are not allowed to do it in some nauseous big-corporate environment (have to use win11 because M$ "do not support" win10)
- Chrome and Firefox no longer work with some websites which have broken bits unless you are win10+ (Supermium solves that though)
- Autodesk Fusion needs win11 if you want to open .f3d (native format) design files from other people
- most rented software (CAD/EDA etc) will screw you eventually
There is no escape ultimately, no matter which way you go, windoze, linux, apple... and windoze runs all the tools one needs in engineering
-
The thing is, all computer systems have irritating things you can't really call bugs, because things are just so complicated and everything interacts with everything else. Touch somewhere, and something else breaks - need to google for a workaround, apply magical commands or clicks to solve...
Fanboys tend to be certain such nuisances don't exist in their systems. Windows and Mac fanboys are worst here, linux fanboys usually admit linux needs tinkering on command line to keep normal things operating - many even supposedly like it (Stockholm syndrome?)
Perfect example would be a friend who believes that Apple products are those perfectly polished little things where everything Just Works, with polished UI and core features. And yet, he arrives to every Teams meeting with microphone down to nearly mute levels, and lately he explained that now he found a workaround, involving restarting the sound service, guess what, from command line, but that still doesn't do the trick every time, and that maybe a hotkey could be assigned for restarting the sound service.
Sounds familiar? Sounds similar to what life was on Windows back when I used it (except, maybe clicking around regedit instead of command line); or what life is on linux, which I have been using as the desktop OS since 2014-2015 or so, sometimes is.
But in the big picture quirks like that are not too serious to kill productivity in any of those systems. Similarly for blue screens which are mostly non-issue, and in rare cases where they affect your life seriously it's just actually broken hardware.
Which is why I mention forced and slow updates being the real problem of Windows since 7 or so - to me it doesn't matter even if MS fixes every bug in both OS and every driver, 3rd party included with some unicorn magic dust so that it never crashes again; the fact that shutdown may take 2 hours and start-up another 2 hours when I least expect it, or that it restarts on its own, is orders of magnitude worse as productivity killer. The fact it's intentional doesn't help the slightest, in fact the opposite, it irritates me even more, "they chose to do that to me, deliberately - they think my time is worth absolutely nothing".
And so it's the question of paying. SteveThackery reminds us repeatedly how he is willing to pay for good software, well who isn't? But put a cost to your time as well, and things get interesting. Solving audio problem on command line? Less than $0.50, probably? Windows crashing to bluescreen? Not much, you reboot, start some applications again, hopefully you saved your work (if not, you are the only to blame), so maybe $2? Windows applying updates for 2 hours? Dunno, like $100-$1000 depending on your job title? Forced reboot during night when your development PC is datalogging - can be anything, say, $10000? Probably own fault using Windows for datalogging, then again this is what happens in real life, maybe you are interfacing with some specialty sensor which came with Windows-only datalogging tool :-DD
So in the full price of everything, serious incidents to workflow/productivity will always dominate above any buying price of the software itself.
Welcome to the @tatel mentally ill club. Per them, if you have update problems on Linux, you must be mentally ill.
I tinker with all my OSs, and it's a must given my hobbies and work.
I don't mind paying for pro/enterprise licenses (10 bucks) for Windows. I also have a couple of Windows Server licenses for testing.
My workflow includes updates, so I handle them on my schedule. Given the number of people talking about frustrations with forced MS Windows updates, I can only assume I am the odd one. I can't recall a forced update causing me to watch grass grow.
On most of my Windows instances, updates occur on Microsoft's schedule because they can manage their own sleep/wake cycles. On 2 others, I run updates according to my lab update schedule. Wednesday of the 2nd week of the month, the day after patch Tuesday.
As I've mentioned, I'm dealing with issues caused by updates all over. Linux takes the most time because of LLM work and other CUDA-accelerated applications. The Proxmox update requires CUDA recompilation; the Linux VMs and LXCs must receive the same patches and undergo the same recompilations. I've scripted some of it, but I do all validation by hand because of the failure rate.
The most insidious driver issue I suffer on Windows is the F'ing serial driver for FTDI and them claiming some chips are not genuine. Flipping National Instruments does the same thing on GPIB and on both Windows and Linux. Those are just examples of having to F'with-it, and again, it's the nature of being in certain professions and hobbies.
The vast majority of users are well served and deserve no compulsion to update. I had a friend of the family who begged for my help. They had believed the Marketing garbage from Apple and gone years without an update, and suddenly, crap broke, and their bank account was breached. Guess what they should have done? I hate the friends-and-family call out: "Oh, call him, he's a nerd and can help you fix it." So I call my brother, who's a mechanic, to change my oil. He didn't think it was funny.
-
Which is why I mention forced and slow updates being the real problem of Windows since 7 or so - to me it doesn't matter even if MS fixes every bug in both OS and every driver, 3rd party included with some unicorn magic dust so that it never crashes again; the fact that shutdown may take 2 hours and start-up another 2 hours when I least expect it.....
I spend most of my time in Windows and I very much agree: the number one annoyance, and it's a big one, is updates happening automatically. Presumably Microsoft doesn't trust its users to update manually, which is pretty outrageous and shows a lack of respect for its customers.
Take Android for example: that prompts the user when an update is ready. So Google trusts its users to update their system or their apps at a time convenient to them. Microsoft should do the same.
SteveThackery reminds us repeatedly how he is willing to pay for good software, well who isn't?
Lots of people, as far as I can tell. Especially Linux desktop users (again, as far as I can tell). But also Windows users. When I suggested people spend 10 bucks for Start11 because it eliminates 90% of the daily annoyances of W11, the first reaction I heard was "I don't see why I should have to pay money to fix Microsoft's mess!"
Well, in an ideal world, neither do I. But it's pragmatic - we aren't in an ideal world. 10 bucks is, what, three cups of coffee? Well, trust me, Start11 is money well spent - it will bring you much more happiness than three cups of coffee.
About Linux desktop users: I have frequently said that they don't seem willing to pay for their software. I still think that is largely true, but having thought more about it, I wonder if it is really the principle of open source that they feel strongly about, rather than "free as in beer". I've checked, and there are very few open source applications that require payment, so maybe that amounts to the same thing.
-
is updates happening automatically
You can disable updates.
prompts the user when an update is ready
So does win11.
-
About Linux desktop users: I have frequently said that they don't seem willing to pay for their software. I still think that is largely true, but having thought more about it, I wonder if it is really the principle of open source that they feel strongly about, rather than "free as in beer". I've checked, and there are very few open source applications that require payment, so maybe that amounts to the same thing.
I'm sure I've mentioned the conflation of different types of free before. The value of open, free standards and tooling (and yes, that includes desktop apps) cannot be overstated. I value open formats anyone can work with, not just those who've purchased the latest edition of $INSERT_APP_HERE, far more than I value a flashy new UI.
-
You can disable updates.
Only temporarily, I think?
But I take your point. To me it's like Windows updates are automatic, and it's up to the user to defer them. Linux updates are entirely controlled by the user. It feels different.
-
I'm sure I've mentioned the conflation of different types of free before. The value of open, free standards and tooling (and yes, that includes desktop apps) cannot be overstated. I value open formats anyone can work with, not just those who've purchased the latest edition of $INSERT_APP_HERE, far more than I value a flashy new UI.
You don't need to mention it - we understand it. I don't believe anyone likes proprietary file formats apart from the vendors themselves. That's why the Open Document Format got established. Plus the hundreds of other formats that are also effectively open.
If by "tooling" you mean the apps that work with those files, like LibreOffice, then I disagree profoundly. I've said it before: without the motivation to make money, the app development gets left to volunteers, and that's why LibreOffice feels like a '90s product with bits of functionality bodged on and a mess of a UI.
Why should the tools themselves be free and open source? It removes any incentive for a company to invest and innovate, because their intellectual property is given away immediately. I think open source has failed - it results in mediocre software that remains essentially unchanged for years or decades. Also, why should someone's hard work not be remunerated?
So, we agree that data should be stored in open formats because it actually encourages competition - nobody is excluded from trying to develop a superior word processor, for example. But having to open source everything you develop discourages competition. If there's no money to be made, why bother?
-
Why should the tools themselves be free and open source?
Why should they not? An open option does not mean you can't make proprietary software, and it does not imply that money cannot be made.
I think open source has failed
The success of open source development is behind almost every service and piece of software you use every day, including proprietary ones. Even if you want to retroactively limit that sentence to 'for desktop application development', you must consider that said open source desktop software, hardly having failed, is in routine use by those developers and many users, and actively encourages proprietary tooling to make itself worthwhile.
But having to open source everything you develop discourages competition. If there's no money to be made, why bother?
You don't have to open source everything you develop. Nobody is arguing you should. You're strawmanning desperately.
There is plenty of money to be made, for those who consider that the only reason to do anything - and there are reasons beyond money.
E: Self-moderated, I know better.
-
You can disable updates for ever.
There are several configs for this, with the most flexible in the registry, or in the admin policy files (editable with .msc stuff). You can google it. Honestly, it is no issue and if you want a PC to stay the same, you can just do that. I always disable auto updates because auto updates can break stuff.
-
Honestly, I'm not straw manning deliberately. I absolutely accept that I have only a superficial understanding of the ins and outs of open source.
I wonder if I could ask some questions to clarify things, because I am genuinely here to learn, and change my mind if necessary.
Referring to open source applications:
Why should they not? An open option does not mean you can't make proprietary software, and it does not imply that money cannot be made.
So how does that work in practice? Imagine I come up with a great new concept for working on ODF files; I recruit 20 programmers and we spend a year developing this new application. I've had to borrow money to pay the programmers, but the investor was OK about it because he was expecting to see a lot of sales, which will give a great return on the investment.
If I open source this software, others can pick it up, change the splash screen, and put it out there free of charge. They can do that because they didn’t have to pay anyone to write the software. So when it's out there free of charge, why would anyone pay for it? How does the original investor get his money back?
You don't have to open source everything you develop. Nobody is arguing you should. You're strawmanning desperately.
No, not desperately. Not even deliberately.
There is plenty of money to be made, for those who consider that the only reason to do anything - and there are reasons beyond money.
I've got all the usual open source applications on my Mint installation, including LibreOffice. I didn't pay for them. I don't pay to use them, so nobody is making any money from me. So how is the "plenty of money" actually made?
The success of open source development is behind almost every service and piece of software you use every day, including proprietary ones. Even if you want to retroactively limit that sentence to 'for desktop application development', you must consider that said open source desktop software, hardly having failed, is in routine use by those developers and many users, and actively encourages proprietary tooling to make itself worthwhile.
I'm sorry, I was actually thinking of Linux desktop programs. I can imagine that all those Linux servers in the cloud have all sorts of specialised programs to provide the functionality and management tools they require. And I can see the end users paying money to the software developers for maintenance contracts.
Where I'm stuck is when it comes to people like me. Even if LibreOffice (say) is widely used by companies and individuals, they haven't paid for the privilege, and certainly they won't be paying for a support contract because LibreOffice doesn't need support: everyone knows how to use it.
These are genuine questions, not challenges. I have no interest in arguing, except to repeat one last point. When I say "open source doesn't work" it's because I look at the big applications in the Linux desktop world and - in my judgement - they really are old-fashioned, ugly, klunky, with steep learning curves and obscure workflows. It seems to me they don't get the level of attention from their developers that Windows apps do.
-
Referring to open source applications:
Why should they not? An open option does not mean you can't make proprietary software, and it does not imply that money cannot be made.
So how does that work in practice? Imagine I come up with a great new concept for working on ODF files; I recruit 20 programmers and we spend a year developing this new application. I've had to borrow money to pay the programmers, but the investor was OK about it because he was expecting to see a lot of sales, which will give a great return on the investment.
If I open source this software, others can pick it up, change the splash screen, and put it out there free of charge. They can do that because they didn’t have to pay anyone to write the software. So when it's out there free of charge, why would anyone pay for it? How does the original investor get his money back?
Why did you decide to do it as open source? Again, proprietary software can exist. You're conflating my desire for open options with a desire for all software to be open source. Your fantastic new concept can stay proprietary as long as you like.
I and many others believe open source tooling must exist in order to support open standards. That doesn't place any burden or you or anyone else to create it - those who want it will do so and find ways to finance it.
Where I'm stuck is when it comes to people like me. Even if LibreOffice (say) is widely used by companies and individuals, they haven't paid for the privilege, and certainly they won't be paying for a support contract because LibreOffice doesn't need support: everyone knows how to use it.
Who says they haven't? The Document Foundation, the non-profit which supports LibreOffice, took in just about €1.4bnm in 2024. People who use this software, like it, and feel it should continue to exist and develop.. contribute. Financially and otherwise. Yeah, it's a non-profit - as I said, motivations other than money exist. On the LibreOffice site, you'll find they link to individuals and businesses which offer training (after all, nobody pops out of the womb knowing how to drive an office suite, any office suite), targeted development, accelerated bug fixing, and so forth.
-
Most mfgs get around the OS requirements.
For example Nokia used some OS stuff, so they published that, but the published bit was of no use to anybody for recreating a phone.
If you develop a product with some OS software in it, you can do that, or you just point people to where it is and the licensing terms (in the user manual). Nobody will be able to rip off your product because they won't get the part which you wrote.
We had a long thread on this recently.
-
Why did you decide to do it as open source? Again, proprietary software can exist. You're conflating my desire for open options with a desire for all software to be open source. Your fantastic new concept can stay proprietary as long as you like.
Ah, OK, I see. For example SoftMaker Office is available for Linux desktops, but you have to pay for it. Therefore I'm guessing it isn't open source. However, it sits alongside LibreOffice, which is.
I and many others believe open source tooling must exist in order to support open standards.
I don't think I quite see the logic there. Microsoft Word will save documents in ODF and it isn't open source. I don't see why open source standards require open source applications.
The Document Foundation, the non-profit which supports LibreOffice, took in just about €1.4bn in 2024. People who use this software, like it, and feel it should continue to exist and develop.. contribute. Financially and otherwise.
That's an impressive amount of money, and I guess principally from donations. Plus, as you say, payment for accelerated bug fixes, extra features, etc.
This has been very helpful - thank you. I am still left with the same problem I started with, which is that I don't think the applications available to Linux desktop users are, in general, anywhere near as good as those for Windows.
------
PS: I must say, for €1.4bn I would have expected to see a lot more evolution in the LibreOffice applications. €1.4bn buys a massive amount of manpower, and yet LibreOffice in 2025 looks awfully like it did in 2024 and 2023. If we assume it costs $200k per developer per annum (which is surely generous) then that's 7000 developers. Of course, a lot of the money goes in building costs and the like. Even if half of it goes that way, we're still left with 3500 developers. OK, OK, let's say just one seventh of the total revenue gets spent on developing LibreOffice. 1000 developers. That's a helluva development team.
By way of contrast, Serif in the UK employed approximately 90 employees (so fewer than that actual developers). They released the first two apps after six years, and the third application after 10 years. So 900 man-years (a lot less really) to go from zero to three world-leading products which attracted universal praise.
So what on earth is the Document Foundation spending all that money on?
-
I don't think I quite see the logic there. Microsoft Word will save documents in ODF and it isn't open source. I don't see why open source standards require open source applications.
Because it is about the principle of not being tied to a proprietary tool you do not control. Open standards without open tooling cannot be freely worked with, you remain beholden to others to interact with them. The moment that tooling is inadequate or broken, you are lost - open tooling is a necessity or you will have to reinvent the wheel day in, day out.
Microsoft did not implement support for ODF willingly. They had to be forced into it.
PS: I must say, for €1.4bn I would have expected to see a lot more evolution in the LibreOffice applications.
My apologies, I made a gross error while multitasking, that was €1.4m. Which certainly makes more sense. In my defense, they're European - they get , and . confused to the detriment of all.
-
Microsoft did not implement support for ODF willingly. They had to be forced into it.
I don't think that's accurate. Sun created the XML format on which ODF is based for OpenOffice. That work was done by SGML Open and was later renamed the
Microsoft was a founding member and funded OASIS and the development of ODF while also developing its own XML format.
Your statement appears to imply that some legal entity forced Microsoft, and that they supported it unwillingly. Microsoft went to market with what they felt was superior. The ODF became relevant to their products due to market changes. Large customers would not accept products that didn't include it, so MS added the format to their product. Market forces, or voluntary changes to adapt to changing markets and win business, sound a lot different than what you implied.
That was back when Munich famously decided to move to Open and away from MS. That whole debacle failed and cost a fortune, only to go back to MS a few years later. These costly mass migrations are because MS is bad, the US is bad, something else is bad, but reliance on fuel and power from obviously problematic areas is surreal. There's more anti-MS migrations going on now, and if history repeats as it often does, they'll just go back in and pay huge sums to do so.
-
I don't think that's accurate.
Large customers would not accept products that didn't include it, so MS added the format to their product.
Forced, coerced, incentivised - pick your term. It wasn't their intention to support the format.
-
I don't think that's accurate.
Large customers would not accept products that didn't include it, so MS added the format to their product.
Forced, coerced, incentivised - pick your term. It wasn't their intention to support the format.
If you feel better by mischaracterizing it, ok. As long as you're just as amicable to characterize Linux's support for any Microsoft protocol or standard as "Linux did not implement support for MS protocol/standard willingly. They had to be forced into it."
-
New just in, Win11 just died. RIP.
Win12 was suppose to be out in 2024. Still waiting.
-
Not really. Google on win11 versions and update support dates from M$.
"Support" means nothing unless you are a corporate user and need to tick the "supported" box.
Munich town council dropping linux and going back to windoze is unsurprising, if you want compatibility with other people.
A lot of people had a laugh at the time
https://www.itprotoday.com/linux-os/munich-officially-drops-windows-adopts-linux (https://www.itprotoday.com/linux-os/munich-officially-drops-windows-adopts-linux)
-
Win12 was suppose to be out in 2024. Still waiting.
I've often thought how arbitrary version numbering can be. The Windows internal version numbers have differed from the market version number, and some "major" releases have been considered a "point" release internally.
[attachimg=1, width=350]
Windows appears to be under continuous development, so deciding when to launch the "next" version - and what will be in it - seems fairly arbitrary.
-
That was back when Munich famously decided to move to Open and away from MS. That whole debacle failed and cost a fortune, only to go back to MS a few years later.
They returned to MS because of a new mayor and successful lobbying by MS. But this is not the end of the story. Schleswig-Holstein (state) goes Linux (25k PCs) and Frankfurt/Main too (13k PCs and 2.5k servers), for example.
-
Win12 was suppose to be out in 2024. Still waiting.
I've often thought how arbitrary version numbering can be. The Windows internal version numbers have differed from the market version number, and some "major" releases have been considered a "point" release internally.
(Attachment Link)
Windows appears to be under continuous development, so deciding when to launch the "next" version - and what will be in it - seems fairly arbitrary.
Remember NT is just the kernel, not the entire OS, the same as Linux is a kernel, which is distributed with other software to form a complete OS i.e. a GNU/Linux distribution.
Microsoft clearly change the rest of their operating system more than the kernel. Cynics such as myself, believe they change the UI more than anything else, for marketing purposes.
-
Consider that the most modern .Net platform is completely cross platform and at least partially open source.
Microsoft had no choice. To be "Cloud Native" they need to have software which executes on Linux for containerisation platforms. Without a cross platform enterprise runtime they would have disappeared in the cloud space entirely.
Azure runs primarily on Linux. Very likely based on "Open Stack" at the core.
-
Randy222, I'm pretty sure there was never supposed to even be a Wn 11, let alone Win 12. M$ did say that Windows 10 would be the "last" Windows OS and from then on it would just get "service pack"-like "upgrades" rather than fresh new systems.
peter-h, "Munich town council dropping linux and going back to windoze is unsurprising, if you want compatibility with other people." For the most part anyone on Linux can share files with Windows users, and vice-versa just fine. Sometimes formatting gets messed up a bit when docs get transferred back and forth between LibreOffice and M$ Office, regardless of whether the docs change format or whether they stays consistently in docx or in odt format. The same sort of formatting f*** ups happen when transferring a doc back and forth between users of different M$ office versions too. Only a moronic bureaucracy with an absolute obsession with formatting, and no willingness to accept a simpler formatting (just stick to text and images alone), is going to find problems here. Maybe they went back to Windows for other reasons, but if format compatibility with M$ users was their reason then they should have redesigned their document styling to be less likely to break when converted. The trick for any organisation moving from Windows to Linux is a) to keep some Windows computers for any specialists using Windows only software (particular CAD packages or such) until you can pay someone to improve Wine such that they can then run on Linux (hint: any big organisation paying for Wine developers is going to be able to get a good reputation among the geek community) and b) if you're the kind of organisation which hires a whole department to check the size of margins and formatting bars with a ruler, sack them all, embrace some tolerance for variation in this sort of thing.
Cyclotron, "Linux did not implement support for MS protocol/standard willingly. They had to be forced into it." This actually shows up a major difference between M$'s philosophy and Linux. Linux software often does try, though not always achieve, compatibility with Windows file formats, because they know this will make the software more useful to people. M$ prefers to simply ignore the competition, user experience be damned. Linux tries to support common standards because they know than not everyone can be a purist. Windows occasionally tries to sound sympathetic to common standards, but would very much like to have everyone back in to a walled garden.
-
Sometimes formatting gets messed up a bit when docs get transferred back and forth between LibreOffice and M$ Office
I'm sorry for the developers but I think LibreOffice is one big enemy of Linux.
Most users are fine with a browser and an office suite.
When you download a .docx or .pptx you want to open it and just work. If you find your document corrupted or messed up the day of the exam you won't be happy.
LibreOffice is the bad stereotype of open source. It is "sold" as 98% perfect, better than office, but in reality is slow and fails even with basic stuff. (I think the gui is not an issue, it is a question of getting used).
It is the default suite in most distros because they can trust it in being constant.
I think it shouldn't be the default, they should let you choose when first installing linux since there are better alternatives (even if not free).
-
Sometimes formatting gets messed up a bit when docs get transferred back and forth between LibreOffice and M$ Office
That makes Libre pretty much completely useless - yet it was this (the cost of M$ Office) which was the main driver towards linux.
If you are going to pay for a linux office suite, then why bother changing away from windoze? There is frankly no point whatsoever, once you cost in the cost of losing the system support expertise etc.
It was worked out decades ago that the transition from mainframes/minis (and dumb terminals) to a PC on every desk did not save money, largely because every office ended up with an "expert" who wasted a lot of his time fixing people's PCs. Certainly productivity was generally higher with the dumb terminal setup. I used to run an accounting / order processing package in the 1980s, called Anagram, with the "mainframe" being a PC running DR Concurrent DOS. It worked great.
And with linux you probably won't have any local "expert" because almost nobody uses linux - outside the academic and electronics sphere.
-
If you are going to pay for a linux office suite, then why bother changing away from windoze? There is frankly no point whatsoever, once you cost in the cost of losing the system support expertise etc.
Well, you can use libreOffice (and almost all office suites) on windows. If I/we are moving to linux it is not to be cheap, but to have something better, because we are tired of microsoft deciding what is better for us.
Now I'm using onlyoffice, free when installed on your PC, and seems fine for everyday stuff.
-
I'm sorry for the developers but I think LibreOffice is one big enemy of Linux.
Most users are fine with a browser and an office suite.
When you download a .docx or .pptx you want to open it and just work. If you find your document corrupted or messed up the day of the exam you won't be happy.
LibreOffice is the bad stereotype of open source. It is "sold" as 98% perfect, better than office, but in reality is slow and fails even with basic stuff. (I think the gui is not an issue, it is a question of getting used).
It is the default suite in most distros because they can trust it in being constant.
I think it shouldn't be the default, they should let you choose when first installing linux since there are better alternatives (even if not free).
I am using Linux Mint and I can generally get by with LibreOffice Writer but sometimes I just go back to Word 2003 because Writer can be a pain. For example, in Word if I want to replace two consecutive paragraph marks with a single one I use "^p" to represent a paragraph mark and so I replace "^p^p" with "^p" throughout the document and it just works.
Doing the same thing in Writer is a PITA because it uses "$" to search for paragraph marks but only if the paragraphs are not empty. An empty paragraph is "^$" but "$^$" will not find a regular paragraph followed by an empty paragraph.
And then if you want to replace something with a paragraph you don't use "$" but something else. So a paragraph mark is represented by al least three different things depending on context. And for all this you need to "enable regular expressions" so it feels more like advanced programing rather than just editing a document. Forget it.
The people who make these things should just copy Windows programs and stop pretending Linux users are advanced programmers. I am most definitely not.
-
If I/we are moving to linux it is not to be cheap, but to have something better, because we are tired of microsoft deciding what is better for us.
But... is it better?
The reality is that M$ Orifice does work just fine. Even Office 1997 (my favourite £10 Ebay job) works perfectly :) Or Office 2007 if you want to go really modern.
IMHO ultimately the issue is that if M$ "drop support" for Windows XX then a "compliant corporate" cannot run it anymore because they feel they cannot tick the due diligence box. Does linux solve this? It undoubtedly slows it down, but recently I had to install latest Debian on a machine (for somebody else to run code on) and it needed a fairly recent CPU. I actually ran it in a VMWARE VM but it had to be a recent edition.
I guess the most powerful person in a big company is the LGBTQ+ compliance officer. The second most powerful is the windows support compliance officer ;)
The reason Ebay is full of Lenovo mini PCs, ex win10 and not win11 compliant (no TPM module but have UEFI and secure boot) is because a load of big firms chucked them out, wasting many millions. Then "criminal gangs" sell them as "win11" with a Rufus-hacked win11 install ;)
-
But... is it better?
The reality is that M$ Orifice...
We are talking of Windows 11 / Linux. Not only microsoft office Vs libreoffice.
M$ Orifice does work just fine. Even Office 1997 works perfectly
I would say "in particular office 97". We have a 25 year old laptop with office 97 and I love it. Super fast and solid (everything is so "mechanical", in comparison office 365 is so "disconnected"), too bad for no docx support. 2007 is the perfect middle point: good support and stable, some says it runs with wine.
If you want to go that route, just use windows 7, office 2007 (If I had the choice, I would do that and bin Linux, sorry :-DD). But I wanted to try something different (since you'll need some tweaking to get win7 working, while hoping in not getting malware).
-
That was back when Munich famously decided to move to Open and away from MS. That whole debacle failed and cost a fortune, only to go back to MS a few years later.
They returned to MS because of a new mayor and successful lobbying by MS. But this is not the end of the story. Schleswig-Holstein (state) goes Linux (25k PCs) and Frankfurt/Main too (13k PCs and 2.5k servers), for example.
I don't think anyone has any doubt that politics had a play in either change. As politics is the reason for the other migrations you mentioned. I mentioned the same political reasons, and there are others.
But the data shows there were massive problems with the Munich migration to Linux. Half or more of specialized government applications wouldn't run on Linux.
The big one was user dissatisfaction and massive hits to productivity.
It will be interesting to see if these new migrations have learned anything from the science experiment that Munich ran; I doubt it. I suspect, like Munich it will just be a giant waste of public funds.
-
The malware attack vectors are not the OS. It is infected emails (together with the virus magnet called Outlook) and browsing dodgy (p0rn etc) websites :) Even winXP will never get infected just by being internet-connected.
Win2000 would get infected if not behind a standard NAT router, due to some vulnerability to a particular packet which was transmitted 24/7 to every IP. Many years ago now...
-
When a document, made in Libreoffice, doesn't look correct in ms-office, it's the fault of Libreoffice.
When a document, made in ms-office, doesn't look correct in Libreoffice, it's the fault of Libreoffice.
When a document, made in ms-office version x, doesn't look correct in ms-office version y, that's normal!
-
The malware attack vectors are not the OS. It is infected emails (together with the virus magnet called Outlook) and browsing dodgy (p0rn etc) websites :) Even winXP will never get infected just by being internet-connected.
I'm not so sure about WinXP. If memory serves me well, at some point I tried to install WinXP on a computer with a direct internet connection and it got infected faster than I could download the updates. Nowadays it is crazy to think that at one point most PCs (even the ones in offices!) had direct internet connections with public IP addresses.
-
Cyclotron, "Linux did not implement support for MS protocol/standard willingly. They had to be forced into it." This actually shows up a major difference between M$'s philosophy and Linux. Linux software often does try, though not always achieve, compatibility with Windows file formats, because they know this will make the software more useful to people. M$ prefers to simply ignore the competition, user experience be damned. Linux tries to support common standards because they know than not everyone can be a purist. Windows occasionally tries to sound sympathetic to common standards, but would very much like to have everyone back in to a walled garden.
Let's put my statement back into context. "Both Linux and M$ respond to the market."
Now, I'm going to state things that I feel are self-evident and factual. These aren't meant to ding Linux or M$, though I'm using your implied "greed" reference to Microsoft.
The Linux Desktop application development community doesn't just "often try"; it "always tries" to emulate and provide a M$-compatible environment. The Linux Desktop environment is defined by this attribute as much as it is defined by the Microsoft standards. M$ defines the standards as products and formats. They do not look to make their product compatible with others.
Stop for a minute and consider that M$ is a public company. They are governed by many laws and oversight, but in the US, the primary law that could put their executives in prison is failure to uphold their fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders. This isn't a political reason; it's a legal reason. M$ invests large sums of money in Linux where it makes sense. That is primarily around Azure and the Cloud, but also their developer and IDE stuff. You can run your Linux directly in Microsoft Windows, and that's there because the market (developers) wanted it.
M$ has the dominant Office product, the dominant Desktop product, and by a large margin the largest IDE share. Most of the Linux developers I work with each day use VS Code and Visual Studio. M$ defined that as a standard because the end users picked it.
If the market has significant demand for M$ to develop open standards, it will comply. Linux Desktops do not generally define standards, they adopt those of others and this is due to the same market forces.
This is why its always the fault of the copying product when things don't work right for interoperability.
-
When a document, made in Libreoffice, doesn't look correct in ms-office, it's the fault of Libreoffice.
When a document, made in ms-office, doesn't look correct in Libreoffice, it's the fault of Libreoffice.
When a document, made in ms-office version x, doesn't look correct in ms-office version y, that's normal!
As I pointed out in an above post. The fidelity and compatibility of the copy are the responsibility of the product performing the copying.
Microsoft's response:
We sell a product with support. Call support; you have that option.
The "Open" response:
If you believe it can be improved, write it yourself. Buy a support service from us, and we will help.
Apple's response:
The user is at fault; don't use it incorrectly.
-
When a document, made in ms-office version x, doesn't look correct in ms-office version y, that's normal!
It's not normal, it's bullshit. I've used every version of MS Office since version 2.0c. The one thing Microsoft has managed really well is compatibility across the versions. If there are any speedbumps it's not in the layout, but in things like the macro language (now retired).
Personally I'm glad to see the back of MS Office - I'm hoping that SoftMaker Office will continue to be satisfactory for me.
-
When a document, made in Libreoffice, doesn't look correct in ms-office, it's the fault of Libreoffice.
When a document, made in ms-office, doesn't look correct in Libreoffice, it's the fault of Libreoffice.
When a document, made in ms-office version x, doesn't look correct in ms-office version y, that's normal!
When you try basic stuff with LO and you go crazy it is your fault?
The interface is delayed to your actions. So if you need to quickly format some text you'll go crazy.
Adding images I guess it is an advanced feature not well supported yet :palm:
BTW I hate the ribbon, in particular when it is laggy and I go in a unstable loop where I continue to click stuff while it is still rendering and random things happens like you can see at the beginning of the video |O
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgmpT-67xYc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgmpT-67xYc)
-
When a document, made in ms-office version x, doesn't look correct in ms-office version y, that's normal!
I don't recall ever seeing that, although I think the graphics drawing in M$ Orifice was buggy 25+ years ago.
I'm not so sure about WinXP. If memory serves me well, at some point I tried to install WinXP on a computer with a direct internet connection and it got infected faster than I could download the updates. Nowadays it is crazy to think that at one point most PCs (even the ones in offices!) had direct internet connections with public IP addresses.
You may be right. Certainly win2000 did that. But nobody with a brain would run directly like that today :) I think when I was running with a Cisco 803 ISDN router maybe 25 years ago, there was no NAT as such but there was a firewall in the IOS config... of course Cisco made sure nobody could understand IOS ;)
WinXP is 100% solid. I have machines running 24/7/365 for years. Internet connected, behind NAT, polling a POP box and doing "specific stuff" and sending out automated emails. The main issue with XP is that it 100% destroys an SSD after 1 year of that :) It trashes the start of the HD. Win7 is OK.
I know we did the "NAT attack" thing here in the past but really it is so contrived... you might be able to do it on a very specific individual whose equipment and habits are known.
I am 100% convinced that "business" could still be on win7-64 perfectly fine, if not forced by
- due diligence M$ support box ticking (an absolute override of everything in big organisations)
- some apps forcing it; mostly browsers (not Orifice; 2007 does everything needed) and in turn many websites
There is a reason why apparently many corporates keep win7-64 and M$ support it with updates (accessible to use via Simplix ;) ). Simplix brings win7-64 up to win10 sort of patch level. Some oddball things which stopped working on win7 (some videos, curiously) but worked on win10, worked fine on Simplix-updated win7.
-
I am 100% convinced that "business" could still be on win7-64 perfectly fine.....
I completely agree. Versions 8, 8.1, 10 and 11 have bought nothing of value to desktop/workstation users (in fact they are worse than W7). Only touch-enabled devices benefit from a later OS than W7.
-
BTW I hate the ribbon, in particular when it is laggy and I go in a unstable loop where I continue to click stuff while it is still rendering and random things happens like you can see at the beginning of the video.....
I actually really like the ribbon. I think it's a great improvement over the old toolbars and menus. I've never experienced it going laggy. Did the hardware meet the recommended spec?
-
BTW I hate the ribbon, in particular when it is laggy and I go in a unstable loop where I continue to click stuff while it is still rendering and random things happens like you can see at the beginning of the video |O
One important reason I stuck with Win XP and Office Word 2003 was that I refused to use that ribbon nonsense. I hated it and it gave me the vibe that MS was changing things frequently and unnecessarily just so they could keep selling "newer and better" things. I did not want to have to keep learning new crap every year. I still use Word 2003 when I need to be productive.
-
I actually really like the ribbon. I think it's a great improvement over the old toolbars and menus. I've never experienced it going laggy. Did the hardware meet the recommended spec?
Ummm, I'm on I5-8350u. It is only libreOffice laggy.
The ribbon interface, when works well (only office, ms office...), it is fine. But I don't like having to continuously change panel when doing basic stuff (adds one click to every action).
I would like to have a panel with all the basic tools (maybe a custom one where you add what you need) a bit like on old ms office.
-
One important reason I stuck with Win XP and Office Word 2003 was that I refused to use that ribbon nonsense.
How interesting that two people could have such very different opinions of the same thing! I haven't seen any other WIMP UI elements attract such controversy.
-
You can just install Classic Shell and end of debate ;)
-
WinXP is 100% solid. I have machines running 24/7/365 for years. Internet connected, behind NAT, polling a POP box and doing "specific stuff" and sending out automated emails. The main issue with XP is that it 100% destroys an SSD after 1 year of that :) It trashes the start of the HD. Win7 is OK.
I have been using Win XP continuously since it came out, on many computers, with a standard configuration, No IPV6, only IPV4 behind NAT, Zonealarm free firewall, NO antivirus and I have never ever had a virus.
I do not use a browser on XP any more but when I did I restricted addons etc.
-
Exactly. How could the machine get infected? It is impossible!
-
How to tinker with Windows settings by making it think it is in Europe. It opens possibilities that are not available in the US.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfBNxGw_5J8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfBNxGw_5J8)
-
I hate videos... the info could be summarised in a one page article.
-
WinXP is 100% solid. I have machines running 24/7/365 for years. Internet connected, behind NAT, polling a POP box and doing "specific stuff" and sending out automated emails. The main issue with XP is that it 100% destroys an SSD after 1 year of that :) It trashes the start of the HD. Win7 is OK.
I have been using Win XP continuously since it came out, on many computers, with a standard configuration, No IPV6, only IPV4 behind NAT, Zonealarm free firewall, NO antivirus and I have never ever had a virus.
How did you know that? You think viruses tell you they installed themselves or added a botnet backdoor?
-
I have been using Win XP continuously since it came out, on many computers, with a standard configuration, No IPV6, only IPV4 behind NAT, Zonealarm free firewall, NO antivirus and I have never ever had a virus.
How did you know that? You think viruses tell you they installed themselves or added a botnet backdoor?
Well, let's say I have never noticed anything, any effects, no processes, no traffic, no slowdown, no symptoms. Once in a while I would run an online AV test and never found anything.
Antivirus software OTOH I saw slowed down computers a lot and sometimes created problems so I never installed any AV software in my computers.
I suppose there is a tiny possibility that I had some malware that was never detected but if it was not detected in two and a half decades then I don't care. If I installed AV software it would immediately slow the computer to a crawl, sometimes give false positives and always cause problems with other software. No thanks.
And, frankly, if one of my Win XP computers gets infected tomorrow I can just restore from a backup. I am not a national bank and have nothing of great value in my computer. Everything is backed up many times so no loss of information.
-
How did you know that? You think viruses tell you they installed themselves or added a botnet backdoor?
:-DD
I asked that exact question to some Linux folks earlier in this thread. Maybe I'm the paranoid one, but I don't trust OS manufacturers to have secure systems, and I don't even trust the additional security software I install. I build a level of trust combining several good security practices. Separate systems for important things, separate browsers for various needs, etc.
I really do wish the "Evil bit" were real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit
-
You can just install Classic Shell and end of debate ;)
I've already said: Start11 for me.
-
How did you know that? You think viruses tell you they installed themselves or added a botnet backdoor?
:-DD
I asked that exact question to some Linux folks earlier in this thread.
The last time I used an antivirus other than Windows' built-in one was probably 20 years ago. What I did for many years was go to whichever antivirus vendor was offering a free scan and use that. Roughly every six months. I can't remember which vendor it was, now. Kaspersky, I think? Their free scanner was functionally identical to the scanning module in the full suite, so I trusted it. Some of the other antivirus vendors offered the same thing. Intended to boost sales, I expect.
Anyway, after maybe 10 years of never, ever finding anything of concern I got bored and stopped bothering.
I can't imagine what people must do to get a virus infection, but I think the most basic online hygiene, combined with Windows' own security suite, is absolutely fine and all that's necessary.
-
If I installed AV software it would immediately slow the computer to a crawl, sometimes give false positives and always cause problems with other software. No thanks.
Slow to a crawl? Sometimes give false positives? Always cause problems with other software?
Where on earth did you get all that from? Something you read? Because it's certainly not from experience. Antivirus products have a low single-digit extra CPU load. Usually the only way to notice it is to run a benchmark program.
The last time I had a false positive was back in the DOS days, when viruses and antivirus programs, were in their infancy.
And especially "always causes problems with other software"? I call bullshit! I've never experienced it and never read about it in all the years of reading antivirus reviews. NEVER. If it does happen it must be extraordinarily rare, and emphatically NOT "always".
Honestly, I don't know why people can't just speak truthfully and unemotionally about this stuff instead of all this exaggeration.
-
If I installed AV software it would immediately slow the computer to a crawl, sometimes give false positives and always cause problems with other software. No thanks.
Slow to a crawl? Sometimes give false positives? Always cause problems with other software?
Where on earth did you get all that from? Something you read? Because it's certainly not from experience. Antivirus products have a low single-digit extra CPU load. Usually the only way to notice it is to run a benchmark program.
The last time I had a false positive was back in the DOS days, when viruses and antivirus programs, were in their infancy.
And especially "always causes problems with other software"? I call bullshit! I've never experienced it and never read about it in all the years of reading antivirus reviews. NEVER. If it does happen it must be extraordinarily rare, and emphatically NOT "always".
Honestly, I don't know why people can't just speak truthfully and unemotionally about this stuff instead of all this exaggeration.
Microsoft leaned into security because it is a major target, and most people don't give it credit for the work and success it has had.
One of the primary reasons you no longer have the issues or loads associated with AV and Anti-malware is these security products can take advantage of the M$ work.
Secure boot and kernel signature verification are great stuff. M$ also digitally signs their entire set of OS files, drivers, etc etc. They will warn you if you try to run code that isn't signed.
AV and AM products use these features. They validate signatures and checksums, which avoids scanning large portions of the file system. Only the User's created or downloaded files, etc., must be scanned. There are then "reputation" checksums. This is a feature of modern security tools that many people are unaware of. Every file the security software scans is assigned a signature. That data is shared across the security software industry to determine the reputation of files in general. This greatly speeds up future checks on non-signed content. If you want to know worrisome stuff about this feature, that's a topic in itself.
Many of these practices have made it to Linux, but the big problem on the Linux side is the widespread practice of disabling Secure Boot. The AV products on Linux trust GPG signatures, but if the system isn't secure from boot (secure boot disabled), it's a defeated system.
-
One important reason I stuck with Win XP and Office Word 2003 was that I refused to use that ribbon nonsense.
How interesting that two people could have such very different opinions of the same thing! I haven't seen any other WIMP UI elements attract such controversy.
Make that three. I don't get on with the Ribbon interface. It's the main reason I use LibreOffice, which also gives you a choice of interface.
-
It's the main reason I use LibreOffice, which also gives you a choice of interface.
I do find it interesting how much people differ in their perception of software programs. I strongly dislike LibreOffice, but I'm the first to admit that liking and disliking is purely subjective and irrational. I haven't yet found a single Linux desktop application* that I enjoy using, unfortunately, although Inkscape gets close.
*Not counting SoftMaker Office because that's cross-platform rather than just Linux.
-
Inkscape is multi-platform too.
-
*Not counting SoftMaker Office because that's cross-platform rather than just Linux.
Thankyou very much :-DD :-DD
Almost all the GUI programs that I use on Linux are available on Windows (or are close imitations). And it is a good thing so you can try them before switching.
The gnome calculator is quite good
-
Inkscape is multi-platform too.
OK, thanks, but on Windows I can use Visio, which wipes the floor with anything on Linux when it comes to technical drawings.
-
Microsoft leaned into security because it is a major target, and most people don't give it credit for the work and success it has had.
That is true but AIUI the security issues were largely of M$'s own doing, because of the messaging system which windows uses internally was easy to compromise.
Also the reason why it took them literally decades to iron out the buffer overflow issues was because everybody was using their libraries and these contained code which did not check buffers.
Secure boot and kernel signature verification are great stuff.
Is it really, for the common attack vectors? The boot is surely invoked only when you boot :)
-
*Not counting SoftMaker Office because that's cross-platform rather than just Linux.
Thankyou very much :-DD :-DD
Sorry - don't get the joke, but I'm glad you are amused. 😄
Almost all the GUI programs that I use on Linux are available on Windows (or are close imitations). And it is a good thing so you can try them before switching.
Well, I guess so, but I've got Mint and Zorin here for trying stuff out.
-
*Not counting SoftMaker Office because that's cross-platform rather than just Linux.
So is KiCAD, and Audacity, both of which you've mentioned using.
Cross-platform software is very common. Almost everything you'd call a 'Linux app' which extends beyond basic system utilities is, in fact, a cross-platform tool, whether it be GUI or not.
-
Nowadays I rant because poking keyboard for command line take ages, but task is still too small for scripting.
(GUI would be just click'n'clack)
Ergonomics is usually also far from optimal.
Maybe a GUI based terminal extension for command history would do it, atuin seems to be graphical.
-
It's the main reason I use LibreOffice, which also gives you a choice of interface.
I do find it interesting how much people differ in their perception of software programs. I strongly dislike LibreOffice, but I'm the first to admit that liking and disliking is purely subjective and irrational.
I don't think my preference is irrational. I have used many different pieces of software with a variety of interfaces in the past and MS Ribbon is one of the worst. It takes more clicks to get the same thing done. For example, with LibraOffice, one click can take me to the open file dialogue box, with a list of files, whereas it takes two clicks with MS Ribbon.
-
Secure boot and kernel signature verification are great stuff.
Is it really, for the common attack vectors? The boot is surely invoked only when you boot :)
Vectors? Not since shareware and floppies.
But the chain of trust is important to defend the castle. Persistent threats also love to infest systems without such protections.
-
It's the main reason I use LibreOffice, which also gives you a choice of interface.
I do find it interesting how much people differ in their perception of software programs. I strongly dislike LibreOffice, but I'm the first to admit that liking and disliking is purely subjective and irrational.
I don't think my preference is irrational. I have used many different pieces of software with a variety of interfaces in the past and MS Ribbon is one of the worst. It takes more clicks to get the same thing done. For example, with LibraOffice, one click can take me to the open file dialogue box, with a list of files, whereas it takes two clicks with MS Ribbon.
I don't find preferences to be irrational.
I must say, it's been a minute since I ran Word on Windows. On my daily driver (macOS), one click opens the file menu, but I typically use keyboard shortcuts for most of my work.
Keyboard shortcuts were something that really had me for a bit when I moved from Windows as a daily driver to macOS. Not having to use the mouse is a big time saver.
-
In theory, but very few attacks require a reboot to do the damage.
IMHO this stuff is just a way for M$ to force large scale hardware disposal, among corporates who have to tick the box, and among private users who don't know any better. The mandatory hardware disposal reduces support issues and general user dissatisfaction because everybody will have similar (new) hardware. It is a way to clean out old machines, and slow machines.
Extremely cynical. I have a Dell laptop, cost GBP 1.8k in 2018. Not win11 compliant (no TPM I think). Great thin laptop, quad core i7, very fast for even video editing.
-
I don't think my preference is irrational. I have used many different pieces of software with a variety of interfaces in the past and MS Ribbon is one of the worst. It takes more clicks to get the same thing done. For example, with LibraOffice, one click can take me to the open file dialogue box, with a list of files, whereas it takes two clicks with MS Ribbon.
I'm not at my PC: what's that little toolbar called that sits above the ribbon? Anyway, I customise that with the following:
New
Open
Save
Save As
Close
---
Print Preview
Print
---
Undo
Redo
So I've got one-click access to all of those.
-
In theory, but very few attacks require a reboot to do the damage.
IMHO this stuff is just a way for M$ to force large scale hardware disposal, among corporates who have to tick the box, and among private users who don't know any better. The mandatory hardware disposal reduces support issues and general user dissatisfaction because everybody will have similar (new) hardware. It is a way to clean out old machines, and slow machines.
Extremely cynical. I have a Dell laptop, cost GBP 1.8k in 2018. Not win11 compliant (no TPM I think). Great thin laptop, quad core i7, very fast for even video editing.
I have no issues with cynicism; I have developed a wide streak of it myself.
I would direct some of that cynicism at the OEMs. In June/July 2015, Microsoft encouraged OEMs to adopt the new ISO/IEC 11889:2015 standard (TPM 2.0), which highlighted the importance of its adoption in improving trust in IT products. Microsoft attempted to make TPM a requirement for Windows 8.1, but OEMs pushed, and Microsoft caved.
On July 28 2016, Microsoft told OEMs that TPM 2.0 was a requirement. OEMs used it very effectively to obsolete huge amounts of gear.
Apple had its own TPM (Secure Enclave) since 2013.
-
I don't think my preference is irrational. I have used many different pieces of software with a variety of interfaces in the past and MS Ribbon is one of the worst. It takes more clicks to get the same thing done. For example, with LibraOffice, one click can take me to the open file dialogue box, with a list of files, whereas it takes two clicks with MS Ribbon.
I'm not at my PC: what's that little toolbar called that sits above the ribbon? Anyway, I customise that with the following:
New
Open
Save
Save As
Close
---
Print Preview
Print
---
Undo
Redo
So I've got one-click access to all of those.
I've just done that on an MS Office machine at work and it still requires two clicks to take me to the list of files. The first brings up another menu, listing recently opened files, which offensively covers the whole screen and a second is required, click browse, to take me to the list of files.
Clicking on the open icon in LibreOffice takes me straight to the list of files.
It's the main reason I use LibreOffice, which also gives you a choice of interface.
I do find it interesting how much people differ in their perception of software programs. I strongly dislike LibreOffice, but I'm the first to admit that liking and disliking is purely subjective and irrational.
I don't think my preference is irrational. I have used many different pieces of software with a variety of interfaces in the past and MS Ribbon is one of the worst. It takes more clicks to get the same thing done. For example, with LibraOffice, one click can take me to the open file dialogue box, with a list of files, whereas it takes two clicks with MS Ribbon.
I don't find preferences to be irrational.
I must say, it's been a minute since I ran Word on Windows. On my daily driver (macOS), one click opens the file menu, but I typically use keyboard shortcuts for most of my work.
Keyboard shortcuts were something that really had me for a bit when I moved from Windows as a daily driver to macOS. Not having to use the mouse is a big time saver.
I've never used MS Office on a Mac. When I bought a Mac for my nephews, the first thing I installed on it was LibreOffice.
I've tried the keyboard shortcut on MS Office on a Windows PC at work and it just takes be to another menu, see above, and I then have to click browse to get the file listing.
-
Even winXP will never get infected just by being internet-connected.
Disagree.
-
I've just done that on an MS Office machine at work and it still requires two clicks to take me to the list of files. The first brings up another menu, listing recently opened files, which offensively covers the whole screen and a second is required, click browse, to take me to the list of files.
Clicking on the open icon in LibreOffice takes me straight to the list of files.
Oh, but wait, that's got nothing to do with the ribbon. It's Microsoft's bloody stupid idea of what a File | Open dialog should look like. As you say, it covers the whole bloody screen (another example of foisting a touch UI onto keyboard/mouse users), it assumes everything is on One Drive, and you have to click the Browse button to access your local storage. I hate it, I've always hated it, but it has nothing to do with the ribbon. For example, SoftMaker TextMaker has a ribbon and uses a normal dialog. In fact I seem to remember the earlier versions of Word had a ribbon and a standard dialog.
-
Even winXP will never get infected just by being internet-connected.
Disagree.
Your router's NAT will protect it.
-
Even winXP will never get infected just by being internet-connected.
Disagree.
Your router's NAT will protect it.
Back when Windows XP was relevant, it was much more common not to have a home router, but plug in to some DSL modem directly (or through a switch), ISP giving you a public IP address.
Yes, Windows XP getting infected on its own "within minutes" was a well-known anecdote. Not sure how common that really was, but I'm also sure that peter-h is wrong saying it never happened.
-
Winmodem, anybody...?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Softmodem&useskin=vector (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Softmodem&useskin=vector)
:palm:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uSVVCmOH5w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uSVVCmOH5w)
-
I've just done that on an MS Office machine at work and it still requires two clicks to take me to the list of files. The first brings up another menu, listing recently opened files, which offensively covers the whole screen and a second is required, click browse, to take me to the list of files.
Clicking on the open icon in LibreOffice takes me straight to the list of files.
Oh, but wait, that's got nothing to do with the ribbon. It's Microsoft's bloody stupid idea of what a File | Open dialog should look like. As you say, it covers the whole bloody screen (another example of foisting a touch UI onto keyboard/mouse users), it assumes everything is on One Drive, and you have to click the Browse button to access your local storage. I hate it, I've always hated it, but it has nothing to do with the ribbon. For example, SoftMaker TextMaker has a ribbon and uses a normal dialog. In fact I seem to remember the earlier versions of Word had a ribbon and a standard dialog.
It's not tabbed toolbars which are the problem. I've used them before. TINA had over one a decade before MS Office. As with many things with Microsoft, it's the implementation which is uniquely bad.
-
Winmodem, anybody...?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Softmodem&useskin=vector (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Softmodem&useskin=vector)
:palm:
Those and the "modem riser" slots. Absolute curse on Linux. I ended up buying a US robotics external.
Then broadband landed. I made a bit of money providing "IT Support" which involved replacing the ubiquitous USB modems with external routers for many private and commercial customers. I even sold a service where I took one of their ageing PCs, put 2 NICs in it, a custom CDRom boot - no harddisk at all firewall.
-
It's not tabbed toolbars which are the problem. I've used them before. TINA had over one a decade before MS Office. As with many things with Microsoft, it's the implementation which is uniquely bad.
A ribbon is much more than a tabbed toolbar - it was genuinely innovative. In any case, I don't agree that Microsoft's implementation is uniquely bad. I think they've done a great job with it. Yes, really! I love using it.
But those full screen dialogs are bloody awful (in my view), and it's not just the Open dialog - the Print dialog is the same. Ditto the Save dialog.
-
Even winXP will never get infected just by being internet-connected.
Disagree.
Your router's NAT will protect it.
Actually the router's stateful firewall. Without the router's firewall an XP system would be done for quite quickly (plenty of test reports available, see paulca's post). Possibly it takes a bit longer today as I would expect less bots scanning for XP vulnerabilities. However, the vulnerabilities are well known and can by checked by many scanning frameworks.
-
Even winXP will never get infected just by being internet-connected.
Disagree.
Your router's NAT will protect it.
Actually the router's stateful firewall. Without the router's firewall an XP system would be done for quite quickly (plenty of test reports available, see paulca's post). Possibly it takes a bit longer today as I would expect less bots scanning for XP vulnerabilities. However, the vulnerabilities are well known and can by checked by many scanning frameworks.
That would be paulca's post where, in the video, the firewall that XP ships with, and that would normally be enabled, is specifically disabled so the box can be pwnd?
-
Back when Windows XP was relevant, it was much more common not to have a home router, but plug in to some DSL modem directly (or through a switch), ISP giving you a public IP address.
Yes, Windows XP getting infected on its own "within minutes" was a well-known anecdote. Not sure how common that really was, but I'm also sure that peter-h is wrong saying it never happened.
I am never going to say it never happened because I have no idea and I suppose it did happen but I can say confidently that it never happened to me or to any of the computers I support of friends and family.
As I have said, my setup, configuration and procedures were:
- Disable as much of browser addons as possible
- Never click on anything the least doubtful
- Scan the computer once in a while with online virus scanner (never found anything)
- Disable IPV6, only enable IPV4 through router NAT
- Use Zonealarm firewall restricted to the max
- No AV software.
I am not an expert, I know close to nothing about computer software, I am not saying my setup cannot be defeated, I am only saying I have never had a problem with malware in 20+ years using this configuration with Win XP. I am still using those rules and configuration every day on several computers with no problems. More than 20 years.
And telling me I might be infected and not know it, well, it sounds to me like those who say I might feel fine but my gut is full of debris which will kill me and I need to buy and use their snake oil which will clean my guts cleaner than clean. Thanks but no thanks. If the computer is infected with malware than cannot be noticed in any way, including virus scans, then it is like it was not infected.
And when "legitimate" programs cause me problems I do not care that they are signed by MS, Norton, McAfee or Mother Theresa. To me those are the worst malware.
-
I had at least two or three virus incidents on first Windows 2000, later XP. One was from just using Outlook Express - which had a bug that just receiving the message with the virus was enough, no need to download any attachments. The later incidents I was not able to confirm where they came from.
I used varying virus protection and varying third party firewall programs.
That would be paulca's post where, in the video, the firewall that XP ships with, and that would normally be enabled, is specifically disabled so the box can be pwnd?
Remember that Windows XP didn't originally ship with the Windows firewall. That firewall was exactly Microsoft's response to the well known fact that "Windows gets infected within minutes on it's own" - as shown in the video, with said firewall disabled. So that video is a decent demonstration what would have happened in the early days of Windows XP. (Better yet would be to use the Windows image pre-SP2 for the test, when it didn't have that firewall, so that there would be no need to turn it off.)
I did hear the advice of installing Windows airgapped and having a 3rd party firewall software - it had to be 3rd party back then - on a CD, and only connect the Ethernet cable after the firewall was installed - and I remember following that practice. Probably ZoneAlarm if my memory serves correctly.
It was a real issue, but maybe relatively short-lived in the grand scheme of things.
-
Actually the router's stateful firewall. Without the router's firewall an XP system would be done for quite quickly (plenty of test reports available, see paulca's post). Possibly it takes a bit longer today as I would expect less bots scanning for XP vulnerabilities. However, the vulnerabilities are well known and can by checked by many scanning frameworks.
How can it get infected when, behind NAT, it is invisible.
We are just going around in circles. The only way a machine can get infected without running any apps which connect to the outside and download stuff is by not being behind NAT or some similar firewall.
Some people just like to argue.
One was from just using Outlook Express
Of course, very possible.
As browsers got more and more secure, Outlook remained the #1 target, and HTML emails with easily disguised inline and attached exploits, were (and are) the easy way in, because if you block all media (whether in the HTML or on URLs) much of the email is unreadable. At work we use a 25 year old email client (Forte Agent) which does not do HTML and does not have any of these vulnerabilities, and we catch emails with likely or obvious exploits all the time, but with Outlook you would be relying on some countermeasures. Big firms struggle with this, using 3rd party email scanning services which rewrite the email with all these objects scanned and [re]hosted on a server.
IMHO, once you download and execute an image (or PDF etc) object, whether you are running win7 or win11 is not going to make a huge difference. In marginal cases it might... These objects are created to exploit a vulnerability in the display application.
-
It's not tabbed toolbars which are the problem. I've used them before. TINA had over one a decade before MS Office. As with many things with Microsoft, it's the implementation which is uniquely bad.
A ribbon is much more than a tabbed toolbar - it was genuinely innovative.
How? Sorry, that sounds like marketing. I don't see how there's anything uniquely innovative about the MS Ribbon user interface.
-
Actually the router's stateful firewall. Without the router's firewall an XP system would be done for quite quickly (plenty of test reports available, see paulca's post). Possibly it takes a bit longer today as I would expect less bots scanning for XP vulnerabilities. However, the vulnerabilities are well known and can by checked by many scanning frameworks.
That would be paulca's post where, in the video, the firewall that XP ships with, and that would normally be enabled, is specifically disabled so the box can be pwnd?
With XP's internal firewall disabled (and public IPv4 address) it should be easier and faster. With XP's internal firewall enabled and default settings (and public IPv4 address) it could take a bit longer as the internal firewall leaves many essential windows services open to the wild. By adding additional firewall rules manually things can be made harder for attackers, but this is nothing a typical user would do.
-
and public IPv4 address
Only a total cretin does that, so it proves nothing :)
Today, 2026, or anytime in past 10-15 years, >99.9% of private users have their PCs behind a NAT router provided by the ISP. That is how ADSL/FTTC/FTTP is delivered.
A business user probably won't be using the ISP's cheap and nasty router but will still use a router which is either NAT or (hopefully) has been correctly configured.
-
and public IPv4 address
Only a total cretin does that, so it proves nothing :)
Today, 2026, or anytime in past 10-15 years, >99.9% of users have their PCs behind a NAT router provided by the ISP. That is how ADSL/FTTC/FTTP is delivered.
Today. Or anythyme between 2010 and now.
But back then in the XP era we all had USB modems for ADSL, public IPv4. wifi was an unneded luxury which ran poorly, and routers were simply unheard of in most homes.
In my country, of course.
I remember the XP firewall being either completely useless, or bypassed by Internet Explorer. In fact, you wouldn't get most virus just by not using internet explorer. But you needed that to download firefox and avast first. (i also remember there beign a good reason for which i didn't keep them in a CD. But i don't remember why.
I clearly remember starting up a fresh XP install, opening the task manager, and counting the seconds it took to be flooded by rogue processes the moment i enabled internet connection
-
Actually the router's stateful firewall. Without the router's firewall an XP system would be done for quite quickly (plenty of test reports available, see paulca's post). Possibly it takes a bit longer today as I would expect less bots scanning for XP vulnerabilities. However, the vulnerabilities are well known and can by checked by many scanning frameworks.
How can it get infected when, behind NAT, it is invisible.
We are just going around in circles. The only way a machine can get infected without running any apps which connect to the outside and download stuff is by not being behind NAT or some similar firewall.
I partly agree if you mean address masquerading. There are many flavours of NAT, e.g 1:1 mapping of an external address to/from an internal address which would be as bad as a PC having a public IP address (which it usually would have anyway for IPv6 ;D ) . It's better to use the term 'statefull firewall’. The second point is that a PC won't be silent even without any additional apps installed or running. It might look for updates or run some network checks (am I connected to the internet?). And the most important point is that there's no 100% security. We can only make things harder for attackers. For example, if your router has a vulnerability and an attacker takes full control of your router, your PC might be pwned easily too.
-
That would be paulca's post where, in the video, the firewall that XP ships with, and that would normally be enabled, is specifically disabled so the box can be pwnd?
Remember that Windows XP didn't originally ship with the Windows firewall. That firewall was exactly Microsoft's response to the well known fact that "Windows gets infected within minutes on it's own" - as shown in the video, with said firewall disabled.
Context!
Or do we get to trash everything based on the first iteration before any bugs or features got sorted out? We could start with Linux and how telnet was wide open until it got killed off. And not to miss out on early MacOS that had more holes than a colandar.
Or we could just say that once upon a time XP didn't have a firewall, but anyone running it would have had the firewall installed (and enabled) either from the off for later purchases or from an update.
-
and public IPv4 address
Only a total cretin does that, so it proves nothing :)
Today, 2026, or anytime in past 10-15 years, >99.9% of private users have their PCs behind a NAT router provided by the ISP. That is how ADSL/FTTC/FTTP is delivered.
Answered in my previous post. It helps, but most users install and run software on their PCs. ;)
A business user probably won't be using the ISP's cheap and nasty router but will still use a router which is either NAT or (hopefully) has been correctly configured.
I've seen businesses with multi-million revenue running routers like an EOLed D-Link for 30 bucks.
-
That is however just moving the goalposts.
If the PC goes online periodically then there is an opening in NAT, for (typically) 180 secs after data cessation, and during that time an attacker can send in packets. The router (or more accurately the switch which is usually after the router; most routers have a 4 port switch) will forward those packets to that PC but only if they are addressed from the IP which the PC was addressing previously. So the attacker needs to a) make an assumption about the addressed site and b) malform that packet to exploit some vulnerability in the PC. This is a helluva stretch, frankly, but is the only known way to attack via NAT.
Of course many people have installed programs which open ports (possible on cheap consumer routers) but that is moving the goalposts some more.
-
That would be paulca's post where, in the video, the firewall that XP ships with, and that would normally be enabled, is specifically disabled so the box can be pwnd?
Remember that Windows XP didn't originally ship with the Windows firewall. That firewall was exactly Microsoft's response to the well known fact that "Windows gets infected within minutes on it's own" - as shown in the video, with said firewall disabled.
Context!
Or do we get to trash everything based on the first iteration before any bugs or features got sorted out? We could start with Linux and how telnet was wide open until it got killed off. And not to miss out on early MacOS that had more holes than a colandar.
Or we could just say that once upon a time XP didn't have a firewall, but anyone running it would have had the firewall installed (and enabled) either from the off for later purchases or from an update.
Indeed, context. MS was the first, by a wide margin, to deliver a Desktop OS with an always-on Firewall. Windows XP SP2 2004.
Linux didn't generally adopt this behavior until 2012-2013, though Ubuntu had it a couple of years earlier. MacOS still does not enable the firewall by default, *sigh*.
The number of Linux routers/firewalls compromised during that time frame was enormous. Buffer overflows and the enormously bad default "admin/admin" credentials cause no end of trouble.
OpenBSD was still the security king. :)
-
Context!
My context was peter-h's claim that even Windows XP does not get infected on its own. (To be fair, he did not use past tense, so yeah, maybe he's right.) But well, during its days it did, because it shipped with shitloads of security flaws in its internal processes, and without a firewall to protect those components, and because public IP addresses without NAT were commonplace at household DSL etc. connections. Video posted demonstrated exactly what would have happened - and DID happen - with the original WinXP release connected to a typical home internet of the day, unfortunately they used a newer version for demonstration and had to turn off the added firewall, causing confusion to the viewers. With older version, the firewall would not have existed.
That's all. The situation got better exactly because things got fixed: MS added firewall, fixed bugs, and consumers were sold routers with NAT+firewall: security doesn't need to be perfect; a few fundamental fixes reduced the problems by orders of magnitudes. All of this happened somewhere around 2004-2005 or so. But also remember back then we did not have quick security updates to everything. XP older than SP2 probably kept running long after the late 2004 when it was released.
-
That is however just moving the goalposts.
... to make things harder for attackers.
If the PC goes online periodically then there is an opening in NAT, for (typically) 180 secs after data cessation, and during that time an attacker can send in packets.
It depends on the IP protocol (TCP/UDP/ICMP/...) and the firewall (router) implementation. But usually an attacker would have to guess several things correctly and spoof addresses, which isn't simple.
The router (or more accurately the switch which is usually after the router; most routers have a 4 port switch) will forward those packets to that PC but only if they are addressed from the IP which the PC was addressing previously.
The router forwards/routes IP packets, the built-in ethernet switch takes care about ethernet frames.
So the attacker needs to a) make an assumption about the addressed site and b) malform that packet to exploit some vulnerability in the PC. This is a helluva stretch, frankly, but is the only known way to attack via NAT.
Unfortunately not, but it's hard to circumvent a properly configured (and hopefully also properly implemented) firewall. The problems start with adding 'holes' for special applications/services.
Of course many people have installed programs which open ports (possible on cheap consumer routers) but that is moving the goalposts some more.
Many SOHO routers come with UPnP enabled by default. A bad idea!
-
The problems start with adding 'holes' for special applications/services.
Sure, but that is moving the goalposts. Of course all bets are off if you run a machine on an open port.
The only machine that should ever be on an open port is a properly configured heavy duty hardened OS + web server (etc) e.g. Linux, Centos, Apache, NGINX... And then we get into the old IoT security debate (check the thread on how to secure a remotely controlled heating controller).
Is win11 more secure if run on an open port than winXP? Probably. But better than win7? Marginally. If you get external packets onto your LAN then all bets are off because they can be visible to more than one device (should not be if there is a switch which usually there is).
Is win11 better if your cheap router has loads of holes opened by stuff like webcams? Probably.
-
It's not tabbed toolbars which are the problem. I've used them before. TINA had over one a decade before MS Office. As with many things with Microsoft, it's the implementation which is uniquely bad.
A ribbon is much more than a tabbed toolbar - it was genuinely innovative.
How? Sorry, that sounds like marketing. I don't see how there's anything uniquely innovative about the MS Ribbon user interface.
As you will have gathered, I love the cut and thrust of a vigorous debate. However, this is one I don't want to pursue. Firstly, we went through it all several months ago in another thread, so a lot would just be repeating the same old stuff.
Secondly - and I mean no discourtesy - I don't believe you are approaching this with a truly open mind. I think that no matter what arguments and evidence I present to you, you've already made up your mind about the ribbon and won't change it. So on this occasion I'm not going to invest any effort into it.
If, one day, you feel like knowing more about the ribbon - why it was needed and how it was developed - I think the best place to start would be this talk by Jensen Harris.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl9kD693ie4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl9kD693ie4)
(It's the first of a series.)
In particular you might be interested to learn that, before the ribbon, the majority of new feature requests from users were for features that already existed, but were hidden in a lengthy, nested menu or behind an obscure 32x32 icon in a toolbar. The big problem with the old menu/toolbar UI was a lack of discoverability. Ultimately the menu/toolbar paradigm just wasn't sufficiently scalable.
If you watch the video with a cynical mindset, you will be able to dismiss it as marketing bullshit and feel good about how you were right all along. If you watch with a truly open mind, open to being changed and willing to contemplate different ways of thinking, you might find it most enlightening.
Or you could not watch it at all on the grounds that you enjoy sneering at the ribbon, you like slagging off Microsoft for its ineptitude, and you have no intention of changing that position.
-
Is win11 more secure if run on an open port than winXP? Probably. But better than win7? Marginally. If you get external packets onto your LAN then all bets are off because they can be visible to more than one device (should not be if there is a switch which usually there is).
Is win11 better if your cheap router has loads of holes opened by stuff like webcams? Probably.
And then comes your 14 years old son/nephew/grandson and installs some shady P2P file sharing app on your PC. Your router won't save you. IT security involves much more than a plastic box.
-
All this talk is bringing back memories of things I had totally forgotten.
I think I was using a home router from the very beginning because I was always messing about with several machines on home LAN. And I have not changed. I still always have several machines running at once.
I never used Windows native firewall. I used to spend time configuring ZoneAlarm and checking the privileges of every single program.I had quite a few programs blocked from internet access. I *really* liked the philosophy of Zonealarm and I wish there was something similar for Linux. It is a really simple concept and easy to understand and set up.
I also used to visit GRC-Shields Up which I am surprised to see still exists.
And I remember visiting two or three sites that would do a one-time malware scan. I think MS had that too. I would always scan any program before installing it.
All that was with Win XP, over ten years ago, when I started using Linux.
-
Is win11 more secure if run on an open port than winXP? Probably. But better than win7? Marginally. If you get external packets onto your LAN then all bets are off because they can be visible to more than one device (should not be if there is a switch which usually there is).
Is win11 better if your cheap router has loads of holes opened by stuff like webcams? Probably.
And then comes your 14 years old son/nephew/grandson and installs some shady P2P file sharing app on your PC. Your router won't save you. IT security involves much more than a plastic box.
If you are letting unreliable persons use your computer with your credentials.... well...
-
Don't think I've weighed in on this one before, but feel free to skip anyway :)
In particular you might be interested to learn that, before the ribbon, the majority of new feature requests from users were for features that already existed, but were hidden in a lengthy, nested menu or behind an obscure 32x32 icon in a toolbar. The big problem with the old menu/toolbar UI was a lack of discoverability
I certainly agree that icons are overrated and, unless you use specific ones regularly, it can be hard to figure out what they do. Even with hover help (which wastes time). Generally, I use very few toolbar entries.
But... I can never find what I'm looking for on the ribbon. Sure, things that are most used are easy to find, but there are still icons whose purpose isn't necessarily clear. Worse, some open a popup with more selections possible, and now not only do you have to figure if an icon is likely appropriate but also whether the thing you're looking for is in a popup that might be opened by that icon.
Menus also have problems of hiding sub-menus off not clearly relevant entries. But I find that usually one can just wave a mouse over and the sub-menus pop open and you can see very quickly if it's the one or not.
However, for me the big issue was that the ribbon just took up too much vertical space. Bad enough on 4:3 monitors but with the move to wide screen it was horrible. Now I have much more space to play with I don't mind so much, and a well thought out ribbon can be (gulp) OK.
-
Is win11 more secure if run on an open port than winXP? Probably. But better than win7? Marginally. If you get external packets onto your LAN then all bets are off because they can be visible to more than one device (should not be if there is a switch which usually there is).
Is win11 better if your cheap router has loads of holes opened by stuff like webcams? Probably.
And then comes your 14 years old son/nephew/grandson and installs some shady P2P file sharing app on your PC. Your router won't save you. IT security involves much more than a plastic box.
If you are letting unreliable persons use your computer with your credentials.... well...
BINGO!! During my children's school years, I made sure they were not admins and couldn't install anything. I stayed sane though the number of requests for "can I get this" was high, it was better than dealing with the other side.
I also placed their machines on their own VLAN and firewall interfaces.
-
All this talk is bringing back memories of things I had totally forgotten.
I think I was using a home router from the very beginning because I was always messing about with several machines on home LAN. And I have not changed. I still always have several machines running at once.
I never used Windows native firewall. I used to spend time configuring ZoneAlarm and checking the privileges of every single program.I had quite a few programs blocked from internet access. I *really* liked the philosophy of Zonealarm and I wish there was something similar for Linux. It is a really simple concept and easy to understand and set up.
I also used to visit GRC-Shields Up which I am surprised to see still exists.
And I remember visiting two or three sites that would do a one-time malware scan. I think MS had that too. I would always scan any program before installing it.
All that was with Win XP, over ten years ago, when I started using Linux.
I remember getting a cable modem in 1999, and I'm fuzzy on the months before I got my BEFW11S4 Linksys, then replaced it with the famous WRT line the next year, I think.
Before that, it was all dial-up for me at home. At work, we had a mix of P2P ATM lines, dial-up lines, T1s, fractional T1s, a DS3 or 3, Frame Relay, ISDN, both channel and primary.
This makes me feel a bit queasy in my stomach, given the complexity we used to handle in WANs.
CheckPoint Firewall was way popular back then. We used a mix of firewalls and proxies.
Realistically, I think I spent maybe a few months with direct computer internet from 1999 to 2000? Dial-up was not directly connected to the internet, and after I switched to wireless, the router had a firewall.
NAT was a thing on cable modems by the time I got service. That and Internet Connection Sharing (Wow, that made brain cells talk that haven't in a long time).
Given that cable modem connections started as early as 1996, some people may have had longer exposure to direct, publicly routed IPv4 to their home computer.
-
BINGO!! During my children's school years, I made sure they were not admins and couldn't install anything. I stayed sane though the number of requests for "can I get this" was high, it was better than dealing with the other side.
I also placed their machines on their own VLAN and firewall interfaces.
Haha, this reminds me just a few years ago my teenage nephew, who had been told not to install anything without asking first, tried to install something on his own computer but couldn't .
He told his mother who just shrugged because she knows nothing about computers. She told him to ask me, the Lord of all family computers, but he did not even try because he knew the answer beforehand. He told his mother his friend just clicked on the "Program.exe" file and it installed but for him it didn't work. Why could that be?
I did not tell him the secret but (1) you only have guest privileges and (2) that computer is running Linux you dumdum!
And even then he has his own computer. There is no chance in the world a teenager is using my computer under any circumstances. Computers are cheap enough that he can have his own and I don't need to take any risk at all. If someone is going to break my computer it is going to be me.
-
BINGO!! During my children's school years, I made sure they were not admins and couldn't install anything. I stayed sane though the number of requests for "can I get this" was high, it was better than dealing with the other side.
I also placed their machines on their own VLAN and firewall interfaces.
That worked for exactly 2 days for my kids. Age 7 and 9 and they bypassed the user account level in two days.
-
BINGO!! During my children's school years, I made sure they were not admins and couldn't install anything. I stayed sane though the number of requests for "can I get this" was high, it was better than dealing with the other side.
I also placed their machines on their own VLAN and firewall interfaces.
That worked for exactly 2 days for my kids. Age 7 and 9 and they bypassed the user account level in two days.
Indeed, it was a struggle. Neither of them knew their content was being proxied, or that I had forbidden binary downloads to their systems. Just like all security, I just had to make it difficult enough that they'd move on.
As a CyberSecurity professional, I thought it was good excercises for me to see how to contain them without them knowing they were being contained. So while they gamed the system, the system gamed them. :D
-
It's not tabbed toolbars which are the problem. I've used them before. TINA had over one a decade before MS Office. As with many things with Microsoft, it's the implementation which is uniquely bad.
A ribbon is much more than a tabbed toolbar - it was genuinely innovative.
How? Sorry, that sounds like marketing. I don't see how there's anything uniquely innovative about the MS Ribbon user interface.
As you will have gathered, I love the cut and thrust of a vigorous debate. However, this is one I don't want to pursue. Firstly, we went through it all several months ago in another thread, so a lot would just be repeating the same old stuff.
Secondly - and I mean no discourtesy - I don't believe you are approaching this with a truly open mind. I think that no matter what arguments and evidence I present to you, you've already made up your mind about the ribbon and won't change it. So on this occasion I'm not going to invest any effort into it.
If, one day, you feel like knowing more about the ribbon - why it was needed and how it was developed - I think the best place to start would be this talk by Jensen Harris.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl9kD693ie4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl9kD693ie4)
(It's the first of a series.)
In particular you might be interested to learn that, before the ribbon, the majority of new feature requests from users were for features that already existed, but were hidden in a lengthy, nested menu or behind an obscure 32x32 icon in a toolbar. The big problem with the old menu/toolbar UI was a lack of discoverability. Ultimately the menu/toolbar paradigm just wasn't sufficiently scalable.
If you watch the video with a cynical mindset, you will be able to dismiss it as marketing bullshit and feel good about how you were right all along. If you watch with a truly open mind, open to being changed and willing to contemplate different ways of thinking, you might find it most enlightening.
Or you could not watch it at all on the grounds that you enjoy sneering at the ribbon, you like slagging off Microsoft for its ineptitude, and you have no intention of changing that position.
Well it just looks like some kind of marketing video to me, but maybe I'm being cynical.
My biggest criticism of Ribbon is they got rid of the menu bar, switching purely to icons. The menu bar was good, because it enabled access to all of the features which were clearly described. Now there's just the Ribbon which is packed with nondescript icons. I have used Ribbon quite a lot at work and would say they've made features less discoverable. Even now, I often feel frustrated taking time to rediscover features often to the point of thinking they've removed them and having to resort to Googling, which I have to repeat, when I've forgotten many months later.
-
As I have said, my setup, configuration and procedures were:
- Disable as much of browser addons as possible
- Never click on anything the least doubtful
- Scan the computer once in a while with online virus scanner (never found anything)
- Disable IPV6, only enable IPV4 through router NAT
- Use Zonealarm firewall restricted to the max
- No AV software.
[my changes shown above]
Yes! especially to that bolded one.
Don't be promiscuous online. It's a dangerous world out there.
(I use a free resident (not online) AV (Total AV) that's actually partially disabled (expired) but still offers minimal protection, including real-time alerts and disk scans)
So far, no infections here. (Windoze 7)
-
However, for me the big issue was that the ribbon just took up too much vertical space.
It takes up less vertical space than a toolbar if you set it to auto hide.
-
However, for me the big issue was that the ribbon just took up too much vertical space.
It takes up less vertical space than a toolbar if you set it to auto hide.
Indeed, but at the start we didn't get that option. Now we don't need it we have it :)
-
As I have said, my setup, configuration and procedures were:
- Disable as much of browser addons as possible
- Never click on anything the least doubtful
- Scan the computer once in a while with online virus scanner (never found anything)
- Disable IPV6, only enable IPV4 through router NAT
- Use Zonealarm firewall restricted to the max
- No AV software.
[my changes shown above]
Yes! especially to that bolded one.
Don't be promiscuous online. It's a dangerous world out there.
(I use a free resident (not online) AV (Total AV) that's actually partially disabled (expired) but still offers minimal protection, including real-time alerts and disk scans)
So far, n o infections here. (Windoze 7)
As someone said "the best antivirus is the one between your ears".
-
However, for me the big issue was that the ribbon just took up too much vertical space.
It takes up less vertical space than a toolbar if you set it to auto hide.
Indeed, but at the start we didn't get that option. Now we don't need it we have it :)
Bwhahaahahahahahahha. :-DD
Do you remember going to that one friend or family members' computer because their browser was slow and found they had so many toolbars installed that they could see like 2 inches of web page?
I use a 46in monitor now. I can have all the tool bars, banners, and ribbons I want. :-DD
-
I just had that from 'a family friend' - PC being very slow, etc. Obviously stuffed with adware and the like, and no doubt something naughty is taking 95% CPU.
Except it wasn't. Very nice and clean machine, and the problem turned out to be an SSD that just couldn't read its own memory very quickly. No errors, but plenty of wear levelling usage.
-
My biggest criticism of Ribbon is they got rid of the menu bar, switching purely to icons. The menu bar was good, because it enabled access to all of the features which were clearly described. Now there's just the Ribbon which is packed with nondescript icons. I have used Ribbon quite a lot at work and would say they've made features less discoverable. Even now, I often feel frustrated taking time to rediscover features often to the point of thinking they've removed them and having to resort to Googling, which I have to repeat, when I've forgotten many months later.
OK, so it obviously doesn't suit the way your brain works, whereas it definitely does mine. I do believe it improves discoverability, and I enjoy using it much more than menus and toolbars.
It's fine: we can agree to differ. 😁👍
-
My biggest criticism of Ribbon is they got rid of the menu bar, switching purely to icons. The menu bar was good, because it enabled access to all of the features which were clearly described. Now there's just the Ribbon which is packed with nondescript icons. I have used Ribbon quite a lot at work and would say they've made features less discoverable. Even now, I often feel frustrated taking time to rediscover features often to the point of thinking they've removed them and having to resort to Googling, which I have to repeat, when I've forgotten many months later.
OK, so it obviously doesn't suit the way your brain works, whereas it definitely does mine. I do believe it improves discoverability, and I enjoy using it much more than menus and toolbars.
It's fine: we can agree to differ. 😁👍
But that is the heart of the matter. On this forum we can observe our differences and not worry about it. But Microsoft and others have picked sides and chosen one approach. In the Office suite they have made you happier. Great, until they decide something else is better. I am on the other side of that divide, and wasn't even particularly happy with the 2003 version that automagically switched to reduced menus. At least there was still an option to see the full menus.
-
Regarding that ribbon that's being so hotly argued over here:
What is that?
Does this top-o'-the-screenshot show such a thing? or is this just a regular toolbar?
[attachimg=1]
(this is Word 2003)
-
It was toolbar until MS started using some new names to make the product sound better.
Ribbon is like toolbar but is usually a set of "tabs" or small containers that have a collection of tools.
-
My biggest criticism of Ribbon is they got rid of the menu bar, switching purely to icons. The menu bar was good, because it enabled access to all of the features which were clearly described. Now there's just the Ribbon which is packed with nondescript icons. I have used Ribbon quite a lot at work and would say they've made features less discoverable. Even now, I often feel frustrated taking time to rediscover features often to the point of thinking they've removed them and having to resort to Googling, which I have to repeat, when I've forgotten many months later.
OK, so it obviously doesn't suit the way your brain works, whereas it definitely does mine. I do believe it improves discoverability, and I enjoy using it much more than menus and toolbars.
It's fine: we can agree to differ. 😁👍
But that is the heart of the matter. On this forum we can observe our differences and not worry about it. But Microsoft and others have picked sides and chosen one approach. In the Office suite they have made you happier. Great, until they decide something else is better. I am on the other side of that divide, and wasn't even particularly happy with the 2003 version that automagically switched to reduced menus. At least there was still an option to see the full menus.
And the beauty of LibreOffice is it now gives you a choice. The newer versions have the option of using a tabbed toolbar, similar to MS Office's Ribbon, except they can't call it that for trademark reasons.
-
Microsoft dials up the nagging in Windows, calls it security
More prompts when apps and agents roam around a user's system
"Just like on your smartphone," said Microsoft
https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/10/microsoft_windows_security/ (https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/10/microsoft_windows_security/)
-
The "All you need is NAT" argument is correct to a point.
Most infections/attacks are "Pull" not "Push" these days, because most networks have NAT.
Piggy backing on a NAT connection is, to my knowledge not something "typically" done. Not in the "Who can I infect?" automated sense anyway.
If a router exists with a vul, it will be in scanners already which will be looking for that signature and reporting it back to their master.
To make it even "sane" you need a "Personal firewall" on the windows PC. That is a firewall which watches your application/process connections and allows/denies OUTBOUND connections on a port per port, application by application.
A standard way to bypass firewalls is to run an agent on the host which connects out to you, rather than the other way. Consider FTP. Vanilia FTP the client connects to the FTP server "Command channel" and the FTP server connects back to the client for a data connection. This does not traverse NAT. So "No Passive" mode was introduced so that the client now starts the command connection and when the remote is ready, the data connection is also outbound. Opened "on behalf of the remote", if you will.
Modern infestations, infections and attacks use the same technique. How do they get the agents on your PC? Usually web browsing and email. "Usually".
It's often not a one step process either. Sometimes the initial attack does nothing but install a helper. That help then starts 'reaching' out to the internet to inform "its masters" of where it is, request instructions. Basically a backdoor. There are websites you can got to, if you are brave, which provide realtime updated lists of identified vuls with meta data and IP address. There are better ones, but you have to pay bitcoin for them.
Then we come to the "network neighbourhood". The IP space around the machine in question. Once inside your NAT they (automated scanners or a real person using the backdoor) will have free unabridged access to everything on your LAN. That means that your messy, not updated Windows 10 machine that you got infected browsing pron, is more than capable of finding your firewall-less, antivirus less Windows 7 machine or VM and infecting it.
80% of the security in corporate sectors is internal. Preventing one infected computer from infecting more computers is where the smarter companies with money to spend on security put it.
-
The "All you need is NAT" argument is correct to a point.
Most infections/attacks are "Pull" not "Push" these days, because most networks have NAT.
Piggy backing on a NAT connection is, to my knowledge not something "typically" done. Not in the "Who can I infect?" automated sense anyway.
[...]
This is why it is absolutely paramount to keep any program that automatically accesses the internet either restricted, or up to date.
*Especially* your browser. In addition, limit what code your browser will execute automatically. At least use an adblocker. That will, if set to strict rules, already block a lot of potential problems. But if you are willing to put in a lot of configuration work and are willing to live with (partially) not functioning websites, a general script blocker can be considered as well.
-
Regarding that ribbon that's being so hotly argued over here:
What is that?
Does this top-o'-the-screenshot show such a thing? or is this just a regular toolbar?
(this is Word 2003)
That's the toolbar.
[attachimg=1]
I'm not at my PC just now, but the following are screenshots from SoftMaker TextMaker running on my Android tablet (which is why they are narrow). They aren't identical to Microsoft's ribbon, but very close. The only significant difference is the little blocks with rotated text in them, for expanding and contracting each section, which don't exist on the Windows version and are there to help with usability on a mobile-size screen.
Sorry - for some reason the forum software won't let me scale my pics to match yours.
[attachimg=2, width=1000]
[attachimg=3, width=1000]
[attachimg=4, width=1000]
You can see that the ribbon takes up significantly more space. It also takes up less space than a toolbar if you set it to auto hide. Note how the ribbon allows a mix of labelled and unlabelled icons. Also, you can see (from the down arrow) that some open up additional dialogs whereas the ones without arrows don't. One big change from toolbars is that the ribbon intelligently shrinks or expands to cope with different screen window widths. So a large icon with text might shrink to a small icon without text when the window is made smaller.
EDIT: I forgot to add that the ribbon can contain checkboxes, too - again, something not part of toolbar functionality. Also, note how the ribbon can place icons in two - and sometimes three - vertical rows, another thing not part of Windows toolbar functionality. It exposes more features without using lots more space.
-
Oh, I forgot: unlike Microsoft, SoftMaker still provides a full menu set, although it is behind the hamburger icon. (Edit: actually it looks more like a double cheeseburger.) All the usual keyboard shortcuts work with the ribbon.
[attachimg=1, width=500]
One more thing: I think all the ribbon content is vector rather than the bitmaps of the old toolbar. Thus it will scale nicely on big, high resolution screens without getting blurry (a significant problem with the standard toolbar). I'm only 80% sure of this - I need to confirm it.
-
That means that your messy, not updated Windows 10 machine that you got infected browsing pron, is more than capable of finding your firewall-less, antivirus less
Windows 7 machine or VM and infecting it.
And how exactly is win11 better?
If the attacker is running code of his choice on your machine, all bets are off.
-
Sorry, folks, but just for completeness for those unfamiliar with the ribbon, here is what they look like on a PC. The blue one is MS Word, the red one is Softmaker Textmaker.
[attachimg=1, width=1000]
[attachimg=2, width=1000]
I think the Microsoft one is best, but I like both and TextMaker is my daily driver.
EDIT: A.K. - let us know what you think of the ribbon! 😄
-
And how exactly is win11 better?
If the attacker is running code of his choice on your machine, all bets are off.
Depends on who you are asking.
UNC3886, Salt Typhoon, etc, all believe Windoze is the best. ;) :-+
It is not possible to couple security with productivity in context of end-user experience. End-users (most) only care that the thingy boots and the apps open, print works, browser can get to their fav non-productive sites, they don't care to know how soft the OS really is. On the flip side, if I go heavy on apparmor or selinux config and lockdown the system tight, the ability to install-&-go is not as smooth.
Corp tries to have a balance, and when they are compromised that's when they know they did not pay enough attention to th security side of that seesaw. Home users.......... not a clue.
-
EDIT: A.K. - let us know what you think of the ribbon! 😄
Glorified fucking toolbar?
-
EDIT: A.K. - let us know what you think of the ribbon! 😄
Glorified fucking toolbar?
It's a "MS Productivity Toolbar". :-DD :-DD
-
EDIT: A.K. - let us know what you think of the ribbon! 😄
Glorified fucking toolbar?
At first glance, maybe, but there's a lot more to it than that.
I'm not sure whether to pursue this, because I can tell straight away from your tone that you have already made up your mind about it. Did you give the pics I posted anything more than a passing glance? No, I thought not. Zero999 seems to be in the same position - he declined to watch the video I posted explaining why it was developed.
So, I could describe the differences and the improvements over the toolbar (and its shortcomings). I could discuss the interesting usability issues the ribbon created - and some new developments since it was launched back in 2007. Or I could ask myself "why bother?". After all, what you think and do doesn't affect me.
The second option won. Life's too short to flog a dead horse. You are absolutely right: the ribbon is just a glorified fucking toolbar.
-
I personally *vastly* prefer the ribbons over the old menus.
I do have a significant issue with "Out of sight - out of mind".
The ribbons help a lot with the discoverability of features and possible actions.
-
:palm: Just make it stop.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ8aAkeZ6dw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ8aAkeZ6dw)
-
EDIT: A.K. - let us know what you think of the ribbon! 😄
Glorified fucking toolbar?
At first glance, maybe, but there's a lot more to it than that.
I'm not sure whether to pursue this, because I can tell straight away from your tone that you have already made up your mind about it. Did you give the pics I posted anything more than a passing glance? No, I thought not. Zero999 seems to be in the same position - he declined to watch the video I posted explaining why it was developed.
So, I could describe the differences and the improvements over the toolbar (and its shortcomings). I could discuss the interesting usability issues the ribbon created - and some new developments since it was launched back in 2007. Or I could ask myself "why bother?". After all, what you think and do doesn't affect me.
The second option won. Life's too short to flog a dead horse. You are absolutely right: the ribbon is just a glorified fucking toolbar.
No I watched the video. I am aware of the supposed issues with the previous interface. I just think that Ribbon made it worse for me, rather than better. To be fair, Ribbon has improved in some ways, since 2007, but it has also deteriorated in other respects too. My main criticism is I find it much slower because it requires more clicks than the old UI.
EDIT:
Here's the LibreOffice version of Ribbon.
[attachimg=1]
-
:palm: Just make it stop.....
Hear, hear! I was not aware of any demand for markup or HTML in Notepad, so it seems weird to add it. All Notepad really needed was tabs and autosave. More than that is too much.
Years ago I wrote my own version of Notepad with tabs and better drag-and-drop functionality. This has encouraged me to dust it off, add an autosave feature, and set it up as the default for everything text-based.
-
Notepad is one of the things that I want it to instantly launch as a blank simple thing.
here you can find the old one (https://win7games.com/) that I installed immediately. If I want something more advanced I'll use word or an IDE.
They removed wordpad, and now they are transforming notepad in wordpadAI_ultraProMax.
-
Notepad is one of the things that I want it to instantly launch as a blank simple thing.
Yup. Just plain text. And very useful for pasting formatted text and removing all formatting. I love it.
When I moved to Linux, about ten years ago, one of the first things I did was install Notepad with WINE but I soon found out Linux Mint has its own Notepad-like program called Xed and now that is what I use.
I still use MS-Paint with WINE though.
-
For those who want a very clean, minimalist 'notepad' experience in Windows, MS raised the edit command line tool from the dead for Windows 11.
https://github.com/microsoft/edit
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/edit/
It's even 'open source' and written in Rust, for folks who care about either or both of those things.
-
The second option won. Life's too short to flog a dead horse. You are absolutely right: the ribbon is just a glorified fucking toolbar.
Look, pal: I know all about toolbars and other UI elements that certain corporations choose to give glorified names to.
All a matter of the user's taste when it comes down to it, I suppose.
I don't see anything earthshakingly remarkable about those "ribbons". If you like them, fine.
I've even developed my own version of a Win32 toolbar that I call a "toolstrip". It can contain any number and type of Win32 control windows, and suits my purposes just fine. (Pic shows 2 of them, one horizontal, one vertical.)
However, I'd never try to peddle it as the latest user-friendly nostrum. We know how that usually works out.
[attachimg=1]
-
Notepad is one of the things that I want it to instantly launch as a blank simple thing.
I went one better than that and created an app for myself that I call "Scratchpad". Simple window with one control (an edit window) that lets you type text (the control itself takes care of formatting, tabs, etc.). You can save the text to a .txt file if you want.
But if you choose to close the app it doesn't even ask if you want to save the text (it's a scratchpad, after all), just exits.
-
I still use MS-Paint with WINE though.
Try KolourPaint.
-
I still use MS-Paint with WINE though.
Try KolourPaint.
Or my go-to favorite, Paint Shop Pro (pre-acquisition by Corel). All you need to manipulate bitmap images.
-
I still use MS-Paint with WINE though.
Try KolourPaint.
Thanks. I downloaded it and gave it a very quick look over and it looks good and very similar to MS-Paint. I do not see that it has in B&W graphics the fill with checkered patterns like MS-Paint has. I find that quite useful when doing monochrome drawings of parts. I will have a longer look at it tomorrow.
-
I still use MS-Paint with WINE though.
Try KolourPaint.
Or my go-to favorite, Paint Shop Pro (pre-acquisition by Corel). All you need to manipulate bitmap images.
I had to do some searching. It seems V9 is the last one before Corel. In any case it is not for Linux.
-
Look, pal: I know all about toolbars and other UI elements that certain corporations choose to give glorified names to.
All a matter of the user's taste when it comes down to it, I suppose.
Hey! What's with the anger? Let me remind you - "glorified fucking toolbar" are YOUR words! We've both said it's a matter of taste - so what's the problem?
EDIT: I would also point out that in message #662 you posted a picture of a toolbar and asked if it was a ribbon. That's why I was surprised by your claim: "I know all about toolbars and other UI elements".
I don't see anything earthshakingly remarkable about those "ribbons". If you like them, fine.
There is nothing "earthshakingly remarkable" about the ribbon. Nobody said there was; certainly not me. I said I wouldn't invest time and effort in discussing the advantages, and shortcomings, of the ribbon because you've already decided not to like it. Which you have. That's fine - saves me a job.
I've even developed my own version of a Win32 toolbar that I call a "toolstrip". It can contain any number and type of Win32 control windows, and suits my purposes just fine. (Pic shows 2 of them, one horizontal, one vertical.)
Hmmm... OK, well good for you. Not remotely to my taste, to be honest - it looks too old fashioned. But who cares what I think? You did it for you, so that's OK.
However, I'd never try to peddle it as the latest user-friendly nostrum. We know how that usually works out.
That's just as well. It doesn't look "latest" or "user friendly" to me. It looks like something from Windows 95. Or maybe Windows XP. But if it works for you, that's great. The ribbon works for me - that's great, too.
So, "pal", why on earth are you getting so angry about a glorified fucking toolbar? It's as crazy as getting angry about Windows vs Linux - it's just not that important.
-
EDIT:
Here's the LibreOffice version of Ribbon.
Yes, indeed. And perhaps you can see why I very much prefer the SoftMaker version. 😄 LibreOffice is really showing its age.
-
I've even developed my own version of a Win32 toolbar that I call a "toolstrip". It can contain any number and type of Win32 control windows, and suits my purposes just fine. (Pic shows 2 of them, one horizontal, one vertical.)
However, I'd never try to peddle it as the latest user-friendly nostrum. We know how that usually works out.
That's just as well. It doesn't look "latest" or "user friendly" to me. It looks like something from Windows 95. Or maybe Windows XP. But if it works for you, that's great. The ribbon works for me - that's great, too.
Just to address that teensy tiny point, let's separate the functionality (mine) from the look.
The look is definitely XP-ish. That's because I use the "visual styles" thingie (an XML resource that enables certain control features like rounded corners in buttons) in my programs to make the controls look Vista/XP-ish, not the earlier Windows 2000 look which is much more square. Yes, definitely a retro look (but not that retro).
I could easily turn my toolstrip into a "ribbon" by simply allocating more vertical space so I have 2 or more rows of controls instead of just the one strip.
-
I could easily turn my toolstrip into a "ribbon" by simply allocating more vertical space so I have 2 or more rows of controls instead of just the one strip.
I'm afraid you couldn't. A ribbon is much more than two rows of Win32 controls. It intelligently scales to the window size in ways far more sophisticated than is achievable with Win32 controls. It presents and hides contextual sections. It.....
I'm sure you are right: the ribbon is simply two or more rows of assorted Win32 controls. It's ridiculous how much fuss Microsoft made over such a simple concept.
OK? Now can we move on? Life is short. And anyway, we're supposed to be mourning the death of Windows 11.
-
we're supposed to be mourning celebrating the death of Windows 11.
FIFY.
-
we're supposed to be mourning celebrating the death of Windows 11.
FIFY.
Both would be premature, it seems. I was about to go on a rant about why anyone would adopt W11 over W10, but then I remember that I upped all my machines to W11. 😬
-
I still use MS-Paint with WINE though.
Try KolourPaint.
Thanks. I downloaded it and gave it a very quick look over and it looks good and very similar to MS-Paint. I do not see that it has in B&W graphics the fill with checkered patterns like MS-Paint has. I find that quite useful when doing monochrome drawings of parts. I will have a longer look at it tomorrow.
No it doesn't have that, but it can convert to monochrome with dithering which should have the same effect, although you can't see it during editing.
-
EDIT:
Here's the LibreOffice version of Ribbon.
Yes, indeed. And perhaps you can see why I very much prefer the SoftMaker version. 😄 LibreOffice is really showing its age.
On the contrary, it seems to be utterly modern with the flat, borderless style :(
-
Microsoft has announced that Windows 11 will move to a model where only signed applications and drivers are allowed to run (https://www.windowslatest.com/2026/02/12/microsoft-wants-windows-11-secure-by-default-could-allow-only-properly-signed-apps-and-drivers-by-default/).
The article claims it will be similar to Android and prompt the user to decide to allow the application or not. They are also touting that this will provide similarly stronger security for AI Agents.
And they are scaling back CoPilot on Windows.
-
The "signed only" requirement i actually don't really mind, as long as there is at least *some* way to override, or signing known good applications yourself.
Or if that limits non-signed applications in some kind of sandbox, that would also be fine. Though one would hope that sandboxing becomes an option for *any* application.
Microsoft also has announced to bring back task bar capabilities that were lost in Windows 11.
That is actually the more amazing news for me. The limited task bar is my main technical gripe with Windows.
-
How is the taskbar limited in W11?
-
You cannot move it vertically or to the top.
You cannot set it to multiple rows.
You cannot *only* display it on a non main display. And the notification area, control panel and "systray" are always only available on your main display.
You cannot add your own "Quickstart" toolbars anymore.
All of this was possible in Windows 10 and earlier.
I muss the first three options sorely. The first two are confirmed to become available again, and i hope the third does as well.
Quickstart toolbars would be nice, but actually the new start menu does that quite well, even if i need to open it first. So that is not really important for me.
-
You cannot move it vertically or to the top.
You cannot set it to multiple rows.
You cannot *only* display it on a non main display. And the notification area, control panel and "systray" are always only available on your main display.
You cannot add your own "Quickstart" toolbars anymore.
All of this was possible in Windows 10 and earlier.
I muss the first three options sorely. The first two are confirmed to become available again, and i hope the third does as well.
Quickstart toolbars would be nice, but actually the new start menu does that quite well, even if i need to open it first. So that is not really important for me.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-heard-your-complaints-may-let-you-move-the-taskbar-again (https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-heard-your-complaints-may-let-you-move-the-taskbar-again)
I hadn't seen this news. That's welcome. Probably the only niggle I have with Windows 11. The Start menu seems to be the most F'd with part of Windows across 7, 8.1, 10, and 11. It's like they don't have anything else to do.
-
Based on this thread I will setup a win10 VM to test stuff, in my proxmox, not W11! Curious to see what will come after the W11 debacle..
-
Curious to see what will come after the W11 debacle..
More of the same, or worse. Realistically, anyone that was going to jump ship would have done so by now, so Microsoft know they have a captive clientele who will grumble but bend over nevertheless.
-
EDIT:
Here's the LibreOffice version of Ribbon.
Yes, indeed. And perhaps you can see why I very much prefer the SoftMaker version. 😄 LibreOffice is really showing its age.
On the contrary, it seems to be utterly modern with the flat, borderless style :(
Maybe, yes. I think the LibreOffice ribbon is a right old mess, with crap graphic elements that look ancient in this featureless, borderless style. I've tried pretty much every office suite because I wanted to escape from MS Office/365/fuck-knows. My conclusion is that Microsoft definitely does the ribbon better than anyone, but as @Zero999 said, it takes extra clicks to get to the "proper" File | Open and File | Save dialogs, plus it is obsessed with OneDrive. The second best ribbon (in my opinion) is in SoftMaker Office (which is cross-platform), and that's where I have landed.
-
Microsoft has announced that Windows 11 will move to a model where only signed applications and drivers are allowed to run (https://www.windowslatest.com/2026/02/12/microsoft-wants-windows-11-secure-by-default-could-allow-only-properly-signed-apps-and-drivers-by-default/).
The article claims it will be similar to Android and prompt the user to decide to allow the application or not. They are also touting that this will provide similarly stronger security for AI Agents.
Actually I'm fine with that. So long as I can override it when push comes to shove.
-
I think the pivot in perspective comes when you consider windows 11 Microsoft's first real attempt at "Thin client to cloud".
In corporate envs the whole office suite even disappeared initially. All links opened from OneDrive/ShitepointScarepants and ran in the browser in MS's C# embedded tech.
I noted that within a few months full "Desktop app" access was restored. Ribbons and all.
-
You cannot move it vertically or to the top.
You cannot set it to multiple rows.
You cannot *only* display it on a non main display. And the notification area, control panel and "systray" are always only available on your main display.
You cannot add your own "Quickstart" toolbars anymore.
All of this was possible in Windows 10 and earlier.
I muss the first three options sorely. The first two are confirmed to become available again, and i hope the third does as well.
Quickstart toolbars would be nice, but actually the new start menu does that quite well, even if i need to open it first. So that is not really important for me.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-heard-your-complaints-may-let-you-move-the-taskbar-again (https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-heard-your-complaints-may-let-you-move-the-taskbar-again)
I hadn't seen this news. That's welcome. Probably the only niggle I have with Windows 11. The Start menu seems to be the most F'd with part of Windows across 7, 8.1, 10, and 11. It's like they don't have anything else to do.
I cannot understand why they keep fuck-arsing around with the Start menu (except to make space for the bloody adverts, of course) . But it is clear the Start menu and taskbar were totally rewritten for W11, which is why all that useful functionality disappeared. I recall a company spokesperson - when asked about being able to move the taskbar to any screen edge (like you could with W10) - said it would not be done any time soon because it would make the code much more complicated and difficult!
Start11 offers six different Start menu layouts and a moveable taskbar. As far as I know it is now bug-free and works on any W11 installation. That demonstrates to me that Microsoft could also offer the same options. If Stardock can do it, so could Microsoft. I mean, how many thousand coders do they have at their disposal?
-
Start11 offers six different Start menu layouts and a moveable taskbar. As far as I know it is now bug-free and works on any W11 installation. That demonstrates to me that Microsoft could also offer the same options. If Stardock can do it, so could Microsoft. I mean, how many thousand coders do they have at their disposal?
Raymond Chen to the rescue?
-
Start11 offers six different Start menu layouts and a moveable taskbar. As far as I know it is now bug-free and works on any W11 installation. That demonstrates to me that Microsoft could also offer the same options. If Stardock can do it, so could Microsoft. I mean, how many thousand coders do they have at their disposal?
Raymond Chen to the rescue?
Yeah! 😀 It might even take him a whole afternoon.
-
I cannot understand why they keep fuck-arsing around with the Start menu (except to make space for the bloody adverts, of course) . But it is clear the Start menu and taskbar were totally rewritten for W11,
Because MS is moving to a full Copilot OS, things will change there, so to train the monkeys on keyboard they changed things in Win11.
From what I heard and know of it, Win12 was supposed to be out already, but MS next OS is not a "Win12", it's Copilot OS, where lot's of functionality is moving to AI. The Lexus Butler in Arene OS is kinda the same thing in premise.
-
I believe the PC itself is on numbered days.
It's already disappearing from "normal" peoples lives, if not gone already.
Phones, tablets, smart TVs.
It will get harder and more expensive to own a PC if you need one.
-
I believe the PC itself is on numbered days.
It's already disappearing from "normal" peoples lives, if not gone already.
Phones, tablets, smart TVs.
It will get harder and more expensive to own a PC if you need one.
I agree.
High-end machines used for gaming are already ludicrously expensive. You can easily spend 5,000 bucks or more for such a PC.
-
A phone with 43" screen is going to need a bigger pocket.
-
I have tried that a while ago...
You can just connect your fruity device to many ordinary USB docking stations, and you will be able to use the big screens, and even your keyboard and mouse.
The iPad is significantly better at it, since the iPhone is (software) limited to not show more screenspace. But with an iPhone this works surprisingly well.
-
It will get harder and more expensive to own a PC if you need one.
We're already there.
I 'needed' a dedicated machine to run some niche software for my MIDI keyboards but never found the time to get on and actually put something together. Spurred on by talk of RAM pricing increases, I finally did it at the end of January and the price of systems came as a shock. Silly money for RAM and SSDs, courtesy of the AI goldrush and that's if you can actually find stock of certain items.
-
High-end machines used for gaming are already ludicrously expensive. You can easily spend 5,000 bucks or more for such a PC.
What's the opposite of "shrinkflation"? The lab I worked in was paying that, and more, for IBM PS/2 desktops in the early 90's.
386 processor, 4MB of RAM, double-digit MB HDD. Token-ring network card, if you lay down another 500 bucks.
-
I lucked good on this one. When I couldn't think of what my brother could get me for xmas last year, I asked for 32Gb of RAM. Back then it was ~$150.
As I didn't really *need* it back then it sat on the shelf for nearly a year. When I actually installed it into the PC giving it 64Gb of RAM, it would have cost $800.
The memory in my server (128Gb) would buy me two of the same server when they were purchased. If I didn't need it I could sell it now, wait for RAM to recover (brave) and buy it back. Short selling RAM consumer style.
-
Short selling RAM consumer style.
A friend of mine 'stocked up' on RAM 18 months ago. A dozen or more 64GB DDR5 EEC modules, now sitting unopened in his office cupboard.
I've suggested that he cashes out and retires on the proceeds..
-
A phone with 43" screen is going to need a bigger pocket.
wifi-7 and some newer wifi should be able t handle ext screens easily.
They'll just call phone/tablet "capable", and then you decide later on what spy panel you want to use. ;)
-
I won't dispute the claim that the world is moving to thin clients. The average desktop/laptop user still only uses their computer for opening chrome and doing stuff on the internet
That said, we won't be seeing actually "thin" clients ever, given the state of webdev industry. 30MB webpages, 8GB RAM minimum for having 10 tabs open, npm/nodejs bloatware. There is no way thin clients can ever be actually "thin" these days, with all the bloat.
-
I won't dispute the claim that the world is moving to thin clients. The average desktop/laptop user still only uses their computer for opening chrome and doing stuff on the internet
That said, we won't be seeing actually "thin" clients ever, given the state of webdev industry. 30MB webpages, 8GB RAM minimum for having 10 tabs open, npm/nodejs bloatware. There is no way thin clients can ever be actually "thin" these days, with all the bloat.
Thin is relative for sure. And given the current prices of memory and graphics, the cost of CPU and storage appears to be a moot point for cost.
-
I won't dispute the claim that the world is moving to thin clients. The average desktop/laptop user still only uses their computer for opening chrome and doing stuff on the internet
That said, we won't be seeing actually "thin" clients ever, given the state of webdev industry. 30MB webpages, 8GB RAM minimum for having 10 tabs open, npm/nodejs bloatware. There is no way thin clients can ever be actually "thin" these days, with all the bloat.
Thin is relative for sure. And given the current prices of memory and graphics, the cost of CPU and storage appears to be a moot point for cost.
The issue is perhaps not cost of cpu or ram in terms of per cycle or per byte cost. There's a major density issue that cannot be solved anytime soon. AI demands huge amounts of compute and power. So maybe soon an Intel i9 hex-core is just $10, but the code that comes down needs 100 of those CPU's.
-
https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/windows-11/how-to-fix-boot-issues-after-installing-the-january-2026-update-for-windows-11 (https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/windows-11/how-to-fix-boot-issues-after-installing-the-january-2026-update-for-windows-11)
Windows 11’s January update is breaking PCs — here’s how to fix your boot issue
On Windows 11, if after installing the update KB5074109, your computer no longer boots, you'll have to uninstall the update from the Windows Recovery Environment, and here's how.
-
https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/windows-11/how-to-fix-boot-issues-after-installing-the-january-2026-update-for-windows-11 (https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/windows-11/how-to-fix-boot-issues-after-installing-the-january-2026-update-for-windows-11)
Windows 11’s January update is breaking PCs — here’s how to fix your boot issue
On Windows 11, if after installing the update KB5074109, your computer no longer boots, you'll have to uninstall the update from the Windows Recovery Environment, and here's how.
How ironic, it was a "quality" update package. :-DD :-DD
Hence my rules for windoze.
1) Do not allow auto-updating.
2) Before installing updates, create a Restore Point. If things do go bad you can use the Recovery boot crud to get to "restore" and choose the newly created restore point.
Soon, mycrudsoft will demand you run their OS only on "MS" certified hardware. And in doing so it still wont fix these OS issues. :-DD
-
Back when UEFI was not common and BIOS boot method was the prevalent one (I was a late UEFI adopter even still), I used to dual boot Xubuntu and Windows 10. Windows 10 update often decided grub bootloader was in fact a "broken windows bootloader" and decided to overwrite it with impunity. Kinda ironic since grub was used to boot into windows...
-
Back when UEFI was not common and BIOS boot method was the prevalent one (I was a late UEFI adopter even still), I used to dual boot Xubuntu and Windows 10. Windows 10 update often decided grub bootloader was in fact a "broken windows bootloader" and decided to overwrite it with impunity. Kinda ironic since grub was used to boot into windows...
BIOS is always the initial boot. Did you mean MBR?
-
BIOS is always the initial boot. Did you mean MBR?
I believe BIOS and UEFI are fundamentally different:
AI:
BIOS and UEFI are both motherboard firmware that initialize hardware during startup, but UEFI is the modern, faster, and more secure successor to the legacy BIOS. UEFI supports larger drives (GPT), faster boot times, mouse-driven, graphical interfaces, and secure boot, unlike the 16-bit, keyboard-only, 2 TB-limited BIOS.
Key Differences Between BIOS and UEFI
- Boot Process and Speed: UEFI supports faster boot times, especially on modern systems with fast storage, as it initializes hardware more efficiently than BIOS.
- Drive Size & Partitioning: UEFI uses the GUID Partition Table (GPT), supporting hard drives larger than 2.2 TB (up to 18 exabytes) and virtually unlimited partitions. BIOS uses the Master Boot Record (MBR), limiting partition sizes to 2 TB and a maximum of 4 primary partitions.
- Security: UEFI features Secure Boot, which prevents unauthorized OS or bootloader, such as rootkits, from loading, offering superior security over the non-inherent security of traditional BIOS.
- User Interface: UEFI provides a modern, graphical interface that allows the use of a mouse, whereas BIOS (Legacy) is restricted to a keyboard-only, text-based interface.
- Architecture: UEFI runs in 32-bit or 64-bit mode, whereas BIOS is limited to 16-bit mode.
- Compatibility: Many UEFI systems include a Compatibility Support Module (CSM) that allows them to emulate a legacy BIOS to run older operating systems
-
Sorry yes i meant MBR. For whatever reason i remembered it was "BIOS" boot method...?
-
Not sure you can escape BIOS, it's the mobo firmware (F2 or DEL key when system powers on). In this firmware is where you set UEFI mode.
From a bootstrap step-by-step view, mobo firmware ("bios") has to run.
Perhaps maybe the term "bios" and "firmware" are now clearly separate, however, F2 or DEL key gets you into pre-1st-stage-boot-loader that typically says "bios". Even with UEFI the settings in F2/DEL still affect the system. Turn stuff off in the firmware settings and those items will not be available to the OS even when UEFI is used.
-
Not sure you can escape BIOS, it's the mobo firmware (F2 or DEL key when system powers on). In this firmware is where you set UEFI mode.
UEFI is what you call BIOS - and it has no code or functional relationship to the old BIOS.
-
Back in the day there were no such thing as motherboard BIOS, it was IO.SYS of DOS.
Yes, motherboard have had a boot ROM from the beginning, but first it was very limited.
Later BIOS of OS was moved to boot ROM, more or less.
So in one sense UEFI > BIOS, but fundamentally UEFI is more like an extension.
Wiki uses both acronyms like nouns, when actually basic input output system is still just that.
-
Not sure you can escape BIOS, it's the mobo firmware (F2 or DEL key when system powers on). In this firmware is where you set UEFI mode.
UEFI is what you call BIOS - and it has no code or functional relationship to the old BIOS.
Agree with the first but not the last.
UEFI has, or many have, a Legacy BIOS-compatible boot mode that emulates a Legacy BIOS for booting systems that aren't UEFI-compatible. This is called CSM or Compatibility Support Mode. I do not know what code is used for the CSM, but the functionality is certainly a duplicate, as that's the purpose.
It wouldn't be completely incorrect to call UEFI "BIOS" as "Basic Input Output System" is its function. But most people call it UEFI, and what was before "Legacy BIOS".
-
UEFI has, or many have, a Legacy BIOS-compatible boot mode that emulates a Legacy BIOS for booting systems that aren't UEFI-compatible. This is called CSM or Compatibility Support Mode. I do not know what code is used for the CSM, but the functionality is certainly a duplicate, as that's the purpose.
The CSM is not UEFI, it's an application. The underlying firmware does not function in the same way as 'BIOS' (the AMI, Award, and Phoenix horrors we've all got long suffering experience of.. no worries, they write terrible code for UEFI too). This is essentially saying your PC has a functional relationship to a Playstation because it can run an emulator.
-
looks like my last reply did not make it.
100% true, UEFI is not old "BIOS". I guess calling F2/DEL the "bios" is still in vocabulary, better to just call it mobo firmware.
However, for clarity, UEFI in the mobo firmware is not the actual bootloader.
Mobo firmware (bios uefi other) is step-1 in bootstrapping.
Handing off to an efi file in the fat32 boot partition is step-2.
Then onto OS for step-3.
No matter how the OS gets going, the mobo firmware has to run at power-on. Mobo firmware is limited and still remains a layer between OS and hardware, but the efi boot file can be complex supporting other boot-time features (secure-boot, calls to TPM for keys, etc). The tiny sized MBR could not do that.
Most/many firmware have legacy support for old MBR bootstrapping.
-
100% true, UEFI is not old "BIOS". I guess calling F2/DEL the "bios" is still in vocabulary, better to just call it mobo firmware.
However, for clarity, UEFI in the mobo firmware is not the actual bootloader.
Mobo firmware (bios uefi other) is step-1 in bootstrapping.
Handing off to an efi file in the fat32 boot partition is step-2.
Then onto OS for step-3.
UEFI has no technical need for step 3. It can execute the OS directly and provide a boot menu itself easily.
The point of the previous comment:
Back when UEFI was not common and BIOS boot method was the prevalent one (I was a late UEFI adopter even still), I used to dual boot Xubuntu and Windows 10. Windows 10 update often decided grub bootloader was in fact a "broken windows bootloader" and decided to overwrite it with impunity. Kinda ironic since grub was used to boot into windows...
Is that with UEFI you do not have a single bootloader. You have a list of potential executables UEFI can launch, and in such a setup Windows need not actually impact the other executables (it may alter the priority, and of course it might just delete every entry and take over for itself.. but it doesn't need to). With an MBR bootloader, Windows must replace whatever is in the boot block with its own first stage.
I've never actually felt any need to dual-boot Windows on a UEFI machine, so how it handles that in practice I can't say.
-
UEFI has no technical need for step 3. It can execute the OS directly and provide a boot menu itself easily.
Step-3 is OS kernel.
Old way was bios/mbr/bootloader/OS, but bootloader is part of the OS.
UEFI new-way uefi/efi/OS. efi being the "bootloader", it still has to load in OS kernel and handoff.
In order to get secure-boot, access to TPM (keys), etc, things needed to get way more complicated.
winload.efi is the EFI executable responsible for loading the Windows 11 kernel, but it does not load the kernel directly from itself. Instead, winload.efi is a critical component of the UEFI boot process that loads the core Windows NT OS Kernel (ntoskrnl.exe) into memory after initializing essential drivers and system configuration data.
The process works as follows:
The UEFI firmware loads bootmgfw.efi (the Windows Boot Manager) from the EFI System Partition (ESP).
bootmgfw.efi reads the Boot Configuration Data (BCD) store and loads winload.efi.
winload.efi then loads the system registry hive, critical boot drivers (including core, temporary, and ELAM drivers), and CPU-specific microcode updates.
Once these components are loaded, winload.efi loads ntoskrnl.exe (the Windows kernel) into memory and transfers full control to it, marking the transition from bootloader to kernel initialization.
-
UEFI has, or many have, a Legacy BIOS-compatible boot mode that emulates a Legacy BIOS for booting systems that aren't UEFI-compatible. This is called CSM or Compatibility Support Mode. I do not know what code is used for the CSM, but the functionality is certainly a duplicate, as that's the purpose.
The CSM is not UEFI, it's an application. The underlying firmware does not function in the same way as 'BIOS' (the AMI, Award, and Phoenix horrors we've all got long suffering experience of.. no worries, they write terrible code for UEFI too). This is essentially saying your PC has a functional relationship to a Playstation because it can run an emulator.
I don't think I said CSM is UEFI, I said many provide it.
To split more hair, UEFI is a specification. The actual code examples include AMI Aptio, Phoenix SecureCore, TianoCore EDK II, and InsydeH2O.
-
UEFI has no technical need for step 3. It can execute the OS directly and provide a boot menu itself easily.
Step-3 is OS kernel.
There is no need for a step 3. You can execute the OS kernel directly if it is a UEFI executable. No CSM, no bootloader (that makes four steps in legacy setups.. CSM should only be executed if you proceed to a non-UEFI boot path).
Perhaps it would help to clarify why legacy BIOS has a bootloader: The BIOS loads the boot sector from the selected MBR, a total of 446 bytes (okay it's the whole 512 bytes of MBR, but the bootloader is 446 bytes if you intend to have a traditional partition table), and this code is responsible for locating and executing the next stage - in most cases, this is the bootloader you're familiar with. The first stage is just what's needed to find it.
UEFI does not have this limitation. It can read a filesystem, load into memory an entire and substantial (contextually.. limits are implementation specific) file, and then execute it. That's it - no additional stage. You are now in the application, which can be anything from a small memory tester to a whole modern kernel with an embedded filesystem requiring no further data from storage. Of course, there's a whole lot of things for this application to do from that point depending on the hardware and intentions.
-
UEFI has no technical need for step 3. It can execute the OS directly and provide a boot menu itself easily.
Step-3 is OS kernel.
There is no need for a step 3. You can execute the OS kernel directly if it is a UEFI executable. No CSM, no bootloader (that makes four steps in legacy setups.. CSM should only be executed if you proceed to a non-UEFI boot path).
I not following. Unless I missed something.
Mobo firmware --> efi chained files in efi partition --> ntoskrnl.exe (or vmlinuz-xxxx, kernel, unix, etc etc etc)
The efi partition is the "bootloader", it "boots" the OS. There is no running OS until the kernel loads and efi does handoff.
-
I not following. Unless I missed something.
Mobo firmware --> efi chained files in efi partition --> ntoskrnl.exe (or vmlinuz-xxxx, kernel, unix, etc etc etc)
The efi partition is the "bootloader", it "boots" the OS. There is no running OS until the kernel loads and efi does handoff.
There is no need for 'chained files'. This is an artifact of an extreme limitation (512 bytes loaded to 0x7C00 and jumped to) from BIOS, a limitation which no longer exists. The UEFI executable (I'm abusing the nomenclature a little, it's a PE executable, actual UEFI applications aren't handed off to the same way) you assume is a bootloader can be the entire OS in and of itself. Yes, Windows has its whole complicated boot chain, Linux distributions will typically put GRUB in place to provide options to control the boot process, and so forth, but it isn't necessary. You can make the OS kernel (complete with embedded filesystem!) an executable which can be run directly from UEFI. Just as many smaller utilities exist which require no intermediate stage - see memtest86 and friends.
-
I did not say UEFI cant go direct, but it's not a simple thing. The kernel needs a stub (PE/COFF header).
The efi files found with windoze install are chained boot files.
For windows using UEFI, they literally call it a bootloader, with more than one efi in the ESP for booting wndoze.
EFI System Partition (ESP) is essential for Windows 11 to boot on UEFI-based systems. When the computer starts, the UEFI firmware reads the boot files stored in the ESP, which is a small, hidden partition (typically 100 MB) formatted with FAT32. This partition contains critical boot components such as the boot loader (Bootmgfw.efi), BCD (Boot Configuration Data), device drivers, and system utilities needed to initialize the operating system.
-
I did not say UEFI cant go direct, but it's not a simple thing. The kernel needs a stub (PE/COFF header).
:palm:
Yes, it needs to be an executable UEFI can execute. Just as the bootloader does. That's not really that complicated.
You do not need an intermediate bootloader with UEFI. What any particular OS chooses to do is its own business.
-
The interesting thing is what happens if there is no hard disk.
In the "old way" you still had a functioning machine, putting up the BIOS screens, config, memory test, even booting from a CD/DVD drive. I have such a machine here for cloning hard disks. Just a DVD drive for booting off a Clonezilla DVD. Then if you want to boot from a HDD, you make that bootable and it tries to load the boot block from it and execute that. That, I presume, in turn tries to load NTLDR or whatever.
With UEFI you should still have all the above. But there is some Secure Boot / TPM / etc interaction to retrieve keys. No idea how that works but e.g. I have a Dell laptop which has secure boot but no TPM (so is not "win11 compliant").
And if you have Bitlocker on, the key for that needs to be retrieved. That is a weakness because that key can be intercepted, and voila now the attacker also has the windows login password :)
-
The interesting thing is what happens if there is no hard disk.
In the "old way" you still had a functioning machine, putting up the BIOS screens, config, memory test, even booting from a CD/DVD drive. I have such a machine here for cloning hard disks. Just a DVD drive for booting off a Clonezilla DVD. Then if you want to boot from a HDD, you make that bootable and it tries to load the boot block from it and execute that. That, I presume, in turn tries to load NTLDR or whatever.
With UEFI you should still have all the above. But there is some Secure Boot / TPM / etc interaction to retrieve keys. No idea how that works but e.g. I have a Dell laptop which has secure boot but no TPM (so is not "win11 compliant").
And if you have Bitlocker on, the key for that needs to be retrieved. That is a weakness because that key can be intercepted, and voila now the attacker also has the windows login password :)
The boot medium still needs something that can bootstrap the OS.
BIOS and disk was MBR sector (windoze, other)
UEFI and disk is a efi boot partition (windoze, other)
UEFI firmware (mobo firmware) cant by itself load an OS, it needs something to bootstrap (efi files, PE/COFF header, etc).
-
UEFI firmware (mobo firmware) cant by itself load an OS, it needs something to bootstrap (efi files, PE/COFF header, etc).
'PE/COFF header', which means: Execute an executable. Exactly the same as a bootloader. That executable can be an entire self-contained OS, or a simple application like memtest86.
-
:palm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQQRJTAoB_A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQQRJTAoB_A)
:-DD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHNYm4Geig8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHNYm4Geig8)
-
UEFI firmware (mobo firmware) cant by itself load an OS, it needs something to bootstrap (efi files, PE/COFF header, etc).
'PE/COFF header', which means: Execute an executable. Exactly the same as a bootloader. That executable can be an entire self-contained OS, or a simple application like memtest86.
For windoze, uefi is just way more complicated.
Firmware --> efi bootmgfw.efi --> winload.exe --> ntoskrnl.exe / hal.dll
There's no OS unless the kernel loads.
Everything from Firmware up to OS is a "bootloader".
The PE/COFF kernel stub is pre-kernel, so technically still part of booting the OS.
The PE/COFF on exe's is just a way to "bootstrap" the actual exe code into memory.
-
UEFI firmware (mobo firmware) cant by itself load an OS, it needs something to bootstrap (efi files, PE/COFF header, etc).
'PE/COFF header', which means: Execute an executable. Exactly the same as a bootloader. That executable can be an entire self-contained OS, or a simple application like memtest86.
For windoze, uefi is just way more complicated.
So what? UEFI does not require an intermediate bootloader. It can run the target application directly.
There's no OS unless the kernel loads.
Everything from Firmware up to OS is a "bootloader".
The PE/COFF kernel stub is pre-kernel, so technically still part of booting the OS.
The PE/COFF on exe's is just a way to "bootstrap" the actual exe code into memory.
Your entire OS is just a bootloader to run your browser.
|O
Again, let me reiterate, the concept of a bootloader as you know it is a workaround for an extraordinarily limited mechanism for loading code from the days of BIOS. Today the firmware can load an entire application and jump into it in one call: Job done. No bootloader required, because you do not need an additional tool to load the kernel into memory - you may still use one, but you do not need one.
-
Again, let me reiterate, the concept of a bootloader as you know it is a workaround for an extraordinarily limited mechanism for loading code from the days of BIOS. Today the firmware can load an entire application and jump into it in one call: Job done. No bootloader required, because you do not need an additional tool to load the kernel into memory - you may still use one, but you do not need one.
When I first booted my Crosshair Hero motherboard, there was no CPU or RAM in it. Note, I said, "booted". It presented a basic VGA display and told me there was no CPU or RAM.
These days, especially on the high-end what is referred to as BIOS is probably the firmware for the SOC which actually boots at power on. It can not only provide "basic io" but it can control that IO itself. Enable USB keyboards for example, list hardware, do a first pass POST. Without a CPU.
In the lower end the SOC is smaller, lighter and doesn't drive or attempt to drive a display, keyboard/mouse, but will just display a number on an LED display or flash LED colour codes at you.
If everything goes well, it sets up the various chipset requirements for the installed hardware, copies code into RAM and starts the CPU.
The EUFI stack, IIRC is included in the inital "ROM" provided by the SOC shadowed or copied to RAM. However my EUFI foo is not that strong. It is multi-layered IIRC. So the minimal stub from the SOC boot ROM can do many things, like enable and access disks, present a basic UI, make your mouse and keyboard work, load and execute applications by filename - like your OS kernel. However, often it is chained to another bootloader deployed on disc in teh "BOOT" partition by convention. Here you can install the Windows bootloader, the linux bootloader (grub/lilo/whatever next) or a custom 3rd party EUFI boot manager.
I believe... out of the box or as a fall back it will look for the old MBR on the first (or BIOS conffig selected) disk.
-
When I first booted my Crosshair Hero motherboard, there was no CPU or RAM in it. Note, I said, "booted". It presented a basic VGA display and told me there was no CPU or RAM.
[snip]
Without a CPU.
That's fascinating - I had no idea a motherboard could start up without a CPU or RAM. It never occurred to me to try.
-
Search AMT SOL.
No idea what else is available.
-
When I first booted my Crosshair Hero motherboard, there was no CPU or RAM in it. Note, I said, "booted". It presented a basic VGA display and told me there was no CPU or RAM.
[snip]
Without a CPU.
That's fascinating - I had no idea a motherboard could start up without a CPU or RAM. It never occurred to me to try.
If you take another step up from "high end consumer" into server motherboards and chassis, they have an always on, always active little SOC monitoring the server. Even if the server is dead, you can log into it and use it to reboot and/or access the BIOS settings etc. Has it's own network port and often its own PSUs. If you have ever rented a rack serve (co-loc) the management interface is usually the bit the host retains control of and why you need to phone them to get it rebooted if it's not answering on normal network.
-
It's called BMC (Baseboard Management Controller).
-
The tangent thought that led me to when it popped up in my "OS Whiteroom Design" was... oh.... there be mainframe distributed achitecture dragons if I want to wake them to play.
Instead of writing a boot loader and a ROM/RAM shadow/clone/swap in hardware.... Just boot an STM32 first. Let it setup the hardware with a UART console enabled. Turn the CPU on and OFF literally. HALT it, give it it's BIOS and kernel source in RAM and unhalt it.
Now zoom back and there are multiple CPU boards and separate MCU controlled IO controllers.
Start designing your comms and bus archs for that... it's mainframe world.
Just back then those IO controllers were Z80s. Well maybe in Mini-computer days.
-
The Jan2026 goof was not good, now there's the Feb2026 goof.
When will it die?
The February 2026 Windows cumulative updates, including KB5077181 (Windows 11) and KB5075912 (Windows 10 22H2 Extended Security Updates), have been released and address 58 vulnerabilities, including six actively exploited zero-days. While Microsoft states there are no known issues with these updates as of February 15, 2026, some users have reported post-update problems:
Boot failures (e.g., UNMOUNTABLE_BOOT_VOLUME, black screen) on certain Windows 11 24H2/25H2 devices after failed January updates — resolved in KB5077181.
DHCP failures causing internet loss despite active connections.
BSODs (KERNEL_SECURITY_CHECK_FAILURE) on specific Dell Optiplex models running Windows 11 24H2.
WDAC (Windows Defender Application Control) blocking updated Appx packages, breaking the Start menu and taskbar.
HP and HPE server boot failures (including safe mode) after update installation, requiring cold boot via iLO.
-
After one month trying Linux, I have sold my soul to the penguin.
It's now official, I wasted my last 10 years on f Windows.
Win 11 should die, killed by me.
-
After one month trying Linux, I have sold my soul to the penguin.
It's now official, I wasted my last 10 years on f Windows.
Win 11 should die, killed by me.
I run Linux, but keep a copy of windoze as VM for the rare times I need the hyper to power on the doze. :-DD
A true statement.
-
I'm very tempted to move my laptop over to Linux.
I'll probably keep Windows on my main PC for gaming - yeah, lots of compatibility now but it's still a bit ropey.
-
The Jan2026 goof was not good, now there's the Feb2026 goof.
When will it die?
All Jan and Feb2026 win11 updates went fine here, no problems. Unsupported 10y old hw here..
-
The Jan2026 goof was not good, now there's the Feb2026 goof.
When will it die?
All Jan and Feb2026 win11 updates went fine here, no problems. Unsupported 10y old hw here..
"Unsupported"? Because you dont have TPM2.0?
"Unsupported" is a royal BS term Mycrudsoft uses to avoid user complaints.
It does seem the Feb issue is less widespread than the Jan issue.
But we should be able to ask why these issues even happen.
With Linux, if the install goes ok, then even the updates from the repos that come almost daily, always seem to install ok and cause no issues.
-
"Unsupported"? Because you dont have TPM2.0?
i3-6320, Z170 mobo, none TPM.. Ran all win7/win10/win11 versions/updates on it. Tons of linux distros as well.. Btw., I've been messing with linux since its introduction in mid 90ties (and still using it daily).. So I can compare in detail, but I am not going to.. ;)
-
After one month trying Linux, I have sold my soul to the penguin.
You regained your freedom by overcoming a Microsoft addiction. ;)
It's now official, I wasted my last 10 years on f Windows.
Not wasted, it's a valuable experience.
-
I still use MS-Paint with WINE though.
Try KolourPaint.
Thanks. I downloaded it and gave it a very quick look over and it looks good and very similar to MS-Paint. I do not see that it has in B&W graphics the fill with checkered patterns like MS-Paint has. I find that quite useful when doing monochrome drawings of parts. I will have a longer look at it tomorrow.
I've recently found this.
https://jspaint.app
-
I've recently found this.
https://jspaint.app
It seems to be just like the original MS-Paint with a few extras added.
Thanks!
-
I've recently found this.
https://jspaint.app
Good grief! How old is that? It looks like a museum piece. Works like one, too.
-
It's not really a battle of Win vs Linux, unless you want to strictly limit the argument to kernel.
It's really open source vs closed source.
If someone wanted to make a desktop that looks and feels and works just like Win using GNU linux, it can easily be done. But if you get too close then you end up in court.
Pros & Cons to open vs closed. Take for example backdoors. In closed you really have no easy way to know if that MS dll has hidden backdoor. On flip side open source a trust issue, like xz liblzma as example. However, open source does have advantage of having code scrutinized by more people and code auto-checkers. Cant do that with closed code, at least not as easy.
GNU vs crapple or mycrudsoft, is a choice. I prefer GNU model.
If I were to estimate, there's probably the same number of complaints by linux users about linux based OS as there are of windoze user complaints about windoze.
With things under GNU, if there's something you dont like, you either make request and hope & wait, or you fix it yourself. In closed world, if you dont like something, well there's a few lakes MS knows about that you can go jump in, and 10,000 win forums where you can post your gripes.
Lets also be clear, GNU is not a money maker. You like closed, then be ready to pay for it, pay for product and optional pay for that extra support.
Anyone here signed up for the netfilter email list? If so then you know what "its" all about. GNU is it, its how things should be done.
-
If I were to estimate, there's probably the same number of complaints by linux users about linux based OS as there are of windoze user complaints about windoze.
I expect so. But the weird part is the number of complaints by Linux users about Windows. It's like it's an obsession.
-
If I were to estimate, there's probably the same number of complaints by linux users about linux based OS as there are of windoze user complaints about windoze.
I expect so. But the weird part is the number of complaints by Linux users about Windows. It's like it's an obsession.
SteveThackery's countless complaints about Linux users and their perceived "obsessions" in this thread alone resembles an actual obsession. :D
-
If I were to estimate, there's probably the same number of complaints by linux users about linux based OS as there are of windoze user complaints about windoze.
I expect so. But the weird part is the number of complaints by Linux users about Windows. It's like it's an obsession.
SteveThackery's countless complaints about Linux users and their perceived "obsessions" in this thread alone resembles an actual obsession. :D
Now come on, mate, I've got to keep stoking that fire - it's all part of the fun! 😄😄
-
If I were to estimate, there's probably the same number of complaints by linux users about linux based OS as there are of windoze user complaints about windoze.
I expect so. But the weird part is the number of complaints by Linux users about Windows. It's like it's an obsession.
SteveThackery's countless complaints about Linux users and their perceived "obsessions" in this thread alone resembles an actual obsession. :D
Now come on, mate, I've got to keep stoking that fire - it's all part of the fun! 😄😄
You can't say they ol' Thackery is missing any ops for swings. :horse: :box:
:popcorn:
-
I've recently found this.
https://jspaint.app
If you close it (File -> Exit), you actually get into https://98.js.org/
Internet explorer showing Altavista site of 1998!
-
I've recently found this.
https://jspaint.app
If you close it (File -> Exit), you actually get into https://98.js.org/
Internet explorer showing Altavista site of 1998!
Blimey! You can even plain Pinball with only slight lag. Very impressive.
-
I've recently found this.
https://jspaint.app (https://jspaint.app)
If you close it (File -> Exit), you actually get into https://98.js.org/ (https://98.js.org/)
Internet explorer showing Altavista site of 1998!
It's Win 98 online!
You can open Solitaire, Minesweeper, Calculator, Notepad, etc.!!
The credit text file says:
98.js is a simulator (not an emulator) of Windows 98.
It includes projects from several different people!
This project exists to bring these fantastic clones
together under one roof.
You can find more information about the project here:
https://github.com/1j01/98#readme (https://github.com/1j01/98#readme)
Join the Discord chat server:
https://discord.com/invite/SyFweYjTKx (https://discord.com/invite/SyFweYjTKx)
This file lists the included projects.
--------------------------------------
Apps
====----------------------------------
Paint, Sound Recorder, Notepad, 3D Pipes,
Explorer, and the 98.js desktop
by Isaiah Odhner
https://github.com/1j01/98 (https://github.com/1j01/98)
https://github.com/1j01/jspaint (https://github.com/1j01/jspaint)
https://github.com/1j01/pipes (https://github.com/1j01/pipes)
Minesweeper by Jon Ziebell
https://github.com/ziebelje/minesweeper (https://github.com/ziebelje/minesweeper)
Solitaire by Radovan Janjic
https://github.com/rjanjic/js-solitaire (https://github.com/rjanjic/js-solitaire)
3D Pinball decompiled & ported
by Muzychenko Andrey and Alula
https://github.com/alula/SpaceCadetPinball (https://github.com/alula/SpaceCadetPinball)
Webamp by Jordan Eldredge
https://github.com/captbaritone/webamp (https://github.com/captbaritone/webamp)
Featuring:
Butterchurn Visualizer by Jordan Berg
https://github.com/jberg/butterchurn (https://github.com/jberg/butterchurn)
3D Flower Box by Kevin Shannon
https://github.com/kevin-shannon/3D-FlowerBox (https://github.com/kevin-shannon/3D-FlowerBox)
MS-DOS Prompt
https://js-dos.com (https://js-dos.com)
Emscripten https://emscripten.org/ (https://emscripten.org/)
DOSBox https://www.dosbox.com/ (https://www.dosbox.com/)
Em-DOSBox https://github.com/dreamlayers/em-dosbox (https://github.com/dreamlayers/em-dosbox)
Calculator by:
Isaiah Odhner - Windows 98 interface
Muzam1l - Web port of the Windows 10 Calculator
https://github.com/muzam1l/mcalculator (https://github.com/muzam1l/mcalculator)
Windows Calculator engine developers
https://github.com/microsoft/calculator (https://github.com/microsoft/calculator)
Clippy by Smore:
https://github.com/smore-inc/clippy.js (https://github.com/smore-inc/clippy.js)
--------------------------------------
Assets
======--------------------------------
Many icons and other assets from Microsoft.
Microsoft® and other trademarks are respective of their own respective holders,
respectively, in the United States and/or other countries, respectively.
--------------------------------------
Libraries
=========-----------------------------
OS-GUI.js
https://os-gui.js.org (https://os-gui.js.org)
BrowserFS
https://github.com/jvilk/BrowserFS (https://github.com/jvilk/BrowserFS)
jQuery
https://github.com/jquery/jquery (https://github.com/jquery/jquery)
FileSaver.js
https://github.com/eligrey/FileSaver.js/ (https://github.com/eligrey/FileSaver.js/)
and many more!
-
32-bit W10 Pro Explorer has recently stopped waking correctly, its taskbar is staying down.
Desktop icons have their functionalities and open applications are fine, if you can bring them back to front.
-
I am surprised to learn 32 bit is still a thing. I mean 64 bit has been around for over 20 years now.
-
I am surprised to learn 32 bit is still a thing. I mean 64 bit has been around for over 20 years now.
There are still many 32bit devices though. So they do need to maintain the 32bit compat layers. As I understand it, the 32bit->64bit move was not as hard as many people thought in terms of impact on the OS I mean.
-
There is no 32bit Edition of Windows 11.
The 32bit compatibility layer is of course still in there, but won't be forever. I would not be all that surprised if home edtions of Windows will soon-ish get rid of that.
-
I think the 32-bit API could be implemented as a VM, invoked only for legacy programs. VM technology could help protect the kernel from its shortcomings.
-
I just discovered that they removed the option to show all tray icons in the taskbar :-// :palm:
-
Well, I think the subject of the thread was proven wrong, and even the thread about Windows 11 dying isn't dying. Here's my post to keep it going.... :popcorn:
-
I am surprised to learn 32 bit is still a thing. I mean 64 bit has been around for over 20 years now.
Are you kidding? 32-bit programming is very much still a thing.
Take me, f'rinstance: I write Win32 programs (both GUI and console) in assembly language in 32 bits, using a free package based on MASM. Works great for me.
I took a look at 64-bit and said "thanks, but nah".
For everything I do, 64-bit programs would be complete overkill. I would never need that much address space, ever.
Not to mention that the 64-bit ABI, at least under Windoze, is one hot stinking mess. You have to deal with shadow space, all kinds of alignment constraints, all of that BS. The 32-bit ABI is so much simpler and more straightforward.
The one attractive thing about X64 as opposed to X86 is, of course, the richer set of registers, plus all that newfangled stuff like XMM (none of which I've ever used, BTW: I find that a mix of standard X86 plus the use of the FPU works for me).
So you say, what about when Micro$oft pulls the plug on 32-bit software?
First of all, think about how disruptive that would be to the installed base, something that they're acutely aware of in their development. So it may not happen, or it may be a long time coming, despite the ominous rumblings we've heard from Intel on that subject. (In which case Steve's suggesting of an emulator would be the only way to run such software.)
But as for me, I just don't fucking care. I code strictly as a hobby on my now-obsolete computah system. If my programs, which I do sometimes share with others, eventually become obsolete, then so be it. I can always find another hobby.
-
I am surprised to learn 32 bit is still a thing. I mean 64 bit has been around for over 20 years now.
Are you kidding? 32-bit programming is very much still a thing.
Take me, f'rinstance: I write Win32 programs (both GUI and console) in assembly language in 32 bits, using a free package based on MASM. Works great for me.
I was referring to MS products to the public, not to people like me who are still using Win XP.
-
So you say, what about when Micro$oft pulls the plug on 32-bit software?
First of all, think about how disruptive that would be to the installed base, something that they're acutely aware of in their development.
They did it with Win16. It's also to their advantage to kill off 32-bit apps since then vendors will have to use whatever hooked and compromised API Microsoft deems currently necessary.
-
My case is most likely a money thing, it's 64-bit E5300 HP SFF, only its OS is 32-bit.
I remember that Windows pricing had a hop from home to pro and 32 to 64 bits.
-
There is no 32bit Edition of Windows 11.
The 32bit compatibility layer is of course still in there, but won't be forever. I would not be all that surprised if home edtions of Windows will soon-ish get rid of that.
I doubt it, myself. There are loads of 32-bit programs around, and it would be massively disruptive to chuck them all in the bin. I think the 32-bit API will be around for many years, quite possibly in virtualised form to reduce the maintenance burden.
Microsoft did that once before. Windows 7 Pro (et al) came with "Windows XP Mode", which was actually a fully licensed Windows XP SP3 running in a VM.
The level of integration was impressive: XP programs appeared in the W7 Start menu; the XP window appeared as if it were a Windows 7 app; under the hood it was running in a VM and used Remote Desktop Protocol to display in the host.
All very clever. Unfortunately it has reminded me that W7 was the best Windows ever. 😄
(All info from Wikipedia.)
-
AFAIK Windows itself is a VM today. Windows 10 and 11.
The only thing windows actually "boots" is it's hypervisor. It then loads the Windows VM and any other subsystems and VMs you have installed.
I'm not sure if 32bit applications run inside a hypervisor context or just use the 32bit backward compat ABI/APIs. In Linux it is the later.
-
AFAIK Windows itself is a VM today. Windows 10 and 11.
The only thing windows actually "boots" is it's hypervisor. It then loads the Windows VM and any other subsystems and VMs you have installed.
No, that only happens if you explicitly switch it on. Also, it's not available in the Home editions.
-
AFAIK Windows itself is a VM today. Windows 10 and 11.
The only thing windows actually "boots" is it's hypervisor. It then loads the Windows VM and any other subsystems and VMs you have installed.
No, that only happens if you explicitly switch it on. Also, it's not available in the Home editions.
Though that is easily done by accident.
Any of the following will implictly convert the main system into a virtual machine:
Enabling Hyper-V (Only available in Pro editions)
Enabling WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux, available in all editions)
Enabling all Core Isolation Features (Available in all editions, but only fully working on supported CPUs)
-
Any of the following will implictly convert the main system into a virtual machine:
Enabling Hyper-V (Only available in Pro editions)
Enabling WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux, available in all editions)
Enabling all Core Isolation Features (Available in all editions, but only fully working on supported CPUs)
So, what is the point of running Windows as a VM?
I understand the basics of VMs, as I use them when experimenting with Linux distros. My understanding is that they do two things: 1/ they "look" like a real computer from the inside, so you can install other operating systems, complete with their apps, and use them exactly like a real computer; 2/ they protect the host operating system from wayward code, hack attacks and security bugs in the guests. So the guest could be compromised but the host will be unaffected.
So, VMs inside Windows make perfect sense. But why would you virtualise the host OS? There is nothing to protect, by definition, because it is the host. Behind that is the hardware.
-
This is just the way Hyper-V works.
Hypervisors are classified as "type-1" or "type-2"
Type-2 hypervisors run as application on a host system. Like VMWare Workstation or VirtualBox do.
Type-1 hypervisors *are* the host systems. Like VMWare ESXi, or Proxmox. Or, indeed, like Hyper-V.
This has the advantage of giving the hypervisor direct access to all the hardware, which increases performance.
I do not know how Microsoft implemented the virtualization of the "primary" Windows, but there is little to no performance impact. I have Hyper-V enabled even on my gaming machine, and while i do not play the most demanding games, i don't feel a difference.
EDIT: Since WSL is essentially an extension of Hyper-V, enabling WSL will automatically "virtualize" your Windows host.
And, IIRC, the same is true when you enable all Core Isolation features in Windows 11 device security. Which is why doing so can have *major* performance impact on VMWare Workstation or Virtual Box.
-
The main advantage comes from allowing multiple "logical" computers to share one physical host. Or better put, to decouple the logical machine/OS from the physical machine it runs on. Ie. A VM that runs on HostA, should also run on HostB and if setup well, nobody outside the admin console can tell the difference.
In hobby land, you have have your Win10/11 desktop, but run Linux Mint in a VM as well as an older Windows7. You can even have them all run together and tile their windows across your desktop.
For more enterprise scope, it focuses "applications" into "appliances", which come pre-canned with their own OS with all their dependencies all ready set and tested. You just spawn a new instance of it. This is opposed to having a bunch of "literal" OS's onto which you install applications, along with managing all the possibly conflicting dependencies.... and repeat that on every server for every new release. Chaos. With virtualisation/containerisation you can make the applications themselves "ship with" their own custom built OS ready to deploy. It does mean a lot of duplicative waste, but it's not as bad as it sounds.
Often overlooked advantages:
Copy on write disks.
Hierarchical snapshots - you can create snapshot, do a trial run of installing or setting up an application... make a mistake, rewind the VM to the snapshot and try again.
Single scope backups.
-
Type-1 and Type-2 hypers also have their own limitations. VMware Workstation Pro 25H2 cannot emulate a lot of nic hardware, it's fairly limited. With say a pcie nic card you can pop in whatever you want for the host, but the vm's will be limited to say e1000 vmxnet etc.
Hypers come with Pros & Cons.
WSL is also just a kluge cluster...... but I have used it before to see or check something quickly.
-
Type-1 and Type-2 hypers also have their own limitations. VMware Workstation Pro 25H2 cannot emulate a lot of nic hardware, it's fairly limited. With say a pcie nic card you can pop in whatever you want for the host, but the vm's will be limited to say e1000 vmxnet etc.
Hypers come with Pros & Cons.
WSL is also just a kluge cluster...... but I have used it before to see or check something quickly.
Yes, VMWare and VBox type 2s tend to "create" virtual network devices. In fact most hypervisors generate virtual network devices. This is far more common than you think, it's just that VMWare makes it obvious. If you were to run something like "ip a" on a virtualiser host you will see the reality is that "network endpoints" do not need physical hardware to exist. Most OSes are more than capable of forming entire multi-subnet routed networks inside their own stack.
If you did want to use your physcial network NIC, you can, maybe not in VMWare or VBOx, but in a proper hypervisor you have the option to assign hardware by physical PCIe ports. So for example, you can assign your GPU to a VM directly. When that VM boots it will see you NVidia 3080 on it's bus and when i accesses it, the only "virtual" layer is just aliasing. There is a catch though. NVidia do not support/permit virtualisation of their "consumer" GPUs. That is retained for "Enterprise" GPUs. So while the hardware is capable of being virtualised and exist in that form in datacentres, the license cost is where they draw the line. The "Free" consumer 'game' driver refuses virtualisation. The "Enterprise" driver costs over $1000. So IF you do attempt to pass the GPU to your VM, then you main PC cannot also use it for display. You "can" setup hypervisors to boot a particular VM and have it be the display. If done well it would boot like Windows10 in hypervisor mode and you wouldn't really be able to tell the difference. Other / most hardware can be directly assigned this way, but most other hardware supports virtualisation... except USB, which have other tools for routing vid/pids ports or hubs to VMs.
For "everyday desktop users", the biggest hurdles are going to be:
"Memory load" - for full VMs this is literally just allocating a chunk of pyshical RAM. You "can" over allocate in some places, not in others. Usually the "wall" you hit is where you host OS starts to run out of memory as all the VMs are using it.
"Can't use the GPU" - so no hardware acceleration on the desktop of VMs.
"No common disk" - unless you specifically start forwarding disks the VMs have separate harddisks. If you want to share files, you need to set something up.
If you run them on a dedicated "headless" server, "Desktop latency" does appear. It's very easy to get used to and those already on older machines will already feel this. Using a remote desktop over a 1Gb ethernet is perfectly valid, but it does feel like a 30fps desktop with a slight bit of lag. Maybe 50ms. Large full screen video will usually lag it out and crash it, so watching 4K YouTube on a VM over remote desktop is not going to happen.
So I split things in "clients" and "everything else". "Clients" are the user PCs, they have the display hardware. They run things where display performance matter. Example: While 90% of my electronics stuff is on a Linux dev VM, I do run "KiCAD" locally so it can use the APU and render "drags" and "resizes" at 60fps+. On a remote VM it's a bit of a clunky, slideshow.
-
How would a VM not end up using the physical NIC when say sending tcp/ip to some other IP that needs to route over internet?
/dev/enp1s0 <--> vmxnet , is just a software bridge when needed.
-
Saw this and thought of Win11...
‘Another internet is possible’: Norway rails against ‘enshittification’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/16/norway-rails-against-enshittifcation-deliberate-tech-deterioration (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/16/norway-rails-against-enshittifcation-deliberate-tech-deterioration)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4Upf_B9RLQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4Upf_B9RLQ)
-
Windows OS desktop, only lives on because of how MS has a large suite of apps and cloud services that are "integrated".
Like OneDrive, there's a client for some linux distros, but it has to be setup right to work. In doze, OneDrive is just there.
Windoze wont ever die,........... unfortunately. But, some day, that whole "WSL" layer option wont be there because MS will come to their senses and port all of the doze gui features and apps to linux kernel. :-DD :-DD
-
Well, I think the subject of the thread was proven wrong, and even the thread about Windows 11 dying isn't dying. Here's my post to keep it going.... :popcorn:
It might not be dying (yet), but it's the modern day equivalent of eating shit and being forced to appreciate it.
Windows 10 was garbage. Windows 11 is hot garbage. This is coming from a former Windows/DOS lover from the early 1990's.
-
There is no 32bit Edition of Windows 11.
The 32bit compatibility layer is of course still in there, but won't be forever. I would not be all that surprised if home edtions of Windows will soon-ish get rid of that.
I doubt it, myself. There are loads of 32-bit programs around, and it would be massively disruptive to chuck them all in the bin. I think the 32-bit API will be around for many years, quite possibly in virtualised form to reduce the maintenance burden.
Microsoft did that once before. Windows 7 Pro (et al) came with "Windows XP Mode", which was actually a fully licensed Windows XP SP3 running in a VM.
The level of integration was impressive: XP programs appeared in the W7 Start menu; the XP window appeared as if it were a Windows 7 app; under the hood it was running in a VM and used Remote Desktop Protocol to display in the host.
All very clever. Unfortunately it has reminded me that W7 was the best Windows ever. 😄
(All info from Wikipedia.)
Yes, and VB6 IDE ran like shit in there. I don't remember how, but i managed to make it run almost reliably on windows 7 (but you would have to never EVER maximize the window.)
on windows 10 it was just install and be done with it, working even better than in Win XP mode under 7
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R3LyFf8XOo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R3LyFf8XOo)
-
mmm fresh bug
https://www.xda-developers.com/windows-11-c-is-not-accessible-access-denied-bug/ (https://www.xda-developers.com/windows-11-c-is-not-accessible-access-denied-bug/)
The Windows 11 Feb update (KB5077181) locks some Samsung PCs out of C: with a "C:\ is not accessible" error.
-
mmm fresh bug
https://www.xda-developers.com/windows-11-c-is-not-accessible-access-denied-bug/ (https://www.xda-developers.com/windows-11-c-is-not-accessible-access-denied-bug/)
The Windows 11 Feb update (KB5077181) locks some Samsung PCs out of C: with a "C:\ is not accessible" error.
But due to a Samsung component. Not directly a windoze update issue.
Windows or not, there's no way to validate every quad-drillion ways a target system is setup.
A root cause investigation report needs to come, for anyone to understand exactly how that specific issue came about on the very limited hardware and vendor setup.
-
Microsoft needs to go back to basics with PC Windows OS
also sack the indian CEO's. that put shareholders over its customers.
I still use Windows for some 10 yr old 32 bit applications.
-
MS is a fwd looking company.
AI is the future for them.
There's no going back.
-
Microsoft needs to go back to basics with PC Windows OS
also sack the indian CEO's. that put shareholders over its customers.
To be fair, that's exactly what a company should do. OK, I'm simplifying a bit, but a company is just a device for generating return on investment, and whatever maximises ROI is what it should do.
-
I'm simplifying a bit, but a company is just a device for generating return on investment, and whatever maximises ROI is what it should do.
Really? Do you have an authoritative source for that or are you just quoting internet memes about it?
-
That was a continuing tenet of the late Milton Friedman, among others.
Christianity and capitalism are not synonymous.
-
I'm simplifying a bit, but a company is just a device for generating return on investment, and whatever maximises ROI is what it should do.
Really? Do you have an authoritative source for that or are you just quoting internet memes about it?
Not really, but nearly. The UK law is the Companies Act 2006, which states: "Directors must: act in the way they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole."
(Where "members" = shareholders.)
However, it is not a directive to maximise profits at all costs. The Act requires the directors to consider: long-term consequences; employees; relationships with suppliers/customers; community and environmental impact.
So, there is a duty to promote company success, benefitting shareholders over the longer term, but not at all costs.
It's a lot more complicated in the US because the relevant legislation is at state level, so I'll leave you to look that up. 😄
EDIT: to refer back to the original point, @jonovid suggested sacking the Indian directors "that put shareholders over its customers". The wording is imprecise, of course, but as you can see it is not unreasonable to ultimately put the needs of your shareholders first, because they are the ones investing their money in the company, and the main reason they are doing that is to make a return. Maybe not an immediate return, but eventually.
Your obligation to the customer normally extends no further than delivering what you promised for the price you promised.
-
Depends entirely one what the company thinks success means (which is typically spelled out when it's created). Pandering to shareholders making them a fast buck might actually be less successful long term than keeping customers onside (who, after all, are the ones supporting the company). And not all companies have shareholders with dollar signs for eyes.
I'll grant that there are companies that do think a fast and big buck is the be-all and end-all, but that isn't law or even necessary.
-
EDIT: to refer back to the original point, @jonovid suggested sacking the Indian directors "that put shareholders over its customers". The wording is imprecise, of course, but as you can see it is not unreasonable to ultimately put the needs of your shareholders first, because they are the ones investing their money in the company, and the main reason they are doing that is to make a return. Maybe not an immediate return, but eventually.
Your obligation to the customer normally extends no further than delivering what you promised for the price you promised.
That's a pretty naive take on how companies do well or not, and I believe a mistaken one.
Apart from the obligation to shareholders, which is actually not just a notional one but is a statutory requirement, a company treats its customers dismissively, or takes them for granted, at its own peril.
And by customers I don't mean just retail buyers but dealers, distributors and other middlepersons whose continued goodwill is necessary for the company to stay afloat. Not to mention the trade press and other ancillary players.
-
Apart from the obligation to shareholders, which is actually not just a notional one but is a statutory requirement
What obligation is that? The shareholders own the company and can influence the direction it takes by voting. They get a share of the profits and have the right to see certain company information. But they have no legal liability as regards what the company does or how it acts.
Apart from being truthful, sharing the profits, keeping a register of shareholders and accounting for shareholders' desires, what statutory obligations does the company have to them?
-
Shareholders can sue the company for not acting in their fiduciary interest.
And have in fact done so many times.
-
Still a bit wishy-washy, I'm afraid. A quick google (no idea is this is representative, just the first one I came across) reveals:
When does a breach of fiduciary duty occur?
A breach of fiduciary duty happens when a director acts against the company’s interests or fails to meet one of the legal duties owed to it. Breaches can arise through deliberate misconduct, but also through carelessness, weak governance, or poor judgement.
Common examples of breach of fiduciary duty include:
- Acting beyond powers: Making decisions outside of the company’s constitution.
- Conflict of interest: Approving a contract with a supplier in which the director has a hidden financial stake.
- Misuse of company assets: Using company funds to pay personal expenses or fund unrelated ventures.
- Unauthorised profit: Diverting a business opportunity meant for the company to a separate entity that the director controls.
- Improper influence: Following shareholder or third-party instructions instead of exercising independent judgement.
- Failure to disclose: Not declaring conflicts or failing to document board decisions properly.
- Negligence: Failing to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence expected of a director in the same position.
Even honest mistakes can amount to a breach if the conduct falls short of the standards expected of a reasonably diligent director.
I am failing to spot "Didn't prioritise making shareholders filthy rich at all costs".
-
I am failing to spot "Didn't prioritise making shareholders filthy rich at all costs".
Whoever claimed that?
It's called putting words in someone's mouth.
-
I am failing to spot "Didn't prioritise making shareholders filthy rich at all costs".
Whoever claimed that?
It's called putting words in someone's mouth.
Is is, and I hate it when someone does that. I wonder if he is referring to my post #804 where I said (very casually and imprecisely) that the primary role of a company is to make money for its shareholders.
Of course it is more subtle than that, as I explained further on, but essentially it is not wrong. The shareholders own the company. They gave the company some capital (the price of the shares) in return for some hoped-for dividends, the right to vote at shareholder meetings, and hopefully an increase in the value of the shares.
It goes without saying that a company cannot neglect its customers, but the legal relationship is different. The customer does not get shares when they give money to the company, they get products or services, and the company's legal obligations are limited to providing those products and services. There is no enduring obligation like there is to the shareholders.
Shareholders can, and do, sue companies if they feel they are not getting a high enough return on their investment.
-
I am failing to spot "Didn't prioritise making shareholders filthy rich at all costs".
Whoever claimed that?
It's called putting words in someone's mouth.
Is is, and I hate it when someone does that. I wonder if he is referring to my post #804 where I said (very casually and imprecisely) that the primary role of a company is to make money for its shareholders.
Of course it is more subtle than that, as I explained further on, but essentially it is not wrong. The shareholders own the company. They gave the company some capital (the price of the shares) in return for some hoped-for dividends, the right to vote at shareholder meetings, and hopefully an increase in the value of the shares.
Your generalization is correct. It is the primary legal obligation of a company's leadership to act in the best interests of its investors. At least it is in the US.
PlainName hasn't made any sourced arguments against the generalized premise. They appear to be quibbling or arguing in bad faith. PlainName's straw man that a company must make investors "fast" money at "all costs" is obviously not in investors' best interests and, as Analog Kid said, not something anyone said. In fact, the actions argued are obviously not in the best interests of the investors and would therefore be illegal.
I went ahead and googled some "authoritative source" for US law.
What is a company?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/company (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/company)
What is fiduciary responsibility?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty)
-
I went ahead and googled some "authoritative source" for US law.
What is a company?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/company (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/company)
What is fiduciary responsibility?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty)
Once again you seem to have posted links without actually checking what they lead to.
-
I am failing to spot "Didn't prioritise making shareholders filthy rich at all costs".
Whoever claimed that?
It's called putting words in someone's mouth.
It's called exaggeration for highlighting. The actual claim was:
"I'm simplifying a bit, but a company is just a device for generating return on investment, and whatever maximises ROI is what it should do." (My emphasis)
There was talk of fiduciary obligations with the implication that those are related to the 'maximising of ROI' and companies being sued for it (presumably, NOT maximising ROI). No-one has so far pointed to an authoritative source of either and I've posted what sueing for fiduciary obligations could cover. As I (rather exaggeratingly) pointed out, not maximising ROI (aka not making shareholders money) doesn't seem to be one of the reasons.
You, Mr A Kid, are not immune to doing the same kind of exaggeration when it suits you. This time it didn't so you are put out.
-
I went ahead and googled some "authoritative source" for US law.
What is a company?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/company (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/company)
What is fiduciary responsibility?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty)
Once again you seem to have posted links without actually checking what they lead to.
Difficulty accepting that you are wrong? Are you continuing to show willful ignorance and to argue in bad faith? Your posts appear to be simply a want for attention.
Company: "A company is any form of business organization that engages in a business or commercial activity for profit."
Fiduciary responsibility: "A fiduciary duty is a legal obligation bestowed upon a person (called a “fiduciary”) who has been given the authority to act on behalf of another person or entity. A fiduciary relationship exists whenever one party explicitly or sometimes implicitly places trust and confidence in another and the other party accepts responsibility to act on their behalf. This obligation requires fiduciaries to act in the best interests of that person, and not for their own personal gain."
-
I am failing to spot "Didn't prioritise making shareholders filthy rich at all costs".
Whoever claimed that?
It's called putting words in someone's mouth.
It's called exaggeration for highlighting. The actual claim was:
"I'm simplifying a bit, but a company is just a device for generating return on investment, and whatever maximises ROI is what it should do." (My emphasis)
There was talk of fiduciary obligations with the implication that those are related to the 'maximising of ROI' and companies being sued for it (presumably, NOT maximising ROI). No-one has so far pointed to an authoritative source of either and I've posted what sueing for fiduciary obligations could cover. As I (rather exaggeratingly) pointed out, not maximising ROI (aka not making shareholders money) doesn't seem to be one of the reasons.
You, Mr A Kid, are not immune to doing the same kind of exaggeration when it suits you. This time it didn't so you are put out.
What you have done is argue in bad faith, cherry-picking, and quibbling.
You've created this straw man in which your definition of "Maximizing ROI" is "Make money at all costs," and then claim that no one has been sued for that.
"Maximizing ROI" doesn't mean what you think it does. Start there.
Edit:
To be clear, I'm not quoting someone in my statement about the equivalency of definition.
I used quotes because in my head, they are strings, and I would normally quote that in some way programmatically.
Parentheses might be more appropriate? (Maximizing ROI) != (Make money at all costs)
-
I went ahead and googled some "authoritative source" for US law.
What is a company?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/company (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/company)
What is fiduciary responsibility?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty)
Once again you seem to have posted links without actually checking what they lead to.
Difficulty accepting that you are wrong? Are you continuing to show willful ignorance and to argue in bad faith? Your posts appear to be simply a want for attention.
Company: "A company is any form of business organization that engages in a business or commercial activity for profit."
Fiduciary responsibility: "A fiduciary duty is a legal obligation bestowed upon a person (called a “fiduciary”) who has been given the authority to act on behalf of another person or entity. A fiduciary relationship exists whenever one party explicitly or sometimes implicitly places trust and confidence in another and the other party accepts responsibility to act on their behalf. This obligation requires fiduciaries to act in the best interests of that person, and not for their own personal gain."
It's rubbish. We know what it means, the question is how that relates to this discussion - what, exactly, are the statutory obligations of companies to shareholders, and what, exactly, was sued for when shareholders sued the company 'for not acting in their fiduciary interest'.
Those links added nothing to the discussion. And instead of making us go and look and try to find the relevant bit (that didn't exist) you could've just quoted the right part, and then the links are appropriate if we need to check. You post was as useful as one that just gives YouTube links and expects readers to waste their time elsewhere.
-
What you have done is argue in bad faith, cherry-picking, and quibbling.
You've created this straw man in which your definition of "Maximizing ROI" is "Make money at all costs," and then claim that no one has been sued for that.
"Maximizing ROI" doesn't mean what you think it does. Start there.
Rubbish (again). I though I was on your ignore list.
If you want to get picky, you couldn't even quote the actual phrase at issue correctly and created your own strawman! It wasn't "make money at all costs". Maybe you got it off some random link someone posted?
Further, my phrase could only be interpreted as a strawman if YOU associated it with something previously (not) stated. Maybe it was just some random idea I noted didn't appear in those lists, but YOU thought it was an invalid quote. That's YOUR problem.
-
I went ahead and googled some "authoritative source" for US law.
What is a company?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/company (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/company)
What is fiduciary responsibility?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty)
Once again you seem to have posted links without actually checking what they lead to.
Difficulty accepting that you are wrong? Are you continuing to show willful ignorance and to argue in bad faith? Your posts appear to be simply a want for attention.
Company: "A company is any form of business organization that engages in a business or commercial activity for profit."
Fiduciary responsibility: "A fiduciary duty is a legal obligation bestowed upon a person (called a “fiduciary”) who has been given the authority to act on behalf of another person or entity. A fiduciary relationship exists whenever one party explicitly or sometimes implicitly places trust and confidence in another and the other party accepts responsibility to act on their behalf. This obligation requires fiduciaries to act in the best interests of that person, and not for their own personal gain."
It's rubbish. We know what it means, the question is how that relates to this discussion - what, exactly, are the statutory obligations of companies to shareholders, and what, exactly, was sued for when shareholders sued the company 'for not acting in their fiduciary interest'.
Those links added nothing to the discussion. And instead of making us go and look and try to find the relevant bit (that didn't exist) you could've just quoted the right part, and then the links are appropriate if we need to check. You post was as useful as one that just gives YouTube links and expects readers to waste their time elsewhere.
'
First, calm down.
The statement was made that:
"I'm simplifying a bit, but a company is just a device for generating return on investment, and whatever maximises ROI is what it should do."
You demanded sources. A source was given. I've added definitions from legal sources. Your use of the royal "we" or nosism adds confusion to the discussion, as you are the only recipient of the help provided. I provided those links as you've demanded sources, and I assumed, maybe wrongly, that you wouldn't accept simply quotes.
You've made a straw man claim:
"I am failing to spot "Didn't prioritise making shareholders filthy rich at all costs"."
SteveThackery says right there in the quote that they are "simplifying" and later also confirms that the statement was made "very casually and imprecisely".
What argument do you have against this? I've tried to help you and give you the definitions that support the statement. You've attacked me for that help. What do you want? Do you need someone to tell you the obvious?
There's no law requiring "prioritise [sic] making shareholders filthy rich at all costs".
-
What you have done is argue in bad faith, cherry-picking, and quibbling.
You've created this straw man in which your definition of "Maximizing ROI" is "Make money at all costs," and then claim that no one has been sued for that.
"Maximizing ROI" doesn't mean what you think it does. Start there.
Rubbish (again). I though I was on your ignore list.
If you want to get picky, you couldn't even quote the actual phrase at issue correctly and created your own strawman! It wasn't "make money at all costs". Maybe you got it off some random link someone posted?
Further, my phrase could only be interpreted as a strawman if YOU associated it with something previously (not) stated. Maybe it was just some random idea I noted didn't appear in those lists, but YOU thought it was an invalid quote. That's YOUR problem.
"Rubbish (again). I though [sic] I was on your ignore list."
You are, is that a win or what? :)
I don't think I'm the one trying to get "picky". On the contrary, we are talking about your need to cherry-pick and quibble with a generalization made. One that hasn't been shown to be an inaccurate generalization at that.
But why are you attacking me?
I've tried to help you understand that these generalizations about business, at least in the US, are true.
Let me assist you with your understanding. My use of quotes, in case you have a quibble, was in line with mathematical usage for defining two sets; I was communicating the ideas you appear to be trying to equivocate. That obviously tossed a wrench in your understanding of my messaging, so I will go edit the post to make myself clearer. It's like saying "A" != "B," where A and B must be taken as a whole idea because of the quotes to be used in the math function. As in: (a+b) != (c+d)
As for that last part of your post, I have no idea what you are trying to communicate. That's likely due to your misunderstanding as described above.
-
You demanded sources.
No, I didn't. Take your own advice and don't make stuff up. I asked if there was an authoritative source.
A source was given.
No, it wasn't. You gave links irrelevant to the question.
I've added definitions from legal sources.
You think 'legal sources' is a trump card or something? They been to be relevant sources.
-
I don't think I'm the one trying to get "picky".
Oh, you are. You complain that I used an apparent quote without a source, and then yourself use a fake quote insinuating I'd made it. That's what we call double standards.
I've tried to help you understand that these generalizations about business, at least in the US, are true.
Oh? Then why not provide those authoritative sources that make 'maximise ROI' a statutory requirement? Not definitions of statutory, or requirements, or ROI or the usual non-relevant stuff you post. And while you're there you can provide instances of companies being sued for failing to do that.
Let me assist you with your understanding. My use of quotes, in case you have a quibble, was in line with[...]
You're taking the piss. How come that bollocks works for stuff you spout but not for me? Oh, right, it's me saying it instead of you.
As for that last part of your post, I have no idea what you are trying to communicate.
Then don't comment to it. Simples - just ignore and move on, then your trolling windups won't be so obvious.,
-
You demanded sources.
No, I didn't. Take your own advice and don't make stuff up. I asked if there was an authoritative source.
It's simply English; a demand can be a question, so asking is the same thing as a demand. I told you how you come off with the royal "we" as if you need to be served. I see the demand/question for the source as if owed. Maybe that's not your intent. I'm just providing you a perspective.
Most people can obviously research it themselves. But in case you need help, I also tried to provide some definitions.
A source was given.
No, it wasn't. You gave links irrelevant to the question.
Maybe you didn't actually read SteveThackery's response giving you the source and quoting from it? Here it is for your reference:
Not really, but nearly. The UK law is the Companies Act 2006, which states: "Directors must: act in the way they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole."
(Where "members" = shareholders.)
I offered to assist you further with the definitions, at least the legal ones used in the US for Company and Fiduciary Responsibility, as you appeared not to understand what they mean in this context.
I've added definitions from legal sources.
You think 'legal sources' is a trump card or something? They been to be relevant sources.
I don't believe that, no. I offered them as legal definitions of the words used in the generalization.
'
I am not sure what "They been to be relevant sources." means. But I'm guessing you mean "need to be relevant". If so, I strongly believe they are highly relevant, as the terms are core to the generalization. Not understanding what those terms mean would obviously pose a major hurdle to your comprehension. You feel they are irrelevant, and that's within your rights.
-
PlainName, what has you so upset? I've asked you to clarify your argument, make yourself plain. You've only appeared to attack me for trying to help you and discuss the generalization you seem to have a significant problem with. This whole tirade, while fiduciary responsibility is tangentially applicable to MS's decisions, is mostly off-topic, isn't it? Why such a need to pursue insulting me and this obviously true generalization?
I don't think I'm the one trying to get "picky".
Oh, you are. You complain that I used an apparent quote without a source, and then yourself use a fake quote insinuating I'd made it. That's what we call double standards.
I'm not aware of any complaint I've made regarding your use of an apparent quote without a source. Was that in this thread?
There are multiple ways to quote here in the forum, and I'm not sure which ones you're referring to. Please feel free to copy what the accusations I've made that offended you. I believe I've made considerable effort to help you understand my use of quotation marks when describing my perspective on your misunderstanding."Maximize ROI".
I've tried to help you understand that these generalizations about business, at least in the US, are true.
Oh? Then why not provide those authoritative sources that make 'maximise ROI' a statutory requirement? Not definitions of statutory, or requirements, or ROI or the usual non-relevant stuff you post. And while you're there you can provide instances of companies being sued for failing to do that.
I can provide more details about the legalities, but I don't think you're honestly engaging in the discussion. You continue to quibble and cherry-pick over this generalization. It appears unreasonable to me and trollish. If you're so ignorant of these legal arrangements but curious, why not study them before jumping to argue with other members?
Let me assist you with your understanding. My use of quotes, in case you have a quibble, was in line with[...]
You're taking the piss. How come that bollocks works for stuff you spout but not for me? Oh, right, it's me saying it instead of you.
As for that last part of your post, I have no idea what you are trying to communicate.
Then don't comment to it. Simples - just ignore and move on, then your trolling windups won't be so obvious.,
The above is gibberish, at best, as far as I can tell.
Since you have mentioned your preference, I quote the relevant part:
"Shareholder primacy was first articulated in the decision of Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. in 1919.[5] In the Michigan Supreme Court's opinion, it stated that "There should be no confusion... A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders.""
I don't know if you accept the Michigan Supreme Court as an authority, though.
Let's call it now: you won't accept any of this and will continue to stand on the ground that no law is specifically worded to match the quoted generalization we have established was stated in simplistic form by the author, and even clarified as such.
That looks a lot like your allegations against me.
-
@PlainName
You are correct; there's no law that specifically says what, from my perspective, you have claimed.
I'm not sure you've clearly stated it, but from my recollection, you made accusations of the absence and/or requested sources of authority to the effect that company leaders must work to maximize ROI.
As you've stated, there's no requirement for a company's leaders to maximize ROI. That specific language doesn't exist. Carry on.
Hopefully, this produces a truce and some peace for the thread.
-
While y'all throwin' mud at each other, Microsoft is very concerned about this thread ;)
Friday they announced some changes to Win11, based on community feedback, at a few news sites.
https://windowsreport.com/microsoft-lays-out-big-plan-to-fix-windows-11-quality-in-2026/ (https://windowsreport.com/microsoft-lays-out-big-plan-to-fix-windows-11-quality-in-2026/)
A bit less Copilot AI, ohhh you can move the taskbar :-DD fewer ads, maybe a few bugs get fixed. Yawn.
All pretty much a nothing burger to me. Being surveilled at the operating system level creeps me out.
-
While y'all throwin' mud at each other, Microsoft is very concerned about this thread ;)
Friday they announced some changes to Win11, based on community feedback, at a few news sites.
https://windowsreport.com/microsoft-lays-out-big-plan-to-fix-windows-11-quality-in-2026/ (https://windowsreport.com/microsoft-lays-out-big-plan-to-fix-windows-11-quality-in-2026/)
A bit less Copilot AI, ohhh you can move the taskbar :-DD fewer ads, maybe a few bugs get fixed. Yawn.
All pretty much a nothing burger to me. Being surveilled at the operating system level creeps me out.
MS got some mud too! :box: And they wouldn't have given a damn had it not been for this thread. Literally, they saw the writing on the wall.
:-DD
I'm with you on the surveillance. The issue is that I know too much due to my career. The amount of surveillance and watching that's done by OSes, routers, firewalls, and don't even get me started on ISPs. Woah. Just imagine walking around with thousands of digital leeches sucking you dry.
Does Canada have any better legal protections than the US? I haven't really looked into it. I'm on my way to Toronto tomorrow morning for a conference. I'll try to remember to ask one of my peer architects while on-site.
-
Being surveilled at the operating system level creeps me out.
You aren't being surveilled, even though this is one of those things that everybody "knows" but nobody has taken the trouble to find out about.
Ed Bott has been keeping a watching brief on this for at least a decade, and written about his research quite extensively, too. I think it is safe to say that very few people are as well informed about this as him.
If you enjoy your prejudices (and let's be honest, who doesn't?) then carry on, uninformed. If you are open to learning a little more about the subject, start here:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-spying-windows-telemetry/ (https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-spying-windows-telemetry/)
As with most things, the reality is more complex and more nuanced than you think. Certainly, having followed Bott's writing on this, I am absolutely not at all concerned about what telemetry Microsoft gathers about my PC.
-
What I've noticed with Windows 11 is that every time instead of solving problems, they create new ones... ::)
I don't have much hope :popcorn:
-
What I've noticed with Windows 11 is that every time instead of solving problems, they create new ones... ::)
I don't have much hope :popcorn:
And actively removing useful features.
For example, in "new" Outlook, you can no longer open .OLM email archives (basically the same as .PST files, but on Mac). I have to switch to "Classic" Outlook in order to do so.
-
What I've noticed with Windows 11 is that every time instead of solving problems, they create new ones... ::)
I don't have much hope :popcorn:
And actively removing useful features.
For example, in "new" Outlook, you can no longer open .OLM email archives (basically the same as .PST files, but on Mac). I have to switch to "Classic" Outlook in order to do so.
Geez, that's still a problem? They were supposed to get the new MacOS Outlook at parity with the original in features, forever. I have to switch to "Classic" far less than I did, but it still happens. The last couple of times it was to edit mail routing rules.
-
See attached pictures. THAT is how I EXPECT IT to LOOK.
A family friend of my dad wanted a newer laptop so I found her a Lenovo E15, waiting for it to go down in price and other than the lid (metal and a few faint but small scratches it seems in immaculate condition.
She insisted Windows 11 and it came with Windows 11 Pro. Her other one was Windows 10 Pro with some stuff like class shell and adjustments by some computer shop she brought it off that's now closed. After looking at it, she asked to look at my Windows 10 LTSC Enterprise and wanted that. I said okay maybe I'll adjust Windows 11 and install Windows 10 on another NVME M.2 drive with Office.
I can feel the raw anger in every word!!
How RIGHT you are and that is exactly how I just felt.
I spent SIX HOURS, SIX HOURS of EMOTIONAL TORTURE and in response trying to get it like that and behave in the way I expect you reminded me of that what you call RAW ANGER after I got so angry I started to see moving patterns in my left eye for a few seconds.
I remember Fran Blanche said to me (Over Patreon) in 2019 (when I altered Windows 10 update to stop it running and shutting down without any warning and removed/gutted out the apps store completely) something about me "effectively yelling at the sky" and maybe it is the same thing she was referring too.
It isn't that things are just different it is the view these people or decision makers have of me that causes it. If it was done sincerely they'd have options like with these new bloated space wasting panels that have absolutely no use to me so it's there but I have the option of getting it out of the way out of the way instead of it being set to be the only thing I see where it is effectively RAMMED in my face.
White window color with no borders CONFUSES ME when I have many opened so need colour and borders.
I uninstalled command prompt and notepad (bloated things with tabs that I don't want and don't need) to find it reverts the previous ones.
When I print screen I intend to crop it in Irfanview not have a stupid thing with a dimming overlay appear and delay the process into getting me to cut out things. I had to look for things, like explorerpatch and some other tools and find if they are legit. Quicklaunch, much needed and she uses that too. Instead of a bloated toolbar with space wasted.
I find now it is more to my standards, where it is very simple to get to things, see what I am doing and could use it myself if I wanted to but offline, until I make adjustments to the windows update thing, the Updater orchestrator, it's tasks and other components.
What I could do, turn this into a disk image template, by removing the keys, setup a template user account with the changes and upload it to those that want to try it and if they like it they could transfer their key to it if it is the same edition.
-
This is a fascinating account, @MrMobodies, and thought-provoking.
My first reaction is that your anger is responsible for this whole thing taking six hours. I install W11 fairly frequently, mostly because I enjoy building PCs, then taking them down and rebuilding, and so on. After a basic install it takes me nowhere near an hour to adjust Windows to how I like it.
Most of the things you're complaining about can be altered, as you eventually discovered. But one thing stands out from your post: if you hate W11 that much, and if it causes you that much distress, then maybe Windows isn't for you. Also, and I hate to seem disrespectful, but if it takes you that long to set it up as you want, maybe you should take it to someone who has a bit more experience with W11?
See attached pictures. THAT is how I EXPECT IT to LOOK.
May I respectfully suggest that this is crazy? It's like posting a picture of a Lexus and saying THIS IS HOW I EXPECT MY HONDA TO LOOK. OK, just a little joke - more pertinently, it's like posting a picture of Linux Mint and saying THIS IS HOW I EXPECT W11 to look. Once again it looks like you and W11 aren't meant for each other. Having said that, you did eventually succeed, so W11 did turn out OK for you in the end.
Windows is just like any other product: it is what it is, although it does offer plenty of configuration options. But honestly, you can't really blame Windows if it doesn't suit you - it just means it isn't for you. Your needs and W11 don't align - it's no-one's fault.
For example, I have three cars, and all have parking brakes operated by pedal, and the let-off for each is a handle under the dashboard. On two of the cars the handle is on the right; on the other it's on the left. I'm always waving my hand around under the dash feeling for the handle trying to remember which side it is on this particular car. I could get angry and "EXPECT" that they all have the handle on the same side, but they just don't. Those cars are as they are: anger on my part is totally non-productive.
I can get W11 pretty close to exactly how I want it. There are some things that still annoy me and I wish they were different: primarily the way the "active window" is indicated. In W10, and especially W11, it is almost impossible to tell which is the active window at a glance. Back in the good old days the active window was given a coloured border and title bar, and the inactive ones had a white or pale border and title bar. That worked great! But now - with almost no exceptions - the active window also has a pale title bar and border. What the fuck are MS thinking? All you get is the tiniest suggestion of a drop shadow.
I think it's a stupid system. But, I can't change it - MS made it this way. Can I live with it or not? In my case, yes, I can. I have to suck it up, and it's a minor thing in the big picture. If I can't, well I need to look for another OS, then. Or some product that changes that behaviour. But in neither case does getting angry help.
Don't bother turning it into a disk image. After a week it will be outdated, and it's tricky because the recipient machine might have different hardware. The best thing you could do is write down what you did. I did that back in the day - now I just do it from memory. I promise you that - suitably prepared - you'll get the next machine done and dusted with enough time left from an hour for a tea break.
-
Are there not a dozen custom shells available for Win11 already? ie. Replace "Explorer" with something else which gives you a desktop and whatnot.
-
Are there not a dozen custom shells available for Win11 already? ie. Replace "Explorer" with something else which gives you a desktop and whatnot.
MrMobodies' account is pretty horrifying, but the reality is vastly less stressful, and very much less time-consuming.
In my case, most of my needs are met by Start11. I keep experimenting with 'Files' as a sub for Windows File Explorer, but it still doesn't handle network-hosted files well enough.
And you are right: there are plenty of easy customisation options available, including (I believe) alternative shells.
-
But honestly, you can't really blame Windows if it doesn't suit you - it just means it isn't for you
I think the problem is more that Windows did suit him but Microsoft changed it and force him to use the changed version. For many of us, we stick with W7 because that's far better UX than W10+, but the downside is it's not just abandonware but Microsoft actively try to prevent its use.
-
But honestly, you can't really blame Windows if it doesn't suit you - it just means it isn't for you
I think the problem is more that Windows did suit him but Microsoft changed it and force him to use the changed version. For many of us, we stick with W7 because that's far better UX than W10+, but the downside is it's not just abandonware but Microsoft actively try to prevent its use.
In my opinion W7 is the ultimate, best ever version of Windows, and I prefer it over all the versions of Linux I've used. I don't know this for a fact, but I guess there are security reasons for not using it any more?
-
Well, it's not having bugs fixed so more than likely. OTOH, it's not having the users act as beta testers, so probably fewer issues than the current version :)
-
Are there not a dozen custom shells available for Win11 already? ie. Replace "Explorer" with something else which gives you a desktop and whatnot.
There was one I liked called Explorer++ but it seems very unstable the last time I used it.
In my case, most of my needs are met by Start11. I keep experimenting with 'Files' as a sub for Windows File Explorer, but it still doesn't handle network-hosted files well enough.
Never heard of that before so I'll take a look.
That looks promising:
https://www.stardock.com/products/start11/ (https://www.stardock.com/products/start11/)
PERMANENT
£19.00 £14.25
I'd imagine all that other stuff and individual things could be broken in the next update when Microsoft either change remove things so for a price those people may maintain them.
I think the problem is more that Windows did suit him but Microsoft changed it and force him to use the changed version. For many of us, we stick with W7 because that's far better UX than W10+, but the downside is it's not just abandonware but Microsoft actively try to prevent its use.
Windows 7 only took me 30 minutes an install to customize it with only a few registry registry stuff that I had been using since Windows 2000 and Windows XP. For things to get rid of that dog in Windows XP search in the way of the search form, to get rid of the welcome screen, file copying like when I copy files say "test.txt" and "Copy of test.txt" and "Shortcut to test.txt" appears instead or "test (2).txt".
Windows 7 also seems to remember the search defaults I set ONCE when saved for general, documents, pictures, etc categories/types and doesn't randomly or suddenly default back to "content view" with the things I need unticked and for "ratings "and "tags" to reappear in their place which infuriates me... ratings on files, why would i want to rate files... I find that silly. So anyway I reapply the folder bags I customized from a registry file and that seems to restore it for a while.
Customizing that Windows 11 took me like 6 hours spending all night and early hours of the morning then having to copy her stuff over afterwards so the lady could it home today.
-
You can search for "Make Windows 11 look and feel like Windows 7," and you'll find a myriad of how-tos, videos, tools, and more to do just that.
Here's an example YouTube video that shows, in just a few minutes, how to do most of it with free tools.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiTAbxN-86o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiTAbxN-86o)
Here are the tools used:
Windhawk:
https://windhawk.net/ (https://windhawk.net/)
OpenShell:
https://github.com/Open-Shell/Open-Sh... (https://github.com/Open-Shell/Open-Sh...)
Cursor:
https://www.rw-designer.com/cursor-se... (https://www.rw-designer.com/cursor-se...)
RightClickMenu:
https://gist.github.com/ahembree/d9c7... (https://gist.github.com/ahembree/d9c7...)
-
I tried that Windhawk but it required some Netframework to be installed, I was in a rush and had other stuff I searched for on this portable hard disk that does the same thing without the dependency but will take look at that again later.
I am pleased that Classicshell is still continued but under another name.
This is a fascinating account, @MrMobodies, and thought-provoking.
Don't bother turning it into a disk image. After a week it will be outdated, and it's tricky because the recipient machine might have different hardware. The best thing you could do is write down what you did. I did that back in the day - now I just do it from memory. I promise you that - suitably prepared - you'll get the next machine done and dusted with enough time left from an hour for a tea break.
I had been thinking that too, how long are those things going to last till the next update. Maybe I should consider seeing if there is another LTSC version I could alter the same way where the changes are slow and not many feature updates to break things.
This is a fascinating account, @MrMobodies, and thought-provoking.
My first reaction is that your anger is responsible for this whole thing taking six hours. I install W11 fairly frequently, mostly because I enjoy building PCs, then taking them down and rebuilding, and so on. After a basic install it takes me nowhere near an hour to adjust Windows to how I like it.
No, my anger did not cause it to take 6 hours it was finding things that appear, annoy, interfere & no way to switch them off then having to find out what these things are and how I go about disabling or removing them altogether. I was furious before and in the process. I was looking to get things done quickly too so this lady could take it home and I only just woke up just now.
Another reason why I make disk image templates like for the Windows 10 LTSC so I don't have to repeat things but then they'd get broken at some point with these normal builds.
-
Sorry to have to say it, but the problem here obviously lies much more with "MrMobodies" than with Micro$oft (and I still scratch my head every time I see that nonsensical user ID: I still think it was something they mistyped when they signed up on this forum and never bothered to fix).
I mean, I get it: everything these days is becoming more and more enshittified, including Windoze. That's just a fact of life we have to live with. My solution is to us good old version 7, which I'm happy with.
But this person goes into an apoplectic rage any time their cheese gets moved: "This used to be here. Now they moved it to there. GRRRRRRR!".
Suggestion: maybe lower your rage level a bit before you pop an artery.
-
Sorry to have to say it, but the problem here obviously lies much more with "MrMobodies" than with Micro$oft
But this person goes into an apoplectic rage any time their cheese gets moved: "This used to be here. Now they moved it to there. GRRRRRRR!".
I am trying to create awareness.
No awareness and Microsoft and the people working there will keep on doing this stuff under the impression that they are "helping" people.
This is not just cheese that is being moved about. They are huge changes that affect my use negatively that even the lady couldn't see what she was doing and got all confused when I showed her the laptop last Friday. After finishing she was all pleased that all the rubbish in the way had stopped appearing and similar appearance to her previous one and getting to things so much easier than being hidden away somewhere.
MrMobodies' account is pretty horrifying, but the reality is vastly less stressful, and very much less time-consuming.
I find things that have been massively changed in ways that impact on my use negatively, pretty horrifying and stressful and time consuming finding out what they are and how to alter or change it back.
Maybe with all these third party tools that I didn't see much of many years ago might help.
Suggestion: maybe lower your rage level a bit before you pop an artery.
When I saw the pattern appear in my left eye I did get a bit worried and stopped for a bit and felt a bit of neck pain on the side which couldn't be good.
It is not just this alone I struggle with, it is with everything else in similar ways but when I know how to do something and it functions smoothly I find it's lovely and peaceful.
-
if you hate W11 that much, and if it causes you that much distress, then maybe Windows isn't for you.
Was trying to help a friend who wanted me to do it.
It was not something I wanted to do and had no plans to do it but the lady I was doing it for wanted it knowing that the normal Windows 10 in support had come to an end and she did a lot for us.
It was also, to me the amount of things I had to do compared to before and the awful bloated appearance that even the lady it was going to had started to have second thoughts on Friday when I powered on the Lenovo W15 we got her for the first time.
Had she'd given me a chance when she came round a few months ago to show her my Windows 10 LTSC (another few years support) which she did on Saturday night and preferred that (second thought) over what she saw but it was a bit too late so I'll put that on another SSD drive next time as an alternative. As was already customizing it by that time where I'd have to find the chipset drivers, test it. I suppose I could have but felt I didn't have much time left as he left this morning. What I did notice, there seems many tools out their available now, free or paid for compared to before restore certain things. So grateful for that.
May I respectfully suggest that this is crazy? It's like posting a picture of a Lexus and saying THIS IS HOW I EXPECT MY HONDA TO LOOK. OK, just a little joke - more pertinently, it's like posting a picture of Linux Mint and saying THIS IS HOW I EXPECT W11 to look
I am trying to maintain the way it was before or get the functionality similar as I can get it and especially without it constantly defaulting on everything I do with the folder views.
One issue when I set defaults in search view, sometimes it defaults back even the very same folder (something that didn't happen before with the exception of Vista) now that is the sort of thing that infuriate me. Do things again and again and no matter what you do there is something hidden somewhere that defaults it back just like the folder bags for the search view. I found by altering and saving the search view for certain folders in the folder bag registry it'd stay for a while then at some point it'd default. So reimport the registry for the folder bags and the search fields and view is restored. Something I have not being able to solve to stop it going back.
Also, and I hate to seem disrespectful, but if it takes you that long to set it up as you want, maybe you should take it to someone who has a bit more experience with W11?
If you'd be willing to help me so I don't struggle to that extent then I'd be grateful and you'd make a world of difference to me like I sometimes can do for others who struggle.
I find in the past not many people (I don't mean the EEVBLOG) won't help or can't help. Instead I got a lot of patronizing, insulting, sarcastic remarks back.
I remembered a Lenovo W700 laptop in 2008. The Vista caused me so much distress I put Windows 2003 on it for a while until I found somethings reverted or fixed in service pack 2.
One of them was with folders, with just a JPG FILE IN IT, would, after going back in, change view to icons, enlarge the icons to tiles? or the largest they can go and hide the file names, and to get it back after reading about the issue, have to change folder category to pictures, videos? then the option to reshow file name would appear in the menu, for it to default later on and that'd infuriate me. Doing a whole load of things to set something buried deeply all for it to undo when I am trying to do something. Auto action with no consideration how it affects the user trying to work.
Bloating the view that I just set and removing information, behind my back after leaving the folder for it to be RAMMED IN MY FACE as I reopen it because the person at Microsoft who wrote or decided this, thought they knew me better than myself, because it had a picture in the folder thinking I'd want to see that more and blown up in size and that the filenames don't matter to me let's hide them and bury the option to reshow them until doing a whole load of things to get to it. Tell me would that not infuriate you?
Also the breadcrumbs:
Say I have a window c:\users\<account name>\pictures
Another window by the side e:\backups\<date>\pictures
Both windows would sometimes appear like this:
"computer -> pictures"
Omitting the drive letters and folders in the middle whilst taking up extra room to display less information that'd cause me confusion especially when I have many open trying to copy things over to other drives.
When I say Breadcrumbs, it is not the breadcrumb itself I am against or in general, it is the way they applied it like above where they also take up more room. I don't find them useful but unhelpful/nuisance when they are set to obscure information whilst take up extra room than without it with the full details taking less room than that.
After service pack two, there was a breadcrumb killer I found but it also caused certain keys not to work when it was running, then I discovered classic shell which solved that problem.
Also the search preferences with the view and fields seemed to stay put instead of defaulting and stayed like that with Windows 7 but seems to have gone back to that behaviour from Windows 10.
-
Sorry to have to say it, but the problem here obviously lies much more with "MrMobodies" than with Micro$oft
But this person goes into an apoplectic rage any time their cheese gets moved: "This used to be here. Now they moved it to there. GRRRRRRR!".
I am trying to create awareness.
No awareness and Microsoft and the people working there will keep on doing this stuff under the impression that they are "helping" people.
Awareness of what, though? I'm with AK on this: the "problem" is 95% you, and 5% Microsoft. How can I possibly say this? Because there are over a billion W11 installations out there, and obviously most of these billion users somehow seem to cope OK.
Read that again: over a billion W11 installations.
Loads of nerdy people - like us - like to mess about with W11 and change it to suit (as far as is possible). I've never heard of anyone make such a meal of it as you. In fact I find the customisation process quite relaxing, verging on boring.
You seem to think that your experience is somehow "useful" or a "warning" to others. It isn't. W11 has been around for 5 years (almost) - people have been installing it, using it, messing with it, "improving" it, ever since. It's old hat. It sounds like W11 is new to you, but it certainly isn't new to the rest of us.
Your experience sounds dreadful, but I don't blame Microsoft for very much of it at all. I think you took on a job for which you weren't competent, and shouldn't have volunteered to do. Your friend could have taken the machine to any computer shop and got assistance there. Meanwhile you want to blame your bulging blood vessels on Microsoft!
No, you can't do that. I say that because I - amongst millions - find my blood vessels entirely unbulged after installing and customising W11. So it's you, not W11.
I am emphatically NOT saying W11 is perfect - far from it. I prefer W7 over W11, and I prefer Linux Zorin over W11, too. But none of them give me high blood pressure.
Please - stay chill, and take care of yourself. It's just an OS.
-
Please - stay chill, and take care of yourself. It's just an OS.
Seems like a T-Shirt right there:
[attach=1]
-
Awareness of what, though? I'm with AK on this: the "problem" is 95% you, and 5% Microsoft. How can I possibly say this? Because there are over a billion W11 installations out there, and obviously most of these billion users somehow seem to cope OK.
No, quite a few people I spoke especially those at my local pub told me they don't like it starting from Windows 10 11 and even that lady who turned up changed her mind when she saw it. Folks at my local pub and a violin man next door. That 95% may be made up with people who might not be happy with it
As I said before, just because there is X amount of installations doesn't MEAN they will all be happy. Some may be FORCED to use it especially at work places.
It reminds me of some shopping websites 10 years ago, where a widget would pop up and say "so and so just brought this item", "we have sold x amount of this item", you think I am going believe that by the figures alone?
If there is a monoply, like the local high street shops I have experience of with so many shops selling the same things and brands, Windows purchased at work where people are forced to use it and even subscription software such as Adobe converted over and wouldn't just practical to switch) just because it has been purchased doesn't mean they will be happy and not have problems. That is not very accurate, I find that misleading based on how many copies had been sold alone. I don't believe statistic just bashed up like that. I mean many junk could also be sold cheaply in mass amounts and make huge figures in sales in the amount sold but then stashed away in someone's draw and forgotten about if they are unhappy with it or end up in a land fill.
See this article:
https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/02/windows_11_market_share/ (https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/02/windows_11_market_share/)
Windows 11 tops market share as 10 faces extended farewell
More than a fifth of servers still on Windows Server 2016
Richard Speed Mon 2 Mar 2026 // 12:33 UTC
Windows 11 has leapt ahead of Windows 10 in market share, according to the latest Statcounter figures.
The numbers, which show Windows 11 at 72.57 percent and Windows 10 at 26.45 percent, appear to support a Microsoft statement from earlier this year that its flagship operating system had surpassed one billion users.
Statcounter's figures must be taken with a pinch of salt since they are derived from tracking code installed on more than 1.5 million sites globally. The company also revises the figures as more data comes in, but in the absence of official telemetry from Microsoft, it remains one of the few independent indicators of OS market share.
The trend is not surprising given that Microsoft cut support for many versions of Windows 10 in October 2025. Users can keep the fixes flowing through the Extended Security Updates program, although the extra support comes at additional cost for many commercial customers
Looking at stats counter months before support for was dropped for Windows 10:
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-version-market-share/windows/desktop/worldwide (https://gs.statcounter.com/os-version-market-share/windows/desktop/worldwide)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zBVS9RQL/image.png)
So it may not all be by choice alone.
Awareness of what, though? I'm with AK on this: the "problem" is 95% you, and 5% Microsoft. How can I possibly say this? Because there are over a billion W11 installations out there, and obviously most of these billion users somehow seem to cope OK.
In fact I find the customisation process quite relaxing, verging on boring.
Yes but I find going through all that crap and removing it isn't.
I wouldn't say it is a "warning" as you put it, just an awareness on how some can feel otherwise they there's no chance of anyone knowing. They may not pay attention but worth the awareness for someone that might one day.
When I customized that Windows 10 Enterprise LTSC in 2020 to 2022, into a template disc image, it was lovely to start with the fact that there was no preloading of "apps" or appstore to deal with or anything as intrusive as what I saw with Windows 11. I spent about 2 years observing it and removing things I don't want, to last for another 8 years so far has served me very well.
I think you took on a job for which you weren't competent, and shouldn't have volunteered to do.
Competent? I GOT there in the end in and in such short notice. I felt DRAGGED into it. We owed her a favour. She helped my sister buy a house when she divorced and was rock bottom.
I was going to say to her "you're on your own" with Windows 11.
"Oh will you help me copy things across.... I don't know how to use it.... oh dear" That's how I got dragged into it.
Your friend could have taken the machine to any computer shop and got assistance there.
Her computer shop run by a friend of her's which she trusted shut down so she came to me and we owed her a big favour out of the many.
I struggled to find that Lenovo E15 and was worried she wasn't going to like it but she did. A few light scratched on the metal lid and that's it but with a good battery 91% wear level and good palm rest. I was worried about the condition as it was second hand but that turned out great.
Meanwhile you want to blame your bulging blood vessels on Microsoft!
Yes but it's not Microsoft alone. It happens with so many things.
Here's a few:
So many shops but so many sell the same thing and brands.
Clothes that don't fit me properly and the ones that do have stupid graffiti sprawled all over them as if I was a street thug.
Opticians (pretty much all of them) with small limited frame sizes, too small in width and legs size to fit my head and not easy to find them to fit my glass lenses but I sourced a spare to the one I found for $8 during the lock down that happened to fit the lenses when the frame snapped last year and another one recently but in a different colour from Japan:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/393792737471 (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/393792737471)
I moved to the countryside and the owner of my previous private opticians 200 miles away sold up the company after lockdown. They no longer order directly from the frame manufacturers to fit the lenses and are not willing to order the lovely easy to clean brown photochromic glass lenses if my prescription were to change and need a new set. I found one locally last year (limited with frames) but willing to order an cut the glass lenses to my existing size and use what frame i can source.
Shoes, instead of them being level in the back pretty much all of them I have seen apart from the traditional or women's shoes have raised souls, leaving less support sound the leg, with these stupid prongs at the back that stick out in dig in the heel. It took a little independent shop in Spalding shop 30 minutes to find some that resemble similar dimensions to my previous shoes that weren't even on display anymore as they were end of line. In 2021 they had two that fit me wonderfully. Before that since 2010 I had these Clarks shoes, went through 3 sets of them and they discontinued it but made a similar ones with the prongs I am talking about. I remember seeing these prongs on racing shoes at schools in the 1990's with studs that pricked the ground.
In most of the shops, pillows from all sorts of brands that are so soft, no matter what they say, I could put my first through them and feel the counter and they flop and are thinner than my worn pillows. In 2007 my parents thought it was just me until I found a local shop run by an elderly couple who were closing up in 2007. £40 for a ducks feather pillow and these things were not just large they were thick and firm. Got about 8 good years out of those. Now I have to wrap towels over towels to get a similar effect but they too after washing move about and form creases.
I remember in 2021 in Dunelm when looking for pillows. One pillow labelled "thick" and "firm" that did actually look thick and firm but any weight on it and it flops. It boasted that it had "Hollow Fibre technology :bullshit: " but didn't explain what it mean't apart from how comfortable it was suppose to be as if that was supposed to be to inspire confidence. The foam ones were so expensive and so thin I could feel the other side.
As you can see things are not easy for me.
-
As you can see things are not easy for me.
The more bitching, moaning and kvetching I hear from you, the more I'm convinced that you're the one making your own uncomfortable bed and lying in it, as if you're being forced to.
Maybe you just need to lighten the fuck up. Ever consider that?
-
The more bitching, moaning and kvetching I hear from you, the more I'm convinced that you're the one making your own uncomfortable bed and lying in it, as if you're being forced to.
Maybe you just need to lighten the fuck up. Ever consider that?
I am just angry and frustrated trying to find solutions and this is one of them.
So I find things not easy for me and you say that without appreciating that fact when I do try.
I am only responding to your opinions which I like to hear.
Maybe if you don't like what I say just hit the ignore button.
Wouldn't bother me. Not that I have anything against you.
You can help by advising me, if you want to, on what I can do better just like Cyclotron above and the tools he uses and one of them from SteveThackery.
If you can help me with my troubles with the Windows and save me some grief then that'd be greatly appreciated.
I have not considered myself "bitching, moaning", I am stating facts on what i experienced and "making my own bed uncomfortable" isn't very fair (in my opinion) considering how I am trying to make it comfortable and ideal at the same time with a lot of frustration I experienced that night but as I said managed to get there.
Anyway does it look nice, easy, simple and intuitive to use with the changes I made in the attached pictures?
At the time I made a few adjustments that I simply copied over to slim down the bloated appearance of the window frames:
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop\WindowMetrics]
"CaptionHeight"="-285"
"CaptionWidth"="-285"
"CaptionFont"=hex:f4,ff,ff,ff,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,90,01,00,00,\
00,00,00,01,00,00,05,00,53,00,65,00,67,00,6f,00,65,00,20,00,55,00,49,00,00,\
00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,\
00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00
"ScrollWidth"="-240"
"ScrollHeight"="-240"
"PaddedBorderWidth"="0"
And one for the colour:
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\DWM]
"Composition"=dword:00000001
"ColorizationColor"=dword:c40078d7
"ColorizationColorBalance"=dword:00000059
"ColorizationAfterglow"=dword:c40078d7
"ColorizationAfterglowBalance"=dword:0000000a
"ColorizationBlurBalance"=dword:00000001
"EnableWindowColorization"=dword:00000001
"ColorizationGlassAttribute"=dword:00000001
"AccentColor"=dword:ffd77800
"ColorPrevalence"=dword:00000001
"EnableAeroPeek"=dword:00000000
"AlwaysHibernateThumbnails"=dword:00000000
"AccentColorInactive"=dword:00666666
"UseDpiScaling"=dword:00000000
(https://i.postimg.cc/59SMXdrs/image.png)
Which one do you prefer: the Left or right?
Right is just with the changes I applied to revert the Webview (chromy) tabbed browser thing in Windows 11 and adjustments including those listed above.
-
No, you can't do that. I say that because I - amongst millions - find my blood vessels entirely unbulged after installing and customising W11. So it's you, not W11.
I am emphatically NOT saying W11 is perfect - far from it. I prefer W7 over W11, and I prefer Linux Zorin over W11, too. But none of them give me high blood pressure.
*Please - stay chill, and take care of yourself. It's just an OS.
Zorin.
Thank you for that.
I had been looking at a XFCE that the Violin man across the road had been experimenting on.
He's pleased that he could turn of shadows easily without disabling compositing whereas he showed me how the compositing itself got completely from Ubunto Studio recently.
I am looking to gradually move over to one of those eventually by 2030.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorin_OS
With modified Gnome.
*Sorry if it took it personally. Very nice you helping me
-
Zorin.
Thank you for that.
One of the biggest problem with Linux is that there sometimes seem to be as many distros as there are users, and that means you will be swamped with conflicting advice on which is "the best".
Honestly, I don't want to add to that! But I currently have Mint and Zorin in virtual machines (and I'm building a Zorin desktop machine) and both work great, but Zorin just feels that bit more "interesting" to me. I don't honestly know which you would prefer.
People here who know me might remember that I actually prefer Zorin over W11 as an OS, but I really struggle to find Linux apps that I enjoy using. As a result my main machine is running W11 again, and the Linux machine will be for "hobby" use.
-
As I said before, just because there is X amount of installations doesn't MEAN they will all be happy. Some may be FORCED to use it especially at work places.
I just checked again this morning, and TechRadar and Ars Technica are still quoting a figure of about a billion W11 installations.
Now, of course that doesn't mean they will all be happy. But if they were all struggling like you did the news headlines would be filled with reports of W11 users dying of ruptured aneurysms and the like.
As you can see things are not easy for me.
Look, we need to get personal, just briefly. You seem to be at war with the world. Nothing is right for you. You seem to be very demanding. This sounds just like the toddlers I've known! Demand, demand, rant, rage and cry.
Things are "not easy" for you because that's is how YOU make them! Most people buy t-shirts and shoes without it becoming a major incident each time. Seriously, it is YOU who makes things difficult for yourself. YOU hold the answer.
Instead of saying "things are not easy for me", as if you are some kind of hapless victim of a hostile world, get a grip and MAKE things easy for you! The world is not hostile - the world is indifferent. What matters is how YOU fit into this world, how you react to it. Take charge of your relationship with the world. The world isn't going to change to suit you, so you need to adapt to that reality.
Lay off the victimhood, yeah? It's a really bad look, and it's very bad indeed for your morale and well-being.
-
I never claimed to be a victim and maybe I say things wrongly, use the wrong words to describe and go about things the wrong way and that doesn't look good the way I say things. Obviously I don't fit in very well. This is maybe why I suppose not many want me to be around them. It's not about how well I work or perform, it's maybe my appearance and behaviour or reaction that I don't often recognize can affect others and they're of course not willing to tell me or maybe too frightened to tell me by my appearance or how they think I might react.
I just find things, difficult that I see others do so easily. New things in particiular. When people help me achieve these things (that they find so easy) it's wonderful for me (but rare these days) it makes me so at peace so I didn't mean I was claiming to be a victim or doing it deliberately, if anything it's out of anger and frustration but I do perceive things wrongly out of paranoia (when I believe things are deliberately done to cause harm) which can be a horrible disease to have.
Never heard of that word indifferent before:
- the world is indifferent
1.having no particular interest or sympathy; unconcerned.
2.neither good nor bad; mediocre.
Not always done with the intent to deliberately to work against and give the user a difficult time for the pleasure of it.
So it is not how it looks to me.
Nice to know that not everything is done to work against me.
I had a lot of that happen to me in the past and I tend to get suspicious and get the wrong idea.
So something could just be built for cheapness, mindlessly, without a care in the world but when it goes through marketing, they package it up so well to make it look good with all sorts of claims, in order to MAKE it sell.
I'd see the brochure and specifications, see the shortcomings when it fails and then think, this was done deliberately to undermine the user and call them stupid when it is just cost cutting.
-
35 pages on W11, I am amazed.
-
I was thinking that myself on a different thread about Fran Blanche a few days ago.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/yet-another-franlab-crisis/3025/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/yet-another-franlab-crisis/3025/)
Started in October 2018, 122 pages long.
Every time it appears I perceive it couldn't be good news for her and quite sad she has trouble finding somewhere without the risk for her to be forced to move again.
-
I was thinking that myself on a different thread about Fran Blanche a few days ago.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/yet-another-franlab-crisis/3025/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/yet-another-franlab-crisis/3025/)
Started in October 2018, 122 pages long.
Every time it appears I perceive it couldn't be good news for her and quite sad she has trouble finding somewhere without the risk for her to be forced to move again.
Since you mentioned Fran and her travails, they're actually quite similar to yours in that they could be solved, or at least mitigated, by her (and you) adjusting your attitude instead of playing the victim card over and over again.
One of my favorite quotes from Franz Kafka:
"In the fight between you and the world, back the world."
-
35 pages on W11, I am amazed.
Windows 11 is dying .... a slow and painful death.
-
35 pages on W11, I am amazed.
Windows 11 is dying .... a slow and painful death.
Only in the sense that it will be replaced by W12 in the couple of years or so. People have been predicting the death of desktop operating systems in general for at least 25 years, anticipating that we will all be using thin clients with most or all of the processing done "in the cloud".
Despite big programs like Google Docs and Microsoft 365, which provide sophisticated UIs and every feature you need via your Web browser, and have done for years, the world still has around 1.5 billion installations of Windows, 250-300 million installations of macOS, and 80-100 million Linux desktop installations.
So it doesn't look like desktop OSs are going anywhere for the foreseeable future. And I don't think there is any way that Microsoft will give away the 1.5 billion "points of presence" in homes and businesses it currently has with Windows. So, we can continue to "look forward" 😳 to more W11, W12 and beyond. Oh, joy.
-
Since you mentioned Fran and her travails, they're actually quite similar to yours in that they could be solved, or at least mitigated, by her (and you) adjusting your attitude instead of playing the victim card over and over again.
Problems? Victims?
I am not playing the victim card, deliberately or intending to. I am doing my best in what I believe and can to solve problems and create awareness too. Whatever that awareness is worth. Better be heard than be silent. Never ask never get. Also I don't ask for donations like Fran Blanche either but I don't have problems with a place to stay like she does and she she creates video content for the work she does. For example. I'll post about something that's giving me problems and demonstrate a solution just like that Windows 11 in the appearance. Same with the Bad Bloated wed design thread. I don't find that playing the victim card or maybe I misunderstand what you mean and in what way. I might explain how that is giving me problems and inconveniencing me. Of course anger and frustration came out of that one in the process that can have an effect on others and that is something I don't intend directly on others. Sorry.
I forgot to mention. I do actually donate a small amount on Patreon to Fran Blanche.
If I thought she had an attitude problem with victim card playing (when talking to people) then I wouldn't be donating to her now would I?
If she is I am unaware of it. She is just trying to live from what I gather but has made mistakes.
I demonstrate what I am doing, state my opinions, I am not always aware of the effect I have on others and when I do I apologize.
Steve Thackery just send me message earlier on how he felt from the way I speak and I apologized to him.
So please stop saying I am playing the victim when that is not my intent. Yes I have problems that I cannot always see myself until others point what they see and think.
I don't want be seen as "playing the victim" and if I can avoid appearing like that that'd be great. I do feel bad too because it is unintentional, not done to have an effect on you or make the conversation unpleasant otherwise I wouldn't be here. Also there's no point blaming me too (victim blaming, saying it is my fault, I am responsible for my struggles, that such and such could have been avoided, my troubles could be avoided, (easier said than done), where I could have done so and so etc) for things I can't always see or don't know at the time especially when I do admit after when things that are pointed out. I am not perfect and my struggles are trying to make things ideal and for others too like for that lady I was trying to help on short notice.
I visited the Violin man across the road earlier on and he was completely unaware of the new tabbed notepad and command line prompt in Windows 11 (app store addon) which apparently seems to revert to the previous ones when uninstalled), but he was telling me about the next release of Xubuntu and suggested I had a look at that as he was moving over from Ubuntu Studio.
Sources:
(https://legacy-us-images.foundryco.app/images/article/2022/10/windows-terminal-04-selecting-settings-100933441-orig.jpg?auto=webp&quality=25,20)
(https://winblogs.thesourcemediaassets.com/sites/44/2025/05/Notepad_Markdown.png)
I found them too bloated in size and too big on screen for that laptop I was doing for that lady on the weekend but it was nice when I found the previous ones appeared after uninstalling those from the appstore.
Hope I didn't sound angry and frustrated here?
I just found this thread:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/5645453/is-it-possible-to-get-rid-of-the-tabs-in-cmd-and-n
Is it possible to get rid of the tabs in CMD and Notepad
Is it possible to get rid of the tabs in CMD and Notepad
Peter Barclay 20 Reputation points
Dec 3, 2025, 4:57 PM
I have no clue why everything has to look like a browser. The added "functions" are things I wouldn't even call bugs as they literally make the apps useless and attempting to use them could be lethal to the human species. Fortunately most can be shut off., what about the TABS?? Is there possibly any way to get rid of the tabs?
I am once again trying to give Windows 11 a try. So far the functions lost make it impossible to switch. I'm not kidding, live depend on me being able to do what I need. So far I have not gotten everything I need available to me. This item isn't a life critical one but doesn't help give me hope I'll be able to trust lives to this OS.
Also I've gotten very accustomed to hitting start run and typing in the app I want to start because the start navigation and ability to find the actual program I want has been impossible since windows 10. The idea there is no way to organize your apps makes have a GUI almost pointless.
Answers:
Peter Barclay 20 Reputation points Dec 6, 2025, 12:13 AM
Ok, I was able to solve my problem. I did a full restore to windows 10. The fact that you can't turn off focus mode and the problems with both notepad and CMD and their new behavior were just straws that finally broke the camels back. This OS is completely non-functional for me and actually creates major safety threats due to the loss in functionality. There are so many changes that have to be made just to restore 70% of the functions. It makes it more time consuming than writing a whole new OS. The other 30% that cannot be restored make the removal of windows 11 critical. I'll either be skipping this version or more likely switching our systems to Linux. Thanks for trying to help though.
I noticed myself they have so many other options but NOT the one to tidy it up and hide things, which maybe totally unwanted to me, that weren't there before and take up extra room. (Hope this sentence didn't have an effect on who's reading it.)
Domic Vo 18,185 Reputation points • InBBBdependent Advisor
Dec 3, 2025, 7:35 PM
Hello Peter Barclay,
I understand your frustration, and I want to acknowledge it directly that when you rely on your system for critical work, even small changes in the interface can feel disruptive. Windows 11 introduced several design updates that make some apps look more “browser‑like,” and I understand how the tabs feature in File Explorer may feel unnecessary or even distracting if it doesn’t fit your workflow.
At this time, File Explorer tabs are built into Windows 11 and cannot be disabled through a simple setting. The only way to remove them completely would be to use third‑party tools or registry modifications, which I cannot recommend for a production environment because they can introduce instability or security risks. What you can do is continue using File Explorer in single‑window mode , tabs don’t force themselves into use, so if you prefer, you can simply open separate windows as before.
Regarding your point about Start → Run, that functionality is still present in Windows 11. Pressing Win + R brings up the Run dialog, and you can type the name of the app or command exactly as you did in earlier versions. For organizing applications, while the Start menu no longer supports the same folder structures as Windows 7 or classic versions, you can pin apps to the Start menu or Taskbar for quicker access. Many power users also rely on the search bar: pressing the Windows key and typing the app name will usually bring it up faster than browsing menus.
I hope this helps,
If this guidance proves helpful, please kindly click “Accept Answer” so we know we’re heading in the right direction 😊. And of course, I’m here if you need further clarification or support.
Domic Vo..
There was the LTSC 2021 build that I abandoned that I could look at again (where changes are slow) to try and change it the same way as I did for that lady (now i know what to do) but unfortunately Microsoft have decided to discontinue support for it next year.
If parts of this post, had some effect on you, offended you in some way, that I am not seeing please let me know what it is and maybe I could try avoiding whatever it is next time.
-
Without getting into the latest fray, all we're seeing with windows is the decline in quality as they go more all in with the premature idea of AI generated code and testing, and less emphasis on anyone actually owning or using a computer in any way other than accessing online services.
Its not their focus, anymore than it's their focus to support windows on a Hercules graphics card.
That's all. They are losing, and will continue to lose, market share to Linux. It probably won't really hurt them. We have choice these days. I will NEVER personally own a windows pc again. Nothing against Microsoft. Just doesn't make sense.
There are tradeoffs, but there have always been tradeoffs.
For decades, Mac users didn't have access to many windows programs, and still don't. Just not that big of a deal. It's just a computer.
If it wasn't for games, the vast majority of friends I have would ditch windows in a heartbeat. I only need altium and solidworks on a couple of computers at work. We're actively trying to ditch windows entirely there, too.
-
35 pages on W11, I am amazed.
Windows 11 is dying .... a slow and painful death.
This statement, just like the clickbait for the OG Post's Video are trolling. Meant to get a rise out of folks.
I concur that it is dying, and Steve got to it before me. Just like Windows 10 is dying from Windows 11, Windows 11 will be killed by Windows <NEXT>.
The slow is also correct, it will be forever given the history of prior Windows replacements.
The painful part is for those who love it. Those like the people who loved Windows 7 will have to suffer the pain you mention.
I remember when Windows 7 Aero was hated, people complained it was too similar to Vista, UAC was a PIA, and so on. It evolved into one of the best-loved OSes, much like XP before Vista.
You can tell that Windows 11 isn't dying, just look at this thread... People can't stop talking about it. :-DD
-
The painful part is for those who love it. Those like the people who loved Windows 7 will have to suffer the pain you mention.
Maybe, maybe not.
I'm using Windoze 7. I intend to keep using it for a long while. Possibly until they carry me out feet first. Seriously.
Because I have no need to upgrade to the Latest and Greatest. I'm fine with the suite of tools that I have.
Disclaimer: I can't speak for everyone here, obviously. I'm a hobbyist, not a developer or part of a corporate team, so I have much more freedom in choosing my poison here.
-
I kinda stopped liking windows after XP. Win 7 was not too bad, and can still be downloaded from MS.
-
Without getting into the latest fray, all we're seeing with windows is the decline in quality * as they go more all in with the premature idea of AI generated code and testing.
* and user preference too. Well in fact it has all sorts of other preferences, which has everything else, no relevant to me but the ones that I want no longer there. Sometimes the components are there and can turn it back on from registry and third party solutions that seem to be appearing more paid or free. Maybe Microsoft are seeing this and "well they're managing lets focus on other things."
Its not their focus.
No they seem into other things like the AI stuff and trying to making things look browser like,
That's all. They are losing, and will continue to lose, market share to Linux. * It probably won't really hurt them.
Of course they have government contracts and they get good money from the OEM's bundling their thing onto whatever they sell and they'll live on in the corporate world.
We have choice these days. I will NEVER personally own a windows pc again. Nothing against Microsoft. Just doesn't make sense.
I don't mind the bloat in general and I know a few from Vista and 7 as long as I could get it out of the way easily which I find is become not as easy to do anymore.
I have many machines and laptops, Windows 2000, XP, 2003, 7, Windows 2008 R2 (disc imaging) Windows 10 LTSC Enterprise, that I use for all sorts of things.
For example I have an old Gigabyte 6BXE motherboard with a Pentium 3 1000mhz that I had been using for 26 years just to control a bunch of sound cards and one ISA for a passthrough for this SRS3D effect it does. I have tried other ones but it doesn't sound the same to me especially the software plugin one in Windows Media player 7 in 2001 where it sounded distorted compared to that one, even with the adjustments and it's limited to the Windows media player whereas with the line in line out passthrough on the sound card it does it for everything. I can play things but anything else such as search the drive for music and the audio could cut out a bit.
So I have found a P4ELA motherboard a few weeks on Ebay with a duo core and can support a quad core with an ISA slot. Unfortunately no support for DMA but I don't play things from it. The Windows NT driver (beta one that actives the sound effect) stutters but found it does play in Voicemeter if I increase the buffers. Now the seller was unaware that it lacked DMA and offered a return on that basis if it wouldn't work at all. Anyway it detect the card and enough functionality to adjust the volume and turn on and off the effect. On attempting to play there is a slight faint whistle so that'd be the missing circuitry. I also discovered that ISA soundcard don't need a -5V rail to work at that point when I tried one without it as I don't have many of those left.
So that means i could get it to play things, search for music and play some visuals during my disco's.
I looked at visual packages but not pleased. Yes they have high quality graphics, textures but they look pretty boring to me as it did when I was testing it at the local pub. Until a few weeks ago, Sonique media player. I wonder if that still works and saw the visuals, yes simple but thought went into the effects, like certain bits light up. So I am looking at ways of getting in on the TV with the song request list on the side where I'd have a powerpoint presentation. In fact I am thinking of rotating to different workplaces after a few minutes using a freeware tool I found some years ago.
-
Thing to disable on Win11:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOXaqZy8Zhg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOXaqZy8Zhg)
For Win7, a functional web browser for those sites which require modern browser:
Supermium
-
BrianHG, thanks for that:
(https://i.postimg.cc/h4zz7WQg/YTSupermium-Chrome144-XP-s.jpg)
So no additional framework, addons or anything else to make that work on it's own.
I find that pretty impressive, useful and in fact very pleased about that.
I see it is a fork first released in 2023:
https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/releases?page=6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermium
Version 119 marks the arrival of the full support for Windows Vista, which no longer requires the presence of the Extended Kernel,[3] as well as the initial efforts to add back support for XP, such as the re-implementation of the GDI rendering. Support for Windows XP was added in Version 121.[3]
Excellent.
-
BrianHG, thanks for that:
(https://i.postimg.cc/h4zz7WQg/YTSupermium-Chrome144-XP-s.jpg)
So no additional framework, addons or anything else to make that work on it's own.
I find that pretty impressive, useful and in fact very pleased about that.
I see it is a fork first released in 2023:
https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/releases?page=6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermium
Version 119 marks the arrival of the full support for Windows Vista, which no longer requires the presence of the Extended Kernel,[3] as well as the initial efforts to add back support for XP, such as the re-implementation of the GDI rendering. Support for Windows XP was added in Version 121.[3]
Excellent.
Yup, I was surprised how small the download was. And it fixes all buggy FireFox Win7 issues with ChatGPT, LinkedIn, banking, Google Drive and a few others I need for work...
-
I remember one thing I did find, that I was worried about at first, one good thing, where Intel has announced in some later version of their drivers that they will no longer allow the adaptive brightness (effects triggered by the energy savings) to be switched off, I found is an option on that Windows 11 to turn it off, under the name, "energy saving technology" and something underneath about it saving carbon emissions and on battery.
It was dimming depending on what's on the screen. Saving energy at the expense of visual comfort (or making it uncomfortable). I adjust the brightness a bit and want it to stay like that. So that's one nice thing for a change that I didn't expect.
There was another browser I remember trying long ago for Windows XP but I don't trust it.
Everytime I used it weird things use to happen whilst it was open.
It was called MyPal and I think it was based on forked build of Firefox.
No wikipedia article but still going:
https://www.mypal-browser.org/ (https://www.mypal-browser.org/)
Not based on Pale Moon anymore
Old Mypal was based on code from Moonchild Productions. Its development has been discontinued.
I didn't know it was based on Palemoon at the time.
Just had another look at Mypal and just installed it:
https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal68/releases (https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal68/releases)
(https://i.postimg.cc/FssJ4sDk/Mypal-FF102-S.jpg)
A bit behind in Firefox build but seems functional.
I copied a customized Firefox profile template from 120 (originally from 90) and it seems to work with it.
Isn't that nice?
Years ago to add extra profiles via shortcuts I use to edit an ini text file in a Firefox folder in the appdata/roaming folder and apart from Chrome I didn't I know I could this. I searched for it many times before, I always try again at some point but couldn't find much about it with the parameters I need, obviously not searching well enough with the terms I put in. I thought there must be a way for ease eventually I found it on some, if remember correctly some Reddit post:
C:\mypal-78.0.2.en-US.win32\mypal\mypal.exe -Profile "C:\mypal-78.0.2.en-US.win32\Template" -no-remote -allow-downgrade
Just copy over the template (with all the settings, about:config things, plugins and appearance) and hardly nothing to setup or change.
So there's two choices for that XP now with Supermium Chrome being the more up to date and fully featured one.
-
Steve Thackery just send me message earlier on how he felt from the way I speak and I apologized to him.
Must be a sensitive person to send PM's about feelings. eevb is a Fn worldwide forum for rich's sake.
-
hey will no longer allow the adaptive brightness to be switched off, I found is an option on that Windows 11 to turn it off, under the name, "energy saving technology" and something underneath about it saving carbon emissions and on battery.
I find funny how they are worried for carbon emissions and energy savings when the "updated" utilities in W11 (file explorer, task manager, notepad...) that you use all the time use 5 to 10 times more energy than the old ones (measured on a laptop). So instead fixing them once they let millions of PCs burn energy....
-
Steve Thackery just send me message earlier on how he felt from the way I speak and I apologized to him.
Must be a sensitive person to send PM's about feelings. eevb is a Fn worldwide forum for rich's sake.
It wasn't exactly that. It was more about both of us taking some personal stuff off the forum. Regulars will know I am pretty much impossible to offend.
-
hey will no longer allow the adaptive brightness to be switched off, I found is an option on that Windows 11 to turn it off, under the name, "energy saving technology" and something underneath about it saving carbon emissions and on battery.
I find funny how they are worried for carbon emissions and energy savings when the "updated" utilities in W11 (file explorer, task manager, notepad...) that you use all the time use 5 to 10 times more energy than the old ones (measured on a laptop). So instead fixing them once they let millions of PCs burn energy....
One day some green people will mandate that the cpu be 80%(min) utilized, to minimize wasted cpu cycles (power). And if its not the machine will send the govt a note, you then get billed later for wasting power, a "wasting power" fine.
-
hey will no longer allow the adaptive brightness to be switched off, I found is an option on that Windows 11 to turn it off, under the name, "energy saving technology" and something underneath about it saving carbon emissions and on battery.
I find funny how they are worried for carbon emissions and energy savings when the "updated" utilities in W11 (file explorer, task manager, notepad...) that you use all the time use 5 to 10 times more energy than the old ones (measured on a laptop). So instead fixing them once they let millions of PCs burn energy....
One day some green people will mandate that the cpu be 80%(min) utilized, to minimize wasted cpu cycles (power). And if its not the machine will send the govt a note, you then get billed later for wasting power, a "wasting power" fine.
And we'll all be rich with the Green-80 tool we'll sell to people to keep them at their minimum. >:D
-
One day some green people will mandate that the cpu be 80%(min) utilized, to minimize wasted cpu cycles (power). And if its not the machine will send the govt a note, you then get billed later for wasting power, a "wasting power" fine.
:-DD
With windows updates etc we are almost there, using 40% of my CPU for hours multiple times a week (Cryptominer malware would be less impactful |O).
-
I find funny how they are worried for carbon emissions and energy savings when the "updated" utilities in W11 (file explorer, task manager, notepad...) that you use all the time use 5 to 10 times more energy than the old ones (measured on a laptop). So instead fixing them once they let millions of PCs burn energy....
One day some green people will mandate that the cpu be 80%(min) utilized, to minimize wasted cpu cycles (power). And if its not the machine will send the govt a note, you then get billed later for wasting power, a "wasting power" fine.
That would cause even more bloatware to keep the utilization above the mandated threshold. Lately, Microsoft vowed to reduce Win11's RAM usage and to work on other performance issues (Microsoft wants to curb Windows 11's memory hunger - https://www.heise.de/en/news/Microsoft-wants-to-curb-Windows-11-s-memory-hunger-11221282.html (https://www.heise.de/en/news/Microsoft-wants-to-curb-Windows-11-s-memory-hunger-11221282.html)). Expensive RAM is a strong incentive. >:D
-
Ahh...
(https://4-2www.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/images/Screenshot_20260327_114327.png)
As far as update harassment... this about it. Under lined in red by me.
(https://4-2www.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/images/Screenshot_20260327_114557.png)
-
I find funny how they are worried for carbon emissions and energy savings when the "updated" utilities in W11 (file explorer, task manager, notepad...) that you use all the time use 5 to 10 times more energy than the old ones (measured on a laptop). So instead fixing them once they let millions of PCs burn energy....
One day some green people will mandate that the cpu be 80%(min) utilized, to minimize wasted cpu cycles (power). And if its not the machine will send the govt a note, you then get billed later for wasting power, a "wasting power" fine.
That would cause even more bloatware to keep the utilization above the mandated threshold. Lately, Microsoft vowed to reduce Win11's RAM usage and to work on other performance issues (Microsoft wants to curb Windows 11's memory hunger - https://www.heise.de/en/news/Microsoft-wants-to-curb-Windows-11-s-memory-hunger-11221282.html (https://www.heise.de/en/news/Microsoft-wants-to-curb-Windows-11-s-memory-hunger-11221282.html)). Expensive RAM is a strong incentive. >:D
Don't need to use more ram, just need a thread per core that keeps the cores above the threshold. ;)
Do nothing threads.... lol.
-
One day some green people will mandate that the cpu be 80%(min) utilized, to minimize wasted cpu cycles (power). And if its not the machine will send the govt a note, you then get billed later for wasting power, a "wasting power" fine.
That reminds me of this article a few days ago:
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/03/19/exposed-the-plan-to-use-smart-meters-to-deter-immoral-use-of-heating/
Exposed: The Plan to Use Smart Meters to Deter “Immoral” Use of Heating
by Will Jones 19 March 2026 7:00 PM
Research commissioned by the Government and published on its website last week has proposed to use smart meters to deter the “immoral” use of central heating. The Telegraph has the story.
Owners of energy-efficient homes were targeted by the Government with ‘nanny state’ research exploring how they could be discouraged from turning up the heating, it can be revealed. Officials in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) wanted to know how people could be dissuaded from consuming more energy after installing Net Zero upgrades such as insulation and double glazing. London Economics, a think tank, was tasked in February 2024, under the Conservative government, with carrying out an in-depth review of academic studies on consumer behaviour and proposed using smart meters to “circumvent habits” and introducing “environmental taxes”.
Visual prompts and “nudges” were suggested as ways to “promote pro-environmental behaviours”, such as using colours on smart meters to indicate higher heating usage, as well as stickers on new boilers. Researchers also focused on why households might use more energy after having improved their home’s energy efficiency. The report cited studies that blamed “moral licensing” whereby “individuals justify ‘immoral’ behaviour (such as turning up their heating) by having previously engaged in moral behaviour (such as installing energy efficient measures)”.It noted, however, that this phenomenon “has not been widely studied or observed in the context of energy efficiency” or so-called comfort taking.
The research was published on a Government website last week. A Government spokesman insisted there were no plans to implement the report’s suggestions, which were made before the last election. The Conservatives declined to comment. The report centred on so-called “comfort taking”, a phenomenon where energy usage goes up after a home becomes more energy efficient, rather than falling as you might expect. It can limit the environmental benefits of green technology – potentially throwing Britain’s race to Net Zero into doubt if households “comfort take” en masse
So if they don't take the government money to energy efficient their homes, a meter not capable, the government simply leaves them alone.
If it was installed by cowboy builders the home owner gets punished even more. I remember a documentary 5 years ago where a council had heat pumps (designed and installed by a Swedish company) in these one bedroom apartments and it was successful. Then the council then installed it themselves using the same parts and design and put it in a block of 2 bedroom houses. It started to cost the home owners where it too expensive to run. There was an immersion heater as a backup but as the system was too small and enough it relied on that immersion heater and they kept on blaming this Swedish company. They responded back that they were the wrong plans were not consulted for two bedroom houses.
What if there is a change where they require more electricity and heat say for medical reasons or weather changes.
I find that is more than just a nanny state more like spying/intrusion, micro managing and harassment with the threat of being fined for something that is recommended or advertised and suppose to work.
I'd suspect that the Appstore and framework to run it may be adding to the overhead considering the "APPS" in there are checked and updated frequently when connected up.
With windows updates etc we are almost there, using 40% of my CPU for hours multiple times a week (Cryptominer malware would be less impactful
That sounds like a lot.
Was there a notification before doing this?
-
With windows updates etc we are almost there, using 40% of my CPU for hours multiple times a week (Cryptominer malware would be less impactful
That sounds like a lot.
Was there a notification before doing this?
Now I'm not using it anymore. The issue is the number of services add up:
-Compatibility telemetry: I don't know what it does but every while it would start daily for weeks using 20-40% of CPU for hours
-MS store updates, weekly? almost 1hour 20-30%?
-MS365 click to run, weekly? almost 1hour at 20-40%
-Antimalware Service: this will use 10-20% of CPU every time you are copying some files or opening something... and will run scans a few times a week (10-40%)
-Win updates
-Win checking for updates 5-20% for minutes
-Policy something 20% for 10min sometimes
-Connection someting 10-20%
-File indexer (disabled) 2-20% for minutes
-Many Other..
Many of these services start when the PC is on idle. Being on a laptop every time they start the fan start spinning. Often as soon as I stopped interacting with the pc the fan would start blowing like crazy (including during night while trying to sleep :horse:)
Disabling windows update will make little difference with all the crap...
Now with linux I'm free to set on fire MY pc when I want :-DD
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/windows-11-is-dying/?action=dlattach;attach=2783995;image)
-
-MS365 click to run, weekly? almost 1hour at 20-40%
I am able to disable the Office updates if I wanted with the perpetual editions 2019, 2021 & 2024 but when I discovered click to run was writing text files by dates, what looks like it was logging everything explorer was doing I set the service to start manually so now it only starts when Office package stats. Was not pleased at all. I thought I disabled the telemetry stuff already.
But 40% or maybe the office updates are handled by that.
Many of these services start when the PC is on idle. Being on a laptop every time they start the fan start spinning. Often as soon as I stopped interacting with the pc the fan would start blowing like crazy (including during night while trying to sleep :horse:)
Overheating couldn't be good for the laptop long term.
Maybe that's the reason for "Modern standby" to force it on to start the updates:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/windows-modern-standby-bullshit-that-dont-sleep-but-pretends-to/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/windows-modern-standby-bullshit-that-dont-sleep-but-pretends-to/)
It turned out my issue was something else called "Away mode".
Maybe so they could do the same for older machines that don't support it by redirecting sleep to that "Away mode", also a pretend state & still does the same instead of sleep. Sleep means sleep and I find that very deceptive where it could overheat if it was left in a bag (doing updates) with the owner believing it was in sleep.
https://blag.nullteilerfrei.de/2019/03/05/stop-entering-away-mode/ (https://blag.nullteilerfrei.de/2019/03/05/stop-entering-away-mode/)
Stop entering Away Mode
rattle technology 2019-03-05
I have finally solved an annoying problem with my Windows 10 setup which was sortof hard to Google, so I am sharing. For quite some time, the computer had refused to go to sleep when it was not running on battery. Instead of going to sleep when instructed to, it would simply turn off the screen and mute the volume while continuing to actually not sleep. Moving the mouse a tiny bit would swiftly end the charade. In a recent fit of rage I decided to inspect the event log, and behold, there were some Kernel Power events that said:
The system is entering Away Mode.
Which is entirely not what I wanted when I told it to go to sleep. However, there was no option anywhere in the power settings to be found that turned off this "Away Mode". Well, the option actually does exist, *but for some reason it is not visible unless you set the Attributes value to 2 in the following, easily memorable registry key:
HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\238C9FA8-0AAD-41ED-83F4-97BE242C8F20\25DFA149-5DD1-4736-B5AB-E8A37B5B8187
Armed with this registry tweak, you can go back to the "advanced" power settings, aka:
rundll32 shell32.dll,Control_RunDLL PowerCfg.cpl @0,/editplan:
Navigate to Sleep and there should be an option that says Allow Away Mode Policy or something similar. And that policy should be set to no, not even when plugged in, never, just sleep, for crying out loud, why does this even exist
*Maybe for the purposes of hiding it? I wonder.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYsXXm1ZT6g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYsXXm1ZT6g)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kczFxpuMsOk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kczFxpuMsOk)
-
hey will no longer allow the adaptive brightness to be switched off, I found is an option on that Windows 11 to turn it off, under the name, "energy saving technology" and something underneath about it saving carbon emissions and on battery.
I find funny how they are worried for carbon emissions and energy savings when the "updated" utilities in W11 (file explorer, task manager, notepad...) that you use all the time use 5 to 10 times more energy than the old ones (measured on a laptop). So instead fixing them once they let millions of PCs burn energy....
Seriously, the EPA should revoke the "Energy Star" certification from all computers pre-installed with Windows. Especially the "modern standby" that consumes more energy due to background tasks
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G2Y5mduUck (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G2Y5mduUck)
-
Its sad, but because of what M$ is up against, they will keep on being the default go-to.
Yes, go to github :palm: to download and install a third party Office Suite. |O Lets see how far this goes...
Sad example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv_bpZPY_Zs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv_bpZPY_Zs)
-
Persevered to 2:34 and figured that's the most I'll ever watch of his stuff. Whatever he was trying to say was lost in the noise.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYsXXm1ZT6g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYsXXm1ZT6g)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kczFxpuMsOk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kczFxpuMsOk)
It can also f*** up the hardware by messing with something not part of the operating system
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2TBtKS8bqM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2TBtKS8bqM)
-
I stopped using windows 15 years ago due to a virus via open ethernet ports . Linux Ubuntu. Windows is not allowed in the building.
-
I stopped using windows 15 years ago due to a virus via open ethernet ports . Linux Ubuntu. Windows is not allowed in the building.
I never started using Linux 15 years ago, or since, because the apps were so shit, and still are. However, Linux is definitely allowed in my building, but currently only in VMs. Soon I'll have an actual hardware system running Zorin, which I'm looking forward to.
-
It can also f*** up the hardware by messing with something not part of the operating system
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2TBtKS8bqM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2TBtKS8bqM)
Interesting conclusions he reaches. "Oh there's a BIOS update so clearly that's what it did while it was running and soft bricked it, it was definitely Windows which did it". Of course, zero acknowledgement that such code is shipped by the manufacturer, if it even had anything to do with it. Naturally, Dell firmware is bug free..
And, of course, the supposed bricking update didn't brick the machine when it ran for him, did it?
Crazy thought: Whatever bug actually took this laptop down was fixed by the BIOS update so it wouldn't happen again.
-
Now I'm not using it anymore. The issue is the number of services add up:
-Compatibility telemetry: I don't know what it does but every while it would start daily for weeks using 20-40% of CPU for hours
-MS store updates, weekly? almost 1hour 20-30%?
-MS365 click to run, weekly? almost 1hour at 20-40%
-Antimalware Service: this will use 10-20% of CPU every time you are copying some files or opening something... and will run scans a few times a week (10-40%)
-Win updates
-Win checking for updates 5-20% for minutes
-Policy something 20% for 10min sometimes
-Connection someting 10-20%
-File indexer (disabled) 2-20% for minutes
-Many Other..
Many of these services start when the PC is on idle. Being on a laptop every time they start the fan start spinning. Often as soon as I stopped interacting with the pc the fan would start blowing like crazy (including during night while trying to sleep :horse:)
Disabling windows update will make little difference with all the crap...
Now with linux I'm free to set on fire MY pc when I want :-DD
I am also on Linux Mint and one of the reasons is update control.
[attachimg=1]
-
https://blag.nullteilerfrei.de/2019/03/05/stop-entering-away-mode/ (https://blag.nullteilerfrei.de/2019/03/05/stop-entering-away-mode/)
Stop entering Away Mode
rattle technology 2019-03-05
I have finally solved an annoying problem with my Windows 10 setup which was sortof hard to Google, so I am sharing. For quite some time, the computer had refused to go to sleep when it was not running on battery. Instead of going to sleep when instructed to, it would simply turn off the screen and mute the volume while continuing to actually not sleep. Moving the mouse a tiny bit would swiftly end the charade. In a recent fit of rage I decided to inspect the event log, and behold, there were some Kernel Power events that said:
The system is entering Away Mode.
Which is entirely not what I wanted when I told it to go to sleep. However, there was no option anywhere in the power settings to be found that turned off this "Away Mode". Well, the option actually does exist, *but for some reason it is not visible unless you set the Attributes value to 2 in the following, easily memorable registry key:
HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\238C9FA8-0AAD-41ED-83F4-97BE242C8F20\25DFA149-5DD1-4736-B5AB-E8A37B5B8187
Armed with this registry tweak, you can go back to the "advanced" power settings, aka:
rundll32 shell32.dll,Control_RunDLL PowerCfg.cpl @0,/editplan:
Navigate to Sleep and there should be an option that says Allow Away Mode Policy or something similar. And that policy should be set to no, not even when plugged in, never, just sleep, for crying out loud, why does this even exist
*Maybe for the purposes of hiding it? I wonder.
I'm kind of glad that I didn't know this back then, because if I knew, I would have taken the easy path of editing registery instead of the hard way of switching to Linux.
-
I stopped using windows 15 years ago due to a virus via open ethernet ports . Linux Ubuntu. Windows is not allowed in the building.
I never started using Linux 15 years ago, or since, because the apps were so shit, and still are. However, Linux is definitely allowed in my building, but currently only in VMs. Soon I'll have an actual hardware system running Zorin, which I'm looking forward to.
GNU, means you make it if you think apps are shit. The OS has nothing to do with the apps you like or dont like or cant find.
Not being able to code (or have a coding team) is a skills issue, not a OS issue.
Zorin is neat, is kern 6.17hwe available during install?
-
The OS has nothing to do with the apps you like or dont like or cant find.
There's no point in running an OS which can't run the stuff you want to run, is there?
What you're saying is akin to making your own fridge and heating and lights and TV if you can't find the right ones that run on your 8V house wiring.
-
The OS has nothing to do with the apps you like or dont like or cant find.
There's no point in running an OS which can't run the stuff you want to run, is there?
What you're saying is akin to making your own fridge and heating and lights and TV if you can't find the right ones that run on your 8V house wiring.
It wasnt an argument about choice of OS as a function of available apps. The main argument is the Windows OS is better than Linux OS, or that Linux OS is way better than Windows OS.
What people can try is, run a Linux and Windows OS w/o gui (headless), see which one is easier to use. Not all apps needs a gui.
-
Not all apps needs a gui
I am fairly sure - like 99.99% - that we are not discussing console apps as being the not very nice ones.
-
Not all apps needs a gui
I am fairly sure - like 99.99% - that we are not discussing console apps as being the not very nice ones.
Well, now that we have serious constraints on the criteria for what makes one OS better than another......... which again, has nothing to do with actual OS.
Running a shitty OS because the app you want to use is not available for the other OS, does not make the shitty OS better. It means the end-user has compromised, choosing to use an app someone else made on a shitty OS.
In general ,
an app someone else made on a shitty OS = Windows kernel
an app (or no app) someone else made, on a good OS = Linux kernel
a good app that YOU made, on a good OS = Linux kernel
-
I didn't think this was a thread about a superior OS. I thought it was about Windows 11 dying.
Which of course has been proven correct as it will be replaced with Windows 12 as the dominate PC OS in the market.
Windows 100% isn't dying and I do not believe it will die in any of our lifespans.
I'm going to probably have to side with Solaris and BSD as my backup if we want to talk about the superior OS in general. OS2 Warp might be a competitor for that title.
I asked the LLM for its opinion, see images
[attach=2]
[attach=1]
-
The OS has nothing to do with the apps you like or dont like or cant find.
Not being able to code (or have a coding team) is a skills issue, not a OS issue.
What a silly thing to say. The whole purpose of an OS is to run apps. The apps are where the work gets done. If the apps that run on a given OS are crap, then there's no point using that OS, no matter how "good" it is as an OS.
I've written my own Windows apps, but only small ones to assist with my research work or for other hobby- or interest-related things. Being but a single resource, it's completely unrealistic to write my own suite of applications.
-
Windows 100% isn't dying and I do not believe it will die in any of our lifespans.
Absolutely. With 1.4bn Windows installations in the world, Microsoft has 1.4bn "points of presence" in households and businesses all over the globe. There's no way are they going to give that up.
-
Windows 100% isn't dying and I do not believe it will die in any of our lifespans.
Absolutely. With 1.4bn Windows installations in the world, Microsoft has 1.4bn "points of presence" in households and businesses all over the globe. There's no way are they going to give that up.
There's approx 3.5bn Linux kernel users, dwarfing Windoze by more than two-fold.
Certainly, with 1.4bn points to manage for profit reasons, will be hard to give up. GNU wasnt about the money, just ask Torvalds. Did he make a mistake? Likely not, the man is 10x more influential than Mycrudsoft will ever be.
-
Windows 100% isn't dying and I do not believe it will die in any of our lifespans.
Absolutely. With 1.4bn Windows installations in the world, Microsoft has 1.4bn "points of presence" in households and businesses all over the globe. There's no way are they going to give that up.
There's approx 3.5bn Linux kernel users, dwarfing Windoze by more than two-fold.
Certainly, with 1.4bn points to manage for profit reasons, will be hard to give up. GNU wasnt about the money, just ask Torvalds. Did he make a mistake? Likely not, the man is 10x more influential than Mycrudsoft will ever be.
Linux "Kernel users"? Linux Kernels are everywhere. Windows Kernels are also in lots of places not exactly obvious. But I don't think the thread is about this.
The Kernel of an OS isn't commonly referred to as an OS. Linux must have something (a boot loader) that brings it online to init 1. systemd is the most common today to take over to bring the OS up to init 3 (or the like) One might, might claim that kernel + bootloader+ systemd could define OS but I think that's inconsistent with the market that Windows dominates and is the topic.
Windows isn't dying and it isn't in competition with Linux per the data. At least in the desktop computer market, Linux is a very distance 3rd at best. If you consider all the versions of Windows it goes way way back into back of the bus. And then it is worse still because you'd have to break down the Linux OS distributions to determine the next in line. I don't see a reasonable argument that Linux has "X" installs so Windows is dead. That just doesn't make sense.
-
Windows 100% isn't dying and I do not believe it will die in any of our lifespans.
Absolutely. With 1.4bn Windows installations in the world, Microsoft has 1.4bn "points of presence" in households and businesses all over the globe. There's no way are they going to give that up.
There's approx 3.5bn Linux kernel users, dwarfing Windoze by more than two-fold.
Certainly, with 1.4bn points to manage for profit reasons, will be hard to give up. GNU wasnt about the money, just ask Torvalds. Did he make a mistake? Likely not, the man is 10x more influential than Mycrudsoft will ever be.
Linux "Kernel users"? Linux Kernels are everywhere. Windows Kernels are also in lots of places not exactly obvious. But I don't think the thread is about this.
The Kernel of an OS isn't commonly referred to as an OS. Linux must have something (a boot loader) that brings it online to init 1. systemd is the most common today to take over to bring the OS up to init 3 (or the like) One might, might claim that kernel + bootloader+ systemd could define OS but I think that's inconsistent with the market that Windows dominates and is the topic.
Windows isn't dying and it isn't in competition with Linux per the data. At least in the desktop computer market, Linux is a very distance 3rd at best. If you consider all the versions of Windows it goes way way back into back of the bus. And then it is worse still because you'd have to break down the Linux OS distributions to determine the next in line. I don't see a reasonable argument that Linux has "X" installs so Windows is dead. That just doesn't make sense.
Lets be clear for readers, I never said Windows is dead, or dying. Certainly a pita OS with every new version that comes out, now really F'n it up with integrated Copilot.
Linux has 600+ supported distros, thousands+ other compiled Linux,...... and less the desktop space, dominates everywhere else. Albeit holds a strong 3rd place for the desktop scene. Mobile phone OS, 79% Linux (android), 17% iOS, 4% other, and in other HarmonyOS is very common.
Will Windows ever die on desktop sword, likely not, but if someone like AWS drums up a Linux desktop OS that fully integrates with AWS services, or Gool does with GCP, then perhaps Windows gets an arm and leg cut off. Gool already has Gemini, maybe Bezos buys Anthropic.
-
The Kernel of an OS isn't commonly referred to as an OS. Linux must have something (a boot loader) that brings it online to init 1. systemd is the most common today to take over to bring the OS up to init 3 (or the like) One might, might claim that kernel + bootloader+ systemd could define OS but I think that's inconsistent with the market that Windows dominates and is the topic.
You can point the old MBR at the kernel and with nothing else installed "boot" to a command prompt. No need for anything else.
However, you will experience what an OS without any libraries and tools looks like. Pretty inert.
If you add "bash" and a basic set of core-utils, then you will be able to mount disks and run applications (assuming they are staticly linked).
-
Windows 100% isn't dying and I do not believe it will die in any of our lifespans.
Absolutely. With 1.4bn Windows installations in the world, Microsoft has 1.4bn "points of presence" in households and businesses all over the globe. There's no way are they going to give that up.
There's approx 3.5bn Linux kernel users, dwarfing Windoze by more than two-fold.
Certainly, with 1.4bn points to manage for profit reasons, will be hard to give up. GNU wasnt about the money, just ask Torvalds. Did he make a mistake? Likely not, the man is 10x more influential than Mycrudsoft will ever be.
Linux "Kernel users"? Linux Kernels are everywhere. Windows Kernels are also in lots of places not exactly obvious. But I don't think the thread is about this.
The Kernel of an OS isn't commonly referred to as an OS. Linux must have something (a boot loader) that brings it online to init 1. systemd is the most common today to take over to bring the OS up to init 3 (or the like) One might, might claim that kernel + bootloader+ systemd could define OS but I think that's inconsistent with the market that Windows dominates and is the topic.
Windows isn't dying and it isn't in competition with Linux per the data. At least in the desktop computer market, Linux is a very distance 3rd at best. If you consider all the versions of Windows it goes way way back into back of the bus. And then it is worse still because you'd have to break down the Linux OS distributions to determine the next in line. I don't see a reasonable argument that Linux has "X" installs so Windows is dead. That just doesn't make sense.
Lets be clear for readers, I never said Windows is dead, or dying. Certainly a pita OS with every new version that comes out, now really F'n it up with integrated Copilot.
Linux has 600+ supported distros, thousands+ other compiled Linux,...... and less the desktop space, dominates everywhere else. Albeit holds a strong 3rd place for the desktop scene. Mobile phone OS, 79% Linux (android), 17% iOS, 4% other, and in other HarmonyOS is very common.
Will Windows ever die on desktop sword, likely not, but if someone like AWS drums up a Linux desktop OS that fully integrates with AWS services, or Gool does with GCP, then perhaps Windows gets an arm and leg cut off. Gool already has Gemini, maybe Bezos buys Anthropic.
I think it would be best to clarify what you're communicating, and I appreciate that you've added some context, though I'm not sure how it should be interpreted.
The main thread starts the argument that "Windows 11 is dying". My post was to argue that "Windows" isn't dying, at least any time soon. SteveThackery agreed and posted supporting numbers on the scale.
So you're not arguing that Windows is dead or dying? You're arguing that you are a fan of Linux and that it's used a lot? If so, I can say that I'm also a Linux fan, and it's widely used.
-
The Kernel of an OS isn't commonly referred to as an OS. Linux must have something (a boot loader) that brings it online to init 1. systemd is the most common today to take over to bring the OS up to init 3 (or the like) One might, might claim that kernel + bootloader+ systemd could define OS but I think that's inconsistent with the market that Windows dominates and is the topic.
You can point the old MBR at the kernel and with nothing else installed "boot" to a command prompt. No need for anything else.
However, you will experience what an OS without any libraries and tools looks like. Pretty inert.
If you add "bash" and a basic set of core-utils, then you will be able to mount disks and run applications (assuming they are staticly linked).
I agree, and given we are talking about PCs, UEIF systems, and a kernel compiled with support, can boot without a loader.
I think we are close to agreeing that a Kernel booted isn't an OS, though. Especially given the comparison to Windows user OSes. Windows Embedded is probably as close to a bare kernel.
Kernels just aren't useful without tooling. Something has to make a request or configure them in the case of router or tool.
-
There's approx 3.5bn Linux kernel users, dwarfing Windoze by more than two-fold.
"Mycrudsoft" - for goodness sake, grow up will you?
Yes, thanks to Android the number of Linux kernels out there is staggering. However, I'm not sure it is a good comparison because Linux has no commercial interest in being in every home. A Linux workstation, or an Android phone, is not seen by Torvalds as a "point of presence" to be exploited commercially, unlike every installation of Windows or MacOS.
-
Android is not Linux, it's very closed compared to most if not all Linux distros. The only openness is to install software using apk and it's about to end this year https://keepandroidopen.org/ (https://keepandroidopen.org/), after that Android is more closed than Windows. TBH I don't think Android is open than Windows right now, the notorious "Google Play Integrity" is responsible for half of your apps not working if you root your phone.
-
Android is not Linux, it's very closed compared to most if not all Linux distros. The only openness is to install software using apk and it's about to end this year https://keepandroidopen.org/ (https://keepandroidopen.org/), after that Android is more closed than Windows. TBH I don't think Android is open than Windows right now, the notorious "Google Play Integrity" is responsible for half of your apps not working if you root your phone.
"Android is not Linux"? I don't think that simply saying that makes it true. Android can't run without the Linux Kernel, the Linux Kernel is what makes the OS a "Linux OS". Commercialization and open/closeness isn't a metric, that I am aware of, that is recognized.
The fact is, the most successful Linux OS is more closed than Windows. It also spies on people more than Windows by many accounts. The whole company's purpose is to make money from you as you are the product.
In the case of Linux, specifically its most successful iteration, it is far worse than many have called Windows to be.
So why is this thread filled with Linux stuff when the closest competition to Windows is Windows and the next is MacOS? I think that goes to a sub-thread previously discussed in this thread about fanboisim in the Linux community. Could be wrong though.
I use MacOS as my daily driver and iOS as my mobile. I got there by way of company owned devices but stay there because of friction. I simply do not see an advantage to switching either PC os or mobile. I have a whole lot of hardware and VMs running all sorts of OSes. They all have a purpose.
-
I simply do not see an advantage to switching either PC os or mobile. I have a whole lot of hardware and VMs running all sorts of OSes. They all have a purpose.
I agree. The OS is secondary - the work you do gets done in the applications, and it is always the app ecosystem that determines which OS I use.
-
The fact is, the most successful Linux OS is more closed than Windows. It also spies on people more than Windows by many accounts. The whole company's purpose is to make money from you as you are the product.
In the case of Linux, specifically its most successful iteration, it is far worse than many have called Windows to be.
That's a good point to consider.
-
I simply do not see an advantage to switching either PC os or mobile. I have a whole lot of hardware and VMs running all sorts of OSes. They all have a purpose.
I agree. The OS is secondary - the work you do gets done in the applications, and it is always the app ecosystem that determines which OS I use.
Pandering instead of demanding. That's the issue.
If the app you need is Windoze only, then demand the vendor compile a version for a common Linux distro, or even MacOS would be better.
And to size it up, there are very few things done on Windows that cannot be done on Linux using alternatives. There are certainly some specialty apps that are Windoze only, but that's probably fringe custom stuff with a small audience. If that's your app, then so be it, vendor should have made it for the better OS.
Can you give us some examples of an app that is made only for Windows that is a must have for your work?
-
Can you give us some examples of an app that is made only for Windows that is a must have for your work?
Why does it have to be about work? I really, REALLY dislike mushrooms, but 'work' doesn't factor into whether I eat the damn things or not.
-
Can you give us some examples of an app that is made only for Windows that is a must have for your work?
I'm reluctant to go round this loop again as people will have read enough already about my thoughts on Linux applications. To summarise, I find most Linux apps to be clunky, ugly, old-fashioned, and generally like they were written 30 years ago. I also note that they very rarely get a ground-up rework when they desperately need it; there is a tendency to bolt new features on anywhere they will fit, which leads to messy UIs, obscure workflows, and an application that only its developers find easy to use.
There is rarely a commercial imperative to polish a Linux application, because in general nobody makes much money from them. Contrast this with Adobe, for example, who work hard and continuously to keep their applications at the top of the pile. There's just no realistic way that a small bunch of volunteers can compete with a commercial juggernaut like Adobe.
Even though I have a slight preference for Zorin over W11, I just don't enjoy using a Linux desktop machine because I find the applications too clunky and ugly. It is important to me that I actually enjoy using my tools - both software tools and workshop tools.
Anyway, that's it. I'm not going to comment further because all this has been done to death in other threads.
-
It looks like Microsoft has been watching this thread. Windows will have update options.
Pause Windows updates indefinitely and avoid forced restarts (https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/windows-11/windows-11-will-let-you-skip-updates-pause-longer-and-avoid-forced-restarts)
Of course this change will itself require an update.
-
I don't think so. It's a quite common issue Windows users complain about.
-
Windows may not be dying the traditional way, but in other ways it may be.
France govt is ditching Windows 100% in favor of Linux for everything !
They get all the same functionality for way less money, depending on if the buy a support program or not.
-
Windows may not be dying the traditional way, but in other ways it may be.
France govt is ditching Windows 100% in favor of Linux for everything !
They get all the same functionality for way less money, depending on if the buy a support program or not.
I think this is a mistake and the EU should have developed an EU-wide version of Linux for use of all EU governments. But the EU is slowly disappearing and dissolving.
Similarly, China has developed its own Linux-based operating systems to reduce reliance on foreign technology like Windows.
-
Windows may not be dying the traditional way, but in other ways it may be.
France govt is ditching Windows 100% in favor of Linux for everything !
They get all the same functionality for way less money, depending on if the buy a support program or not.
I think this is a mistake and the EU should have developed an EU-wide version of Linux for use of all EU governments. But the EU is slowly disappearing and dissolving.
Similarly, China has developed its own Linux-based operating systems to reduce reliance on foreign technology like Windows.
Well, is it the UK who decided they will ban all portable device cables that are not usb-c, because they want to reduce cables that go into the landfill? That region for some reason makes decisions that do not make sense.
If France goes Red Hat for support reasons, then they at least get a well supported distro. I know some local govt places that use debian for servers and rely on community for support/updates. Be interesting to know what cloud services France uses, be kinda funny if they are in on Azure.
That said, Windows is in the crunch due to costs.
-
Well, is it the UK who decided they will ban all portable device cables that are not usb-c, because they want to reduce cables that go into the landfill? That region for some reason makes decisions that do not make sense.
If France goes Red Hat for support reasons, then they at least get a well supported distro. I know some local govt places that use debian for servers and rely on community for support/updates. Be interesting to know what cloud services France uses, be kinda funny if they are in on Azure.
That said, Windows is in the crunch due to costs.
I don't know what the UK has done but the EU mandated USB-C cables at the end of 2024.
Regarding Linux I believe the EU should have formed a study group and developed a standard Linux distro suited for all EU countries. That would have saved costs and promoted compatibility and interoperability.
China, for obvious reasons has developed their own versions of Linux and the EU should have done the same.
-
Yeah, EU on the cables, I typed UK. my bad.
France can certainly build their own Linux version, but why do that, they'll still bundle in community stuff to make it work to their liking.
I might perhaps re-compile kernel to my liking, but do that for an existing distro.
Try doing any of that with Windows. ;)
-
I hope France's people hold their politicians feet to the fire to make prove the ROI and benefits. But they won't.
France will just build a large bureaucracy and fiefdoms around moving to Linux.
Moving to Linux from Windows has nothing whatsoever to do with migrating their data out of the reach of the US which they claim is the reason. They will pay the Windows tax when they buy the hardware anyway unless they put out a bid for hardware specifically without Windows licenses and that's likely to be more expensive that the generic hardware that comes with it.
On top of that, they will likely license something from MS which always comes bundled with licenses anyway. But the good news is they can buy support from IBM for RedHat. Which really tosses it in the face of US company MS. Maybe they will build their own distro like the Chinese have. That would be awesome. I have jokes about that but it is likely inappropriate.
-
They will pay the Windows tax when they buy the hardware anyway unless they put out a bid for hardware specifically without Windows licenses and that's likely to be more expensive that the generic hardware that comes with it.
Some PC and laptop models are also sold without any OS and are about 30 bucks less than the version with Windows (exactly the same hardware). And organizations running Windows Enterprise don't like to waste money on licenses they don't need, i.e. Windows Professional.
-
They will pay the Windows tax when they buy the hardware anyway unless they put out a bid for hardware specifically without Windows licenses and that's likely to be more expensive that the generic hardware that comes with it.
Why on earth would they be more expensive? Look, when a customer approaches a supplier wanting to order thousands or tens of thousands of PCs, you can be absolutely sure that - if they don't want Windows installing - then they won't be paying any Windows tax. Purchases of that magnitude give the purchaser some serious negotiating power.
-
Once you get above "SOHO" the 'bare metal' hardware will not be running Windows, or Linux or any particular OS. The bare metal hardware will boot a Federated Hypervisor, possibly with a USB key to configure it and then the rack closed. That server just gets added to the "pool". Going up a little further and the hardware stops being called "A server" and divides up across the rack with "compute blades", "SANs", etc. In that world Windows exists as VMs. So does Linux.
The only place you will see Windows running on bare metal are desktops and conference room TVs.
EDIT: That said. A large org like a bank might upgrade their desktop PCs in bulk every 3-4 years. Sometimes less. When the hardware shifted towards power savings and halved the wattage of desktops, large orgs did the maths and upgraded their entire fleet within a year.
I remember having a smoke out of the back of the office watching men loading pallet cage trolleys into a lorry. Literally about 50 desktops on a pallete, more pallets of monitors and one of just keyboards and mice.
Those would hard disk-less. Those go through a crusher on site. Shops out there will buy the "job lot", fit cheap SSDs to them and sell them for £100 on ebay.
When you are commissioning 3,000-5,000 desktops all at once, you aren't dealing with the retail end of things. You are probably having multiple zoom calls with your enterprise account manager negotiating.
-
They will pay the Windows tax when they buy the hardware anyway unless they put out a bid for hardware specifically without Windows licenses and that's likely to be more expensive that the generic hardware that comes with it.
Why on earth would they be more expensive? Look, when a customer approaches a supplier wanting to order thousands or tens of thousands of PCs, you can be absolutely sure that - if they don't want Windows installing - then they won't be paying any Windows tax. Purchases of that magnitude give the purchaser some serious negotiating power.
I only say its likely, I don't know for sure. My personal experience with government special orders is they tend to cost more. I'm sure anyone can find an example of buying one unit costing less but that's not how governments purchase typically.
The other part is that the gear is likely still licensed for Windows. For example, Lenovo will sell you a laptop without Windows installed, they will sell you one with Linux installed. But the system will still come with a windows license and activation key embedded. At least the examples I've seen were like that with the activation key embedded in the UEFI.
As for other OEMs, HP, Dell, etc. I quickly searched and what I see is that anecdotally these other OEMs do the same thing for the few cases that orders are for non-windows. That equipment still has the Windows activation key and you can likely bet that MS is getting paid.
Maybe some OEMs have a fully automated way to eliminate the Windows key and deliver the units blank but I doubt it. I would call these special orders and that's why I feel they would be more expensive.
-
As for other OEMs, HP, Dell, etc. I quickly searched and what I see is that anecdotally these other OEMs do the same thing for the few cases that orders are for non-windows.
Exactly - for the few cases. But when it's for thousands? In those cases the buyer gets what they want, if the supplier wants to stay in business.
Maybe some OEMs have a fully automated way to eliminate the Windows key and deliver the units blank but I doubt it. I would call these special orders and that's why I feel they would be more expensive.
I completely agree, for small volumes. For large volumes a little inconvenience is worth it.
-
As for other OEMs, HP, Dell, etc. I quickly searched and what I see is that anecdotally these other OEMs do the same thing for the few cases that orders are for non-windows.
Exactly - for the few cases. But when it's for thousands? In those cases the buyer gets what they want, if the supplier wants to stay in business.
Maybe some OEMs have a fully automated way to eliminate the Windows key and deliver the units blank but I doubt it. I would call these special orders and that's why I feel they would be more expensive.
I completely agree, for small volumes. For large volumes a little inconvenience is worth it.
Good points. I would wonder what numbers might make it worth it to change the manufacturing process. There's about 280 million PCs shipped a year. The French aren't likely to throw out the baby with the bath water and replace all PCs at the same time. If we look at the 2.5 million they have they might have a 5 year life cycle and that would put the order at 500k then they probably order 40k per month but that's broken up in 10s of sub orgs. So each order might be a few hundred pre month once in full swing. In in case, this would represent 0.18% of the manufactured computers
So I wonder if what may be less than 1% of a manufacturer's orders is enough for them to change the manufacturing process, track, package, and store separately.
-
I am not convinced. AFAIA the invoice for the PC wouldn't list the OS as a separate item. Sure, it will be something like "Intel i13, 16GB DDR5, Windows 11 OEM, etc", but it's just the same as the CPU, RAM and anything else on there - it's part of the price. So if a big buyer demanded the PC without OS then they would likely just leave that item off the invoice but it may still be there (see next para). Sure, there will be a big discount but they might well get that anyway regardless of OS: the vendor is happy it's a normal discount; the buyer is happy they got some off for not having an OS.
But... the OS might be no cost to the vendor. I am fairly sure that at one time Microsoft paid vendors to include Windows, so having the PC without did really legitimately cost more. Why would Microsoft do that? Ensure Windows gets into all the cracks and down the back of the sofa. Particularly with a big customer, just having them use Windows is a money spinner for Microsoft, so if it costs a couple of bob to ensure they do get Windows, that's just the price of doing business.
-
I am not convinced. AFAIA the invoice for the PC wouldn't list the OS as a separate item. Sure, it will be something like "Intel i13, 16GB DDR5, Windows 11 OEM, etc", but it's just the same as the CPU, RAM and anything else on there - it's part of the price. So if a big buyer demanded the PC without OS then they would likely just leave that item off the invoice but it may still be there (see next para). Sure, there will be a big discount but they might well get that anyway regardless of OS: the vendor is happy it's a normal discount; the buyer is happy they got some off for not having an OS.
But... the OS might be no cost to the vendor. I am fairly sure that at one time Microsoft paid vendors to include Windows, so having the PC without did really legitimately cost more. Why would Microsoft do that? Ensure Windows gets into all the cracks and down the back of the sofa. Particularly with a big customer, just having them use Windows is a money spinner for Microsoft, so if it costs a couple of bob to ensure they do get Windows, that's just the price of doing business.
Agreed. I would guess there's a lot of interesting things in those backend OEM license deals. Some, I'm sure, are of them are related to quantities and OEMs could really shoot themselves in the foot. It's in MS's best interest to make sure the OEMs include the license regardless so I wouldn't be surprised if they stipulate it in their bulk agreements.
Certainly it is MS that requires the activation code to be burnt into the UEFI because I am not aware of any other use for that feature.
In the end, I think you're probably right. The negotiated price/invoice may tell them what they want to hear but the truth is likely the cost is the same. Margins on computers is likely 1-3%. That and the fact that appeasing MS is far more important to the OEMs than a possible less than 1% deal per year is going to be a factor.
-
Agreed. I would guess there's a lot of interesting things in those backend OEM license deals. Some, I'm sure, are of them are related to quantities and OEMs could really shoot themselves in the foot. It's in MS's best interest to make sure the OEMs include the license regardless so I wouldn't be surprised if they stipulate it in their bulk agreements.
Certainly it is MS that requires the activation code to be burnt into the UEFI because I am not aware of any other use for that feature.
I still don't buy it, personally. Think about the enormous buying power of a national government on the scale of France. And think about burning a Windows activation code into the UEFI. That is a simple, discrete step in the manufacturing process, and there would be no technical problem just leaving that step out.
I simply don't believe that Microsoft has the legal right to bake Windows into every UEFI, regardless of where that motherboard (or whole computer) is destined.
If a buyer like the French government says it wants tens (hundreds?) of thousands of PCs per year for the next five years, and those PCs must not have any sniff of Microsoft baked in, then that is definitely what they will get. It is technically trivial, and I don't believe that Microsoft has some kind of magical power over the rest of the world that gives them control over every motherboard or PC manufactured. It's ridiculous.
And it's starting to sound dangerously close to a conspiracy theory.
-
Agreed. I would guess there's a lot of interesting things in those backend OEM license deals. Some, I'm sure, are of them are related to quantities and OEMs could really shoot themselves in the foot. It's in MS's best interest to make sure the OEMs include the license regardless so I wouldn't be surprised if they stipulate it in their bulk agreements.
Certainly it is MS that requires the activation code to be burnt into the UEFI because I am not aware of any other use for that feature.
I still don't buy it, personally. Think about the enormous buying power of a national government on the scale of France. And think about burning a Windows activation code into the UEFI. That is a simple, discrete step in the manufacturing process, and there would be no technical problem just leaving that step out.
I simply don't believe that Microsoft has the legal right to bake Windows into every UEFI, regardless of where that motherboard (or whole computer) is destined.
If a buyer like the French government says it wants tens (hundreds?) of thousands of PCs per year for the next five years, and those PCs must not have any sniff of Microsoft baked in, then that is definitely what they will get. It is technically trivial, and I don't believe that Microsoft has some kind of magical power over the rest of the world that gives them control over every motherboard or PC manufactured. It's ridiculous.
And it's starting to sound dangerously close to a conspiracy theory.
Conspiracy theory? I am not calling the possible agreements illegal or treacherous so we can put the conspiracy portion to rest. I am good with speculation or theory for sure.
I'm sure that if a customer demanded a product in any form or fashion they want, they would likely find a supplier. That doesn't mean it will be cheaper, though there's some logic to eliminating the $ 20 Windows license fee on the invoice. I would love to see them state that the computers "must not have any sniff of Microsoft baked in".
Would I frame some of my comments here as speculation for lack of proof? Absolutely! My speculation is based on knowledge gained over the years of working in technology, with specific parts focused on {OEM-Partner/VAR-end customer} relationships.
There's a lot that's unknown and may not be knowable by the average person. We don't know how France and/or its government ministries will purchase. Maybe they buy through a VAR/Partner, maybe only from French OEMs.
I don't think Microsoft has a "legal right to bake Windows into every UEFI" in the abstract, but they might have a contractual right with any particular OEM, and we simply don't know that. It's certainly happened before and was found illegal in the US:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-4th-circuit/1114025.htm
I don't know what the legalities of such agreements are internationally. The simple way to avoid a legal problem is for the OEM not to recognize the license as a cost applied to the purchaser.
-
They will pay the Windows tax when they buy the hardware anyway unless they put out a bid for hardware specifically without Windows licenses and that's likely to be more expensive that the generic hardware that comes with it.
Some PC and laptop models are also sold without any OS and are about 30 bucks less than the version with Windows (exactly the same hardware). And organizations running Windows Enterprise don't like to waste money on licenses they don't need, i.e. Windows Professional.
Let me explain a "quirk" of Windows enterprise licensing...
Normal Enterprise Editions of Windows are only upgrade licenses. Which means you actually need a base license to use Enterprise editions. So the included license with virtually all OEM computers is actually quite useful to have, since getting the base licenses as well is most of the times more expensive than the OEM license.
-
Think about the enormous buying power of a national government on the scale of France.
And think about how our government pretty much always spends far more than budgeted and generally makes a right sow's ear of things. Crapita is a classic example: they earned that nickname many times over, and yet they still get huge government contracts.
-
Would I frame some of my comments here as speculation for lack of proof? Absolutely!. My speculation is based on knowledge gained over the years of working in technology with specific parts being with the {OEM-Partner/VAR-end customer} relationships.
And I want to be clear that I am speculating, too. Also, I have less relevant experience than you, so my opinion is entirely uninformed. Even so, I'm still of the view that the French government will get whatever they ask for.
On this subject, I think it's interesting that the main motivation for the move to Linux is to reduce dependency on American products and technology. I've long wondered why Linux-on-the-desktop hasn't already been embraced by large governmental organisations, but I guess the Microsoft licensing fees are cheap enough to discourage organisations from undergoing the inevitable upheaval during the changeover to Linux. Also, maybe support contracts for Linux and its apps remove most of the cost advantage.
I have a suspicion that some of France's motivation is political - anti-American, basically. Primarily anti-Trump's America.
If France makes a go of it, maybe it will ripple through other European countries.
-
Would I frame some of my comments here as speculation for lack of proof? Absolutely!. My speculation is based on knowledge gained over the years of working in technology with specific parts being with the {OEM-Partner/VAR-end customer} relationships.
And I want to be clear that I am speculating, too. Also, I have less relevant experience than you, so my opinion is entirely uninformed. Even so, I'm still of the view that the French government will get whatever they ask for.
On this subject, I think it's interesting that the main motivation for the move to Linux is to reduce dependency on American products and technology. I've long wondered why Linux-on-the-desktop hasn't already been embraced by large governmental organisations, but I guess the Microsoft licensing fees are cheap enough to discourage organisations from undergoing the inevitable upheaval during the changeover to Linux. Also, maybe support contracts for Linux and its apps remove most of the cost advantage.
I have a suspicion that some of France's motivation is political - anti-American, basically. Primarily anti-Trump's America.
If France makes a go of it, maybe it will ripple through other European countries.
I agree with you on all of this. The POTUS is certainly polarizing, and I can see your speculation being a big motivator. I believe it is wise and valid that all nations take their sovereignty, economic means, and defense very seriously. There's no reason France can't be successful in its objective, though I doubt it does much harm to Microsoft. Microsoft's revenue for Windows is less than 10%, so I don't think what France is up to on the OS side will matter much.
I think France's determination and methods of adoption will shape the outcomes. I also don't doubt there will be corporate pressures.
I suppose we blended two topics in this thread. I feel it's strongly related, though. I wonder what the world would be like if MS were forced to spin off the OS business into a separate company. I must say I doubt they'd do so willingly. It gives them too much control and power. But I think a company focused on Windows or its successors would be a good thing for consumers.
-
Let me explain a "quirk" of Windows enterprise licensing...
Normal Enterprise Editions of Windows are only upgrade licenses. Which means you actually need a base license to use Enterprise editions. So the included license with virtually all OEM computers is actually quite useful to have, since getting the base licenses as well is most of the times more expensive than the OEM license.
I see. Microsoft changed the licensing for Windows 11 Enterprise to "upgrade for Pro". And what about the volume license program?
-
But I think a company focused on Windows or its successors would be a good thing for consumers.
Me too! Also on my "ain't never gonna happen" wishlist is to split Windows into two parallel products: one with a touch-oriented UI (say what you like about W8, it was a delight to use on a tablet), and one with a WIMP display for keyboard/mouse users (a mildly updated W7 UI would be great). I miss my checkboxes and radio buttons, and the compact dialogs that don't take up the entire screen. I think Apple got it right with the iOS/macOS pair.
I am firmly of the view that Microsoft's decision to pursue "one UI for every platform" has led to a half-baked mess, especially for workstation users with keyboard and mouse. I reckon my mouse mileage at least doubled between W7 and W10.
Ah, well, back to the real world.....
-
Let me explain a "quirk" of Windows enterprise licensing...
Normal Enterprise Editions of Windows are only upgrade licenses. Which means you actually need a base license to use Enterprise editions. So the included license with virtually all OEM computers is actually quite useful to have, since getting the base licenses as well is most of the times more expensive than the OEM license.
I see. Microsoft changed the licensing for Windows 11 Enterprise to "upgrade for Pro". And what about the volume license program?
That is not a change. Afaik this was always the case in the volume license program in particular.
EDIT:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/whats-new/windows-licensing
Heres a link to an Overview. Even the subscriptions require an existing Windows Pro license.
/EDIT
The company i work at was bitten by that in the Windows 7 days. We bought a lot of PCs without the usually included windows license, because they were cheaper.
We were bitten when a licensing audit happened. We thought we were fine, and audits in the past usually resulted in savings because inevitably some licenses get overprovisioned.
But that time they noticed that we did not have OEM licenses for a set of PCs and we needed to buy these directly from MS for quite a bit more money than we saved from buying PCs without the license.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rXYej6R4is (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rXYej6R4is)
-
I'd never thought they'd release another one of these past 2021 when they decided to reduce that one to three years of support.
https://www.windowslatest.com/2026/03/04/i-tested-windows-11-ltsc-in-2026-and-its-the-best-version-of-windows-11-without-copilot-ai-and-other-bloat/ (https://www.windowslatest.com/2026/03/04/i-tested-windows-11-ltsc-in-2026-and-its-the-best-version-of-windows-11-without-copilot-ai-and-other-bloat/)
I tested Windows 11 LTSC in 2026, and it’s the best version of Windows 11 without Copilot, AI and other bloat
By Abhijith M B - March 4, 2026 0
Windows 11 in 2026 is a far cry from what it was at launch. The world’s most popular desktop operating system now banks on AI, which has pretty much invaded all the first-party apps and OS features. And this happens while Windows 11 suffers from new bugs and issues with every feature update.
But what if there was a version of Windows 11, with zero bloatware, no marketing push, no frequent updates, and of course, no Copilot icon staring at you from the taskbar. It actually exists and is called Windows 11 LTSC, which is a special edition of Windows designed for stability and meant to be used in enterprises and specialized environments.
I have installed Windows 11 LTSC on my system and have been testing it for the past several days, and so far, it feels like a version of Windows that’s too good to be true.
What is Windows 11 LTSC?
Unlike macOS, Windows has several editions that Microsoft designed for different purposes. There’s the Home variant for the vast majority of regular users, Pro for professionals, small businesses, and power users, and Enterprise for corporations with an IT infrastructure.
While these are the popular ones, there’s also Windows 11 Pro for Workstations, designed for professionals who need extreme performance, and Windows 11 IoT Enterprise, made for specialized embedded devices.
Microsoft designed the last one, Windows 11 IoT Enterprise, for organizations that have no use for new features, Copilot, or any of the newer Windows 11 apps. This leaner version of the OS is called Windows 11 LTSC. It’s a part of the LTSC (long-term servicing channel) servicing model, where users can delay feature updates :-+ and get only monthly quality updates for 10 years :-+, with optional feature updates every 3 years :-+, which users can skip if they don’t need them. :-+
Windows 11 LTSC has only Microsoft Edge as a modern app
Windows 11 LTSC is so stripped down that the only modern application that comes preloaded is Microsoft Edge, with the other apps being the classic versions of Calculator, Notepad, and Microsoft Paint. Naturally, there isn’t any Copilot integration in Windows 11 LTSC, and it doesn’t come with the Microsoft Store either. :-+ Even the Widgets and Discover feed in the taskbar is unavailable. :-+
You also do not need to sign into a Microsoft account to use Windows 11 IoT Enterprise :-+, making this the only version of Windows 11 that allows you run it with a Local Account.
Windows 11 LTSC running with a local account
LTSC did not start with Windows 11. Its roots go back to Windows 10, when Microsoft introduced LTSB, short for Long-Term Servicing Branch. LTSB was created for mission-critical systems that could not afford frequent changes.
In 2016, Microsoft renamed LTSB to LTSC. Windows 10 LTSC 2019 and later Windows 10 LTSC 2021 became popular among enthusiasts as well.
When Windows 11 launched, there was no immediate LTSC counterpart. Microsoft was leaning heavily into services, subscriptions, Microsoft 365 integration, and eventually AI. It took time before a Windows 11 LTSC build arrived, partly because Windows 11 itself was evolving rapidly. LTSC requires a stable base, and Windows 11 needed to mature before Microsoft could freeze a version for long-term servicing.
Eventually, Windows 11 LTSC was officially announced by Microsoft in April 2023. Then, as part of the Windows 11 24H2 release cycle, Microsoft launched both Windows 11 Enterprise LTSC and Windows 11 IoT Enterprise LTSC editions together under the “Windows 11 LTSC 2024” branding by the second half of 2024.
Windows 11 LTSC is intended for:
Large organizations (banks, hospitals, government offices) that need a consistent, secure OS.
Industrial and embedded systems (ATMs, medical devices, kiosks)
Some IT departments that want fewer updates to manage across thousands of machines.
IoT devices that require up to 10 years of support.
So the question has to be asked. Is it possible for regular users download and install Windows 11 LTSC?
A minimal version of Windows without AI apps and bloatware is right up the alley for a vast number of users in 2026, and fortunately, Microsoft does allow general users to download and install Windows 11 LTSC for an evaluation period of 90 days.
...
But if you want to install any apps from the Microsoft Store, you’d first have to download the Microsoft Store :-+. Trying to download the Brave browser from the Store doesn’t work as expected, and I had to first download the Store.
Maybe worth me looking at and if the modifications work from that Windows 11 pro last month on this one that'd be great.
Isn't that nice and something good for a change, a choice whether I want the store there or not.
I can do work on it and not be concerned about things being changed over night.
Still a long way away of observing what it does after I install it and adjusting things but nice they made another one of these.
So not entirely dead for me if it behaves similar to the 2019 LTSC like above with the security updates (no feature updates), no promotional apps, no coercion in creating online accounts and Appstore as a choice.
A month ago with what I've seen and the way things were going I didn't expect none of this.
I never thought I'd say this thank you very much Microsoft for this sudden turn around.
Framework Proves Everyone is Sick of Windows - The WAN Show - 4 hours ago
Youtube comment:
@MisterDud 3 hours ago
I had a windows pop up asking me, on a scale of 0-5, how likely it would be that I would recommend onedrive to a friend. The rage that this caused
250
This is the sort of thing that use to annoy the violin man down the road to me who repairs violins back in 2024 every month or so after some update that'd reset things. Privacy settings again, then do you want to buy onedrive, no, do you want to try Office 365, no and the copilot thing he said that kept on interfering was the last straw when he wanted to give that Windows 10 2019 LTSC that I modified, which I installed one of his old Duo Core for him a few years earlier and he said to me that now "it runs like a dream" then he purchased a Corsair M.2 NVME 1tb drive and a graphics card to go with it.
He was showing me some more things on XFCE last week that he had been exploring for some time and very nice, clean basic and he can turn shadows off too instead of the compositor. Another nice addon is that Remmina remote desktop and options where I can adjust things and turn of the tabs and this basic notepad called mousepad and also options too to turn off tabs there too. So that's something that'd be a good alternative for me.
-
I'm confused. If you go and try and buy a rack server from, say, Dell or HP, they mostly don't come with an OS at all. The "pre-installed" bundles seem to either come with Windows Server licenses or VMWare-ESXi installed.
There are two factors here. People kitting out datacentres are not ordering their servers through the retail market. However. When commissioning a commodity rack server for business with a corproate account with someone like Dell, the cost of the windows license is almost negligible.
For larger organisation the windows license will be worthless to them anyway, as they will have per-seat, per-cpu licenses within their main Microsoft account.
Large orgs DO NOT enter windows keys and DO NOT activate. They get installed via "unattended remote install" with an enterprise license agreement which is flexible on the number of PCs and servers running various flavours of Microsoft software, including Windows, Office, WindowsServer, MSQL etc. etc. All of those licenses, CPUs, users are bundled into one account and billed at once. Individual windows licenses would just be discarded.
-
I'm confused. If you go and try and buy a rack server from, say, Dell or HP, they mostly don't come with an OS at all. The "pre-installed" bundles seem to either come with Windows Server licenses or VMWare-ESXi installed.
There are two factors here. People kitting out datacentres are not ordering their servers through the retail market. However. When commissioning a commodity rack server for business with a corproate account with someone like Dell, the cost of the windows license is almost negligible.
For larger organisation the windows license will be worthless to them anyway, as they will have per-seat, per-cpu licenses within their main Microsoft account.
Large orgs DO NOT enter windows keys and DO NOT activate. They get installed via "unattended remote install" with an enterprise license agreement which is flexible on the number of PCs and servers running various flavours of Microsoft software, including Windows, Office, WindowsServer, MSQL etc. etc. All of those licenses, CPUs, users are bundled into one account and billed at once. Individual windows licenses would just be discarded.
Servers are indeed rarely bought with bundled licenses. Though that is definelty possible, at least DELL can provide the license.
The per seat windows Licenses, E3 or E5, well, they *do* need a "base" license on the computer. I posted a link earlier that specifically states that a Pro license is part of the system requirements to use E3 or E5 Windows licenses.
And sure, large organizations do not enter keys manually... There still *is* a key though for sure. It is just embedded into the installation images. And they of course need to activate their machines. Though that activation is done against an intermediate KMS server which in turn occasionally reports to Microsoft. And a KMS activation, unlike a activation directly with MS, is not permanent, it needs to be perodically renewed. That is all automatic, but can rear it's ugly head if there is an issue with the KMS.
-
Well, I've been a Windows aficionado ever since I got my first PC, (before then I had Commodore computers).
It had Windows 3.1, which came on four or five 3 1/4 floppy discs. My newest 'puter is an HP Envy 17T-da000, which came with Windows 11 installed. I guess I'm in the minority here, but this newest version does everything I need it to do, so I'm happy with it. Some of the features have some problems, but I soon discover a 'work-around'. Overall I like Windows. :popcorn:
-
I used to like Windows a lot. Not so much nowadays >:(
Here is one example of why: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-computing/windows11-updates/msg6201111/#msg6201111 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-computing/windows11-updates/msg6201111/#msg6201111)
-
Win 3.1 :--
Win for Workgroups 3.11 :-+, netware and tcp/ip, at least at that time it was :-+
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGeqMmwQiNs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGeqMmwQiNs)
-
As we see, the choice for Linux or Windows seems to not be actual OS related.
Another strike for Linux
CVE-2026-31431, also known as "Copy Fail," is a serious Linux kernel vulnerability that allows authenticated users to gain root privileges on various Linux distributions since 2017.
It does however smell like a govt hit job, the initial flaws, kinda like how HeartBleed was there for at least 2yrs and nobody even saw it being exploited all those years.
Engineered 0day = scary stuff.
-
allows authenticated users to gain root privileges on various Linux distributions
Don't most Windows users disable the UAC business? So surely this just makes the switch to Linux simpler :D
-
allows authenticated users to gain root privileges on various Linux distributions
Don't most Windows users disable the UAC business? So surely this just makes the switch to Linux simpler :D
I've never understood this argument. I get prompted to type in my password in Linux far more often than the equivalent in Windows. In fact, a standard Windows installation doesn't ask for your password when escalation is required; all you need to do is click 'Yes' in the UAC box.
In this respect Linux is far more tiresome. So surely this just makes the switch to Windows simpler. 😉
I don't know anyone who has disabled UAC. I haven't. I'd have to check how to do it, it's been so long.
-
Apparently the popup is annoying. I don't have it disabled but then I don't often have to accept an escalation. Quite a few years ago when one had to log into Linux with no option to automate it that used to get right up my nose. First thing I do with a Windows install is turn that shit off - it is me, and only me, that is going to be using it.
-
As we see, the choice for Linux or Windows seems to not be actual OS related.
Another strike for Linux
CVE-2026-31431, also known as "Copy Fail," is a serious Linux kernel vulnerability that allows authenticated users to gain root privileges on various Linux distributions since 2017.
It does however smell like a govt hit job, the initial flaws, kinda like how HeartBleed was there for at least 2yrs and nobody even saw it being exploited all those years.
Engineered 0day = scary stuff.
My personal view is that we've seen far too many years of governments around the world willingly allowing for a legal 0-day trade in markets. The reason is obvious: they use them, and if they actually made these things illegal, it would reduce their own capabilities to breach your junk.
Reminds me of the "terrorist" with an iPhone from a few years back, where the government went after Apple to help them open it, and was using it as a wedge issue to push backdoor access. They weren't successful, but the hilarity of the attempt was that you could take that cell phone to a street vendor in China and they could laser the chip top off (decap) and unlock the phone. Of course, no government can do that.
-
If I remember correctly, the FBI located an unnamed secret contractor (maybe Israeli?) to unlock it.
-
Apparently the popup is annoying.
A bit, I guess, but nowhere near as annoying as the escalation in Linux.
-
Apparently the popup is annoying.
A bit, I guess, but nowhere near as annoying as the escalation in Linux.
Perhaps different (maybe unintentional) philosophies: on Windows it's basically a warning so you can abort, whereas on Linux it wants proof you have authority before progressing.
-
You can get behaviour similar to linux sudo easily.
On windows, the first user that is created during setup always has administrative permissions. If such a user causes an elevation prompt, you can just say yes (or no ;) ), without having to enter your password. You are already admin, after all.
If you create a separated aministrative account, and demote your main user afterwards to be a normal or a power user, you then need to actually enter the credentials of the administrative account if you need to elevate while logged in with a non-admin account.
This is obviously way more secure, but due to the way Windows handles user account profiles, this can sometimes be confusing.
-
You can get behaviour similar to linux sudo easily.
No, absolutely not. This is one thing Windows does better than Linux for the home user.
-
authenticated users to gain root privileges
It's called sudo
enter sudo blabla on the terminal and you'll get prompted password entry, after inputting the correct password you're authenticated root and you can do blabla with escalated privilege. The password is your user password, not root password.
-
You can get behaviour similar to linux sudo easily.
On windows, the first user that is created during setup always has administrative permissions. If such a user causes an elevation prompt, you can just say yes (or no ;) ), without having to enter your password. You are already admin, after all.
If you create a separated aministrative account, and demote your main user afterwards to be a normal or a power user, you then need to actually enter the credentials of the administrative account if you need to elevate while logged in with a non-admin account.
This is obviously way more secure, but due to the way Windows handles user account profiles, this can sometimes be confusing.
MAC security model (se, apparmor, etc) will apply to all accounts. Sure, root can still changes things but it wont go unnoticed.
I've managed my fair share of se, kinda a pita and confusing at times, and only well versed admins really know how to manage it. For the general user it will often just get turned off.
In near future, all computing will have an AI supervisor watching over system stuff, where the AI cannot be changed locally. Google has some very smart people on their team.......... yet I dont trust them. The best way is a closed system that people can trust.
-
authenticated users to gain root privileges
It's called sudo
enter sudo blabla on the terminal and you'll get prompted password entry, after inputting the correct password you're authenticated root and you can do blabla with escalated privilege. The password is your user password, not root password.
Unless you've patched you only need about 700bits of python to acceess root on Linux systems that have kernels since 2017 via copy.fail
-
... if CONFIG_CRYPTO_USER_API_AEAD is enabled. And there are three ways to disable it:
- don't enable it in the kernel configuration (custom kernel)
- don't load the module (in case it's built as a module)
- set a kernel boot parameter (usually in grub)
Simple (temporary) measures, as explained by many posts about CVE-2026-31431 / Copy Fail.
-
Its some what less terrifying in modern DC architecture than it sounds. Only somewhat though. "local root" often gets you just a sandbox root which is an untrusted container.
You also have to have a working shell in the first place or have "remote code" execution.
Like all CVEs a lot of things need to add up for a serious problem. There is a blast radius which is often already mitigated in multilple layers. It just makes the InfoSec/CyberSec guys nod and say, "You see this is why we always....x, y, z"
EDIT: The lowest hanging fruit these days, IF, you can get any kind of shell or execution access, are "Cloud Credentials".
All applications/containers etc. need the tokens to access between services. To get the tokens they need credentials. While these are often nicely maintained in vaults with limited ephemeral access, they are also often just dropped into the ".env" on deployment (or at startup/container creation). They tend to be put in predictable and standard locations.
Again, if you set it up well, these credentials can only operate within a very narrow "slot" of access AND any access outside that will trigger trip-wire alarms on the dashboard. However... a large chunk out there are not set up this way, not ever close.
There are apps deployed everywhere in the cloud with "Global Admin" and other roles, because it just makes them easy to develop and deploy.
-
Its some what less terrifying in modern DC architecture than it sounds. Only somewhat though. "local root" often gets you just a sandbox root which is an untrusted container.
You also have to have a working shell in the first place or have "remote code" execution.
......
Agreed. I posted it as it amused me that its as fast as sudo but needs no password.
CVEs like this are actually just components of an attack model, strategy or plan.
-
There are apps deployed everywhere in the cloud with "Global Admin" and other roles, because it just makes them easy to develop and deploy.
Use use of such admin uid needs to be restricted.
But, if you do that, the "easy" dev/deploy in the cloud is no longer easy.
-
We have a new linux kernel security issue called Dirty Frag (also an LPE). And the Windows 0-day RedSun (an LPE too) is still unpatched (three weeks old).
-
We have a new linux kernel security issue called Dirty Frag (also an LPE). And the Windows 0-day RedSun (an LPE too) is still unpatched (three weeks old).
RedSun is a Defender vulnerability, and if you don't use Defender, you don't have the issue. The Linux issue is in the kernel for the Apple file system that no one uses, but it's there anyway.
-
Dirty Frag is another that was there for past ~10 years !!! Has the smell of Mythos all over it.
LPE is probably not accurate since the exploit vector is UDP packets (tcp/ip stack).
-
Spending a hour every time you added some hardware to your system recompiling your kernel and having a nearly empty /lib/modules folder seemed "artisan" back in the day. Now it looks like security. Don't need the module, don't compile it.
If only the current kernel builds where that obvious. Subsystem dependencies are now substancial. Excluding things "you" don't need becomes more tricky when other modules you do need say that are coupled with ones you know you don't need.
-
Dirty Frag s another that was there for past ~10 years !!! Has the smell of Mythos all over it.
LPE is probably not accurate since the exploit vector is UDP packets (tcp/ip stack).
I suspect Mythos or another frontier model is being used against the OSS repos for sure.
In the short term, we are likely to find out how the world's governments have been walking into whatever they want. In the longer term, security should become better.
In essence, it is possible that AI serves to produce the outcomes that Linus once thought were possible. ~"With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow."
But all companies of any size are also using the same tools against their private repos. I know of a few that haven't made it public but are absolutely doing so at an amazing pace. The cost is through the roof for these efforts but you either do it or someone else with less than good intents will.
-
Spending a hour every time you added some hardware to your system recompiling your kernel and having a nearly empty /lib/modules folder seemed "artisan" back in the day. Now it looks like security. Don't need the module, don't compile it.
If only the current kernel builds where that obvious. Subsystem dependencies are now substancial. Excluding things "you" don't need becomes more tricky when other modules you do need say that are coupled with ones you know you don't need.
Great points. I used to compile BSD and Linux by hand for IRC and DNS networks. I continued to do it and recommend it for years as an Engineer. The speed and security are worth it. But laziness is king, and "security is someone else's job".
-
Spending a hour every time you added some hardware to your system recompiling your kernel and having a nearly empty /lib/modules folder seemed "artisan" back in the day. Now it looks like security. Don't need the module, don't compile it.
If only the current kernel builds where that obvious. Subsystem dependencies are now substancial. Excluding things "you" don't need becomes more tricky when other modules you do need say that are coupled with ones you know you don't need.
The days of system hardening 101 practices have somehow been lost.
To compete on the Plug-&-Pray model, having everything in the tree as include just makes end-users happier. :-DD
Just go look at the GENERIC profiles, sad. Why does my kernel include all the Intel nic drivers when my hardware doesnt use Intel at all?
Choosing what you need and having test run compile pull in dependencies to see what else is needed, is not terribly difficult.
The high-end security shops are not using GENERIC builds from downloadable distros anyways, so these 0day's are (have been) targeting the general public. Makes perfect sense for govt agencies, right?
-
Spending a hour every time you added some hardware to your system recompiling your kernel and having a nearly empty /lib/modules folder seemed "artisan" back in the day. Now it looks like security. Don't need the module, don't compile it.
If only the current kernel builds where that obvious. Subsystem dependencies are now substancial. Excluding things "you" don't need becomes more tricky when other modules you do need say that are coupled with ones you know you don't need.
The days of system hardening 101 practices have somehow been lost.
To compete on the Plug-&-Pray model, having everything in the tree as include just makes end-users happier. :-DD
Just go look at the GENERIC profiles, sad. Why does my kernel include all the Intel nic drivers when my hardware doesnt use Intel at all?
Choosing what you need and having test run compile pull in dependencies to see what else is needed, is not terribly difficult.
The high-end security shops are not using GENERIC builds from downloadable distros anyways, so these 0day's are (have been) targeting the general public. Makes perfect sense for govt agencies, right?
I did Gentoo for a while. I don't know how much of a following it still has, but those folks used to be rabid about nothing more than what you need and optimizing for your platform.
-
More energy wasted. Instead of making basic UI more efficient (like Windows XP), Windows 11 uses excessive CPU power to do basic tasks https://www.windowslatest.com/2026/05/08/i-tested-windows-11s-hidden-low-latency-profile-and-budget-pcs-are-about-to-feel-premium/ (https://www.windowslatest.com/2026/05/08/i-tested-windows-11s-hidden-low-latency-profile-and-budget-pcs-are-about-to-feel-premium/)
-
Wow! I was gobsmacked at the first demo. That is stunningly slow, and unbelievable that it's considered standard.
-
Wow! I was gobsmacked at the first demo. That is stunningly slow, and unbelievable that it's considered standard.
But it's running in a VM. I've noticed Linux runs horribly under VirtualBox - stuttery, laggy. Nothing like when it's running on actual hardware.
-
Wow! I was gobsmacked at the first demo. That is stunningly slow, and unbelievable that it's considered standard.
But it's running in a VM. I've noticed Linux runs horribly under VirtualBox - stuttery, laggy. Nothing like when it's running on actual hardware.
Yes. Because your consumer hardware is preventing from being virtualised properly or easily. Especially Virtual box an outdated platform in the era of hypervisor based OS's.
Even with those modern hypervisors AMD and NVidia both deny the ability to virtuallise the video hardware. The license that allows you to do so, costs over a thousand dollars, per GPU.
So you immediately lose (almost) all hardware acceleration in the display.
Then there is the remote desktop "channel" itself. Not all of them are created equally. They are very high bandwidth channels and most take short cuts which in the case of something like "VirtualBox" are slow, stuttery and annoying. Wait till you see what it's doing to the VM's RTC as... no VirtualBox is not temporally aligned, it's faked by resyncing the soft-clock everytime virtual box misses a few interrupts from it.
Most LinuxVMs are headless/GUI-less in the wild. I have a Ubuntu desktop VM and it's fine, using "Spice" HD desktop protocol, which supports 4K desktops. It feels like a desktop running at 30fps on an APU ... because it is.
EDIT: Note. "No virtualisation" does not mean you cannot "assign" a GPU to a VM. However it has to be done totally and at the PCIe express layer. You basically export the whole PCIe slot to the VM.
-
Indeed - my point being that the demo @PlainName commented upon was done in a VM, so it won't be representative of how W11 behaves in the real world.
-
Who runs linux with a desktop gui on VirtualBox?
I have various windows on VMware Workstation (XP, 7, 10, 11) and they all run kinda sluggish vs same OS on the same bare metal.
VM was made to help utilize unused (idle) resources, with impact on overall performance. Nothing new here.
-
Who runs linux with a desktop gui on VirtualBox?
Me, when I'm evaluating a distro that is new to me. I bet you knew that, really. 😁
-
Who runs linux with a desktop gui on VirtualBox?
Me, when I'm evaluating a distro that is new to me. I bet you knew that, really. 😁
Sure, but you wouldnt keep it there after the eval, if you were sticking with it, right?
If its just an eval, in a VM, in VirtualBox, then evaluating performance is a bit moot, unless the comparison is just other distros as a VM in the same hyper. It's already a given that the hyper layer is just another layer that is not native to the VM, so there will be impact.
It's also a bit moot to try and compare one OS in a VM vs just on the bare metal.
Certainly valid to compare the OS as VM in different hypers. vmw workstation pro running on headless linux works very well for me. If I need win gui i'll use the native rdp. If the VM is something that needs more responsive gui, then the hyper needs to have a desktop ("console"). Certainly having decent gpu based video with supported virtual driver is the way to go. I have one Win host machine that is nasty fast/fat with xeon/ram/nvme/gpu, but I still run my CAD on another machine that is better tuned for that app.
-
Found this tool which does actually seem to actually work where searching later on doesn't default the view back to content view or reclassify a folder as pictures where useless fields like the "rating" would appear where I'd delete and replace the folder bags registry with a copy to restore it back. So far so good.
https://lesferch.github.io/WinSetView/
[attachimg=3]
Later on I'll do it again and compare the registry changes to find out what I didn't set properly or elsewhere.
That use to be so annoying, the sort of thing that'd enrage me on principle and this goes with everything else when I take and effort to set or do something all for it to default later on especially when I need it to work. "Oh look it scrunched up my search view again, damnnn!!!", can't see it clearly, shall I set views, no let's run that folderbags reg import to restore it then reload profile. Nice to search FREELY knowing that isn't going to happen again and one frustrating thing gone. Just type in things in some folder and results appear in the order I set them. I need to know, say for duplicates too, size, when a file was created, when it was last edited, and where they are on the file system without any shorting the paths (folder) field. Could have done with this years ago but failed to find it.
https://github.com/LesFerch/WinSetView/releases
Just noticed it had been on Github since November 2024 on Github and 3.01 the earliest suggest to me it had been around elsewhere before that.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/1539317/make-windows-11-show-search-results-in-details-vie
Anonymous Feb 22, 2024, 9:52 AM
Unfortunately, Windows 11 doesn't provide a built-in option to change the default view of search results in File Explorer.
Zavadil Apr 12, 2024, 8:04 AM
Hello. Windows 10 has had this function, I have had use it. Why doesn't provide new :better: OS windows 11 this function? For me is Win 11 downgrade - and it's pity.
Me May 15, 2025, 12:36 AM
Not being able to set the default view is highly unsatisfactory and yet another step backwards in the revised "experience" for me.
Shayne Turner Nov 14, 2025, 4:11 PM
After reading all the comments below, I'm continually frustrated with "improvements" made by Microsoft. Why do they keep taking useful options away? In an effort to make the system easier for the masses, they limit the functionality of the Windows platform. I wonder who is the knucklehead that approves these anti-developments.
Well I hope they do a uturn on that too as an improvement or maybe they are in the process of migrating them to that new Settings panel in a later build.
-
Who runs linux with a desktop gui on VirtualBox?
I have various windows on VMware Workstation (XP, 7, 10, 11) and they all run kinda sluggish vs same OS on the same bare metal.
Don't run Linux but I do run Windows in VirtualBox. IME, VB is massively faster than, say, remote access (over a gigabit network) for GUI fripperies. W7, which is the main target, is very usable and although flashy GUI stuff is noticeably slower it's not that slow. In fact, the only reason I don't use a VM for real work is the decoupling of from the host PC (which is kind of the point of a VM).
The demo in that video didn't say "VM" to me so much as "dial-up RDP".
-
Sure, but you wouldnt keep it there after the eval, if you were sticking with it, right?
Well, it depends how often I need to run a Linux-specific app. If it's just occasionally, it seems a bit inefficient to have a Linux machine taking up table space, only switched on occasionally.
If its just an eval, in a VM, in VirtualBox, then evaluating performance is a bit moot, unless the comparison is just other distros as a VM in the same hyper. It's already a given that the hyper layer is just another layer that is not native to the VM, so there will be impact.
It's also a bit moot to try and compare one OS in a VM vs just on the bare metal.
Indeed, which is why I said earlier that the article is a bit questionable because it used a VM to host Windows, and then tested a performance enhancement to the guest OS.
-
Another strike for windoze.
Major issues installing May 12 updates.
KB5087051
KB5089549
-
I have a desktop and laptop windows computer.
The laptop is still on Win10 as its hardware isnt good enough for Win11.
The desktop is Win11.
Since the upgrade to Win11 I can no longer network with my laptop to the desktop.
It should be a simple task to network 2 computers but Microsoft make it very hard.
There are settings all over the place to set it up.
-
I have a desktop and laptop windows computer.
The laptop is still on Win10 as its hardware isnt good enough for Win11.
The desktop is Win11.
Since the upgrade to Win11 I can no longer network with my laptop to the desktop.
It should be a simple task to network 2 computers but Microsoft make it very hard.
There are settings all over the place to set it up.
It is, just use the bypass-checks workaround (reg keys) to get into Win11. :-+
-
I have a Windows 10 desktop I don't feel the need to use Windows 11 so it stays as it is.
-
It should be a simple task to network 2 computers but Microsoft make it very hard.
There are settings all over the place to set it up.
Future generations may learn that the core problem is certain federal level acronym institutions and their needs.
-
More energy wasted. Instead of making basic UI more efficient (like Windows XP), Windows 11 uses excessive CPU power to do basic tasks https://www.windowslatest.com/2026/05/08/i-tested-windows-11s-hidden-low-latency-profile-and-budget-pcs-are-about-to-feel-premium/ (https://www.windowslatest.com/2026/05/08/i-tested-windows-11s-hidden-low-latency-profile-and-budget-pcs-are-about-to-feel-premium/)
Another article on the topic.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/05/speed-boosting-low-latency-profile-is-one-of-the-improvements-coming-to-windows-11/ (https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/05/speed-boosting-low-latency-profile-is-one-of-the-improvements-coming-to-windows-11/)
I liked the quote “everything is a conspiracy when you don’t know how anything works.” --Scott Hanselman
The article goes on to quote him about all operating systems doing the same thing to boost interactive performance, and that the profile is optional.
-
More energy wasted. Instead of making basic UI more efficient (like Windows XP), Windows 11 uses excessive CPU power to do basic tasks https://www.windowslatest.com/2026/05/08/i-tested-windows-11s-hidden-low-latency-profile-and-budget-pcs-are-about-to-feel-premium/ (https://www.windowslatest.com/2026/05/08/i-tested-windows-11s-hidden-low-latency-profile-and-budget-pcs-are-about-to-feel-premium/)
Another article on the topic.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/05/speed-boosting-low-latency-profile-is-one-of-the-improvements-coming-to-windows-11/ (https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/05/speed-boosting-low-latency-profile-is-one-of-the-improvements-coming-to-windows-11/)
I liked the quote “everything is a conspiracy when you don’t know how anything works.” --Scott Hanselman
The article goes on to quote him about all operating systems doing the same thing to boost interactive performance, and that the profile is optional.
Windows XP has a faster and more efficient UI as it doesn't need to boost performance. Windows 11 on the other hand, instead of trying to improve efficiency (more folder opened per Joule consumed), it uses more power. Check this comment
The fact that Windows 11 has had to implement this feature speaks volumes about how bloated the operating system has become.
I remember when Windows 2000 was released, everything in it opened instantly. Even this demonstration of Windows 11, where you can see applications being rendered on the screen in real time, is jarring. How did they fuck up so much, this feature is even required in the first place?
-
More energy wasted. Instead of making basic UI more efficient (like Windows XP), Windows 11 uses excessive CPU power to do basic tasks https://www.windowslatest.com/2026/05/08/i-tested-windows-11s-hidden-low-latency-profile-and-budget-pcs-are-about-to-feel-premium/ (https://www.windowslatest.com/2026/05/08/i-tested-windows-11s-hidden-low-latency-profile-and-budget-pcs-are-about-to-feel-premium/)
Another article on the topic.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/05/speed-boosting-low-latency-profile-is-one-of-the-improvements-coming-to-windows-11/ (https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/05/speed-boosting-low-latency-profile-is-one-of-the-improvements-coming-to-windows-11/)
I liked the quote “everything is a conspiracy when you don’t know how anything works.” --Scott Hanselman
The article goes on to quote him about all operating systems doing the same thing to boost interactive performance, and that the profile is optional.
Windows XP has a faster and more efficient UI as it doesn't need to boost performance. Windows 11 on the other hand, instead of trying to improve efficiency (more folder opened per Joule consumed), it uses more power. Check this comment
The fact that Windows 11 has had to implement this feature speaks volumes about how bloated the operating system has become.
I remember when Windows 2000 was released, everything in it opened instantly. Even this demonstration of Windows 11, where you can see applications being rendered on the screen in real time, is jarring. How did they fuck up so much, this feature is even required in the first place?
I never read the comments on articles. I find it a waste of time.
Copying the comment here provides no value to this thread as far as I can tell. You've acted as a proxy to post that person's opinion here and they aren't even here to defend the opinion.
The information I've read indicates that all modern OSes accelerate the user interface using both the CPU and the GPU. This latest subthread about Windows 11 concerns the optional profile now available in Windows. It seems you don't have to use it.
I can make unsupported and unsubstantiated claims as well as the next person. Claiming that Windows XP was more efficient is an example of such a claim. I have some fond memories of both Windows 2k and Windows XP, but human memory is well known to be flawed (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10567586/). The fact is that each OS lives within the hardware ecosystem of its time and is driven by the wishes of its maker and, possibly, by consumers.
I suspect your assertion of the efficiency of Windows XP is similarly just a "memory" and isn't really supported by any data, right?
As it is, I don't see any "news" here. It appears to me that many outlets are just filling a need to clickbait people into a favorite hobby of bashing MS. It's not a particularly good reason. I believe there are many better ones for sure. I hold no love for MS or really any company, but I can't find anything here to hate on them about.
-
The fact is that each OS lives within the hardware ecosystem of its time
Indeed. When new Windows version is released, it's always somewhat sluggish with existing, especially lower-end hardware of that era. Then it gets relatively better when hardware evolves around it, and people switch to never hardware - performance complaints stop. Then the new flashy and shiny Windows version gets released, and the cycle repeats.
-
The fact is that each OS lives within the hardware ecosystem of its time
Indeed. When new Windows version is released, it's always somewhat sluggish with existing, especially lower-end hardware of that era. Then it gets relatively better when hardware evolves around it, and people switch to never hardware - performance complaints stop. Then the new flashy and shiny Windows version gets released, and the cycle repeats.
So a quick cruise around the Web says something slightly different. XP was similar in performance to W2k. New features (eg Luna) slowed it down, but better memory management and hardware optimisation helped significantly, such that they felt pretty similar in use.
W7 was quicker than Vista, generally speaking. Vista had introduced various new CPU-sucking technologies (eg Aero) which made it significantly slower than its predecessor, XP. W7 was very similar to Vista under the hood, but with numerous optimisations, which made it noticeably faster. So the step from Vista to W7 saw performance improvements for most people.
W8 introduced better handling of SSDs and better memory optimisation than W7, which meant its performance was quite similar.
But these are nit-picking exceptions: I agree with Cyclotron that an OS typically lives within its contemporary hardware ecosystem.
-
win 8.1 added driver signing, made more difficult to play with devices, arduinos etc ... and so on M$oft enforced multiples things along the way
now AI crap taking over ... can't stand it anymore, they removed support for many old printers etc ... enforcing "good drivers" who pleases M$oft, blocking "good" but bad for them, read about core protection ...
and so many things, tried many nix nux variants, they're getting real good, but even with Wine or any emulator, it's always "a miss something" who still block me to do the full switch ...
each time i install windows, i must take 30-45 mins to tweak it/them to my likings O&O shutup 10, winslop, winsetview, add a paid StartAllback, and others just to keep me going.
Msoft lost it long ago, now that they see some decline and try to win back fan base with their K2 initiative, but they never listen for long, they think we have to follow their mentality / ecosystem berk
Even at my job with the IT guy, he know if he push too much group policy in the machine, he'll face my wrath loll i need a working thing, not a toy / gimmick / crapped system
i do i/o stuff, added communications gimmicks/interfaces, python, office, they must run un-strangled un-clobbered, and the "less mouse clicks" i can do, office sucks too, open office, libre office etc are very good, but once you are in entreprise with 365 crap, you're done, sharepoint, onedrive ... you need M$oft shit to work
-
Claiming that Windows XP was more efficient is an example of such a claim. I have some fond memories of both Windows 2k and Windows XP, but human memory is well known to be flawed .
I suspect your assertion of the efficiency of Windows XP is similarly just a "memory" and isn't really supported by any data, right?
Here a little video comparing windows ME (everyone hated it) and windows 11. Windows 11 is running on a 11th gen i5. Windows me on a 650Mhz Celeron 64MB RAM. The poor Acer is falling apart after 26 years but still going strong (on its original 4GB HDD). For many years me and my sister we turned it off by unplugging it and somehow still works perfectly. For normal office stuff (offline) is a much better and smoother experience than windows11 (and windows10). When you open a browser or a 4K photo you'll notice the lack of power.
When opening file explorer on win11 (on a powerful processor, try the same on a slow processor..) seems like a slideshow, loading piece per piece like a webpage on slow internet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qibpyf9-Hh0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qibpyf9-Hh0)
-
office sucks too, open office, libre office etc are very good
Ah, I found something to disagree with! I've recently reviewed most, if not all, of the office suites that run on Linux. I agree: MS Office sucks. But I don't agree that Open Office and Libre Office are "very good". I think they suck even harder than MS Office. There is one candidate that gets damn close to being "very good": SoftMaker Office.
So good that I shelled out my money and bought the licence. But, dammit, when I got to making charts in PlanMaker I ran into some really crap functionality that pushed me back to Excel.
I really don't want an MS 365 (or whatever it's called this week) subscription, so I bought an MS Office 2019 perpetual licence for a bargain price on eBay (I think). It activated fine.
-
win 8.1 added driver signing, made more difficult to play with devices, arduinos etc ...
Disagree. Win 8.1 blessed us with the OS Descriptor 2.0: Lets you hook up any device with WinUSB. You don't need drivers anymore, but you need to implement the driver functions directly in your code, reading/writing the endpoints directly with winusb.h or libusb.h.
Suddently we were not constrained in abusing HID anymore and had the power of full bandwidth available.
-
I see a common trap a lot of people have fallen into here. The customisation and preferences trap.
It works like this. You install an OS. You explore. Over months you tweak this and tweak that to be just how you like it. This goes on for a few years.
The moment something requires you to upgrade or even reinstall, the weight of all of those tweaks, preferences and customisations immediately bears on your shoulders and your resistence to change + the overhead of setting it all back up is huge.
But something forces you to do it. So you do. Now you are likely to spend at least few months grumpy and dissatisfied until eventually you will find another stack of customisations and prefrences to make it feel like "Home" again.
Repeat.
Im not saying it's wrong. But it is a trap with costs.
In my world, the number of different OS instances I use day to day is so great and they change so much, so often and so dramatically.... I just stopped bothering to set things up beyond the minima. I know that every single thing I change is emphemeral and a debt to pay later.
I think this first started with I had Windows98 and it needed to be reinstalled every 6 months or it would bloat and crawl. After a few of those, I just stopped customising and tailoring it.
I do the same with most software. I learn to adapt to it, not the other way around. One is effort upfront, the other is effort debt. I like clean books and a good balance.
-
The other "mistake", though not really a mistake, more a missed feature intake. Is not taking advantage of things like:
Owning more than one PC.
Owning a virtual host - a proper one, not VBox or similar BS.
Dual booting.
Matching OS to task.
Integrating multiple OSes seemlessly.
Ultimately using each OS for it's specific tasks where it does best.
For example. I use a Windows10 VM for STM32 work and a few other bits and bobs like .Net play or game moding.
I would not use that VM as my main desktop however. The VM even with dedicated hardware, a proper hypervisor and a low latency HD/4K remote desktop service... is still slightly "chewy". Its perfectly usable for dev work, coding etc. It's brought to its knees by a single full screen 1080p YouTube video though.
EDIT: A hidden advantage, until you look, of this is "Power saving and thus $$$ saving."
A PC that can do everything for you is going to be quite large. It will have beefy hardware, lots of memory etc. All of that consumes power and hte "Idle power" is normally directly proportional to the total capabilities of the PC. My 700W gaming PC, pulls 100W idle.
So I spent £300 on a micro-pc. It consumes 14W idle and 32 flat out. However it works perfectly for most "desktop uses". Including full screen 60fps 4K video... and even some 'basic' games. Thanks to the APU.
When you run those numbers out through UK electrical prices the £300 PC paid for it self in about 3 years.
-
The problem is, that even if you do not change a single thing, the next update might still change it for you anyway and break the workflow you are used to.
Related example is the search function in MS Outlook. The location of the search, and to a lesser extend the functionality within the search bar, has changed multiple times over the years. Last time even without a change in outlook version.
And it causes support calls everytime it moves.
Microsoft seems to like to change things for changes sake. Often i have the feeling that there are GUI designers changing things around to be able to argue that their job is really required.
My biggest bugbear related to functionality and usability of windows 11 is still the task bar. Functionality that was present in Windows since at least Windows XP, so for almost a quarter century now, has just been removed.
Even Microsoft realized that this was a bad idea though :D The functionality is supposed to come back soon-ish.
And once it has, i will migrate to Windows 11. The security hits that can also affect home installations are getting closer.
-
Microsoft do that to try and please everyone at once. As they know they will fail as history shows them that, then trend towards impressing the customers who pay them most. That isn't retail/domestic.
For me... particularly in work where 1/3rd to 1/2th my computer usage is. I just don't have a choice.
The windows 11 upgrade happened one Tuesday morning.
SMS to manager: "Windows 11 update got me this morning. I'll see you this afternoon."
Updates are pushed. The first indication I have is when it pops up to say, "We will reboot you computer in 3 hours. RebootNow/Snooze"
-
....
Microsoft seems to like to change things for changes sake. Often i have the feeling that there are GUI designers changing things around to be able to argue that their job is really required.
....
It's not just Microsoft, it's everyone.
The dramatic changes used to be left to major revisions. Mobile platforms and, in my opinion, agile development processes changed things.
I really dislike the new look and feel of iOS on Apple iPhones. They do this to try to stay "fresh" and drive new purchases. The other side of this is to avoid changes altogether.
-
....
Microsoft seems to like to change things for changes sake. Often i have the feeling that there are GUI designers changing things around to be able to argue that their job is really required.
....
It's not just Microsoft, it's everyone.
The dramatic changes used to be left to major revisions. Mobile platforms and, in my opinion, agile development processes changed things.
I really dislike the new look and feel of iOS on Apple iPhones. They do this to try to stay "fresh" and drive new purchases. The other side of this is to avoid changes altogether.
Yep. As I have hinted at in other threads, the issue is they are locked in a self accelerating loop. The faster you can get something to market today the more likely you will be to succeed. The payouts are enormous. Everyone is still looking at the likes of Meta and thinking "We just need to land us one of those.... before everyone else does."
So they go back to software engineering and ask, "Can you make it go faster?"
Eventually, probably already, teh answer is "No.", but they are not asking engineers. They are asking business people and they say, "Yes, certainly, let me just make the developers life more like hell." or better put, "We'll add more ceremony to make it look like we are going faster."
-
I see a common trap a lot of people have fallen into here. The customisation and preferences trap.
It works like this. You install an OS. You explore. Over months you tweak this and tweak that to be just how you like it. This goes on for a few years.
The moment something requires you to upgrade or even reinstall, the weight of all of those tweaks, preferences and customisations immediately bears on your shoulders and your resistence to change + the overhead of setting it all back up is huge.
But something forces you to do it. So you do. Now you are likely to spend at least few months grumpy and dissatisfied until eventually you will find another stack of customisations and prefrences to make it feel like "Home" again.
Repeat.
Im not saying it's wrong. But it is a trap with costs.
In my world, the number of different OS instances I use day to day is so great and they change so much, so often and so dramatically.... I just stopped bothering to set things up beyond the minima. I know that every single thing I change is emphemeral and a debt to pay later.
I think this first started with I had Windows98 and it needed to be reinstalled every 6 months or it would bloat and crawl. After a few of those, I just stopped customising and tailoring it.
I do the same with most software. I learn to adapt to it, not the other way around. One is effort upfront, the other is effort debt. I like clean books and a good balance.
That is always my situation. I do not want to have to learn new software, I want the software to adapt to me.
I am now running Linux Mint 20 on about half a dozen computers. I would keep it forever but Mint 20 is out of date and no longer supported and some programs stop running. So I started by installing Mint 22.3 on a separate computer. Basic install goes OK. I have to give up some older programs but OK, I'll accept that. But then I get to a major hurdle (for me). I cannot get Irfanview with WINE to be the default app for images. I have spent time in the Mint forum but cannot get what I want. So I get so frustrated I just give up and decide to remain with LM 20. Because updating the SO should not be so traumatic. It seems to me a lot of the time they change things around just for the sake of newness. Come to think about it I might open a thread here, in the computer section, once I recover from my frustration.
Yes, I have everything set the way I like it and any changes, even if minor, slow me down, a lot. I always use the mouse and never the touchpad. For a few days I was traveling and forgot the mouse at home and the laptop felt very awkward. For me the mouse is alnost unconscious and once I have to start thinking every move I slow down a lot.
-
I see a common trap a lot of people have fallen into here. The customisation and preferences trap.
[...]
Yes, there is a lot of that about it, although it's not as bad as you make out. When I get a new PC I always isntall from scratch rather then restore a backup, precisely so that everything is fresh. I don't do it often enough for it to be a pain, and if W10+ were actually any good I would already be on them.
For me, the issue is the GUI. The hidden scrollbars, white window overlaying white window with no border. Scrolling down the setting page, selecting an option and then when you back up you're at the top of the page instead of where you left it. Those are the sort of things that really, REALLY get on one's tits when they are there all the time and cannot be configured out.
-
I liked Windows 10. However it was because most of the new UI features added where stolen from KDE. Things like window snapping, half snap etc. It was also the first time I'd used windows on an SSD.
-
I use Actual Window Manage which does window snapping and a LOT more. But I never use snapping - always docks when I don't want it to (which is usually 'always') :)
A feature I use a lot when working for a specific client is desktop divider (https://www.actualtools.com/windowmanager/features/desktop_divider/) which lets you split up your huge desktop into zones and then snap windows into those in various ways. Did I read that W11 has that now? Still won't make me 'upgrade' :)
-
Windows 11. I don't know if others see it, but the jarring and annoying thing for me that I can't get away from is..
Where the fuck did my screen real estate go? Why is there so much pregnant white space on everything? And why is EVERYTHING a link hot spot. How do I even click the window "handle" on a title bar filled with crap? How can you both contract and expand the desktop useable space and make it useless at the same time?
Do not start me on Macbook. Absolutely UI junk. Completely inconsistent and honestly about 10 years out of date.
-
I liked Windows 10. However it was because most of the new UI features added where stolen from KDE. Things like window snapping, half snap etc. It was also the first time I'd used windows on an SSD.
Window snapping is cool, I'm glad a form of it has made it to macOS. I used to use a pretty nifty Windows manager on Windows 2k Pro when I worked in support escalations on Solaris systems. I'd have multiple virtual screens running, with a terminal in each. Then I discovered the terminal program "screens".
-
Where the fuck did my screen real estate go? Why is there so much pregnant white space on everything? And why is EVERYTHING a link hot spot. How do I even click the window "handle" on a title bar filled with crap? How can you both contract and expand the desktop useable space and make it useless at the same time?
I absolutely agree with this. I would say it's because Microsoft have forced a touch-oriented UI on us desktop users. It started with W8 and has been a complete ball-ache ever since. That's why I keep looking longingly at Linux.*
Do not start me on Macbook. Absolutely UI junk. Completely inconsistent and honestly about 10 years out of date.
OMG! Don't you know that millions of afficionados insist that Apple can do no wrong? 😳
-----
* If only Windows applications would run natively on Linux. (Yeah, I know....)
-
Crapple's numbers tell their story, nothing else.
-
....
Microsoft seems to like to change things for changes sake. Often i have the feeling that there are GUI designers changing things around to be able to argue that their job is really required.
....
It's not just Microsoft, it's everyone.
The dramatic changes used to be left to major revisions. Mobile platforms and, in my opinion, agile development processes changed things.
I really dislike the new look and feel of iOS on Apple iPhones. They do this to try to stay "fresh" and drive new purchases. The other side of this is to avoid changes altogether.
Two settings make iOS bearable again for me:
Settings -> Accessibility -> Display & Text size -> "Reduce Transparency" to on
Settings -> Accessibility -> Motion -> "Reduce Motion" to on
No fancy "Glss" for with this anymore, but the transparency made a lot of things difficult to read.
And "reduce motion" disables some wonky animation effects.
-
OMG! Don't you know that millions of afficionados insist that Apple can do no wrong? 😳
I used to have a small quanta of respect for them. Then I used a Mac.
-
OMG! Don't you know that millions of afficionados insist that Apple can do no wrong? 😳
I used to have a small quanta of respect for them. Then I used a Mac.
Give me back my old Thinkpad T21...
Work provides two options: a MacBook Pro (big or small) and a Dell. I hate 'em all, but I hate Dell more.
I go with the 14 Mac Pro because it suits me best for hardware and travel.
MacOS is complete garbage for the user interface, and I think I've grown dumber for using it. I don't know why they can't figure out that just because the menus were always like this doesn't mean they should stay that way. And the lack of a standard for keyboard shortcuts is a PIA. When I used Windows as my daily I did a lot from the keyboard.
That brings me back to the Thinkpad. I loved that thing. It was a tank and the red nubins was awesome. I could shortcut all over, and with the numpad, I could move my mouse effectively without taking my fingers off the home row on the keyboard.
-
OMG! Don't you know that millions of afficionados insist that Apple can do no wrong? 😳
I have my own opinion on the various GUI (and other) interfaces I've used over the years. I love some more than others. I think most interfaces have redeeming qualities, even Windows 11 and macOS (though they're making it really hard).
IMHO, the big takeaway from what's happening is "is Windows inevitable?" The answer is more and more NO. It's not going to die, anymore than macOs, or VMS, or Solaris...or Fortran, or pearl or anything else.
But I was born in the 70s, and have seen the evolution. And probably you too. We've both dealt with crap interfaces, better interfaces, etc, and have seen it meander back and forth. Ultimately, people land somewhere that is useful for them. IMHO, security and OS spying will be the main issue moving forward in the next 10 years, and after a few large scale breaches and/or scandals, no one will care about the interface...again. LOL.
-
and after a few large scale breaches and/or scandals, no one will care about the interface...again
Of course they will. The issue will be that there isn't anything good any more too choose from. But they will still be - and feel - crap.
-
Speaking of MacOS, that haven of usability - cough -
Today I found myself squinting at some micro-scopic IDE UI text. So I opened the display settings and found the 'scaling' settings...
For the built in display only.
Because crapple do not recognise my monitor as being Apple approved (is, Apple made) it provides no scaling. The only option is to drop the resolution... on an LCD panel.
It's honestly ... I only have swear words.
EDIT: After pursuing this a little further, you can force "HiDPI" resolutions. However. They don't support 21:9 aspects. Provides only 720P variants. That's 50% vertical resolution. Thats the best option it has.
A better option (not ideal though)... I settled on dropping the resolution to 1080p, from 1440p. The downside is the panel is now scaling it, so it has lost a bit of definition. Still better than fonts 3mm high.
-
Yellow Key, what a f-up for mycrudsoft ! The trust level went from shit to cesspool.
-
Yellow Key, what a f-up for mycrudsoft ! The trust level went from shit to cesspool.
A feature to allow those who have been blessed with encrypted volumes by ransomware attackers a way to get their data back.
-
Because crapple do not recognise my monitor as being Apple approved (is, Apple made) it provides no scaling. The only option is to drop the resolution... on an LCD panel.
Happens even with Apple 1st party displays... that don't meet their arbitrary requirement to be "retina" for support of the high quality scaling. So not a brand of monitor issue, but a threshold of PPI which changes the available options.
Since it's a silly arbitrary cutoff and high quality scaling is still useful there are various 3rd party utilities which re-enable it on any monitor.
https://github.com/xzhih/one-key-hidpi
https://github.com/waydabber/BetterDisplay
But hey, why let a minute or two on google to fix your problems get in the way of some ranting and misdirected hating?
-
Yellow Key, what a f-up for mycrudsoft ! The trust level went from shit to cesspool.
A feature to allow those who have been blessed with encrypted volumes by ransomware attackers a way to get their data back.
Or 3 letters to get in w/o telling anyone how they did it.
Ransomware would not be recoverable by this method.
I am convinced the obscure way in was done on purpose.
-
Yellow Key, what a f-up for mycrudsoft ! The trust level went from shit to cesspool.
A feature to allow those who have been blessed with encrypted volumes by ransomware attackers a way to get their data back.
Bitlocker is ransomware because it's done without the user's knowledge. The most common problem is unable to recover data after a computer malfunction
-
Yellow Key, what a f-up for mycrudsoft ! The trust level went from shit to cesspool.
A feature to allow those who have been blessed with encrypted volumes by ransomware attackers a way to get their data back.
Bitlocker is ransomware because it's done without the user's knowledge. The most common problem is unable to recover data after a computer malfunction
Does that affect backups? (I don't know - don't have anything bitlocker-ish to experience). If not then that would be no different to a SSD just packing up (as opposed to a spinner struggling along while it tellls you you're in trouble). If bitlocker affects backups too, there has to be a way to restore those or they would be completely useless.
-
Bitlocker is ransomware because it's done without the user's knowledge. The most common problem is unable to recover data after a computer malfunction
You can keep a copy of the bl key from TPM on your own external location, so technically it's always recoverable. If the machine is part of the MS cloud supervisor crap, they too also have the key.
-
Does that affect backups? (I don't know - don't have anything bitlocker-ish to experience). If not then that would be no different to a SSD just packing up (as opposed to a spinner struggling along while it tellls you you're in trouble). If bitlocker affects backups too, there has to be a way to restore those or they would be completely useless.
If the backup is running via agent on the running OS, then it does not affect backups. File backup is different than offline block level backup.
-
Grrrrrr!
For me, the issue is the GUI. The hidden scrollbars, white window overlaying white window with no border.
Setting up W10 on a new PC. Settings dialog looks a bit bare, but using search generally finds things. Only much later do I find it is a fucking scrollable window and there are two more lines of stuff below. There is ZERO indication that it can be scrolled, or which part is the bloody window furniture and which the scrollable content.
-
Is full screen any better?
My 32bit not ESU W10 machine has all its old slowdowns back.
Defender is defending like no limits and compatibility telemetry goes like never before.
-
Is full screen any better?
No way is that dialog going to be using the entire 4K desktop.
Defender is defending like no limits and compatibility telemetry goes like never before.
Speaking of Defender, if it sees something it shouldn't it will quarantine it. No option to ask or just say there's an issue and don't change anything. And then when it does quarantine stuff and you tell it to unquarantine it and put the thing back where it came from, it won't. Frankly, I don't trust Defender not to screw up big time (which is actually has done recently, being a hassle-free conduit for exploits).
-
Speaking of Defender, if it sees something it shouldn't it will quarantine it. No option to ask or just say there's an issue and don't change anything. And then when it does quarantine stuff and you tell it to unquarantine it and put the thing back where it came from, it won't. Frankly, I don't trust Defender not to screw up big time (which is actually has done recently, being a hassle-free conduit for exploits).
Which version of Defender?
Features vary, "windows" Defender is the shit version (what you have), all the way up to serious capabilities of Defender for Endpoint.
-
Whatever comes built in with W10 (which I assume is what everyone raves about since that's what they're all using by default). Doesn't give a version reference that I can find. I am guessing Defender for Endpoint isn't the thing your average forum dweller is using when they go one about how everyone should be using Defender because it's great and free.
But that's irrelevant. If Microsoft provide something it should bloody well work properly. If there's an unquarantine button it should actually unquarantine the stuff.
-
After some time evaluating the bitlocker yellowkey crap, it's even worse then I thought.
There is no extra key as was described by some online security "experts".
Just turns out the hack (3 letter backdoor) basically effs up WinRE process, and a few steps into that the WinRE already has the key from TPM, and because a piece of WinRE is missing you get dropped to a shell, which now has access to the encrypted main OS volume.
Note: the hack only gets TPM key for main OS volume, no other volumes. BUT, other volumes have bitlocker keys stored in the registry, which is on the main OS volume.
Complete F'n fail. At least in terms of security and trust. 100% backdoor for some before the issue went public.
-
Bitlocker is ransomware because it's done without the user's knowledge. The most common problem is unable to recover data after a computer malfunction
You can keep a copy of the bl key from TPM on your own external location, so technically it's always recoverable. If the machine is part of the MS cloud supervisor crap, they too also have the key.
Most Windows 11 users are laypeople who don't even know that bitlocker exists.
-
Most Windows 11 users are laypeople who don't even know that bitlocker exists.
True.
I was just noting what can actually be done.
-
Grrrrrr!
For me, the issue is the GUI. The hidden scrollbars, white window overlaying white window with no border.
Start->Settings->Ease of Access->Display->Automatically hide scroll bars = OFF
-
Start->Settings->Ease of Access->Display->Automatically hide scroll bars = OFF
Works some of the time.
-
Start->Settings->Ease of Access->Display->Automatically hide scroll bars = OFF
Works some of the time.
Such is the state of the Windows UI since 8.. Have an idea, half implement it in one tenth of the OS, then have a new idea..
-
The Chinese have brought out their own OS.
Its called HarmonyOS or something like that.
Once that gets established Windows will lose out in China.
-
AFAIK, Huawei's HarmonyOS is a mess. It was originally a fork of Android and is changing into something incompatible.
-
The Chinese have brought out their own OS.
Its called HarmonyOS or something like that.
Once that gets established Windows will lose out in China.
Oh I've heard this one before. But it was Red Flag, or KylinOS. Yup, for 20 years or more that's been the promise.
I guess its now up to HarmonyOS to make MS lose out to China. I wonder what's next.
Kidding aside, do you think this click bait stuff is useful or does it make money?
-
AFAIK, Huawei's HarmonyOS is a mess. It was originally a fork of Android and is changing into something incompatible.
Harmony OS is the proprietary, locked-down version fork of Android years before the Googleannouncement of 2026/2027 closing-down Android. APK installation is not allowed
-
AFAIK, Huawei's HarmonyOS is a mess. It was originally a fork of Android and is changing into something incompatible.
Harmony OS is the proprietary, locked-down version fork of Android years before the Googleannouncement of 2026/2027 closing-down Android. APK installation is not allowed
AOSP from 4 to 2/yr, they need time for Mythos to fix their code. :-DD
-
I see a common trap a lot of people have fallen into here. The customisation and preferences trap.
...
I hop OS all the time. Mac, Linux, Windows. I've 4 machines running different purposes: Windows simrig/gaming machine, Linux HTPC, Mac laptop and Mac workstation.
I want minimal effort to get a new OS install running.
For Windows: install chipset/WiFi/GPU drivers, install Syncthing, sync my Windows shares, run Ninite with basic stuff (Firefox, archive manager, keychain tool, pdf reader, etc.). Done. I've stopped using services that are machine-bound as much as possible. Everything I make gets shared with my NAS or it didn't exist.
Basically for other operating systems its not much different, except it will carry more HW/SW tools obviously. I will grab my projects from git, install compilers and debug tools, done.
And I prefer tools that behave similarly on multiple operating systems.
The most customization I do to all OS'es is a wallpaper and theme edit. I want my dark mode enabled and I want my fancy colour scheme. I've a folder of wallpapers so I just point to it.
But I'm not going to spend hours customizing it. When I was in high school on early XP days, I had a Rainmeter setup, custom theming loaded into XP shell, a replacement XP taskbar etc. It was great as in "amazement", like we gaze at stars, but then one day that customization crashed rendering the whole machine unusable. :=\ So I quickly learned my lesson.
-
I think Ubuntu is dying too.
I just booted the gaming PC and missed selecting Windows 10 in grub... so Linux boot up.
I told it immediately to "Restart". It gave me the annoying full screen, "Are you sure?", which I still haven't turned off in that instance.
All fine.
Then it closed the GUI and stared at me for 30 seconds with a blank screen and some random terminal output from boot prior. Then the KUbuntu logo appeared with:
"Unattended update in progress. Do not switch off your computer."
I turned the computer off after 5 minutes. On boot up, I selected grub "Windows 10". Windows 10 gave me a "Disc check" options. So Ubuntu had the windows NTFS drive "Open" as well.
At no point do I recall authorising this.
-
Ubuntu server: Automatic updates - https://ubuntu.com/server/docs/how-to/software/automatic-updates/
-
I think Ubuntu is dying too.
I just booted the gaming PC and missed selecting Windows 10 in grub... so Linux boot up.
I told it immediately to "Restart". It gave me the annoying full screen, "Are you sure?", which I still haven't turned off in that instance.
All fine.
Then it closed the GUI and stared at me for 30 seconds with a blank screen and some random terminal output from boot prior. Then the KUbuntu logo appeared with:
"Unattended update in progress. Do not switch off your computer."
I turned the computer off after 5 minutes. On boot up, I selected grub "Windows 10". Windows 10 gave me a "Disc check" options. So Ubuntu had the windows NTFS drive "Open" as well.
At no point do I recall authorising this.
So, you just got a Windows experience on Ubuntu. Enshitification at its finest.
Time to find another distro maybe.
-
I think Ubuntu is dying too.
I just booted the gaming PC and missed selecting Windows 10 in grub... so Linux boot up.
I told it immediately to "Restart". It gave me the annoying full screen, "Are you sure?", which I still haven't turned off in that instance.
All fine.
Then it closed the GUI and stared at me for 30 seconds with a blank screen and some random terminal output from boot prior. Then the KUbuntu logo appeared with:
"Unattended update in progress. Do not switch off your computer."
I turned the computer off after 5 minutes. On boot up, I selected grub "Windows 10". Windows 10 gave me a "Disc check" options. So Ubuntu had the windows NTFS drive "Open" as well.
At no point do I recall authorising this.
So, you just got a Windows experience on Ubuntu. Enshitification at its finest.
Time to find another distro maybe.
I run ubuntu on windows, natively.
ubu is now running all rust, so it's a bit different than before.
-
Dying or not, but I just don't fancy torturing myself with w11 unless I have to (sadly, I more than often do need to). Let's pretend I'm all excited on having AI on my notepad and all that bloat, not to mention the great recommendations on "hey maybe I indeed want to search something via BING when typing stuff in the start menu, but the constant "please restart," "please restart twice or idk, maybe a few more times" from almost every fucking single update, be it a new icon on the bing button or a new AI-notepad. Just stop it.
And that onedrive turd... geez.. nuke that from the orbit or something.
-
I run ubuntu on windows, natively.
What do you mean by that - how can an OS be native is another one is hosting it?
-
I run ubuntu on windows, natively.
What do you mean by that - how can an OS be native is another one is hosting it?
I don't know that "natively" is particularly well-defined in this context... but that might not be the worst way to succinctly describe the WSL1 architecture, which acted basically as a loader and syscall translation layer for linux elf binaries under windows. WSL2 is more common now, and is a more traditional virtualization design... though it hides most of that from you and still "feels more native" than any traditional VM setup.
-
WSL comes in Win as a native tool, nothing to install, it's just there.
So in appearance, Linux is just there if you want it. Host and hosted are still real, but that line is just more blurred now. Certainly do need Win 1st, otherwise WSL is not there. But that still jives with "run linux natively on windoze".
-
Dying or not, but I just don't fancy torturing myself with w11 unless I have to (sadly, I more than often do need to). Let's pretend I'm all excited on having AI on my notepad and all that bloat, not to mention the great recommendations on "hey maybe I indeed want to search something via BING when typing stuff in the start menu, but the constant "please restart," "please restart twice or idk, maybe a few more times" from almost every fucking single update, be it a new icon on the bing button or a new AI-notepad. Just stop it.
And that onedrive turd... geez.. nuke that from the orbit or something.
But that's like many things, just stick with the "old" until you cant any longer.
I suspect in near future there will be no choice, your OS will be a LCE (loadable cloud engine), where your bare metal has only an UEFI that pulls the OS down. This makes what OS you run controlled by others, as defined in the user license agreement.
Not today, but it's coming.
-
Certainly do need Win 1st, otherwise WSL is not there. But that still jives with "run linux natively on windoze".
I don't think it does. Windows is acting as the interface, like Wine does the other way on Linux. Wine is the interface (as is WSL) and Windows apps aren't running natively on Linux.
That it appears seemless to the use is irrelevant. VMWare was doing that on Windows a decade ago very well indeed, but no-one considered those VMs to be native.
-
The difference, in my understanding is that WSL (at least 2) is running on the Windows type 2 hypervisor.
So it is more fair to say that "your computer is running Linux natively", windows has some integration points.
WSL2 has got some serious issues though and they will bite you.... and it hurts a lot.
The issue is the "middle ground" such as Windows accessing the Linux filesystems or vice versa. The are loop holes and corner cases where you can lose the whole folder. It depends on which OS creates the files and how the "extra metadata" for Linux is handled.
The effect of this occuring is that suddenly files that you can see existing, say, "File not found". Etc.
Tread with caution.
-
The issue is the "middle ground" such as Windows accessing the Linux filesystems or vice versa. The are loop holes and corner cases where you can lose the whole folder. It depends on which OS creates the files and how the "extra metadata" for Linux is handled.
The effect of this occuring is that suddenly files that you can see existing, say, "File not found". Etc.
Tread with caution.
These types of problems were common in WSL1 but are quite rare in WSL2.
I ran WSL2 on my work machines every day from the day it launched until I left that job a few months ago, frequently relied on the cross-mounted filesystems in both directions, and took no special precautions beyond some basic common sense like "run file io intensive operations on the native filesystem not the remote one" and "don't run things with sensitive locking/timing constraints on files on the remote filesystem." Never once had any problem.
-
beyond some basic common sense like "run file io intensive operations on the native filesystem not the remote one" and "don't run things with sensitive locking/timing constraints on files on the remote filesystem." Never once had any problem.
You mean like be a developer? Large git operations, large container counts, docker images, IDEs, build systems (Maven et. al).
-
The biggest PITA in new Windows has been virtualisation based security; at least on our AMD processors, this means you can't run VirtualBox at an acceptable speed as Hyper-V is occupied by the Windows VBS system. You can turn this off, but then you lose WSL2 -- which is a nice tool to have.
-
The biggest PITA in new Windows has been virtualisation based security; at least on our AMD processors, this means you can't run VirtualBox at an acceptable speed as Hyper-V is occupied by the Windows VBS system. You can turn this off, but then you lose WSL2 -- which is a nice tool to have.
The problem I have run into before using VMs or WSL on Windows in corporate environments is that the networking is locked out. You can't use bridge as it's denied. You can't also the routing or other tables to use a NAT address. So the VM can't talk to localhost and localhost can't talk to the VM. Not without admin approval to bridge or change routing. On projects where this was a requirement IT staff get involved to make it work.
-
The biggest PITA in new Windows has been virtualisation based security; at least on our AMD processors, this means you can't run VirtualBox at an acceptable speed as Hyper-V is occupied by the Windows VBS system. You can turn this off, but then you lose WSL2 -- which is a nice tool to have.
The problem I have run into before using VMs or WSL on Windows in corporate environments is that the networking is locked out. You can't use bridge as it's denied. You can't also the routing or other tables to use a NAT address. So the VM can't talk to localhost and localhost can't talk to the VM. Not without admin approval to bridge or change routing. On projects where this was a requirement IT staff get involved to make it work.
've not had that issue, but perhaps that's because our IT department haven't put any restrictions in place there.
-
:palm: |O :-DD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcltYeSpgC4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcltYeSpgC4)
-
Looks like Mircosoft is increasing the usage of LLMs. Not at 100% yet. >:D
-
Windows 11 can auto-download adware to your computer even if they are connected by DisplayPort (not even USB)
Now my monitor is sending me paid ads for Mcafee?! (https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1up1nwi/now_my_monitor_is_sending_me_paid_ads_for_mcafee/)
-
Windows is now becoming paranoid.
If I change any of my hardware I sometimes get bit locker complaining despite never enabling bit locker.
I also get asked to input a new pin for Windows.
This means getting an email to my other computer to put in the pass code.
Windows is bad to navigate.
Somethings are buried deep in the menu's.
-
You can stop this happening by creating a registry key. In:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Device Installer
Add a new key (if it doesn't already exist):
name: DisableCoInstallers
Type: REG_DWORD
Value: 1 (0x00000001)
Downside is useful stuff doesn't get auto-installed and you need to pop off to the manufacturer's webby to get the download. That's probably an upside, actually :)
-
I worked in a PC shop for a while. If you looked in the workshop bin, you would find nothing but CDRoms with "Mouse drivers" and similar.
Not even opened. Often still stuck to the inside of the box. It really made you wonder why they bothered.
No. They were never installed. Fresh BIOS/mobo updates etc. Actualy known to need drivers, drivers installed.
Keyboard/mouse nope. Monitor, usually nope. Printers it was often worth checking before anything if a "Driver only" existed on the website before installing anything.
A failure was suddenly you photo viewer is some garbage that came from the printer install and many other nastyies like browser tab bars etc. The outcome in the shop I worked in was, "Oops. Start again. Format. Do better next time."
-
Yep, it's very rare I install even necessary drivers that come with a product. Always get the latest from the website instead.
The one exception: Logitech ;D
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n5FbKldvUs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n5FbKldvUs)
-
Microsoft published an update for the Dell issue about a week ago.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n5FbKldvUs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n5FbKldvUs)
I like this guy.
-
Microsoft published an update for the Dell issue about a week ago.
How did those Dell owners find out about the update?
-
"If it ain't broke, it will be soon!" :-DD
-
Y'know, if my mind was of a conspiratorial bent, which it isn't ATM, I'd conclude that maybe all this enshittification on the part of the likes of Micro$oft isn't accidental at all, but just a part of The Plan. You know, the one to take away all our PCs, over which we still have some degree of control, and put everything in The Cloud with ultra-thin clients, on a rental basis.
You know, the whole "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy" thing.
-
Microsoft published an update for the Dell issue about a week ago.
How did those Dell owners find out about the update?
Automatically via Windows Update when 'Get the latest updates as soon as they're available' isn't turned off.
-
Y'know, if my mind was of a conspiratorial bent, which it isn't ATM, I'd conclude that maybe all this enshittification on the part of the likes of Micro$oft isn't accidental at all, but just a part of The Plan. You know, the one to take away all our PCs, over which we still have some degree of control, and put everything in The Cloud with ultra-thin clients, on a rental basis.
You know, the whole "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy" thing.
I'm so happy I'm using Linux... I think the last time I touched a PC running a newer Windows than Windows 7 is close to 15 years ago.
-
Y'know, if my mind was of a conspiratorial bent, which it isn't ATM, I'd conclude that maybe all this enshittification on the part of the likes of Micro$oft isn't accidental at all, but just a part of The Plan. You know, the one to take away all our PCs, over which we still have some degree of control, and put everything in The Cloud with ultra-thin clients, on a rental basis.
Well, whether they are deliberately ruining desktop Windows or just investing a lot less in it, to focus indeed on 100% "OS in the cloud" market, the end result is the same. And yes, that's the direction they are taking. And to this end, enshitifying the "windows update" experience is not the only tool at their disposal. The currently outrageous prices for RAM and SSDs is also pretty convenient. Both combined, it will make a cloud OS appealing to many who have had enough with their windows OS experience but don't want to switch to anything else.
-
I think the last time I touched a PC running a newer Windows than Windows 7 is close to 15 years ago.
14 years ago - W8 arrived in 2012. That's pretty close to 15 years ago. 😁
-
windows 12 is coming... And it will be all under AI control...
-
I sticking with my XP, 7, and 10 OS's for now.
Full compute will soon all be in the cloud, and your local machine is just a terminal. "privacy" only means other users cannot see your data unless you share with them, but it does not mean your data cannot be seen by the creator of the OS, or govt.
Those days as predicted are here now.
-
I sticking with my XP, 7, and 10 OS's for now.
Full compute will soon all be in the cloud, and your local machine is just a terminal. "privacy" only means other users cannot see your data unless you share with them, but it does not mean your data cannot be seen by the creator of the OS, or govt.
Those days as predicted are here now.
Its already there "in parts". The "appeal" of a split architecture is real even for "tech-aware consumers". "Thin client + combined infra".
"Combined infra" starting with, in almost all domestic/consumer cases with "Where do I keep/share my photos?"
If it's "On my device". It already moves to "Which one?". Now obviously google (and Apple) stepped in for that one at the right moment. Simply took your photos off you at the point they were taken and synced them to "the cloud".
Convenience is hard to fight.... when it "appears to be free".
Personally, I had shared photo libraries hosted locally with full camera import, upload, thumbnailing etc in about 2005. Even I ended up succumbing the convenience of the google/android provided version and now struggle Gigabytes deep in how to get it all back off them.
Fast forward in my timeline and I discovered the "Thin client, thick server" model can be pushed as far as they likes of "Citi Group" and you can absolutely have "Virtual desktops". I have about 5 - locally.
Desktops become "centralised" and "sharable" just like photos. It's just that to "host" and "run" a VM and share it to more than one user, is fair few orders or magnitude more hardware than a few Gb of photos.
When, not if, but when the AI bubble bursts the "cloud and DC" infra out there looking for new money will 100% start providing these VMs.
The appeal.
You are working on something using a "Desktop" and some applications in one location and on one device and want to relocate to another location and another device.... but you want to take that "Desktop and it's application state" with you.
"VDIs" is exactly what this provides. Virtual Desktop Instance.
Those massive GPU banks will make lots of gamers happy, as long as they can afford the fastest, lowest latency connection to the cloud though.
You can and I have set this up locally. Except the GPU part, I just don't have redundant GPUs to assign to VMs yet. But for "Desktop" application nd development use they are 100% fine. Using a "locally hosted" or even "remotely hosted" VM via a remote display app is a bit like using a normal desktop running on a 30fps monitor which lags slightly on "large area graphical operations".
EDIT: One thing I fine a little amusing... If you have a Virtual Host with 128Gb of RAM running a Windows 10 VM with 32Gb of RAM allocated and you reboot it a couple of times... it gets RAM cached and boots as if it were booting from a RAM disk.... because it is. Honestly made me laugh outloud restarting "Kali linux" yesterday. "BIOS Splash" to "GfxLogin prompt" about 3 seconds.
-
When RAM was inexpensive: Windows slow as molasses? Just add another RAM module!
Now: Microsoft says 8 GB of RAM should be enough for anyone running Windows 11 - https://www.theregister.com/os-platforms/2026/08/03/microsoft-says-8-gb-of-ram-should-be-enough-for-anyone-running-windows-11/5282153 (https://www.theregister.com/os-platforms/2026/08/03/microsoft-says-8-gb-of-ram-should-be-enough-for-anyone-running-windows-11/5282153)
They are working on improving memory efficiency. :popcorn:
-
Maybe they can finally reach 640M.
-
640 KB you mean :D
-
They are working on improving memory efficiency. :popcorn:
Translated means: more memory in same space, which means more power, but perhaps power density (per GB) is less. Nonetheless, more power.
When EV's were pushed everywhere people were asking serious question, "where is all the power coming from?".
Now with huge AI data/warehouses the same question is still there, and the answer was. "we build small breeder reactor nextdoor to warehouse".
Always a way to get more power. The notion of "we cant get the power needed" is just BS.
Upgrading the grid is also doable, just need MONEY MONEY MONEY and time (20yrs). By the time this is done, more power will be needed.
"And so the earth rotates", a new scifi on TV coming soon.
-
They are working on improving memory efficiency. :popcorn:
Yeah, highly needed, it's not using all of it.
-
It might have been IBM who decalred that "The world needs 4 or 5 IBM computers. One in each continent."
This was the mainframe + dumb serial terminal era.
In 1980 you would have sniggered. In 1990 you would have laughed out loud. However. In 2010 you might stop and swallow and in 2020... IBM are far closer to being right than wrong.
-
I haven't yet watched what happens when he tries Linux.... but his rant on WIndows 11 is just epic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqqPP7SwGcU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqqPP7SwGcU)
-
iOS versions 27 (closed source one vendor)
Windows versions 30+ (closed source one vendor)
Linux versions 600+ (open source many vendors). btw, Android is a Linux version.
For the closed stuff the biz model seems to be, create a new feature, code that into a new version, then require new/better hardware to use the new version.
Choose wisely.
-
Linux versions 600+ (open source many vendors). btw, Android is a Linux version.
Typically locked down on most phones and stuffed with bloatware and telemetry. Might as well be closed.
-
Linux versions 600+ (open source many vendors). btw, Android is a Linux version.
Typically locked down on most phones and stuffed with bloatware and telemetry. Might as well be closed.
It's what the phone vendor put on it, or is reselling.
There's plenty that can be done to get out from under such control and monitoring.
As example, https://lineageos.org/
Goole, Crapple, Mycrudsoft only make money if they can track your meta data and then use & sell it. There's no real money in just phone hardware.
Here's a real example, I installed a new Epson printer driver package on Win11, the installer is just a phone-home-and-get-shit app, the 1st thing it prompted was, "this installer needs you to turn on location feature to continue, Epson does not collect or store your location data, you can turn off location feature after install has completed". WTF is that. That's really F'n weird.
The world will at some point have a great awakening. I am not sure if that point is when people wake up and all their digital funds were reduced to $1, or if it will be a Thomas Jefferson moment, but I do know we're very close, and being prepared is a wise choice.
-
Linux versions 600+ (open source many vendors). btw, Android is a Linux version.
Typically locked down on most phones and stuffed with bloatware and telemetry. Might as well be closed.
It's what the phone vendor put on it, or is reselling.
Yes, exactly. And the average user is stuck with that. Which means the vast majority. It may as well be locked up.
There's plenty that can be done to get out from under such control and monitoring.
As example, https://lineageos.org/
Sometimes, and if the vendor has locked the bootloader. And assuming someone has ported the code to that model. And if they have, that all the peripherals work.
What you're basically saying is the the equivalent of: dump Windows and install Linux and Wine on your PC.
-
I haven't yet watched what happens when he tries Linux.... but his rant on WIndows 11 is just epic.
Well, he finds out the audio industry choose a closed, proprietary protocol called Dante instead of the open AES67 standard. So there you go. Audiofools galore.
-
im surprised hes using windows,everybody i know who deals with pro audio uses a mac of some flavour
-
He does use a Mac for some things.
Regarding that video and his take on Linux: pretty much my take as well, which is:
- Yeah, yeah, Linux is at least as or more powerful than Windoze or MacOS performance-wise;
- But if you're a non-geek (or in his case, someone who just doesn't have time to fart around with configuration), it's a pain in the ass to set up compared to those other two OSs (apart from the encroaching enshittification much commented on here and elsewhere)
So the overall Linux user experience is good, if the user sits down at an already-configured system.
But getting there can be a nightmare, unless you're the kind of nerd/geek who gets off on editing config files, searching for drivers, etc., etc.
So thanks but no thanks; I'll stick with good old normie Windoze. (W7 here; I'm quite happy to use an "obsolete" OS. Works fine for my porpoises.)
-
So the overall Linux user experience is good, if the user sits down at an already-configured system.
But getting there can be a nightmare, unless you're the kind of nerd/geek who gets off on editing config files, searching for drivers, etc., etc.
So thanks but no thanks; I'll stick with good old normie Windoze. (W7 here; I'm quite happy to use an "obsolete" OS. Works fine for my porpoises.)
I'd qualify that even a bit more in this context, as the story around low latency pro audio is particularly bad. For many things today, it's true that you may have to dig deep if you want to do a bunch of customization, but the defaults are usually pretty good for most things for most people now. Audio is a particular exception, and is a bit of a mess even if you know what you're doing.
-
So the overall Linux user experience is good, if the user sits down at an already-configured system.
But getting there can be a nightmare, unless you're the kind of nerd/geek who gets off on editing config files, searching for drivers, etc., etc.
So thanks but no thanks; I'll stick with good old normie Windoze. (W7 here; I'm quite happy to use an "obsolete" OS. Works fine for my porpoises.)
Windows is not an OS someone goes and downloads to install. It's probably like 99.99% of Windoze is pre-installed, power up, answer some/many questions, and go. OVA's are click click login, etc.
Linux is that way for probably just VM images, not much in way of home user systems that are pre-installed linux.
Ubuntu needs no such config editing. Answer the basic questions (way less than windoze asks), login and go.
Countless Linux distros are also that simple.
There's also a fact that most Windoze people just dont have a lot of hands-on with many Linux distros. I myself have installed/used/modified maybe 25 different distros, from a pool of about 600 !! I also use freeBSD on a regular basis.
You already show you have distain for Windoze, by sticking with an old Win7. So be it, but among the Windoze crowd is probably more wasted bits on reddit/other about how Win11 sucks, copilot sucks, 10 was better, some like XP, some still sticking with Win7.
The OS in general is going away. Everything is gonna be a terminal on user end, and all your data and compute will be in the hands of the AI controlled cloud centers. This is where its going. Many 3D slicers are now web-only tools ! Why? Because it's easier to control software use and versioning/support, etc. All that control in hands of ??? is not for me, i'll stick with the open stuff for as long as it can live.
-
So thanks but no thanks; I'll stick with good old normie Windoze. (W7 here; I'm quite happy to use an "obsolete" OS. Works fine for my porpoises.)
Windows 7 is the dog's bollocks, in my opinion. The best version of Windows ever (although the Start menu is a bit restricted). I use W11 only because some modern apps won't run properly on W7.
-
So thanks but no thanks; I'll stick with good old normie Windoze. (W7 here; I'm quite happy to use an "obsolete" OS. Works fine for my porpoises.)
Windows 7 is the dog's bollocks, in my opinion. The best version of Windows ever (although the Start menu is a bit restricted). I use W11 only because some modern apps won't run properly on W7.
Just going to put this here as I had to look it up: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dog%27s+Bollocks (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dog%27s+Bollocks)
I concur; Windows 7 was proper.
-
He does use a Mac for some things.
Regarding that video and his take on Linux: pretty much my take as well, which is:
- Yeah, yeah, Linux is at least as or more powerful than Windoze or MacOS performance-wise;
- But if you're a non-geek (or in his case, someone who just doesn't have time to fart around with configuration), it's a pain in the ass to set up compared to those other two OSs (apart from the encroaching enshittification much commented on here and elsewhere)
So the overall Linux user experience is good, if the user sits down at an already-configured system.
But getting there can be a nightmare, unless you're the kind of nerd/geek who gets off on editing config files, searching for drivers, etc., etc.
So thanks but no thanks; I'll stick with good old normie Windoze. (W7 here; I'm quite happy to use an "obsolete" OS. Works fine for my porpoises.)
The thing is, that has changed A LOT in recent years. I think it was maybe 2 years ago I had to install a driver. My new desktop had a fancy 2.5Gb NIC, but no driver was assigned to it. I googled the lspci output, found the issue that the driver was there it just wasn't assigned to the particular ID the card reported. A copy and paste udev rule and done.
I have had to install zero other drivers. Everything works out of the box. Not even the printer needed a driver.
There is like 0 setup for a normal desktop. If you have non-trival hardware, particularly "closed source" USB protocols, then yes you will struggle, but that is not linux's fault. Some companies insist on using closed protocols and binding people to their eco system.
When I reinstalled my "baller" gaming PC I put Windows 10 and Kubuntu on it. Windows 10 took far longer and required far more drivers and what not installed... compared with Linux which only required I enabled the "3rd party" NVidia driver for the GPU. Eveything else just worked. Top of the line PC only 1.5 years old. Even the Mobo fan controller and things worked.
-
So the overall Linux user experience is good, if the user sits down at an already-configured system.
But getting there can be a nightmare, unless you're the kind of nerd/geek who gets off on editing config files, searching for drivers, etc., etc.
So thanks but no thanks; I'll stick with good old normie Windoze. (W7 here; I'm quite happy to use an "obsolete" OS. Works fine for my porpoises.)
Windows is not an OS someone goes and downloads to install. It's probably like 99.99% of Windoze is pre-installed, power up, answer some/many questions, and go. OVA's are click click login, etc.
Linux is that way for probably just VM images, not much in way of home user systems that are pre-installed linux.
Ubuntu needs no such config editing. Answer the basic questions (way less than windoze asks), login and go.
Countless Linux distros are also that simple.
Yep. The whole searching for drivers, editing files, etc is something from 15 years ago. The biggest pitfall for people is to think Linux is the same as Windows. It isn't. There is a learning curve. If you always cook Italian food, you can't just start cooking Asian food even though you are likely using the same furnace, pots and pans.
-
I find because it is open source with hundreds of thousands of devs with no commerical masters, that "Conventions" and "behaviours" tend to democratically choosen and thus make sense and are useful.
Compare to the MacBook which is just awkward with little to no justification except, "It's the Apple way, all 13 different ways are Apples, so you must obey!" Even things like the keyboard/mouse not being designed for people who can actually type. Nobody can put their hand into the right shape to use "Command+C" to copy without moving it off the keys you are typing on. "Pinky modifier" finger is very, very confused.
A new rule for me. if the keyboard lights up, avoid it. It's for "hunt and peck" types.
-
I find because it is open source with hundreds of thousands of devs with no commerical masters, that "Conventions" and "behaviours" tend to democratically choosen and thus make sense and are useful.
Compare to the MacBook which is just awkward with little to no justification except, "It's the Apple way, all 13 different ways are Apples, so you must obey!" Even things like the keyboard/mouse not being designed for people who can actually type. Nobody can put their hand into the right shape to use "Command+C" to copy without moving it off the keys you are typing on. "Pinky modifier" finger is very, very confused.
A new rule for me. if the keyboard lights up, avoid it. It's for "hunt and peck" types.
I use MacBooks for work. Not my fav, but the alternative is a Dell, which I despise too. My favorite of all time was the good ol Thinkpad T series. At least I know they used to be my fav. I haven't used a modern one in some time. The keyboard was awesome, and I loved the pointing stick because I didn't need to move my fingers from the home row to move the cursor. Touchpads are horrible for productive keyboarding in my view.
-
Yep. The whole searching for drivers, editing files, etc is something from 15 years ago. The biggest pitfall for people is to think Linux is the same as Windows. It isn't. There is a learning curve. If you always cook Italian food, you can't just start cooking Asian food even though you are likely using the same furnace, pots and pans.
It's all about the courage to deal with changes. If you're only used to Windows then anything different will make you struggle until you figured out how the new system works. Most people are lazy and try to avoid any change. This happens also with new Windows versions. Users complain that they can't find some specific function/icon/setting/whatever anymore in the new version because Microsoft loves to move things around. Admins hate this too.
BTW, development of linux audio: OSS -> ALSA -> overlays: PulseAudio (Pötteringware, somewhat broken) or JACK (pro, more complicated) -> overlay: PipeWire (works)
-
. If you always cook Italian food, you can't just start cooking Asian food
spaghetti or noodles
-
I find because it is open source with hundreds of thousands of devs with no commerical masters, that "Conventions" and "behaviours" tend to democratically choosen and thus make sense and are useful.
I refer you to the open source Linphone. Its conventions are such that it took me three tries at entering VOIP account details (quite lengthy and time-consuming ones) before I figured out how to make it accept the data. It a perverse pile of shit that uses no conventions other than the developers personal perversion. I'd happily pay actual money to a commercial one that you didn't have to bang your head against to do the simplest thing.
And the oft-mentioned GIMP is a classic.
Fact is that open source doesn't have to cater to anyone so they do their own thing. Commercial apps have to get it at least close to being right or they don't sell.
-
And the oft-mentioned GIMP is a classic.
Fact is that open source doesn't have to cater to anyone so they do their own thing. Commercial apps have to get it at least close to being right or they don't sell.
Totally agree, and that is why I struggle so much with Linux. The people maintaining the apps are invariably geeks who are probably great coders but have no idea how to design a UI. There is no real money to be made from open source, so the big players - Apple Adobe, Microsoft, et al - have no incentive to invest millions in developer time on open source apps. And that's why Linux apps look, feel and work like they were born in a previous epoch.
There are exceptions: GIMP doesn't feel all that old-fashioned, but it does look like it's somebody's personal project, and that person hasn't given a moment's thought to the learning curve, and especially not to established UI customs.
You might hate Windows, but Windows (and Apple) apps are on a different level compared with Linux apps.
-
You might hate Windows, but Windows (and Apple) apps are on a different level compared with Linux apps.
But you have to ask yourself how much bias is involved here as you have been exposed to Windows UI conventions a lot longer compared to Unix / Linux UI conventions.
-
You might hate Windows, but Windows (and Apple) apps are on a different level compared with Linux apps.
But you have to ask yourself how much bias is involved here as you have been exposed to Windows UI conventions a lot longer compared to Unix / Linux UI conventions.
I think, if I'm not mistaken, that he's saying that the Unix/Linux UI conventions are fairly shitty.
-
But you have to ask yourself how much bias is involved here as you have been exposed to Windows UI conventions a lot longer compared to Unix / Linux UI conventions.
I'm sure there must be some bias, but I think probably the best conventions are the ones I'm the least familiar with: Apple.
I don't know how much Windows programming you've done, but Microsoft has always published extensive guidelines on how Windows programs should look and behave, with a lot of emphasis on user interface design, and on how to embed into your app the design philosophy Microsoft advocates. There is a lot of material, and even if you're not a Microsoft fan, it actually makes for interesting reading.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/design/ (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/design/)
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/develop/user-interface (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/develop/user-interface)
Apple is even more stringent - I believe their UI guidelines are considered almost mandatory.
GNOME and KDE publish UI guidelines, but because there is no "authority" in the Linux world they have less standing. One obvious difference is that Linux itself doesn't define the UI: The user interface is generally supplied by a desktop environment and its toolkit such as GNOME and KDE.
Most Linux apps reflect the UI conventions extant at the time the app was written (very often a long time ago). It's very rare indeed to see a Linux app receive a ground-up refresh for the reasons I stated previously: it's unlikely that open-source desktop software can generate the kind of revenue stream that would justify such a major investment.
-
I think, if I'm not mistaken, that he's saying that the Unix/Linux UI conventions are fairly shitty.
Well, yes. I've read the GNOME HIG (human interface guidelines) and they aren't bad, although less detailed than the Windows one. But so much open source software doesn't pay attention to the guidelines (the idea of an authoritative source is anathema to open source fanboys), and where it does, it usually complies with guidelines in force years or even decades ago.
As I said in my previous post, updating a Linux app UI from the 1990s into the 2020s is a big job with little financial gain.
-
He does use a Mac for some things.
Regarding that video and his take on Linux: pretty much my take as well, which is:
- Yeah, yeah, Linux is at least as or more powerful than Windoze or MacOS performance-wise;
- But if you're a non-geek (or in his case, someone who just doesn't have time to fart around with configuration), it's a pain in the ass to set up compared to those other two OSs (apart from the encroaching enshittification much commented on here and elsewhere)
So the overall Linux user experience is good, if the user sits down at an already-configured system.
But getting there can be a nightmare, unless you're the kind of nerd/geek who gets off on editing config files, searching for drivers, etc., etc.
So thanks but no thanks; I'll stick with good old normie Windoze. (W7 here; I'm quite happy to use an "obsolete" OS. Works fine for my porpoises.)
installing something like ubuntu is usually this complicated: insert usb, boot, choose keyboard layout, timezone, and username/password ....
-
Linux UI is where Windows UI was in 1984.
-
installing something like ubuntu is usually this complicated: insert usb, boot, choose keyboard layout, timezone, and username/password ....
About the same for Windows. What takes time is after it's installed, going through all the myriad settings to make it nice(r) to use. Same for ubuntu.
-
Regarding UI standards, on a Mac it is blindingly obvious which applications were written in Qt (for example) and which using SwiftUI. The pressure from Apple on their native applications makes a difference for users. Still, if Apple abruptly keeled over I can easily use the Linux environment and would do so by a huge margin over the Windows option.
For me Windows is a lesser choice. I use MacOS, Debian (previously had Ubuntu) and a little FreeBSD. If I have a Win-only program (there is one, automotive) it is virtualised in UTM.
-
installing something like ubuntu is usually this complicated: insert usb, boot, choose keyboard layout, timezone, and username/password ....
OK. Now do drivers: what if you have some devices that aren't supported by the out-of-the-box install?
And no configuration required? This I highly doubt.
-
OK. Now do drivers: what if you have some devices that aren't supported by the out-of-the-box install?
And no configuration required? This I highly doubt.
This machine worked out the box with ubuntu,no drivers or configuration required,unlike windows 10 that needed drivers loading for the onboard network port to work
-
installing something like ubuntu is usually this complicated: insert usb, boot, choose keyboard layout, timezone, and username/password ....
OK. Now do drivers: what if you have some devices that aren't supported by the out-of-the-box install?
Well, don't buy hardware which isn't supported. It is that simple. Like don't buy a car without wheels. A couple of months ago I bought a new Dell laptop which can also be ordered with Linux (which is nice because it allows not having to pay for Windows). I installed the latest Debian on it and everything just works right out of the box.
-
installing something like ubuntu is usually this complicated: insert usb, boot, choose keyboard layout, timezone, and username/password ....
OK. Now do drivers: what if you have some devices that aren't supported by the out-of-the-box install?
Well, don't buy hardware which isn't supported.
All I can say is, what a stoopid attitude.
So I'm supposed to throw out my printer and get a new one? My scanner? Any other non-standard hardware I happen to be using?
Fuck that shit.
-
I believe it's better that windows users who have even the slightests doubts about Linux' usability, continue to use windows.
Linux is doing fine without them. 'We' don't need them... :popcorn:
For me, everything I want to use a computer for, can be done with Linux Mint, the best and the easiest to use Linux distro.
Windows problems are not my problems anymore. Meanwhile i"m sadistically looking at all those suffering windows users... >:D
(just kidding)
A nice side effect is that I have a good excuse to not help other people with their windows problems.
"Sorry, I don't know windows, I use Linux..."
-
So I'm supposed to throw out my printer and get a new one? My scanner? Any other non-standard hardware I happen to be using?
And of course that never happens when you upgrade windows versions.
-
So I'm supposed to throw out my printer and get a new one? My scanner? Any other non-standard hardware I happen to be using?
And of course that never happens when you upgrade windows versions.
Indeed! I used to have a whole stack of soundcards which no longer worked under Windows 2k (or XP). Including an expensive AWE32 (500 euro in today's money). And how about all the computers which won't run the latest version of Windows?
If you upgrade / change there are always things which no longer fit. To stay in car analogies: the snow chains I bought for my previous car don't fit under the car I bought as a replacement.
-
So I'm supposed to throw out my printer and get a new one? My scanner? Any other non-standard hardware I happen to be using?
And of course that never happens when you upgrade windows versions.
Yeh, imagine if I wanted to upgrade Windows, only to find my actual computer wasn't supported, haha!
Oh, wait, that did happen, to several millions of people.
When connecting my USB HP laser printer to linux mint, I did wonder how I was going to install a driver for it. After 10secs of me wondering, a message popped up on screen to say the printer was ready to use.
-
I believe it's better that windows users who have even the slightests doubts about Linux' usability, continue to use windows.
Linux is doing fine without them. 'We' don't need them... :popcorn:
That is exactly the attitude I wish all Linux users would adopt. Windows users don't give the smallest fuck that some stranger uses Linux. Same with Apple users - they are happy and content in their choice, and don't give Linux a thought.
But Linux users seem to take someone using Windows as a personal assault. Linux users actually celebrate when a security bug is found in Windows. How fucking weird is that? Linux users hang out in Windows-specific forums for the sole purpose of trashing an operating system they don't even use! Linux users loiter around ZDNET in case an article about Windows gets written, so they can rant in the Comments section how much they detest Microsoft and all it's works.
When someone tells you what OS they use, there is only one rational response: "I don't care; do what you like". To build a religion around an OS, like Linux users clearly do, and Apple users do to an extent, is just sad.
And anyway, the big three desktop OSs have far more in common than different. They all do essentially the same job. It's the apps where the work gets done, and it's the app ecosystem that really matters.
-
When connecting my USB HP laser printer to linux mint, I did wonder how I was going to install a driver for it. After 10secs of me wondering, a message popped up on screen to say the printer was ready to use.
Well whaddya know: that's exactly what happened with my Windows machine just yesterday, except it was a Canon printer.
-
I believe it's better that windows users who have even the slightests doubts about Linux' usability, continue to use windows.
Linux is doing fine without them. 'We' don't need them... :popcorn:
That is exactly the attitude I wish all Linux users would adopt. Windows users don't give the smallest fuck that some stranger uses Linux. Same with Apple users - they are happy and content in their choice, and don't give Linux a thought.
But Linux users seem to take someone using Windows as a personal assault. Linux users actually celebrate when a security bug is found in Windows. How fucking weird is that? Linux users hang out in Windows-specific forums for the sole purpose of trashing an operating system they don't even use! Linux users loiter around ZDNET in case an article about Windows gets written, so they can rant in the Comments section how much they detest Microsoft and all it's works.
When someone tells you what OS they use, there is only one rational response: "I don't care; do what you like". To build a religion around an OS, like Linux users clearly do, and Apple users do to an extent, is just sad.
And anyway, the big three desktop OSs have far more in common than different. They all do essentially the same job. It's the apps where the work gets done, and it's the app ecosystem that really matters.
I'm sure all OS's have vocal zealot nutjobs. I think you're conflating "nutjobs" with "all users" which is a mistaken simplification of the situation.
-
Honestly, I don't see very much progress towards the widespread use of thin clients
Are you serious? I would bet that vast majority of end users' computers (smartphones included) are actually used as thin clients that do nothing else than access online content. People rarely use anything but the web browser and maybe a couple messenger apps, which are essentially thin clients too. Yes there are cases when people need to run specialized software that don't exist in "the cloud" or can't operate like that because of bandwidth or other limitations, but I'm sure these are comparatively rare.
I can't remember the context of my comment, to be honest. I don't think I had mobile phones in mind. But your comment raises the question: how thin is "thin". Just because an app communicates with online data doesn't make it thin, does it? Is Thunderbird a "thin client"? I don't think so.
I use loads of programs on my PC that couldn't possibly be described as "thin clients". I think I had those in mind when I made that comment. I agree that mobile apps on Android or iOS are more likely to be "thin".
-
Honestly, I don't see very much progress towards the widespread use of thin clients
Are you serious? I would bet that vast majority of end users' computers (smartphones included) are actually used as thin clients that do nothing else than access online content. People rarely use anything but the web browser and maybe a couple messenger apps, which are essentially thin clients too. Yes there are cases when people need to run specialized software that don't exist in "the cloud" or can't operate like that because of bandwidth or other limitations, but I'm sure these are comparatively rare.
I can't remember the context of my comment, to be honest. I don't think I had mobile phones in mind. But your comment raises the question: how thin is "thin". Just because an app communicates with online data doesn't make it thin, does it? Is Thunderbird a "thin client"? I don't think so.
I use loads of programs on my PC that couldn't possibly be described as "thin clients". I think I had those in mind when I made that comment. I agree that mobile apps on Android or iOS are more likely to be "thin".
That is probably true for your work. But for somebody in an office function, a thin client will work just fine. I'm also seeing that at customers with lots of office functions or reception desks. They all use thin clients because most of their work is done through a web browser.
-
I think you're conflating "nutjobs" with "all users" which is a mistaken simplification of the situation.
Except it is much closer to the truth for Linux users. No other OS has such a vociferous bunch of nut jobs as Linux. It's a struggle to find any Windows user hanging about in a Linux forum for the sole purpose of stirring up anti-Linux hate. Not the other way round.
Edit: this is what is so strange. Some of these Linux nutjobs will proudly tell you they haven't used Windows in 15 years, and yet they still feel strongly enough (and qualified enough) to spend their spare time criticising it. Fucking weirdos.
-
How do we define a "thin client"?
For me it's an app that presents the user with a Web page, where the page has had all the usual browser furniture removed. So that would be server-side data storage and processing, and also server-side control of the UI. The server talks to the thin client in HTML (?), and the client just renders the HTML in the usual way.
Of course, it's actually a continuum. RDP and VNC require more work at the client.
-
Windows users don't give the smallest fuck that some stranger uses Linux.
I don't like that attitude, but honestly, sometimes I behave the same now. When people ask me advice
about how to do something on a computer. When I tell them I use program x and later they come back and
complain that it's Linux only, I don't care, it's not not my problem. When they ask me how to do it on windows
I tell them I don't know.
-
How do we define a "thin client"?
For me it's an app that presents the user with a Web page, where the page has had all the usual browser furniture removed. So that would be server-side data storage and processing, and also server-side control of the UI. The server talks to the thin client in HTML (?), and the client just renders the HTML in the usual way.
Of course, it's actually a continuum. RDP and VNC require more work at the client.
The old Sun Ray, where it launched a JAVA window or a dumb terminal, is a thin client in my opinion. The key factor to "thin client" is statelessness. You turn a thin client off, and it only knows how to connect to its master when it comes on; no user data whatsoever is stored locally. They are hardware with limited processing capabilities that extend the master out.
Today's phones are supercomputers in comparison with vast storage, vast amounts of memory, and so on. They also work fine in lots of functions without internet services. You can still take notes, write emails, take photos, and process those photos. Play games and so on.
Computers similar, if not identical, but for form factor and possible portability to phones are dramatic beasts of capabilities, and enormous parts of that capability are completely useful offline.
Now, if the argument is that "people only use a browser". That is reasonable, but the market has had lots of opportunities to adopt cheaper, less powerful systems, but they remain somewhat niche still. Even the recent MAC and Dell 500 dollar laptops are beasts compared to a thin client that can do lots of things without internet.
-
That is probably true for your work. But for somebody in an office function, a thin client will work just fine. I'm also seeing that at customers with lots of office functions or reception desks. They all use thin clients because most of their work is done through a web browser.
That (a thin client working just fine) is certainly true in my medical clinic, where the "computers" the docs use in the exam rooms are the thinnest of thin clients. (Dunno what kind of app they use; could just be a browser.)
But that's certainly not what I want for my own use ...
-
How do we define a "thin client"?
For me it's an app that presents the user with a Web page, where the page has had all the usual browser furniture removed.
Just one small quibble: a thin client could use some other kind of application besides a web browser, say a custom program that works over the network. But yes, pretty good definition.
The point here, I think, is that the heavy computational lifting is done at the server end, not on the client.
-
Linux UI is where Windows UI was in 1984.
True perhaps, but it sure beats today's Windows where the User Experience is like it was in 1984 (the one written in 1948).
-
Linux UI is where Windows UI was in 1984.
True perhaps, but it sure beats today's Windows where the User Experience is like it was in 1984 (the one written in 1948).
Yep, the Windows UI for 10+ is a right dog's breakfast. The linux UI is may be just not awfully nice but it's not actively trying to screw you over.
-
Linux UI is where Windows UI was in 1984.
What UI from 1984 is anything like KDE nowadays?
-
I like kde and I used it a lot but I abandoned it because there are two things I didn't like:
- Almost every kde application has some dependencies to some kde libs which makes
it impossible for me to update a single application which is part of the kde environment.
You need to update the whole kde/plasma environment.
- The lead developer Nate Graham has announced to not fix Xorg related bugs anymore
despite wayland still not being on par with Xorg.
I switched to Linux Mint that supports Xorg until 2029 because I don't want to be a guinea pig
for the wayland zealots.
-
I believe it's better that windows users who have even the slightests doubts about Linux' usability, continue to use windows.
Linux is doing fine without them. 'We' don't need them... :popcorn:
That is exactly the attitude I wish all Linux users would adopt. Windows users don't give the smallest fuck that some stranger uses Linux. Same with Apple users - they are happy and content in their choice, and don't give Linux a thought.
Small correction. You don't need the focal subject. They mostly just don't think. About anything. Because thinking or thinking about multiple different outcomes with close to equal value... is extremely expensive. In cognitive terms the brain see the load and in MOST individuals it is followed by a "down gradient" in satisfaction. Most people just stop thinking when that occurs. Thinking hard - hurts. When actually stupid people refer to this they will literally say, "Makes my head hurt". They are not being metaphorical. It takes training and disipline to "push" and keep pushing until you get the reward of "figuring it out". If you never make that, or are not capable, then your options are "Think and feel displeasure" or "Don't think".
Its not that most people tried linux, tried mac, tried windows, tried this and that and this may have an actual "valid opinion". They were handed windows and nodded. Period. However. Socially they are "oblighed" and "impulsed" to defend that "position" as it if were a decision or opinion.
The more ignorant of the actual reality/facts they are the more aggressive their defense. That is after all what they are really defending at that point. Having been too lazy to do the thinking and they know it.
You are replace Windows/Linux with Manual/Automatic or anything you like really.
-
Something reminded me of this thread yesterday...
I am setting up a more powerful router. Currently use pfSense so that was my initial choice, but then I though I should take another look at OPNsense now that pfSense has been bought out. The plus (paid) version gets lots of updates (not actually a good thing from my view) whereas the community version is very slow to update and lacks plus features. OPNsense is just OPNsense. Doesn't have pfBlockerNG though. Hmm.
So, off to the OPNsense webby and wanted to check some stuff, and there is nice online documentation. Searched in vain for a download link and resorted to Googling how to get it. Forums have people asking if there is a pdf for offline perusal and the stock answer is to make it yourself. Github, python, some other stuff obviousl Linux has and Windows typically doesn't, run make, bosh. So far as I can make out, it's trivial if you have the setup, not so much otherwise, and if happen to not be a geek... When they shove the stuff up they could easily just shove up a pdf too but, no, the user is expected to do anything the devs can't be arsed to do.
I noticed this on a lot of open source projects - documentation is online webby or make it yourself from source.
Off to pfSense webby. Same setup - online documentation using exactly the same scheme and a github source to download and run make, etc. But there is an actual pdf to download too.
-
I have used OPPNsense for a few years, and also normally like to grab a PDF I can read and search at leisure. IHowever, now I consider one of the best things about it to be the documentation. Not only is it informative (resort to their forum clarifies unfamiliar aspects) but it is kept up to date. I will take that.
-
Sure, for the latest the web version works well. But it doesn't change significantly very often and I don't want to use a browser to clicky click through arbitrary pages. My pdf reader will let me browse and search and zoom into whatever I want quickly, without fuss and offline. When I click the help menu item, I want a help app to display help info. Failing that a pdf to load (but that's second class). Last thing I want is the browser to fire up and go off somewhere.
-
web browser -> print -> save to PDF?
-
Last thing I want is the browser to fire up and go off somewhere.
It doesn't, and in-GUI Help is terse. If you are interested in using it then better to explore fully for yourself. We are off-topic anyway.
-
web browser -> print -> save to PDF?
You have to do that for every page. If it were a single web page I'd already have used SingleFile, but these things are like books and you have to select each page to view, print, select the next page, print, etc. Don't even think of doing it :scared:
-
We are off-topic anyway.
Are you new here? 8)
-
I am setting up a more powerful router. Currently use pfSense so that was my initial choice, but then I though I should take another look at OPNsense now that pfSense has been bought out. The plus (paid) version gets lots of updates (not actually a good thing from my view) whereas the community version is very slow to update and lacks plus features. OPNsense is just OPNsense. Doesn't have pfBlockerNG though. Hmm.
This is where a virtual environment comes in handy. You don't need to go that far though, you can do it physical/logical.
More than one gateway. For example, I have a few. Nothing fancy, not talking enterprise hot/hot failover equal routes non-sense. I just have more than one gateway.
pfSense is a VM on a virtual host and it has the PPPoE VLAN passed to it But I have a duplicate of that VM elsewhere which is just a config change away from taking the PPPoE VLAN and taking over... or just clubbering it an fighting... or 100% likely to happen, pfSense boots and fails to init because .... "Your certificates have expired" as I don't mirror it often enough.
But I also have my choice of "access points" which have more than one radio and can serve as a gateway to my mobile phone hotspot.
Manually evicting a gateway from the main "default gateway IP" and place another there is trival with short TTL on DHCP leases (although that can bite too).
I tried pfSense, got bored, didn't try OPNSense and it might be time to spin up a VM and see if I like it more.
On these "router in a box" things. I remember way back when it was the favoured RedHat Bastion scripting. Was it "Surewall" next? Might have been the first of the "Turn key firewall/router all in one software blobs". 10-20 years later it's an entire market of aging geeks with money to burn and toys to play with. "r/HomeLab" ... go there, read a bit and realise. "pfSense" and possible OPNSense ... r/HomeLab are their bread and butter market. So you can expect bells, whistles, gimmicks and every other "nobody really needs this, but it ticks a box a geek will ask for".
Thats why they tend to suck.
So does setting it all up yourself with an "Appliance" to start from though.
-
Interesting thoughts, thanks. I am happy with the pfSense-type box which has so far done sterling duty (and I've been through a few). It's running on an Atom thing but still managing to keep up with requirements with a lowly 10W. However, I am about to put in a new line and the choice is to have two routers (either as two exists or main and failover) or a single router with two WANs.
At this stage of my life I don't want to be dicking around with magic scripts and deep knowledge in something that will be needed rarely (so hard won and easily forgotten), so pfSense is kind of halfway between that and some horrible appliance by a box flogger.
-
I think you're conflating "nutjobs" with "all users" which is a mistaken simplification of the situation.
Except it is much closer to the truth for Linux users. No other OS has such a vociferous bunch of nut jobs as Linux. It's a struggle to find any Windows user hanging about in a Linux forum for the sole purpose of stirring up anti-Linux hate. Not the other way round.
Edit: this is what is so strange. Some of these Linux nutjobs will proudly tell you they haven't used Windows in 15 years, and yet they still feel strongly enough (and qualified enough) to spend their spare time criticising it. Fucking weirdos.
When the pool gets bigger........ it's more diverse.
Windoze is like all the animals in a zoo.
Linux is like all the animals than roam free.
;)
-
Windoze is like all the animals in a zoo.
Pampered, well fed, regular veterinary care.
Linux is like all the animals than roam free.
Permanently hungry, permanently alert for predators, injury or sickness = slow death.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. It's a ridiculous analogy.
-
My biggest complaint about Windows is its inefficiency. The laptop I'm typing this on gets 2.5 hours of battery life running Windows 11. When running Linux it gets 4.5 hours. That's a big difference and it's important when I'm on the road and don't have access to a wall power outlet.
-
Windoze is like all the animals in a zoo.
Pampered, well fed, regular veterinary care.
Linux is like all the animals than roam free.
Permanently hungry, permanently alert for predators, injury or sickness = slow death.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. It's a ridiculous analogy.
:clap:
That's funny right there, I don't care who you are.
-
Pampered, well fed, regular veterinary care.
Exactly what one gets when using APT to install anything. As good as MacOS was since the 1990s up until now, or should I say, better. And it was already available in the 1990s.
You can read threads in this forum where people got grumpy, and reported "problem solved" after being told to just do a default install without touching anything, and to just use APT to install any apps available for the release they installed.
Permanently hungry, permanently alert for predators, injury or sickness = slow death.
Sorry, but nowadays it's not linux who's suffering slow death. Quite the contrary. To me, "permanently alert for predators, injury or sickness==antivirus hogging resources". In your own words:
Sorry, I couldn't resist. It's a ridiculous analogy.
-
Windoze is like all the animals in a zoo.
Pampered, well fed, regular veterinary care.
Linux is like all the animals than roam free.
Permanently hungry, permanently alert for predators, injury or sickness = slow death.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. It's a ridiculous analogy.
The windoze zoo is trapped behind walls, given just select food, usually confined to same species spaces, with trap doors that open/close on a regular basis to allow movement, all done at a high cost.
The linux animals get to do what they want, choose from ~600 different pre-made flavors, and even create their own, all at no cost.
It's a clear choice. Paying for confinement is absurdity.
-
<Snipped a defensive micro-rant about how good Linux is>
Sorry, but nowadays it's not linux who's suffering slow death. Quite the contrary. To me, "permanently alert for predators, injury or sickness==antivirus hogging resources". In your own words:
Sorry, I couldn't resist. It's a ridiculous analogy.
Like I say, I agree - I couldn't resist teasing @Randy222 about his ridiculous post.
-
The windoze zoo is trapped behind walls, given just select food, usually confined to same species spaces, with trap doors that open/close on a regular basis to allow movement, all done at a high cost.
The linux animals get to do what they want, choose from ~600 different pre-made flavors, and even create their own, all at no cost.
It's a clear choice. Paying for confinement is absurdity.
OMG, this is even worse! Mate, you are no poet, and you are no rhetorician. I suggest you stick to writing about electronics (as best you can - it's a big ask, I know).
Paying to escape from the dire app ecosystem that Linux offers is money well spent, in my opinion. Arguing over which OS is better is the ultimate in sad gittery - nobody with any sense gives a fuck. I've got Linux (Zorin), Windows, Android, and iOS in use at the moment and I couldn't give a fuck about any of them. My work gets done in the apps; in my opinion Apple has the best apps and Linux by far the worst.
-
truncated..... My work gets done in the apps; in my opinion Apple has the best apps and Linux by far the worst.
Yup. First, I don't use many graphical apps on Linux. Maybe I need to go back and try again, but it's been, gosh, 30 years of bad graphical designs. The rare one that looks ok was developed for other platforms at least simultaneously, if not first, such as Firefox and Chrome. But honestly, Browsers are a frame with menus; how hard can it be?
It took me some time to get used to using macOS, and I still hate the single global menu crap, but they do have nice-looking graphical designs. Windows does, generally, too, if they can keep the flipping, browser-like crap from slipping in.
-
For UI the ergonomics is important, like writing above decent mechanical level instead of mouse clicking.
-
The windoze zoo is trapped behind walls, given just select food, usually confined to same species spaces, with trap doors that open/close on a regular basis to allow movement, all done at a high cost.
The linux animals get to do what they want, choose from ~600 different pre-made flavors, and even create their own, all at no cost.
It's a clear choice. Paying for confinement is absurdity.
OMG, this is even worse! Mate, you are no poet, and you are no rhetorician. I suggest you stick to writing about electronics (as best you can - it's a big ask, I know).
Paying to escape from the dire app ecosystem that Linux offers is money well spent, in my opinion. Arguing over which OS is better is the ultimate in sad gittery - nobody with any sense gives a fuck. I've got Linux (Zorin), Windows, Android, and iOS in use at the moment and I couldn't give a fuck about any of them. My work gets done in the apps; in my opinion Apple has the best apps and Linux by far the worst.
So is this thread now a Desktop argument?
Juniper did not choose Windows kernel to run routers and switches, for good reason, windoze sucks for that.
What's your list of Crapple apps that are the "best"? iTunes that went defunct in 2019?
-
truncated..... My work gets done in the apps; in my opinion Apple has the best apps and Linux by far the worst.
Yup. First, I don't use many graphical apps on Linux. Maybe I need to go back and try again, but it's been, gosh, 30 years of bad graphical designs.
Don't bother going back to check - it's the same old shit (literally the same, in many cases), just 30 years older and uglier.
The rare one that looks ok was developed for other platforms at least simultaneously, if not first, such as Firefox and Chrome. But honestly, Browsers are a frame with menus; how hard can it be?
I did find one Linux office app I liked: SoftMaker Office. I paid for a license. And you are right: it's great because it was developed as a multi-platform app, so it had to be on a par with present day Windows Office apps.
It took me some time to get used to using macOS, and I still hate the single global menu crap, but they do have nice-looking graphical designs. Windows does, generally, too, if they can keep the flipping, browser-like crap from slipping in.
Yes - I always thought that global menu bar thing was so weird. It does save on screen space, admittedly, but it never really felt natural for me.
Do you remember that "Object embedding" lark Microsoft got up to all those years ago? Like you could embed an Excel spreadsheet in a Word document. When you clicked on the spreadsheet it started up Excel "inside" Word, and Excel took over the Word menus with its own. That reminded me of the MacOS way. It never really felt smooth.
-
Juniper did not choose Windows kernel to run routers and switches, for good reason, windoze sucks for that.
And I don't use my chisel to trim my toenails, for good reason, it sucks at that (and I suck the blood after).
"Jack of all trades, master of none" - is that why Juniper and world+dog use Linux for everything?
All you're doing with this rubbish is trying to get someone to say "Hey, yes, you're right and I'll switch everything to Linux tomorrow", thus making your personal choice the right one for everyone else. It ain't gonna happen. Works for you but just accept that other people have different requirements, different sensibilities, different aesthetics, different biases, and just shrug and move on instead of acting the troll.
-
All you're doing with this rubbish is trying to get someone to say "Hey, yes, you're right and I'll switch everything to Linux tomorrow", thus making your personal choice the right one for everyone else.
Afterall, we have to get the utopia started somehow.
-
..... but just accept that other people have different requirements, different sensibilities, different aesthetics, different biases, and just shrug and move on instead of acting the troll.
🤣😂 That's a big ask of @Randy222, or any other Linux fanboy for that matter! For some reason they are possessed of a visceral hatred of anything Microsoft to a degree which greatly exceeds the bounds of rationality; and they are desperate for validation of their choice of OS (they sound so dogmatic I wonder if they are trying to persuade themselves) - as if anyone else could give a fuck.
What said fanboys can never do is the grown-up thing and accept that whilst Linux suits them, other people choose different OSs to suit their own needs, and that none of this is worthy of comment, never mind spittle-flecked invective.
-
So is this thread now a Desktop argument?
Juniper did not choose Windows kernel to run routers and switches, for good reason, windoze sucks for that.
What's your list of Crapple apps that are the "best"? iTunes that went defunct in 2019?
Yes, it has always been a desktop thread, Windows 11 is, after all, a Desktop OS.
Juniper's decisions or some conglomeration of them got it acquired and swallowed by HPE. It could only be more insulting if it had been smashing with Broadcom.
A lot of manufacturers use Uboot too. Linux is just the next component in a chain to get the OEM to what they want to load. I
I work in the industry so I'll stop so as to keep my opinions and those of my employer separate but lets say that many network OEMs use Linux for the best feature "free." Unless its consumer grade stuff, the chain from uboot->linux-> (ends up loading proprietary junk that is the data plane).
I'm perplexed as to why such a comparison would be made to Windows 11 desktop.
-
Yes, it has always been a desktop thread, Windows 11 is, after all, a Desktop OS.
I guess if you run strictly with "the Win-11 is a special install that has a gui", then ok.
Windows Core is also a Win "11", just no gui. Fact is, Win11 gui (desktop) version is a Win Core with gui.
Why don't all the big shops run backends on Windows Core? Hmmmmm.
It's not all about the gui, Linux is by far better in that area. Why does a Windows server need a heavy gui? The server folks can run big applications and manage the Linux OS w/o a gui, but from some reason the windows admins cant run and manage a Wndows Core install?
If people think Windows and Crapple desktop gui is just better, so be it, that alone does not make Windows better than Linux.
For any app on windows, I can do it faster on Linux, from CAD to math intensive threads to IO, using the same exact hardware.
Pretty gui, or faster work, anyone can choose what they want.
And then lets not box the argument into a "there's no app for that on Linux" corner, because an app can be made, so the argument about apps on one but not the other is a silly moot item.
And sure, nobody gives a fuck like SteveHackery mentions, yet they still argue a reason for windoze.
-
Juniper did not choose Windows kernel to run routers and switches, for good reason, windoze sucks for that.
Junos is based on FreeBSD and the later Junos Evolved on Linux.
-
That's enough. He earned too much money from us.
I have purchased at least 10 or more licenses since 1995. Now I'm working with Rocky Linux.
Stable, faster, free, and more secure.
-
Yes, it has always been a desktop thread, Windows 11 is, after all, a Desktop OS.
I guess if you run strictly with "the Win-11 is a special install that has a gui", then ok.
Windows Core is also a Win "11", just no gui. Fact is, Win11 gui (desktop) version is a Win Core with gui.
Why don't all the big shops run backends on Windows Core? Hmmmmm.
It's not all about the gui, Linux is by far better in that area. Why does a Windows server need a heavy gui? The server folks can run big applications and manage the Linux OS w/o a gui, but from some reason the windows admins cant run and manage a Wndows Core install?
If people think Windows and Crapple desktop gui is just better, so be it, that alone does not make Windows better than Linux.
For any app on windows, I can do it faster on Linux, from CAD to math intensive threads to IO, using the same exact hardware.
Pretty gui, or faster work, anyone can choose what they want.
And then lets not box the argument into a "there's no app for that on Linux" corner, because an app can be made, so the argument about apps on one but not the other is a silly moot item.
And sure, nobody gives a fuck like SteveHackery mentions, yet they still argue a reason for windoze.
All of this because I agreed that Linux Applications suck in design? This is pure phanboy zealotry.
I mean, you could have said, well al of these applications have great interfaces on Linux. But of course, we know that's not true. So start up the band and lets talk straw-man arguments.
I've spent a significant portion of my career as a UNIX administrator. I have several Solaris, AIX, and Linux certifications. I started using linux when I compiled the kernel the first time at version 0.92 or 0.93. I still have the floppies.
In industry its all about the applications. No one gives two crackerjacks about OS. Containers, Kubernetes etc are all about getting rid of the OS as much as possible.
Let's hear more about the "big shops". I was just in Best Buy in the computer area and heard a grandmother asking that very question. She said "Sonny don't sell me no Microsoft or Apple stuff, I want to run what the "Big shops" are running". Happens all the time.
Nobody cares but a few zealots that can't let their Linux holy war go. To arms!
:popcorn:
-
Paying to escape from the dire app ecosystem that Linux offers is money well spent, in my opinion.
"The"?
The eco system? Singular? You have a very, very partial view of Linux. "Part" of the modern linux frustration is "Distro" incompatibility. Hell Unix is not binary compatible with itself what do you expect.
-
Arguing over which OS is better is the ultimate in sad gittery - nobody with any sense gives a fuck.
I couldn't agree more. And yet here we are, 47 pages in..
Clearly a great many people mistake their tools for pets or lovers. An OS is a tool. You choose the right one for the job based on its differentiating merits. There is no ultimate Swiss-army knife OS (or distro thereof), no One Ring to rule them all. To suggest otherwise is a religious adherence divorced from objective assessment.
Any programmer/EE etc. worth their salt and doing productive work (rather than simply curating a hobby 'zoo') is using more than one, can switch fluidly between them and never gives a second thought to the idea that they are mutually exclusive.
-
"The"?
The eco system? Singular? You have a very, very partial view of Linux. "Part" of the modern linux frustration is "Distro" incompatibility. Hell Unix is not binary compatible with itself what do you expect.
I'm not sure what you are saying. In general, Linux apps try to run on any distro. There isn't a separate version of LibreOffice for each distro. Have I missed your point?
-
"The"?
The eco system? Singular? You have a very, very partial view of Linux. "Part" of the modern linux frustration is "Distro" incompatibility. Hell Unix is not binary compatible with itself what do you expect.
I'm not sure what you are saying. In general, Linux apps try to run on any distro. There isn't a separate version of LibreOffice for each distro. Have I missed your point?
Libre office offers two Linux downloads. "Deb" and "RPM". That covers you for "Debian based", eg, Ubunutu where "apt" uses "dPkg" underneath and thats "Debian Package manager". The RPM will cover you for most "Red Hat based" distros, as its the Redhat Package Manager.
There is a link to other options including source code installation.
Even if you have "debian based" distro. Those .deb files willl make "linkage" stipulations. In about 60% of causes your distro will pull in cross link compat versions into "slotted libs" style (all behind the scenes). In maybe 35% of cases you can symlink two library versions and never have an issue... the remaining 5% ... pain.
EDIT:
If you have the time, or you are building a decidated linux machine for a task.. Compiling from source provides HUGE memory and disk advantages and clear performance boosts.
It comes at high cost though. There would be about 2% change of either of those Deb or RPM packages working.
On my system, for example, as i had no printer, nothing was compiled with printer support. Any third party binary which linked to "libcups" failed immediately.
-
Libre office offers two Linux downloads. "Deb" and "RPM". That covers you for "Debian based", eg, Ubunutu where "apt" uses "dPkg" underneath and thats "Debian Package manager". The RPM will cover you for most "Red Hat based" distros, as its the Redhat Package Manager.
There is a link to other options including source code installation.
Even if you have "debian based" distro. Those .deb files willl make "linkage" stipulations. In about 60% of causes your distro will pull in cross link compat versions into "slotted libs" style (all behind the scenes). In maybe 35% of cases you can symlink two library versions and never have an issue... the remaining 5% ... pain.
Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about the package manager complications. Makes Windows installations look easy.
-
To me, fancy, modern GUIs are just another way to waste system resources. Gnome and KDE are, to me, as bad as modern Windows GUI. XFCE with any extra configuration disabled is good enough for me. LibreOffice GUI is good enough for me. FreeCAD GUI is enough for me. Firefox GUI is enough for me, and so on. So I don't give a fuck about any fancy, modern GUI an any OS, or linux distro/release, for that matter.
If any install is going to be a desktop one, I just choose XFCE when the installer asks about that. Done.
If the system is going to be a server, router, etc, I just install the bare minimum, of course without a GUI, then I use APT to install just any apps needed, with any dependencies these apps need. I consider the capability to install a bare minimum OS with just a CLI, a big advantage over having to install any full-blown OS with desktop environment.
Not to mention being spared of any "telemetry", propaganda, and so on. That can't be tolerated on any machine I own.
If you think your productivity is better using modern Windows, I'm fine with that. Should your religion make you smash your own fingers with a hammer, under each and every full moon, I would also be fine with that. I don't even need to understand your reasons, as long as I can avoid your fate.
That's where the hate for Microsoft comes from. They really tried to impose Windows on all of us. They looked for a monopoly or the nearest thing to a monopoly. They used all the dirty tricks they could think of. There are too many examples of that. Windows zealots will just babble his way out of this point, so the argument stops here.
And yes, I'm glad anytime Windows suffers a global reaching failure. Karma is a bitch, you know...
-
Truncated:..... Windows zealots will just babble his way out of this point, so the argument stops here......
When you find a Windows zealot, take a picture of the Sasquatch standing next to them (may be the same entity) and pick up some Jackalope sandwich meat (yum). Last I heard, someone spotted one riding the Loch Ness Monster, so that's a good place to go looking.
-
I hope you don't have problems anymore while upgrading Linux...
-
Libre office offers two Linux downloads. "Deb" and "RPM". That covers you for "Debian based", eg, Ubunutu where "apt" uses "dPkg" underneath and thats "Debian Package manager". The RPM will cover you for most "Red Hat based" distros, as its the Redhat Package Manager.
There is a link to other options including source code installation.
Even if you have "debian based" distro. Those .deb files willl make "linkage" stipulations. In about 60% of causes your distro will pull in cross link compat versions into "slotted libs" style (all behind the scenes). In maybe 35% of cases you can symlink two library versions and never have an issue... the remaining 5% ... pain.
Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about the package manager complications. Makes Windows installations look easy.
Well, Paulca goes off the beaten path here. Debian comes with Libreoffice out of the box. It doesn't get any easier.
-
Truncated:..... Windows zealots will just babble his way out of this point, so the argument stops here......
When you find a Windows zealot, take a picture of the Sasquatch standing next to them (may be the same entity) and pick up some Jackalope sandwich meat (yum). Last I heard, someone spotted one riding the Loch Ness Monster, so that's a good place to go looking.
Well said! Windows users are too sensible to indulge in zealotry. That's the reserve of the swivel-eyed Linux loons. Windows users do their work, catch up with their socials, then switch off their computer and think about important stuff like family, hobbies, the ballgame.
-
Windows 12 2027.
All windows die, eventually.
So does every other OS.
The diff between windows and linux, is even old versions of linux can be self maintained, windows/crapple not.
-
Libre office offers two Linux downloads. "Deb" and "RPM". That covers you for "Debian based", eg, Ubunutu where "apt" uses "dPkg" underneath and thats "Debian Package manager". The RPM will cover you for most "Red Hat based" distros, as its the Redhat Package Manager.
There is a link to other options including source code installation.
Even if you have "debian based" distro. Those .deb files willl make "linkage" stipulations. In about 60% of causes your distro will pull in cross link compat versions into "slotted libs" style (all behind the scenes). In maybe 35% of cases you can symlink two library versions and never have an issue... the remaining 5% ... pain.
Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about the package manager complications. Makes Windows installations look easy.
It gets interesting when you compare the "Release package" contents between the two platforms. Windows binaries tend to be quite large. They tend to include a lot of "glue libary" code and often statically linked dependencies. They tend to be more "self contained". Rarely do they ask for dependencies they don't install themselves as part of their own release bundle. If they do, it's usually OS level components like a DotNet runtime version or similar.
Compared to Unix/Linux where the package itself contains nothing but the package itself. You are left to find/install/link the dependencies yourself. Especially in the Linux world were those dependencies are "free[tm]". Take a package like Libre Office and look at it's dep's tree is fairly terrifying if you are the one compiling it from source. I remember doing "Star Office" and the other monster was "Mozilla", aka pre-Firefox. They required everything under the sun and wanted 2Gb of diskspace to build in. Star Office took 28 hours to compile on a 600Mhz Celeron. Firefox ran out of diskspace after 8 hours the first time. After this.... I moved to binary distros.
-
"What do you anticipate Microsoft will do next?"
Microsoft will switch to Linux and keep selling their software on top of Linux. And it will cost the Windows users as much as before.
At the same time will the Linux community get face-stomped by hordes of Windows users, all trying to learn everything there is to
learn about Linux and in record-breaking time.
Some long-time Linux supporters will switch to Microsoft in a heart beat like cold-hearted back-stabbers, while others die
the slow death of the White Knight in the most epic drama the Linux community has ever seen, before the Linux
community itself disappears and we will all have turned into "the new Windows user".
Once it's all done and over, and Microsoft has taken over Linux with its hordes of Windows users, will you either be the
new slave of the Microsoft empire or you will have found refuge under a tiny bridge, just next to the one where all the
FreeBSD trolls live, and where you'll then be telling tales of Linux's past.
-
Libre office offers two Linux downloads. "Deb" and "RPM". That covers you for "Debian based", eg, Ubunutu where "apt" uses "dPkg" underneath and thats "Debian Package manager". The RPM will cover you for most "Red Hat based" distros, as its the Redhat Package Manager.
There is a link to other options including source code installation.
Even if you have "debian based" distro. Those .deb files willl make "linkage" stipulations. In about 60% of causes your distro will pull in cross link compat versions into "slotted libs" style (all behind the scenes). In maybe 35% of cases you can symlink two library versions and never have an issue... the remaining 5% ... pain.
Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about the package manager complications. Makes Windows installations look easy.
It gets interesting when you compare the "Release package" contents between the two platforms. Windows binaries tend to be quite large. They tend to include a lot of "glue libary" code and often statically linked dependencies. They tend to be more "self contained". Rarely do they ask for dependencies they don't install themselves as part of their own release bundle. If they do, it's usually OS level components like a DotNet runtime version or similar.
Compared to Unix/Linux where the package itself contains nothing but the package itself. You are left to find/install/link the dependencies yourself.
No. Definitely not. The dependencies are described in the packages. Tools like apt will figure out what all the dependencies are and what other packages are needed which aren't on the system already. Especially Debian packages (from a stable or formerly stable release) have perfected this to a level where every package you install just works. Alternatively, generic (commercial) software just comes with their own set of system libraries which assume a minimum level of Libc and X-Windows support and go from there.
-
Compared to Unix/Linux where the package itself contains nothing but the package itself. You are left to find/install/link the dependencies yourself. Especially in the Linux world were those dependencies are "free[tm]". Take a package like Libre Office and look at it's dep's tree is fairly terrifying if you are the one compiling it from source. I remember doing "Star Office" and the other monster was "Mozilla", aka pre-Firefox. They required everything under the sun and wanted 2Gb of diskspace to build in. Star Office took 28 hours to compile on a 600Mhz Celeron. Firefox ran out of diskspace after 8 hours the first time. After this.... I moved to binary distros.
Huh? I install stuff all the time on Linux distros, and it will install/link dependencies as needed. In deb world, "apt install", that's it.
Compiling from source "issue", can also be applied to windows too. Some things are built so it can be used on many platforms.
Just as Windows has it's Windows Update repo ecosystem, Linux has it's distro repo ecosystem. No difference, except what's there to get.
-
Interested newcomers to Linux are likely to get a wildly inaccurate picture of the situation by reading much of the information here. By far the most common distro model is where it has a package manager that handles a dependency tree, specifying which packages need what, and what min/max version it can use. Common software is all packaged as a binary.
Even on the AUR, where I cautiously use some built from source code, it's handled by helper tools that create a package to be handled by pacman anyways.
-
Building from source is a bit of a nightmare on Linux but arguably is not much easier on Windows since there are so many different types of build chain. Some Windows apps use MSVC++, others use MINGW, and then there are the weird ones based on C#/Mono/etc, some using Java with a special JVM buried on the Sun archived website somewhere and I'm sure Visual Basic is still in use by someone because why the f-not.
It's just because Windows is such a 'stable' platform in terms of backwards compatibility that 'EXEs' do tend to just 'work' as long as the system is fairly standard. This does create other nightmares for Windows devs though as it means you get weird holdovers like path names being limited to 252 characters unless the application is built to handle more (and even then not all Windows APIs handle long path names, so consequentially some applications can't access files created by other applications.) Linux doesn't suffer such headaches because almost every application that runs on Linux is (a) at least source-available and (b) applications have to target the distribution's binary API; there's some backwards compatibility but it's not guaranteed.
The biggest problem with Linux building is it seems it is the hobby of so many developers to create yet another build system. You have good-old-configure-and-Makefiles, CMake, Meson, Ninja, automake, Maven, ant... I am not sure what each solves that the other that came before it did not, but you need to learn to navigate all of these. Fortunately, I've found AI tooling very useful here.
-
The Linux evangelist would have you believe that Microsoft is the evil empire full stop. And while MS has and certainly does fit that discription they are far from the only ones. Linux also won and no one noticed. It's also primarily controlled by evil empire companies. Windows is a standing champ on computer desktops but users have long ago abandoned the desktop as the only or even their primary way of digitally interfacing with the world.
There's about 1.5 billion Windows users; 4-5 billion Linux users all Linux Based end user compute included; BSD even has Windows beat given that between MacOS and iOS Darwin/MACH Kernel/BSD has about 2-2.5 billion users. I've not included the China and North Korea country OSes. The most popular Linux in China looks exactly like Windows XP from my understanding. North Korea use Linux to spy on their citizens and if you try to defeat it, your OS rats you out, it also tags USB media to track dissidents and how information flows by sneaker net.
MS is the king of adopt, extend, puke profit from selling you Office products. Google is the King of selling you. Apple the king of monetizing everything including the usb cable. All "evil" empire if you ask me.
Linux can and often is as locked down as Windows and more. You jail break an Android system and your bank's app very well might not work for good reason. Try to jail break your Linux Citizen OS in some countries will get you in Jail or shot.
Microsoft Windows is dying, its always dying just like all other code, it rots. I saw mentioned that you can run old Linux, and just the same you can run old Windows, old Macos, old OS2, MSDOS. But unless you're willing to write your own security back ports on each, good luck with that. Linux crap like Windows crap, and MacOS crap has an EOL.
What's the biggest controlling companies of Linux? Amazon, EQT partners, Intel/AMD, Microsoft (they even have their own distro), IBM (redhat), Conical, and the big bad Google. I don't see an angel in the list, do you?
Nobody cares about any of it but the holly war warriors.
-
Compared to Unix/Linux where the package itself contains nothing but the package itself. You are left to find/install/link the dependencies yourself. Especially in the Linux world were those dependencies are "free[tm]". Take a package like Libre Office and look at it's dep's tree is fairly terrifying if you are the one compiling it from source. I remember doing "Star Office" and the other monster was "Mozilla", aka pre-Firefox. They required everything under the sun and wanted 2Gb of diskspace to build in. Star Office took 28 hours to compile on a 600Mhz Celeron. Firefox ran out of diskspace after 8 hours the first time. After this.... I moved to binary distros.
Huh? I install stuff all the time on Linux distros, and it will install/link dependencies as needed. In deb world, "apt install", that's it.
Compiling from source "issue", can also be applied to windows too. Some things are built so it can be used on many platforms.
Just as Windows has it's Windows Update repo ecosystem, Linux has it's distro repo ecosystem. No difference, except what's there to get.
They are not the same thing. Not by along shot. The windows update eco-system would be more like a single vendors package archive on FTP in comparison. The kernel, GLibc, some runtimes a few demo apps like those that come with X11 or KDE. Thats windows right there.
"apt install" is doing the bit I spoke of. Apt is not part of your release package. So "you" in this case is just your distro maintainer. They are doing it for you. Just to break the rules to give you an easy time. Unix is not binary compatible. Never was. Never itntended to be and almost unachievable. The distro's "cheat" by, as I said using a "mother system", which they then slice up once it's in one peice.
EDIT: Note. The release packages DO NOT" contain ANY reference information or meta data about their dependencies.. Not unless you call reading the configure script and AUTOCONF et. al. to find out. Creation of those meta data links between packages is done by the distro and is distro specific. Non transferable.
Yes. 99% of the time its just "apt install" or "apt update -y && apt -y upgrade" if you are that way inclined.
However. Just try and leave a system without updates for longer than say 6 months and go try again. You wil[l start to see it come apart. The maintenance costs of such a system are staggering. When it's voluntary and highly available due to "excitement" from the community, it's fine. When it starts to move into "chore" land, or the distro starts to get "commercially serious", then the true costs of maintaining that tree appear.
The result is most of the cases I have watched, "retention period" drops...
So, I wanted to upgrade a docker host last week. It's a tiny simple little server and so I did a flat "upgrade" on it.
FAILED! Nasty, nasty very unfriendly error. But I have been doing this a while, so it "smelt" like a package in the upgrade chain had been removed. Apt then conflicts with it's own missing version causing a circular dependency lock. The solution is the "T-Cell" approach. If it complains, delete it. Keep going. Then add things you removed back once it is upgrading.
To explain....
You have version 1.2.3
You have had that version for a year.
Since you installed it, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.3.0, 1.3.1, 1.4.1 have all been released.
Last month, all the 1.2 apt stubs got culled.
So previously the system knew how to get from 1.2.3 to 1.4.1 via the intermediates, if needed. However, when you run update and try and pull in 1.4.1 it does not have a lineage of upgrade anymore. It has no "1.2.3 -> 1.4.1" process or proceedure. It doesn't even have metadata for your 1.2.3 version AT ALL!
This often results in conflicts. The inabiity to potentially uninstall that package. Cyclic dependency locks. Etc. etc.
That retention period is getting shorter and shorter and Ubuntu at least are starting to make noises like "UPDATES WILL BE FORCED AND AUTOMATIC!" ... "It's for your security". is BS. It's because they don't want to maintain long retention policies on versions anymore.
-
This often results in conflicts. The inabiity to potentially uninstall that package. Cyclic dependency locks. Etc. etc.
I get this. Run a VM or two for specific purposes and every is fine. Runs well, forget about it. Some time later there's an error email that some repo can't be reached. Eventually delete the VM and start again from scratch.
-
This often results in conflicts. The inabiity to potentially uninstall that package. Cyclic dependency locks. Etc. etc.
I get this. Run a VM or two for specific purposes and every is fine. Runs well, forget about it. Some time later there's an error email that some repo can't be reached. Eventually delete the VM and start again from scratch.
I have seen it too many times. 6 months is about the spot where a full upgrade will start to throw curve balls. A year and you are very likely to run into issues.
PackageA 1.2.3 wants Lib5.6.7
The upgrade process sees your stated request for "PackageA" and resolves the latest as package 1.4.1. It also fails to find a PackageA 1.2.3 stub/metadata.
Without that stub in the dependency resolver, it starts with that package not existing on the system.
It then proceeds to install "Lib8.9.0" ... which conflicts with the already installed Lib5.6.7 which is being used by packageA. But to it PackageA no longer exists, so it doesn't matter how many times you go back through the process it will still attempt to install things ina conflicting order with reference to PackageA and probably Lib5.6.7 as it's likely expired to.
In a "Happy path". All installed versions resolve to actual meta data and all of it is loaded and passed through the same dep grapher. It can rearrange the ordering to smoothly transition, even hopping an intermediary version if needed to bridge cyclics.
I suppose it can be worse. It usually "detects" the conflict and stops itself from corrupting the entire system by just forcing in a new key library. I have personally done that one to myself. A library used by GCC no less. gcc: Failed to load so xxxxxx.so
Fixing that one on a source compiled system... when the compiler won't run.. that was fun. I worked out a few ways back, but took the easier option and rebuilt the whole thing again.
As a "mini tip"! Break the rules. When you want to upgrade your system, DO NOT, start with "apt update". Instead, start with apt upgrade. Make sure you are fully upto date with your OLD apt meta files. Then pull the new ones. Often you will have done the apt update, then installed a single package. So you may already have a good intermediary upgrade point to use! Right up until you run apt update.
EDIT: My virtual host offers the ability to create "Templates" for VMs and LXCs. This seems like a GREAT idea. Take a base install, add and configure all the things your way, save the template.
Except... 6 months later when you want one of these, you first need to ... create an instance of the template. Upgrade everything. Fix it again. Then save it back as a template... then clone your new system.
Sort of defeats the purpose.
The "compliance" option.... a cron job to run apt update and apt upgrade and email you the results. Good luck.
-
Microsoft Windows is dying, its always dying just like all other code, it rots.
Can you explain what you mean? I ask because of course code - source or executable - is definitely not subject to anything resembling "rot".
Or do you mean that ongoing changes, such as adding new features, lead to the code gradually becoming less "clean" as new stuff is bolted on wherever it will fit, gradually undermining the original, elegant, architecture?
If it's the latter, then this is where Windows has an advantage over Linux. The Windows OS, as well as the big application suites, are subject to continuous scrap-and-rewrite activity involving hundreds of coders working continuously. This is necessary to keep the code clean and maintainable as new features are added. The most recent example was the Windows 11 Start menu and taskbar. The taskbar code was brand new, and it was obvious because it lost a lot of functionality - for example the W11 taskbar could not be repositioned to the side of the screen. A Microsoft spokesperson at the time said adding that feature would lead to excessive complication of the code.
Alas Linux cannot compete in that respect. Relatively little money is generated by the OS or the apps, so it's just not feasible to pay for hundreds of coders working full time on the software, especially for the apps. So features get bolted on here and there, and the code starts to look and feel messy, including at the UI level.
Is that what you meant by "code rot"?
-
Microsoft Windows is dying, its always dying just like all other code, it rots.
Can you explain what you mean?....
It's just a poor way of saying that code has to be maintained. OSs like us are born and eventually EOL.
In a perfect world, you'd get the one OS that you just loved and someone would just patch it and fix bugs and security issues till they were all gone and it would be perfect and then there's no "rot" or EOL.
On the issue of feature "lint" and drift from original architecture, I agree that happens too. I think that has traditionally happened more in Windows simply because it remains on a version so long. XP lasted forever and really, XP and XP SP3 were nowhere near the same OS except for their name.
Linux eventually caught up to having more stability by creating the LTS versions. And now that's become a common practice even in Windows. XP was the OG LTS.
Squirrel! I went off down the road there. Apologies for the less than clear intent of my statement. I hope this clears it up.
-
Once upon a time there was an int. He could be signed and unsigned and he was exactly 8 bits in length.
Then one day he woke up and was 16bit long and promptly crashed the bank systems.
Code rots.
-
Compared to Unix/Linux where the package itself contains nothing but the package itself. You are left to find/install/link the dependencies yourself. Especially in the Linux world were those dependencies are "free[tm]". Take a package like Libre Office and look at it's dep's tree is fairly terrifying if you are the one compiling it from source. I remember doing "Star Office" and the other monster was "Mozilla", aka pre-Firefox. They required everything under the sun and wanted 2Gb of diskspace to build in. Star Office took 28 hours to compile on a 600Mhz Celeron. Firefox ran out of diskspace after 8 hours the first time. After this.... I moved to binary distros.
Huh? I install stuff all the time on Linux distros, and it will install/link dependencies as needed. In deb world, "apt install", that's it.
Compiling from source "issue", can also be applied to windows too. Some things are built so it can be used on many platforms.
Just as Windows has it's Windows Update repo ecosystem, Linux has it's distro repo ecosystem. No difference, except what's there to get.
They are not the same thing. Not by along shot. The windows update eco-system would be more like a single vendors package archive on FTP in comparison. The kernel, GLibc, some runtimes a few demo apps like those that come with X11 or KDE. Thats windows right there.
"apt install" is doing the bit I spoke of. Apt is not part of your release package. So "you" in this case is just your distro maintainer. They are doing it for you. Just to break the rules to give you an easy time. Unix is not binary compatible. Never was. Never itntended to be and almost unachievable. The distro's "cheat" by, as I said using a "mother system", which they then slice up once it's in one peice.
EDIT: Note. The release packages DO NOT" contain ANY reference information or meta data about their dependencies.. Not unless you call reading the configure script and AUTOCONF et. al. to find out. Creation of those meta data links between packages is done by the distro and is distro specific. Non transferable.
Yes. 99% of the time its just "apt install" or "apt update -y && apt -y upgrade" if you are that way inclined.
However. Just try and leave a system without updates for longer than say 6 months and go try again. You wil[l start to see it come apart. The maintenance costs of such a system are staggering. When it's voluntary and highly available due to "excitement" from the community, it's fine. When it starts to move into "chore" land, or the distro starts to get "commercially serious", then the true costs of maintaining that tree appear.
To explain....
You have version 1.2.3
You have had that version for a year.
Since you installed it, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.3.0, 1.3.1, 1.4.1 have all been released.
Last month, all the 1.2 apt stubs got culled.
That is because you use a distribution which has problems like that. Debian has always been way more serious about keeping old versions alive and upgrade paths in place. Upgrading a machine from a version about 6 to 10 years old is doable and pretty much painless (been there, done that).
-
Upgrading a machine from a version about 6 to 10 years old is doable and pretty much painless (been there, done that).
You can upgrade Windows from over 20 years ago, not a problem. Indeed, the issue is stopping it from updating 8)
Seriously for a moment, being able to upgrade is one thing, but wanting to is quite another. Wasn't there a fuss some time back about some distro using a phone UI for everything, so obviously you might not want to subject your desktop to that. Also, many apps (and particularly online ones) tend to completely change how they work and if you're used to the previous version you might want to stay with what you know and like. Having to relearn where everything is and finding it won't do something it once did is something you can't avoid with forced updates.
-
Upgrading a machine from a version about 6 to 10 years old is doable and pretty much painless (been there, done that).
You can upgrade Windows from over 20 years ago, not a problem. Indeed, the issue is stopping it from updating 8)
Seriously for a moment, being able to upgrade is one thing, but wanting to is quite another. Wasn't there a fuss some time back about some distro using a phone UI for everything, so obviously you might not want to subject your desktop to that. Also, many apps (and particularly online ones) tend to completely change how they work and if you're used to the previous version you might want to stay with what you know and like.
That is true. On Linux the Gnome UI design has been moving in the wrong direction like tiled windows and focussing on a workflow where you having a single application fullscreen and no overview of which applications are running. Typically I have 20+ windows / programs open for various ongoing tasks. I like to have a taskbar. Fortunately there are Gnome add-ons that let you keep old behaviour. Also the poor distinction between the active window and background is something I keep tripping over. Also disabling font anti-aliasing and while left with readable text is getting harder and harder. Text with anti-aliasing gives me an instant headache. Not everything is an improvement. I only upgrade when I need to run software which needs newer libraries and compiling the required libraries from source is too much hassle. But then again, there is always the option to use a different Window managers.
-
Once upon a time there was an int. He could be signed and unsigned and he was exactly 8 bits in length.
Then one day he woke up and was 16bit long and promptly crashed the bank systems.
Code rots.
Except the code didn't rot - it was deliberately changed by someone who (apparently) didn’t know what they were doing. That isn't "rotting", it's "poisoning". Different thing altogether.
-
Also the poor distinction between the active window and background is something I keep tripping over.
Actually that's something I hate about Windows. At one time the active window had a coloured title bar, and all the other windows had a pale, desaturated title bar. It was instantly obvious which was the active window. Since the passing of W7, that distinction has almost completely disappeared. Now my email program is literally identical in appearance whether it is the active window or not.
-
I have not watched the video, then to avoid click bait vids if I can. Can somone who has watched it give some context to what its rambling on about.
I think it is an AI generated video. Spelling errors and usage of random video fragments based on context. And it seems it is just a rant against Windows 11. Some Googling tells me South Korea decided to ditch Windows in 2020 and finalise the migration to Linux in 2026.
Most agreed.
Not just AI generated, pure AI without any review by a human.
Weird, random, sporadic sentance fragments make the fact it's purely AI pretty obvious.
-
I know Linux is supposed to be the king for CLI vs. Windows but man, I just remembered a pet peev.
When I learned Linux and UNIX ifconfig was the tool for network interface management. It worked on all *NIX. There were variances but the command was there. Now Net-Tools is depricated and I have to remind myself to use the iproute2 tool set.
Windows came out with "ipconfig" in Windows NT 3.51 and its worked in every command window since. By my math, 32 years you could type "ipconfig /all" and it would spit out the network interface config.
I just spun up a linux container which and typed ifconfig -a like I know what I'm doing.... Then cursed it and typed "ip address"
-
Once upon a time there was an int. He could be signed and unsigned and he was exactly 8 bits in length.
Then one day he woke up and was 16bit long and promptly crashed the bank systems.
Code rots.
Actually that was char rather than int, but int has its own problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_(computer_science)
In C, it is denoted by int and required to be at least 16 bits. Windows and Unix systems have 32-bit ints on both 32-bit and 64-bit architectures.
-
Once upon a time there was an int. He could be signed and unsigned and he was exactly 8 bits in length.
Then one day he woke up and was 16bit long and promptly crashed the bank systems.
Code rots.
BTW, that (variable size and signed-ness) isn't a problem in assembly language, which is what I use to program (Win32).
We have all the choices available to us: DB/byte, DW/word, DD/dword, DQ/qword, etc., etc.
No ambiguity of meaning whatsoever. 8/16/32/64 bits.
Various ways of dealing with signed-ness (JA vs JG, MOVSX vs MOVZX, etc.).
No stupid type-casting needed or even possible to use.
Just have to know which one to use when.
Now, if someone goes and changes the OS on us ...
-
I have Lenovo T14 and a T16.
T14 has Ubuntu 26.04
T16 has Win11 Pro
The T16 is just slower on everything and at idle is still hogging cpu and ram.
Neither is tuned in any way, so can probably get things better on both, but this is beyond Joe and Jane's ability.
The T14 is snappy on everything, updating system or apps is a notification in gui. Windows does something similar but it seems clunky.
The desktops are for sure very different, but I can easily switch the T14 if needed or wanted to, right at the login screen.
Windows lives in the MS ecosystem, so certainly more candy to be had there, but that candy is not free.
Fast and 'lightweight", linux for free.
Slower and a bit clunky with more available integrated services and more costs, windoze.
-
Once upon a time there was an int. He could be signed and unsigned and he was exactly 8 bits in length.
Then one day he woke up and was 16bit long and promptly crashed the bank systems.
Code rots.
Except the code didn't rot - it was deliberately changed by someone who (apparently) didn’t know what they were doing. That isn't "rotting", it's "poisoning". Different thing altogether.
The environment changed. That was my actual point. Code remains the same, the environment changes, code breaks.
-
That is true. On Linux the Gnome UI design has been moving in the wrong direction like tiled windows and focussing on a workflow where you having a single application fullscreen and no overview of which applications are running. Typically I have 20+ windows / programs open for various ongoing tasks. I like to have a taskbar. Fortunately there are Gnome add-ons that let you keep old behaviour. Also the poor distinction between the active window and background is something I keep tripping over.
Set color of title bar when window is active/inactive for Gnome:
- https://askubuntu.com/questions/1044338/ubuntu-18-04-change-color-of-window-title-bar
- https://forum.manjaro.org/t/how-do-i-alter-the-theme-to-make-windows-stand-out-more/116001/4
-
Have you tried KDE?
Although their current theme doesn't change the title bar color on active either.
-
I've found my favourite window manager a long time ago. It's neither Gnome nor KDE. It's boring and does its job. And it supports colorsets. ;D
-
Also the poor distinction between the active window and background is something I keep tripping over.
Actually that's something I hate about Windows. At one time the active window had a coloured title bar, and all the other windows had a pale, desaturated title bar. It was instantly obvious which was the active window. Since the passing of W7, that distinction has almost completely disappeared. Now my email program is literally identical in appearance whether it is the active window or not.
I've got that back in W10. Don't know if ti will work with W11 but easy to check.
Registry key:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Colors\InactiveTitle
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Colors\InactiveTitleText
and
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Colors\ActiveTitle
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Colors\TitleText
All are 'normal' values in RGB format: "191 205 219" is a kind of grey.
-
The environment changed. That was my actual point. Code remains the same, the environment changes, code breaks.
Exactly. So the code itself hasn't rotted. We need a better term to describe code which fails when its environment changes.
-
The impact of the August update:
Windows 11 KB5121003 is triggering game crashes and other issues on some PCs - https://www.windowslatest.com/2026/08/16/windows-11-kb5121003-is-triggering-game-crashes-and-causing-other-problems-on-some-pcs/ (https://www.windowslatest.com/2026/08/16/windows-11-kb5121003-is-triggering-game-crashes-and-causing-other-problems-on-some-pcs/)
-
The environment changed. That was my actual point. Code remains the same, the environment changes, code breaks.
Exactly. So the code itself hasn't rotted. We need a better term to describe code which fails when its environment changes.
The wiki offers a few alternatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_rot
Software rot (bit rot, code rot, software erosion, software decay, or software entropy)
-
The impact of the August update
Windows management: "How we can piss off our customers even more?"
M$ eng: "Gamers are using Windows usually.... why not target them?"
Windows management: "Approved!"
-
Seems as good a place as any... "Show your desktop!" How does "home" look like?
Its 4 different projects at once and Factorio running because sometimes I get bored.
(https://4-2www.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/images/Screenshot_20260820_185504.png)
-
I don't think anyone here is seriously suggesting that *nix OSs are in any way incapable of providing a useful and well-performing desktop.
But by your example of dick-comparing here you pretty much reveal yourself as a Linux fanboi. Own up to it.
As others have pointed out here, this is something you don't see Windows users doing, whatever their other faults may be.
-
But by your example of dick-comparing here you pretty much reveal yourself as a Linux fanboi. Own up to it.
Not all of those "windows" are Linux. Look closer.
-
But by your example of dick-comparing here you pretty much reveal yourself as a Linux fanboi. Own up to it.
Not all of those "windows" are Linux. Look closer.
OK, so you've got some (or at least one) Windoze apps running in a virtual thingy.
Isn't that just more boasting?
"Look, Ma, I can do Windows windows too!"
-
I'm impressed to find a real person that actually uses Rhythmbox.
-
I'm impressed to find a real person that actually uses Rhythmbox.
I'm using that all the time. It has its warts but it works to play music.
-
And another round of printing issues:
Microsoft: August updates break printing, PDF export in WPF apps - https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/microsoft-august-updates-break-printing-pdf-export-in-wpf-apps/ (https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/microsoft-august-updates-break-printing-pdf-export-in-wpf-apps/)
-
Windows trying to be smart, auto printer discovery and using WSD is just shit. Should be banned for life !
-
Just switch to Microsoft Azure Linux. Then you have it all.
-
Just switched to Microsoft Azure Linux. Then you have it all.
Meh. Fine for servers, if you want to swing that way... but I wouldn't choose it as a desktop/workstation distro. AFAIK, they actually tune it to run better on their cloud VMs in ways that might actually harm other use cases. And (perhaps an opinion) but I pretty strongly prefer apt based packaging for a daily-driver machine. I've worked on plenty of RHEL/Fedora/CentOS servers, but those were never my choice otherwise.
-
Highlight of September update:
Windows Update locks out domain users - https://www.heise.de/en/news/Windows-Update-locks-out-domain-users-11456486.html (https://www.heise.de/en/news/Windows-Update-locks-out-domain-users-11456486.html)
-
Another MS crash-burn patch tuesday?
I don't get it, don't they test this new code using hypersonic fast systems with AI?
How can this seemingly stupid error get released?
-
Is this why my Win11 machine stopped seeing one of my Win7 systems on the network?
Funny, its only one Win7 Pro system while the other Win7 pro system is seen.
Its like when I click on refresh in the networks folder, it just gives up scanning to find all my PC.
When I first got the Win11 laptop 2 weeks ago, it saw all my computers on my network.
I cant wait to be done with Windows, but circumstances means I now have to wait a few extra months...
-
Got a feeling that might relate to who is browse master for your network. Not unknown for a new device to join a network and decide it is now the browse master, and suddenly you can't see devices you could last week.
-
I cant wait to be done with Windows, but circumstances means I now have to wait a few extra months...
We can't wait, either. It sounds like you've got some kind of mental block when it comes to Windows. Funny how it just works for me and many others. Notwithstanding the fact that I intensely dislike the UI, indeed the whole design language. But my W11 installation really does "just work".
I agree with you: you should dump Windows at the very first opportunity.
-
Thats the thing, isn't it?
Many people just won't believe me when i say that i have very rarely a technical issue with Windows. Neither at home (where i am still running Windows 10) nor at work, where we run Windows 11.
It works.
Yes, it is annoying. The way the updates work is getting worse from what i experience. But still, they work. That issue that madires mentioned is an edge case, only a certain setup will encounter that. And still, yes, that Microsoft's QA did not find this issue is outrageous.
That my windows borked itself... i have to think hard when this happened with windows, where the reason was windows itself. Issues with drivers? Plenty. Issues with some software, plenty. But that is not neccesarily the fault of microsoft.
What pisses me off about windows is the UI. This seems to be getting worse, and at the same time Microsoft is not able or willing to perform a hard cut.
At least my beloved vertical taskbar is coming back. At least a small victory :D
But to be honest: My contact with the Windows UI is little. Once the system is set up and running i have little reason to muddle in the UI. I use the windows explorer, and that works well enough for me, for now.
My bigger beef is with Microsoft itself. I do not want to setup a Microsoft Account during setup. I do not need it, i do not want it. I also would like to turn off all telemetry. It is none of Microsoft's business what i do with Windows. I don't use any of their online services anyway.
-
Go on YouTube and watch the documentary about "The Story of VS Code | Official Documentary"
1) you will understand why it was one of the few things Microsoft did well ::)
2) (unrelated to the above point, even if it does not seems like it) All those Microsoft paid developers were using Mac machines :D
I am too lazy to copy the YT link, sorry.
-
I agree with you: you should dump Windows at the very first opportunity.
My transition begun with W11 release. Steep learning curve but happy camper now.
NixOS, Proxmox, Debian, (neo)Vim ..... finally. I have W10 on a broken screen laptop for emergencies, and that's it.
-
The patch tues issue has domain joined systems suddenly becoming non-trusted to the domain.
Looks like the patching provided some config that creates the issue.
It can be easily fixed, but if there's a large fleet of remote systems it wont be easy to reach them if the admin acct is a domain acct.
Can't wait to see the mess as places start to migrate off of domain and into Intune. Two buckets of popcorn and a keg of beer for that. :palm:
-
At least my beloved vertical taskbar is coming back. At least a small victory :D
I've had a vertical task bar for ages, thanks to Stardock Start11. Plus a completely different and better Start menu. Best ten bucks I've spent when it comes to software.
-
I cant wait to be done with Windows, but circumstances means I now have to wait a few extra months...
We can't wait, either. It sounds like you've got some kind of mental block when it comes to Windows. Funny how it just works for me and many others. Notwithstanding the fact that I intensely dislike the UI, indeed the whole design language. But my W11 installation really does "just work".
I agree with you: you should dump Windows at the very first opportunity.
Mental block???
After installing Win11 pro and after an update, a reboot or 2 later and a full page ad pops up on my desktop for Microsoft Gamepass or Game mode.
Worse, after tying in my Office365 license so I could use the built in MSWord and Excell, a login a day or 2 later a few minutes after login (this could have been during a board-room presentation...), a new ad occupying the right half of my desktop pops up for Co-pilot. Mid day, I caught the OS downloading gigabytes of crap behind the scene and I am on a metered connection. I had to open the task manager and kill the 'unknown' task to stop it. It tried later again... Also, for some reason, once in sleep mode, the laptop fan and CPU was going...
Never had any of this BS in Win7.
-
Sounds like a nice OS. :-DD
But fear not, MS said they were going to make Windows all great again.
-
At least my beloved vertical taskbar is coming back. At least a small victory :D
I've had a vertical task bar for ages, thanks to Stardock Start11. Plus a completely different and better Start menu. Best ten bucks I've spent when it comes to software.
Alas, the plight of a managed corporate machine :D
No chance getting those things approved. And even less chance for paid versions.
-
I cant wait to be done with Windows, but circumstances means I now have to wait a few extra months...
We can't wait, either. It sounds like you've got some kind of mental block when it comes to Windows. Funny how it just works for me and many others. Notwithstanding the fact that I intensely dislike the UI, indeed the whole design language. But my W11 installation really does "just work".
I agree with you: you should dump Windows at the very first opportunity.
Mental block???
After installing Win11 pro and after an update, a reboot or 2 later and a full page ad pops up on my desktop for Microsoft Gamepass or Game mode.
Worse, after tying in my Office365 license so I could use the built in MSWord and Excell, a login a day or 2 later a few minutes after login (this could have been during a board-room presentation...), a new ad occupying the right half of my desktop pops up for Co-pilot. Mid day, I caught the OS downloading gigabytes of crap behind the scene and I am on a metered connection. I had to open the task manager and kill the 'unknown' task to stop it. It tried later again... Also, for some reason, once in sleep mode, the laptop fan and CPU was going...
Never had any of this BS in Win7.
Maybe this is extra software installed by Acer. I'd check that as well.
-
Seems that I don't trust W11 very much.
Happened so that left mouse button remained on.
First I tried to release the stuck button off by "tapping" it few times, no luck.
Next I changed the whole rodent, button remained on.
Then searching more wisdom revealed that mouse driver can have issues.
After some driver settings the button stopped repeating.
Happened also so that I had a notepad open, but a thing that clicking its window active rolled also a line counter didn't compute.
The keyboard of the machine was on the floor, standing on its numpad side, was flipped against a lateral table leg that is shaped quite optimally.
-
Seems that I don't trust W11 very much.
Happened so that left mouse button remained on.
First I tried to release the stuck button off by "tapping" it few times, no luck.
Next I changed the whole rodent, button remained on.
Then searching more wisdom revealed that mouse driver can have issues.
After some driver settings the button stopped repeating.
What on earth did you do to get into such a mess? What mouse driver did you install? It sounds like some right old crap. The basic mouse driver built into Windows works perfectly. I can't say the same for Logitech drivers, which were troublesome on my machine.
I don't think your problem is with W11 - it's with crappy third party drivers.
-
If i understood him correctly, it wasn't a Windows issue at all.
But his trust in Windows was so low, that checking various things in windows was the first thing to try.
And in the end it turned out to be a stuck key causing the issue because a connected keyboard was upside down on the floor.
-
If i understood him correctly, it wasn't a Windows issue at all.
But his trust in Windows was so low, that checking various things in windows was the first thing to try.
And in the end it turned out to be a stuck key causing the issue because a connected keyboard was upside down on the floor.
Ah, perhaps I misunderstood. I thought the stuck key was only responsible for the weirdness in Notepad. The mouse problem was fixed by "some driver settings", apparently.
-
That was my assumption, stuck Enter was found later.
Active GUI button and stuck Enter is no different from a stuck mouse button.
New Notepad has also a cursor position counter.
I also read that some mouse problems include something not so compatible with more accuracy extra setting.
-
I also read that some mouse problems include something not so compatible with more accuracy extra setting.
Are you referencing optical mouse where a side button switches between two DPI modes?
-
Can be, my mouse is regular and localized OS has no "DPI" text, but third of top block of mouse settings is enhance mouse positioning and was altered.
No browser history links either, only first search page, but accuracy enhancement was an issue.
Funny thing is how fixated my head was.
Active Notepad window was constantly generating new lines and I was thinking mouse and its disability add-ons.
-
Can be, my mouse is regular and localized OS has no "DPI" text, but third of top block of mouse settings is enhance mouse positioning and was altered.
I think he is referring to the "Enhanced precision" setting, whereby the pointer slows down disproportionately when the mouse is moved slowly.
ISTR it was once referred to as "pointer acceleration", whereby the pointer speeds up disproportionately when the mouse is moved rapidly. Two different names for the same function.
It drives me mad, so I have it switched off. I much prefer a 1:1 mapping between the mouse position on its mat and the pointer position on the screen.
-
I use this Logi mouse, side button can switch between DPI modes.
Not related to the acceleration setting.
The driver for mouse allows you to map actions to the mouse buttons, etc.
https://www.logitechg.com/en-ca/shop/p/g305-lightspeed-wireless-gaming-mouse.910-005289 (https://www.logitechg.com/en-ca/shop/p/g305-lightspeed-wireless-gaming-mouse.910-005289)
-
I use this Logi mouse, side button can switch between DPI modes.
Not related to the acceleration setting.
The driver for mouse allows you to map actions to the mouse buttons, etc.
Only a year ago I built a new PC, running W11. I installed the Logitech drivers and app from the beginning because my mouse and keyboard are both wireless items from Logitech. For months the mouse felt laggy, and the pointer position seemed to have a slow update rate so it moved in a series of rapid jumps.
I effected a complete cure simply by uninstalling the Logitech app and drivers. Windows then found the two Bluetooth receivers, and apparently installed the relevant drivers. Now, the mouse and keyboard both work great, but there is something weird: it does not register the devices as a mouse and keyboard, but simply as Bluetooth receivers. Weird.
Experiences like this out me off Logitech software.
-
Only a year ago I built a new PC, running W11. I installed the Logitech drivers and app from the beginning because my mouse and keyboard are both wireless items from Logitech. For months the mouse felt laggy, and the pointer position seemed to have a slow update rate so it moved in a series of rapid jumps.
I effected a complete cure simply by uninstalling the Logitech app and drivers. Windows then found the two Bluetooth receivers, and apparently installed the relevant drivers. Now, the mouse and keyboard both work great, but there is something weird: it does not register the devices as a mouse and keyboard, but simply as Bluetooth receivers. Weird.
Experiences like this out me off Logitech software.
Did you install the full G suite bundle application? My mouse always worked as the basic mouse, never an issue there.
I had some issues with their app, which installed the driver. There was at that time a bunch of posts on various forums about issues with the G software. It just seemed mouse buttons, the non-std buttons mapped via app, would stop doing what they should do, then I would see the G software never loaded or was defunct, had to kill off and restart it, in some case do a reinstall. Without the app I didnt see a way to switch between DPI modes. For basic clicking the lower DPI, for CAD I use the higher DPI mode.
I am however not sure if Logi fixed that issue, it did seem every few days some updated version of the app installer was there to download.
I dont think it was ever a Windows issue.
-
Did you install the full G suite bundle application?
<SNIP>
I dont think it was ever a Windows issue.
Truth be told I can't remember. Based on what you've said, I am tempted to download their latest effort and see what it does.
-
See https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/hid-design-feature-analysis/msg6276716/#msg6276716 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/hid-design-feature-analysis/msg6276716/#msg6276716)
-
Did you install the full G suite bundle application?
<SNIP>
I dont think it was ever a Windows issue.
Truth be told I can't remember. Based on what you've said, I am tempted to download their latest effort and see what it does.
Ahh, "GHub" they call it. Seems like they update that page weekly. My GHub install is old now, will need to install the latest.
It's interesting software in context of just a mouse, but neat it can jump into your set modes depending on what app you launch.
https://www.logitechg.com/en-us/software/ghub (https://www.logitechg.com/en-us/software/ghub)
From this link we can see historical versions. Seems like they provide a "fixed" version almost monthly. The one I run now is mid 2024 version.
https://logitech-g-hub.en.uptodown.com/windows/versions (https://logitech-g-hub.en.uptodown.com/windows/versions)
-
OMG - I've just installed their latest effort: 'Options+', and it's a disaster.
I got stuck in a loop trying to register the keyboard. The software says "Press the pairing button on the device to put it into pairing mode". Well, there is no pairing button on the keyboard. I did try several of the keys, including F1 to F3 as advised by a post online, but nothing worked.
I gave up, and tried to register the mouse instead. It gave me the same prompt, but this time there is a pairing button. I held it until the little LED started flashing, and...... nothing. The Options+ app just sat there doing nothing, apparently waiting to detect the mouse.
In the end I gave up and shut down Options+. I noticed that the mouse and keyboard were both working, so out of curiosity I started Options+ again, and there they were: both devices installed, ready to be configured. I set "Scroll multiple lines" to 2, but it didn't work, so I went into the old 'Mouse properties' dialog and set it there. That worked.
So once again we have some of the worst software I've ever seen from a major vendor. Quite astonishing.
-
OMG - I've just installed their latest effort: 'Options+', and it's a disaster.
So once again we have some of the worst software I've ever seen from a major vendor. Quite astonishing.
My G mouse does not need any pairing, it just works w/ or w/o GHub.
When I install GHub the mouse is seen in it's list and I can then assign (map) buttons. W/o GHub the mouse is a basic mouse.
So maybe try G series hardware and GHub ?
Options+ is something different. Maybe a compatibility issue?
https://www.logitech.com/en-ca/software/logi-options-plus#faqs (https://www.logitech.com/en-ca/software/logi-options-plus#faqs)
But certainly not a Windows issue.
-
As I mentioned earlier, the mouse and keyboard were visible to Windows all along, because they both worked just fine. For some reason Logitech's latest effort - Options+ - couldn't see them and requested pairing. That led to a doom-loop whereby Options+ refused to advance from the pairing dialog, and I had to shut it down.
You said Options+ is "different", which is obviously true. Logitech says Options+ is for "personal and professional" users, whereas G Hub is for gamers. Options+ is their latest app for configuring their hardware products, and it appears to be rubbish.
-
What version did you use? If it's later than 8.54.161 then it is shit and you should uninstall completely and then install 8.54.161, which works OK with the mouse. Don't forget to disable updates as soon as it starts up!