How is Microsoft planning on making money from the future forced mothership login requirement?

[Andy Burnelli]

The question for intelligent people is...
*How does M$ plan on making money off of forced Win11 mothership logins?*

In a recent Windows 11 thread, it appears Microsoft is going the way of
Apple by forcibly requiring users to maintain a login to the mothership.

That means only Android, of all the major common consumer operating systems,
does _not_ require periodic logging into the mothership moving forward.

The question here is only _how_ does Microsoft plan on making money by
the user of that data which Microsoft (& Apple) forcibly collect from users?

Let's hope Microsoft doesn't take it to the level of the Apple
"walled garden", where, if you refuse to log in to the iOS mothership
periodically, Apple will literally lock up your device
(unilaterally making your own device completely unusable to you).
<https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>

Given Microsoft is planning to follow Apple, the potential of Microsoft
of permanently disabling your device simply for not _re_ validating yourself,
is distinctly possible. (Clearly Apple already requires _re_ validation!)
<https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>

Microsoft, like Apple, has the power to deny access to your own devices!
<https://i.postimg.cc/g008YhxP/appleid02.jpg>

If you try to log in using VPN, M$ can even disable your Internet account!
<https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/8zSvshQf/appleid04.jpg>

Notice, in addition to collecting billions of bits of data on you,
that's a lot of power you're handing to the likes of Microsoft
(& Apple), is it not?

We _know_ Apple does it (if you don't stay completely inside the
walled garden); so lockout capability isn't going to be unknown
to Microsoft.

Will Microsoft do it?
I don't know...

Still... the question is valid from an adult perspective, is it not?
*How can M$ make money off of _requiring_ a forced mothership login?*
--
REFERENCES:
The iKooks will deny Apple does what Apple does; but that's only because
they _hate_ what Apple does (so they brazenly deny even what Apple admits).
<https://www.payetteforward.com/does-apple-track-you-on-iphone-heres-truth/>
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-data-collection-stored-request/>
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/06/01/here-is-all-of-the-data-apple-has-about-you>
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/05/04/asked-apple-everything-had-me-heres-what-got/558362002/>
How is Microsoft planning on making money from the future forced mothership login requirement?

[Big Al]

On 2/19/22 14:37, this is what Andy Burnelli wrote:
> That means only Android, of all the major common consumer operating systems,
> does _not_ require periodic logging into the mothership moving forward.

Linux has no mothership either. You pick a name and password and it can be most anything.

[Bill]

Here is a link to their annual report:
https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar21/index.html

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-19 2:37 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> The question for intelligent people is... *How does M$ plan on making
> money off of forced Win11 mothership logins?*
>
> In a recent Windows 11 thread, it appears Microsoft is going the way of
> Apple by forcibly requiring users to maintain a login to the mothership.
> That means only Android, of all the major common consumer operating
> systems,
> does _not_ require periodic logging into the mothership moving forward.
>
> The question here is only _how_ does Microsoft plan on making money by
> the user of that data which Microsoft (& Apple) forcibly collect from
> users?

It's pretty clear how and Microsoft is generally very honest about it.
An advertising ID is beneficial to the user because they only get the
ads which might actually interest them, beneficial to the advertiser
because they target the right users with the right ads and beneficial to
the developer because they can get paid for their labour all the while
seemingly giving something away for free to the user. People resist it,
but it's clear that it's not as bad as they think all things considered.

> Let's hope Microsoft doesn't take it to the level of the Apple "walled
> garden", where, if you refuse to log in to the iOS mothership
> periodically, Apple will literally lock up your device (unilaterally
> making your own device completely unusable to you).
> <https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>

They don't want a person other than the person who purchased the
hardware to use it. It's understandable as a security precaution. If I'm
not mistaken, they also encrypt by default and won't let an outsider get
into the user data of an account locked in such a way. Is that something
you're against as well?

> Given Microsoft is planning to follow Apple, the potential of Microsoft
> of permanently disabling your device simply for not _re_ validating
> yourself,
> is distinctly possible. (Clearly Apple already requires _re_ validation!)
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>
> Microsoft, like Apple, has the power to deny access to your own devices!
> <https://i.postimg.cc/g008YhxP/appleid02.jpg>
>
> If you try to log in using VPN, M$ can even disable your Internet account!
> <https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/8zSvshQf/appleid04.jpg>
> Notice, in addition to collecting billions of bits of data on you,
> that's a lot of power you're handing to the likes of Microsoft (&
> Apple), is it not?

Apple has a tendency to lock your account if someone has been trying to
log into it with your password. When they detect fraudulent activity,
they take precautions to make sure that your data and potentially your
identity isn's stolen. They're great with this, to be honest.

For example, the password to my banking account was found on the dark
web recently. Nobody alerted me to it until I decided to log into the
account using my iPhone. Apple was the only one to alert me that I
should change, not McAfee, Microsoft or Bitwarden.

> We _know_ Apple does it (if you don't stay completely inside the walled
> garden); so lockout capability isn't going to be unknown to Microsoft.
>
> Will Microsoft do it?
> I don't know...
> Still... the question is valid from an adult perspective, is it not?
> *How can M$ make money off of _requiring_ a forced mothership login?*

I used to get upset by a lot of this stuff, mostly because the default
conservative position on such thing is "surveillance bad." However,
getting things at no charge unlike how it used to be where even
upgrading from a small version increment was likely to cost money
(Windows 3.0 to 3.1, for example and I believe that the Second Edition
of Windows 98 was also a paid upgrade from the original), I don't mind a
little bit of anonymous surveillance to pay for a product with would
otherwise set me back a few hundred. There should, however, be a way to
pay Microsoft in exchange for removing some of this functionality though.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

[Paul]

On 2/19/2022 2:37 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:

> The question for intelligent people is...
> *How does M$ plan on making money off of forced Win11 mothership logins?*

Two sources.

1) Click an icon in the W11 main menu, and it "asks for a credit card".
That's a Microsoft Store purchase. Perhaps you'll be silly enough
to click a Disney logo.

2) Correlation of your current OS installation, with even a single
previous Microsoft purchase, gives a street address to go with
that installation. Now, the Dominos knows my street address,
and how close I am to one of their pizza stores. Advertisers
pay good money for geolocation info.

Paul

[Paul in Houston TX]

Andy Burnelli wrote:
> The question for intelligent people is... *How does M$ plan on making
> money off of forced Win11 mothership logins?*

Many companies plan ahead... 5 year plan, 10 year plan, etc.
IMO, MS is gravitating toward dumb terminals with everything done in and
stored in the Cloud.
Think about Office 365 and MS gradually doing away with gigabyte
installs. It used to be that that you had to buy Office for a lot of
money and install on one comp but now you can cloud compute for a
monthly or yearly rental fee.

Why not have the O/S be a rental, too?

Star date 2350:
Captain Kurt: "Computer, set a course for the nearest Federation star
base."
Computer: "Sorry Captain, but the Federation's subscription to the MS
Nebula O/S expired yesterday."

[Roger Blake]

On 2022-02-19, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch> wrote:
> An advertising ID is beneficial to the user because they only get the
> ads which might actually interest them, beneficial to the advertiser
> because they target the right users with the right ads and beneficial to
> the developer because they can get paid for their labour all the while
> seemingly giving something away for free to the user. People resist it,
> but it's clear that it's not as bad as they think all things considered.

Not as bad? It's worse than that. Why the hell would I want me computer
operating system to even have advertising built into it as a concept
in the first place, let alone an "advertising ID".

> They don't want a person other than the person who purchased the
> hardware to use it. It's understandable as a security precaution. If I'm
> not mistaken, they also encrypt by default and won't let an outsider get
> into the user data of an account locked in such a way. Is that something
> you're against as well?

It is not understandable. People lend out and borrow computers. They sell
them or give them away when done with them.

I am against encrypting data automatically. It should be the choice of
the end user whether they want that or not.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-19 7:55 p.m., Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2022-02-19, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch> wrote:
>> An advertising ID is beneficial to the user because they only get the
>> ads which might actually interest them, beneficial to the advertiser
>> because they target the right users with the right ads and beneficial to
>> the developer because they can get paid for their labour all the while
>> seemingly giving something away for free to the user. People resist it,
>> but it's clear that it's not as bad as they think all things considered.
>
> Not as bad? It's worse than that. Why the hell would I want me computer
> operating system to even have advertising built into it as a concept
> in the first place, let alone an "advertising ID".

Would a football fan who likes to try out new beers find the commercials
during a match more tolerable if they were for all sorts of new beers?
That's sort of the thinking behind an advertising ID: they know that you
don't like ads so they are ensuring that the ones you are forced to see
are at least tolerable because they're related to your desires.

>> They don't want a person other than the person who purchased the
>> hardware to use it. It's understandable as a security precaution. If I'm
>> not mistaken, they also encrypt by default and won't let an outsider get
>> into the user data of an account locked in such a way. Is that something
>> you're against as well?
>
> It is not understandable. People lend out and borrow computers. They sell
> them or give them away when done with them.
>
> I am against encrypting data automatically. It should be the choice of
> the end user whether they want that or not.

Considering how most people use laptops and those kinds of computers are
not hard to steal, it makes sense to turn encryption on by default to
protect your data and prevent something like identity theft. They're
securing by default because they know that some users would not enable
encryption because it might take an extra second or two to boot. Yes,
people are generally that stupid.

[Roger Blake]

On 2022-02-20, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch> wrote:
> Would a football fan who likes to try out new beers find the commercials
> during a match more tolerable if they were for all sorts of new beers?

It is not the job of an operating system to facilitate advertising. If
that's something the user desires that should be on an opt-in basis and
an addition run in userspace rather than part of the core OS.

I see hardly any ads on my PCs and the few that I do see have nothing to
do with my interests or anything I might have been doing on the internet.
I certainly don't see any advertising following me around that so many
people seem to experience.

> Considering how most people use laptops and those kinds of computers are
> not hard to steal, it makes sense to turn encryption on by default to
> protect your data and prevent something like identity theft. They're

This should be an opt-in, not a default. Say goodbye to ease of data recovery.

Sorry, I don't agree with Microsoft making these kinds of decisions for
end users. I'm very happy to have stopped using their products decades
ago myself, though for the moment I still support Windows for others.

[...w¡ñ§±¤ñ]

rabidR04CH wrote:
> On 2022-02-19 2:37 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote: (..snipped)

> I used to get upset by a lot of this stuff, mostly because the default
> conservative position on such thing is "surveillance bad." However,
> getting things at no charge unlike how it used to be where even
> upgrading from a small version increment was likely to cost money
> (Windows 3.0 to 3.1, for example and I believe that the Second Edition
> of Windows 98 was also a paid upgrade from the original), I don't mind a
> little bit of anonymous surveillance to pay for a product with would
> otherwise set me back a few hundred. There should, however, be a way to
> pay Microsoft in exchange for removing some of this functionality though.
>

Win98SE was initially OEM only(new pcs).
Shortly thereafter IE5 was available to the business and consume
community as an upgrade to IE4 - 98SE 'rebranded' as an interim release
was made available for W98 systems with/included in IE5 - the three
biggest features were better USB support, DVD support and Internet
Connection Sharing(two 98SE devices sharing the same internet connection)

--
...w¡ñ§±¤ñ

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-19 10:43 p.m., Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2022-02-20, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch> wrote:
>> Would a football fan who likes to try out new beers find the commercials
>> during a match more tolerable if they were for all sorts of new beers?
>
> It is not the job of an operating system to facilitate advertising. If
> that's something the user desires that should be on an opt-in basis and
> an addition run in userspace rather than part of the core OS.

For someone to want to opt-in, the company would have to offer something
at seemingly no charge. In this case, the operating system itself is
what's offered without fee. By accepting to use Windows, you opted in
and in exchange, you get free updates for as long as the company chooses
to support it.

> I see hardly any ads on my PCs and the few that I do see have nothing to
> do with my interests or anything I might have been doing on the internet.
> I certainly don't see any advertising following me around that so many
> people seem to experience.

Probably because you actively decided not to contribute to the
advertising ID the operating system wanted to configure for you when you
first installed Windows. Microsoft DOES allow you to say no, but you
still get ads which basically don't take your interests into
consideration. I hate ads as well and would generally prefer to block
them out by using a browser like Brave, but I also realize that by doing
so, even if I activate the ads, I'm not necessarily contributing to my
favourite sites. As such, I think it would suck for them to be robbed of
compensation for their labour. I'm trying not to be selfish by opting to
use Edge and by opting to have an advertising ID which helps everyone.

>> Considering how most people use laptops and those kinds of computers are
>> not hard to steal, it makes sense to turn encryption on by default to
>> protect your data and prevent something like identity theft. They're
>
> This should be an opt-in, not a default. Say goodbye to ease of data recovery.

Yes, but saying goodbye to the ease of data recovery is also saying
goodbye to the ease of stealing a person's identity. I'm all for that.

> Sorry, I don't agree with Microsoft making these kinds of decisions for
> end users. I'm very happy to have stopped using their products decades
> ago myself, though for the moment I still support Windows for others.

If you use Linux and are opting out of it, that's your prerogative. I
have no issue with that decision.

[rabidR04CH]

So the upgrade to IE5 turned a regular Windows 98 to SE? I don't recall
that being the case but that might be accurate.

[NotX]

On 2/19/22 19:15, rabidR04CH wrote:

[snip]

> Would a football fan who likes to try out new beers find the commercials
> during a match more tolerable if they were for all sorts of new beers?
> That's sort of the thinking behind an advertising ID: they know that you
> don't like ads so they are ensuring that the ones you are forced to see
> are at least tolerable because they're related to your desires.

Something there reminds me of a story about an escaped slave who was
recaptured and then given a choice of what body part he wants mangled as
punishment.

[snip]

[Bill]

Here is a link to a sort of interesting YouTube video I saw today,
"Windows 11 - 3 Months Later & Removing Microsoft's Spyware":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMQYyBvTJrM

It told me enough about Windows 11 to not like it (as I don't care for
"spyware"). YMMV.

[Mayayana]

"NotX" <not....@all.invalid> wrote

:) I'm surprised at how many people I see using that logic.
They can't be bothered to deal with privacy and security, so
they say they're glad the spying is being used to show them
relevant ads. I've hardly ever seen an ad for 20+ years. And
I don't even block ads from websites I visit. I just block a
handful of spyware/adware servers like Google/Doubleclick.

RabidRoach is unusually irrational and twisting facts. I know
I've seen him around before, but he really seems to be a
Microsoft shill. Or maybe he just likes to argue. He did say he's
rabid, after all.

[Joel]

"Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> RabidRoach is unusually irrational and twisting facts. I know
>I've seen him around before, but he really seems to be a
>Microsoft shill. Or maybe he just likes to argue. He did say he's
>rabid, after all.

He's actually pretty knowledgeable with computers. I've disagreed
with him on non-computer things, but I enjoy talking to him about
operating systems and software.

--
Joel Crump

[Roger Blake]

On 2022-02-20, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch> wrote:
> Probably because you actively decided not to contribute to the
> advertising ID the operating system wanted to configure for you when you
> first installed Windows.

I didn't install Windows (have not used it myself for over 20 years)
and the operating system I use does not have an advertisting ID. I find
the very concept to be unacceptable.

> Yes, but saying goodbye to the ease of data recovery is also saying
> goodbye to the ease of stealing a person's identity. I'm all for that.

It should be up to the end user to judge the risks for themselves
and make that choice. Whose computer is it, anyway?

If an unencrypted Windows system stops booting or has a dying drive that
is still somewhat accessible it is trivial to rescue the user's data. This
is something I have done many times over the years.

In the case of encrypted Windows systems I would tell people to take it
to someone else if they need data recovered. I can't be bothered to jump
through whatever hoops (if any) Microsoft has provided for recovery in
such situations.

[Mayayana]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote

| > RabidRoach is unusually irrational and twisting facts. I know
| >I've seen him around before, but he really seems to be a
| >Microsoft shill. Or maybe he just likes to argue. He did say he's
| >rabid, after all.
|
|
| He's actually pretty knowledgeable with computers. I've disagreed
| with him on non-computer things, but I enjoy talking to him about
| operating systems and software.
|

I could imagine that. But most of what he says
is not true. He wants to fit his intended message.
Which really seems to be the message of a Microsoft
shill.

For instance, claiming that Netscape was a failure;
that spying is anonymous; that you control your
computer. It's all nonsense or partial truth. For someone
to say they don't mind spyware is one thing. To pretend
it's not really spying is either naive or lying.

[Joel]

Paranoid.

--
Joel Crump

[rabidR04CH]

I'm not a shill for anything.

As for "twisting facts," feel free to tell me what I've twisted instead
of just attacking without any kind of reference.

[Bill]

That is short sided to say that.

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-20 6:00 p.m., Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2022-02-20, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch> wrote:
>> Probably because you actively decided not to contribute to the
>> advertising ID the operating system wanted to configure for you when you
>> first installed Windows.
>
> I didn't install Windows (have not used it myself for over 20 years)
> and the operating system I use does not have an advertisting ID. I find
> the very concept to be unacceptable.

It's not ideal, but it's acceptable in a realm where everyone agrees
that advertisements are inevitable.

>> Yes, but saying goodbye to the ease of data recovery is also saying
>> goodbye to the ease of stealing a person's identity. I'm all for that.
>
> It should be up to the end user to judge the risks for themselves
> and make that choice. Whose computer is it, anyway?
>
> If an unencrypted Windows system stops booting or has a dying drive that
> is still somewhat accessible it is trivial to rescue the user's data. This
> is something I have done many times over the years.
>
> In the case of encrypted Windows systems I would tell people to take it
> to someone else if they need data recovered. I can't be bothered to jump
> through whatever hoops (if any) Microsoft has provided for recovery in
> such situations.

Admittedly, encryption is going to be a serious issue if the hardware
becomes faulty. Anyone who trusts that Windows will warn them before
disasters occurs is quickly going to learn how poor Microsoft's tools
are at detecting that. If I weren't using Linux at the time that one of
my hard disks was about to die, I would have lost a crapload of
important data.

Still, if that data is retrievable by you, it is retrievable by just
about anyone else. If that's fine by you, you might as well disable the
encryption (and you CAN do so). Otherwise, leave it untouched for
obvious reasons.

[rabidR04CH]

You're stupidly adding content I never referred to. No wonder I'm
"irrational" to you.

Clearly, Netscape was successful at first. However, we were referring to
the time when Netscape was competing against Internet Explorer in
Windows 95. By then, IE was stable and generally worked well with all
sites whereas Netscape was only good _initially_ and quickly stopped
loading sites right because FAT.DB grew exponentially and nobody knew
that you could fix most issues by deleting it. Netscape users basically
lost the ability to browse the web UNLESS they switched to IE. This was
release 4.7x which is also where it became clear that they were going to
lose the war to Microsoft.

They were soon gobbled up by AOL and released Netscape 6 which _no one_
used because it was slow, even on the best hardware of the time, and did
nothing to block Internet ads. It became completely irrelevant as a
company soon thereafter.

[Ant]

In alt.comp.microsoft.windows rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch> wrote:

> On 2022-02-19 11:57 p.m., ...w♂妤比 wrote:
> > rabidR04CH wrote:
> >> On 2022-02-19 2:37 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote: (..snipped)
> >> I used to get upset by a lot of this stuff, mostly because the default
> >> conservative position on such thing is "surveillance bad." However,
> >> getting things at no charge unlike how it used to be where even
> >> upgrading from a small version increment was likely to cost money
> >> (Windows 3.0 to 3.1, for example and I believe that the Second Edition
> >> of Windows 98 was also a paid upgrade from the original), I don't mind
> >> a little bit of anonymous surveillance to pay for a product with would
> >> otherwise set me back a few hundred. There should, however, be a way
> >> to pay Microsoft in exchange for removing some of this functionality
> >> though.
> >>
> >
> > Win98SE was initially OEM only(new pcs).
> > Shortly thereafter IE5 was available to the business and consume
> > community as an upgrade to IE4 - 98SE 'rebranded' as an interim release
> > was made available for W98 systems with/included in IE5 - the three
> > biggest features were better USB support, DVD support and Internet
> > Connection Sharing(two 98SE devices sharing the same internet connection)

> So the upgrade to IE5 turned a regular Windows 98 to SE? I don't recall
> that being the case but that might be accurate.

Yeah, that didn't happen.
--
GG, Beijing! :D Incoming winter and slammy times again. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

[Ant]

What about W10? :P

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-21 00:39, Ant wrote:
> In alt.comp.microsoft.windows rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch> wrote:

>> On 2022-02-19 11:57 p.m., ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ wrote:
>>> rabidR04CH wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-19 2:37 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote: (..snipped)
>>>> I used to get upset by a lot of this stuff, mostly because the default
>>>> conservative position on such thing is "surveillance bad." However,
>>>> getting things at no charge unlike how it used to be where even
>>>> upgrading from a small version increment was likely to cost money
>>>> (Windows 3.0 to 3.1, for example and I believe that the Second Edition
>>>> of Windows 98 was also a paid upgrade from the original), I don't mind
>>>> a little bit of anonymous surveillance to pay for a product with would
>>>> otherwise set me back a few hundred. There should, however, be a way
>>>> to pay Microsoft in exchange for removing some of this functionality
>>>> though.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Win98SE was initially OEM only(new pcs).
>>> Shortly thereafter IE5 was available to the business and consume
>>> community as an upgrade to IE4 - 98SE 'rebranded' as an interim release
>>> was made available for W98 systems with/included in IE5 - the three
>>> biggest features were better USB support, DVD support and Internet
>>> Connection Sharing(two 98SE devices sharing the same internet connection)
>
>> So the upgrade to IE5 turned a regular Windows 98 to SE? I don't recall
>> that being the case but that might be accurate.
>
> Yeah, that didn't happen.

Thanks for the clarification. That didn't sound plausible to me either.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3

[Joel]

Yeah, I had Win98 on the ancient computer I used before the Win2000
computer, and it never got updated to 98 SE. It originally had one of
the Win95 releases that was newer for OEMs (it was a custom built
machine from a local shop), upgraded to the original 98.

--
Joel Crump

[rabidR04CH]

I recall having both the first and second releases of Windows 98. In
fact, I _still_ have them and I remember that I would always install the
second release not because it was prettier or whatever but because it
simply worked better. I _could_ have installed the first release and
just upgraded it, but I don't recall that even being an option. As far
as I know, if you have the first release and wanted SE, you had to go
out and buy it.

Such practises are no longer the norm and Microsoft will upgrade a first
edition to the second at no charge. Most likely, it is because they are
being compensated in some way from the advertisements and advertising ID
in Windows. I doubt they'd readily give it away otherwise.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3

"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29

[Joel]

rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch> wrote:

>> Yeah, I had Win98 on the ancient computer I used before the Win2000
>> computer, and it never got updated to 98 SE. It originally had one of
>> the Win95 releases that was newer for OEMs (it was a custom built
>> machine from a local shop), upgraded to the original 98.
>
>I recall having both the first and second releases of Windows 98. In
>fact, I _still_ have them and I remember that I would always install the
>second release not because it was prettier or whatever but because it
>simply worked better. I _could_ have installed the first release and
>just upgraded it, but I don't recall that even being an option. As far
>as I know, if you have the first release and wanted SE, you had to go
>out and buy it.

As I remember it, there was a step up edition you could buy, but it
wasn't a free update, yes.

>Such practises are no longer the norm and Microsoft will upgrade a first
>edition to the second at no charge. Most likely, it is because they are
>being compensated in some way from the advertisements and advertising ID
>in Windows. I doubt they'd readily give it away otherwise.

Well, the thing is that they only sell you your license for the
machine once (which is most often a preinstalled OEM license). My
purchase of Win10 entitles me to Win11 (and presumably a future
version, if it still supports my hardware).

--
Joel Crump

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-21 09:03, Joel wrote:
> rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch> wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, I had Win98 on the ancient computer I used before the Win2000
>>> computer, and it never got updated to 98 SE. It originally had one of
>>> the Win95 releases that was newer for OEMs (it was a custom built
>>> machine from a local shop), upgraded to the original 98.
>>
>> I recall having both the first and second releases of Windows 98. In
>> fact, I _still_ have them and I remember that I would always install the
>> second release not because it was prettier or whatever but because it
>> simply worked better. I _could_ have installed the first release and
>> just upgraded it, but I don't recall that even being an option. As far
>> as I know, if you have the first release and wanted SE, you had to go
>> out and buy it.
>
>
> As I remember it, there was a step up edition you could buy, but it
> wasn't a free update, yes.

On Microsoft's part, that was simply unethical, especially since 98
didn't work all too well in comparison to 98SE.

>> Such practises are no longer the norm and Microsoft will upgrade a first
>> edition to the second at no charge. Most likely, it is because they are
>> being compensated in some way from the advertisements and advertising ID
>> in Windows. I doubt they'd readily give it away otherwise.
>
> Well, the thing is that they only sell you your license for the
> machine once (which is most often a preinstalled OEM license). My
> purchase of Win10 entitles me to Win11 (and presumably a future
> version, if it still supports my hardware).

Chances are that it will support your hardware. They had to find ways to
lock out some hardware from 11 but it probably won't be all that easy
going forward.

[Joel]

rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch> wrote:

>>> I recall having both the first and second releases of Windows 98. In
>>> fact, I _still_ have them and I remember that I would always install the
>>> second release not because it was prettier or whatever but because it
>>> simply worked better. I _could_ have installed the first release and
>>> just upgraded it, but I don't recall that even being an option. As far
>>> as I know, if you have the first release and wanted SE, you had to go
>>> out and buy it.
>>
>> As I remember it, there was a step up edition you could buy, but it
>> wasn't a free update, yes.
>
>On Microsoft's part, that was simply unethical, especially since 98
>didn't work all too well in comparison to 98SE.

It is curious that they had so many different editions of the 9x line,
rather than continually updating like they do now. But I guess
distribution of software was just different, back then.

>>> Such practises are no longer the norm and Microsoft will upgrade a first
>>> edition to the second at no charge. Most likely, it is because they are
>>> being compensated in some way from the advertisements and advertising ID
>>> in Windows. I doubt they'd readily give it away otherwise.
>>
>> Well, the thing is that they only sell you your license for the
>> machine once (which is most often a preinstalled OEM license). My
>> purchase of Win10 entitles me to Win11 (and presumably a future
>> version, if it still supports my hardware).
>
>Chances are that it will support your hardware. They had to find ways to
>lock out some hardware from 11 but it probably won't be all that easy
>going forward.

It depends how soon a new version comes along. It might be that they
keep updating 11 long enough that my hardware will become more
obsolete, before the new version arrives. But who knows, at this
point.

--
Joel Crump

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-21 09:28, Joel wrote:
> rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch> wrote:
>
>>>> I recall having both the first and second releases of Windows 98. In
>>>> fact, I _still_ have them and I remember that I would always install the
>>>> second release not because it was prettier or whatever but because it
>>>> simply worked better. I _could_ have installed the first release and
>>>> just upgraded it, but I don't recall that even being an option. As far
>>>> as I know, if you have the first release and wanted SE, you had to go
>>>> out and buy it.
>>>
>>> As I remember it, there was a step up edition you could buy, but it
>>> wasn't a free update, yes.
>>
>> On Microsoft's part, that was simply unethical, especially since 98
>> didn't work all too well in comparison to 98SE.
>
>
> It is curious that they had so many different editions of the 9x line,
> rather than continually updating like they do now. But I guess
> distribution of software was just different, back then.

Three version of Windows 95 as far as I know. You have the original, one
which added IE and then one which added USB support as far as I recall.

>>>> Such practises are no longer the norm and Microsoft will upgrade a first
>>>> edition to the second at no charge. Most likely, it is because they are
>>>> being compensated in some way from the advertisements and advertising ID
>>>> in Windows. I doubt they'd readily give it away otherwise.
>>>
>>> Well, the thing is that they only sell you your license for the
>>> machine once (which is most often a preinstalled OEM license). My
>>> purchase of Win10 entitles me to Win11 (and presumably a future
>>> version, if it still supports my hardware).
>>
>> Chances are that it will support your hardware. They had to find ways to
>> lock out some hardware from 11 but it probably won't be all that easy
>> going forward.
>
> It depends how soon a new version comes along. It might be that they
> keep updating 11 long enough that my hardware will become more
> obsolete, before the new version arrives. But who knows, at this
> point.

You're clearly referring to full updates rather than incremental ones.
What we know for sure is that if your machine can run 10, it will be
supported at least until 2025 and fully. If your machine can run Windows
11, it will supported until 2029, at the very least from what I've read,
probably longer if significant technological changes don't occur.

[Joel]

rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch> wrote:

>>>> As I remember it, there was a step up edition you could buy, but it
>>>> wasn't a free update, yes.
>>>
>>> On Microsoft's part, that was simply unethical, especially since 98
>>> didn't work all too well in comparison to 98SE.
>>
>> It is curious that they had so many different editions of the 9x line,
>> rather than continually updating like they do now. But I guess
>> distribution of software was just different, back then.
>
>Three version of Windows 95 as far as I know. You have the original, one
>which added IE and then one which added USB support as far as I recall.

Yeah, they updated it to support emerging technology, but didn't
provide that to people who were already running 95. It was just so
different from the way it is now.

>>>> Well, the thing is that they only sell you your license for the
>>>> machine once (which is most often a preinstalled OEM license). My
>>>> purchase of Win10 entitles me to Win11 (and presumably a future
>>>> version, if it still supports my hardware).
>>>
>>> Chances are that it will support your hardware. They had to find ways to
>>> lock out some hardware from 11 but it probably won't be all that easy
>>> going forward.
>>
>> It depends how soon a new version comes along. It might be that they
>> keep updating 11 long enough that my hardware will become more
>> obsolete, before the new version arrives. But who knows, at this
>> point.
>
>You're clearly referring to full updates rather than incremental ones.
>What we know for sure is that if your machine can run 10, it will be
>supported at least until 2025 and fully. If your machine can run Windows
>11, it will supported until 2029, at the very least from what I've read,
>probably longer if significant technological changes don't occur.

Right, Win11 will be supported for a long time, even if the next
version doesn't support my hardware. I'm cool with that.

--
Joel Crump

[Mayayana]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote

| > For instance, claiming that Netscape was a failure;
| >that spying is anonymous; that you control your
| >computer. It's all nonsense or partial truth. For someone
| >to say they don't mind spyware is one thing. To pretend
| >it's not really spying is either naive or lying.
|
| Paranoid.
|

Paranoid to say Netscape was a success before MS built
in IE and jazzed it up with ActiveX? Paranoid to say you
don't really control your computer if you're forced to
send your ID to MS, let them collect usage data, and let
them control the OS? Funny, my car, toaster and frig all
work fine without any intrusion. (Though data collection
in cars is a rising issue. As I write this, car companies are
lobbying hard to eliminate right-to-repair laws so that they
can exclusively profit not only from your repair needs but
also from data collection. It may not be long before Ford
is selling adspace to Nike to show to you when they see
that you're driving past the local mall. And you approve of
that...why? Because yu don't believe you have a right to
control your own car and access to information about your
whereabouts?

Or maybe you think it's paranoid to believe spying is
happening at all? I could give you oodles of links about spying
by cellphones, apps, TVs... about Google geofencing...
about the absurdity of calling data anonymized when the
whole point of collecting the data is to de-anonymize it....
But I know there's no reasoning with ostriches. I'm only
writing this to minimize your ability to mislead others with
your lazy misrepresentation of the facts.

[Joel]

I trust Microsoft. They know what's best for their customers. They're
a business, they produce a product that does what we need it to do. I
don't need to second-guess them.

--
Joel Crump

[Bill]

Wow... You must be far younger than I am.

[Ken Blake]

Yes, most licensees are OEM license, because most people buy prebuilt
computers that come with Windows.

>My
>purchase of Win10 entitles me to Win11

Yes.

>(and presumably a future
>version,

Maybe. That remains to be seen. None of us knows for sure what
Microsoft may do in the future.

[Joel]

Bill <none...@att.net> wrote:

>> I trust Microsoft. They know what's best for their customers. They're
>> a business, they produce a product that does what we need it to do. I
>> don't need to second-guess them.
>
>Wow... You must be far younger than I am.

I'll be 45 next week. But I am completely serious. Microsoft has no
motive to deprive us of anything useful. Their OS is king of the
desktop hill.

--
Joel Crump

[Ken Blake]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 09:28:44 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch> wrote:
>
>>>> I recall having both the first and second releases of Windows 98. In
>>>> fact, I _still_ have them and I remember that I would always install the
>>>> second release not because it was prettier or whatever but because it
>>>> simply worked better. I _could_ have installed the first release and
>>>> just upgraded it, but I don't recall that even being an option. As far
>>>> as I know, if you have the first release and wanted SE, you had to go
>>>> out and buy it.
>>>
>>> As I remember it, there was a step up edition you could buy, but it
>>> wasn't a free update, yes.
>>
>>On Microsoft's part, that was simply unethical, especially since 98
>>didn't work all too well in comparison to 98SE.
>
>
>It is curious that they had so many different editions of the 9x line,
>rather than continually updating like they do now. But I guess
>distribution of software was just different, back then.

I'm not sure that it has anything to with differences in the
distribution of software. Rather, whether to call a new release a new
version or just an update is a marketing decision. Maybe those in
charge of marketing have changed and have different views.

[Bill]

Well, they have a motive to keep you on "MS Lane"--and apparently,
whatever they are doing, it's working. Do you use the software or does
the software use you (think about it carefully)?

[Joel]

I just think that their OS has evolved over time. Win11 introduces
some changes, but I'm choosing to embrace that, to stay contemporary.

--
Joel Crump

[Bill]

What do you think it is "evolving (over time)" to do?

[Joel]

Bill <none...@att.net> wrote:

>>> Well, they have a motive to keep you on "MS Lane"--and apparently,
>>> whatever they are doing, it's working. Do you use the software or does
>>> the software use you (think about it carefully)?
>>
>> I just think that their OS has evolved over time. Win11 introduces
>> some changes, but I'm choosing to embrace that, to stay contemporary.
>
>What do you think it is "evolving (over time)" to do?

I think Microsoft is dealing with the realities of the current era.
Security is more of a focus than it used to be, for one thing. And
there are new paradigms for software as that evolves.

--
Joel Crump

[Ken Blake]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 12:17:18 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bill <none...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>> I trust Microsoft. They know what's best for their customers. They're
>>> a business, they produce a product that does what we need it to do. I
>>> don't need to second-guess them.
>>
>>Wow... You must be far younger than I am.
>
>
>I'll be 45 next week. But I am completely serious.

Microsoft's motive, like those of almost all companies, is to make
money. They might know what's best for their customers, but they don't
necessarily use that knowledge to decide what to do.

>Microsoft has no
>motive to deprive us of anything useful.

I they thing making a particular change will sell more copies of
something they have a motive to do it even if it deprives many of us
from something we consider useful.

>Their OS is king of the
>desktop hill.

Probably, but many Macintosh users might disagree with you.

[Joel]

Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:

>Microsoft's motive, like those of almost all companies, is to make
>money. They might know what's best for their customers, but they don't
>necessarily use that knowledge to decide what to do.
>
>>Microsoft has no
>>motive to deprive us of anything useful.
>
>I they thing making a particular change will sell more copies of
>something they have a motive to do it even if it deprives many of us
>from something we consider useful.

How would that sell more copies, though?

>>Their OS is king of the
>>desktop hill.
>
>Probably, but many Macintosh users might disagree with you.

macOS is weird, to me. Windows simply has the best interface, and
available software. I am happy that I came back home to Microsoft,
after using Linux for two years on my old computer.

--
Joel Crump

[Ken Blake]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 13:00:55 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bill <none...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Well, they have a motive to keep you on "MS Lane"--and apparently,
>>>> whatever they are doing, it's working. Do you use the software or does
>>>> the software use you (think about it carefully)?
>>>
>>> I just think that their OS has evolved over time. Win11 introduces
>>> some changes, but I'm choosing to embrace that, to stay contemporary.
>>
>>What do you think it is "evolving (over time)" to do?
>
>
>I think Microsoft is dealing with the realities of the current era.
>Security is more of a focus than it used to be, for one thing.

Yes. Another thing is the growing use of Android (and the apple
equivalent) devices.

[Ken Blake]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 13:14:24 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>
>>Microsoft's motive, like those of almost all companies, is to make
>>money. They might know what's best for their customers, but they don't
>>necessarily use that knowledge to decide what to do.
>>
>>>Microsoft has no
>>>motive to deprive us of anything useful.
>>
>>I they thing making a particular change will sell more copies of
>>something they have a motive to do it even if it deprives many of us
>>from something we consider useful.
>
>
>How would that sell more copies, though?

How would *what*?

>
>>>Their OS is king of the
>>>desktop hill.
>>
>>Probably, but many Macintosh users might disagree with you.
>
>
>macOS is weird, to me.

I know next to nothing about it, so I have no opinion, but my guess is
that if I spent a few weeks on a Macintosh, I'd probably agree with
you. Something different from what they're used would feel weird to
most people.

>Windows simply has the best interface, and
>available software.

Best? Yes, best to you, and also to me. But not everyone would agree
with us.

>I am happy that I came back home to Microsoft,
>after using Linux for two years on my old computer.

I never used Linux.

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-21 11:33, Joel wrote:
> rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch> wrote:
>
>>>>> As I remember it, there was a step up edition you could buy, but it
>>>>> wasn't a free update, yes.
>>>>
>>>> On Microsoft's part, that was simply unethical, especially since 98
>>>> didn't work all too well in comparison to 98SE.
>>>
>>> It is curious that they had so many different editions of the 9x line,
>>> rather than continually updating like they do now. But I guess
>>> distribution of software was just different, back then.
>>
>> Three version of Windows 95 as far as I know. You have the original, one
>> which added IE and then one which added USB support as far as I recall.
>
>
> Yeah, they updated it to support emerging technology, but didn't
> provide that to people who were already running 95. It was just so
> different from the way it is now.

They should have been available as upgrades that users could download
from Microsoft's site at the very least. The fact that they weren't
shows just how the company changed over the years. They are much better
than they were and I imagine that it is because they've monetized the
operating system more effectively.

>>>>> Well, the thing is that they only sell you your license for the
>>>>> machine once (which is most often a preinstalled OEM license). My
>>>>> purchase of Win10 entitles me to Win11 (and presumably a future
>>>>> version, if it still supports my hardware).
>>>>
>>>> Chances are that it will support your hardware. They had to find ways to
>>>> lock out some hardware from 11 but it probably won't be all that easy
>>>> going forward.
>>>
>>> It depends how soon a new version comes along. It might be that they
>>> keep updating 11 long enough that my hardware will become more
>>> obsolete, before the new version arrives. But who knows, at this
>>> point.
>>
>> You're clearly referring to full updates rather than incremental ones.
>> What we know for sure is that if your machine can run 10, it will be
>> supported at least until 2025 and fully. If your machine can run Windows
>> 11, it will supported until 2029, at the very least from what I've read,
>> probably longer if significant technological changes don't occur.
>
>
> Right, Win11 will be supported for a long time, even if the next
> version doesn't support my hardware. I'm cool with that.

There's always Linux! :)

[Joel]

Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:

>>>>Microsoft has no
>>>>motive to deprive us of anything useful.
>>>
>>>I they thing making a particular change will sell more copies of
>>>something they have a motive to do it even if it deprives many of us
>>>from something we consider useful.
>>
>>How would that sell more copies, though?
>
>How would *what*?

Removing useful features.

>>>>Their OS is king of the
>>>>desktop hill.
>>>
>>>Probably, but many Macintosh users might disagree with you.
>>
>>macOS is weird, to me.
>
>I know next to nothing about it, so I have no opinion, but my guess is
>that if I spent a few weeks on a Macintosh, I'd probably agree with
>you. Something different from what they're used would feel weird to
>most people.

I bought a MacBook 12 years ago, to give it a proper try. I ended up
completely replacing then-OS X with Win7. The Mac software is just
not intuitive to me.

>>Windows simply has the best interface, and
>>available software.
>
>Best? Yes, best to you, and also to me. But not everyone would agree
>with us.

Sure, but the numbers don't lie - Microsoft is dominant because it's
the most universal OS.

>>I am happy that I came back home to Microsoft,
>>after using Linux for two years on my old computer.
>
>I never used Linux.

In early 2019, Win10 had become a beta test, and Linux was a refuge.
But Win10, and now 11, got good again.

--
Joel Crump

[rabidR04CH]

Ok, that's just naive. While it isn't as bad as most people claim, there
is no real reason to trust Microsoft either. They're just as bad as
anyone else but getting somewhat better with time.

Let's not forget that Microoft Office changes your language to reflect
the latest "woke" trends. Let's not forget how they bribed their way
into becoming the standard when it was clearly that the OpenDocument
Format was going to be chosen...

However, it's amazing what Microsoft is offering, at a ridiculously low
price, as far as gaming goes. For less than the cost of Netflix, you get
access to all of Microsoft's stellar games and others. That, right
there, is a gigantic step in the right direction.

[knuttle]

If MS decides to take more control over its OS by forcing MS logon and
possibly going to a subscription service as it does for part of it
Office suite, MS will lose greater market share to other OS;s

Many computer are being sold to school kids (K-16), and people who are
buy a computer more for the recreational aspects that the business
aspect. The are not going to pay $1k for a computer knowing they are
going to continue to pay for the operating system on that computer.

[rabidR04CH]

I'll just bet that Joel is unaware of how Microsoft conspired to make
Windows 3.1 very unstable on PCs running DR-DOS and how they _might_
have been responsible for why Netscape ran so poorly from the 4.7x
editions on.

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-21 12:17, Joel wrote:
> Bill <none...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>> I trust Microsoft. They know what's best for their customers. They're
>>> a business, they produce a product that does what we need it to do. I
>>> don't need to second-guess them.
>>
>> Wow... You must be far younger than I am.
>
>
> I'll be 45 next week.

When's your birthday? Mine's February 24th.

> But I am completely serious. Microsoft has no
> motive to deprive us of anything useful. Their OS is king of the
> desktop hill.

Actually agreed here.

[Joel]

rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch> wrote:

>> I'll be 45 next week.
>
>When's your birthday? Mine's February 24th.

March 1st.

>> But I am completely serious. Microsoft has no
>> motive to deprive us of anything useful. Their OS is king of the
>> desktop hill.
>
>Actually agreed here.

Yeah, I love Linux too, but for a desktop machine, it's gotta be
Win11.

--
Joel Crump

[Joel]

I consider Microsoft reformed, though. They are for interoperability,
now.

--
Joel Crump

[Joel]

rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch> wrote:

>> Right, Win11 will be supported for a long time, even if the next
>> version doesn't support my hardware. I'm cool with that.
>
>There's always Linux! :)

I would try to obtain a new machine, if this one can't run the current
Windows.

--
Joel Crump

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-21 13:06, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 12:17:18 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bill <none...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> I trust Microsoft. They know what's best for their customers. They're
>>>> a business, they produce a product that does what we need it to do. I
>>>> don't need to second-guess them.
>>>
>>> Wow... You must be far younger than I am.
>>
>>
>> I'll be 45 next week. But I am completely serious.
>
> Microsoft's motive, like those of almost all companies, is to make
> money. They might know what's best for their customers, but they don't
> necessarily use that knowledge to decide what to do.

Agreed. Some of the decisions in 8.x were particularly mind-baffling but
the releases since have generally taken into consideration what users
want. That's not to say they're perfect: Windows 11 has gone bad to
deciding to hide my Start menu a split-second after I've pressed the
button in what will inevitably result in the Start menu no longer
opening like it did before I reset the PC.

>> Microsoft has no
>> motive to deprive us of anything useful.
>
> I they thing making a particular change will sell more copies of
> something they have a motive to do it even if it deprives many of us
> from something we consider useful.

I think the reason Windows machines sell more than Macs at the moment
has nothing to do with the quality of the OS as much as habit, similar
to what prompted people to buy PCs in the 1980s when competitors were
making much superior machines. They're always used PCs and Windows so
they'll probably always use PCs and Windows. MacOS is doing a much
better job for home and creative users but it's not always enough to
convince the general user.

>> Their OS is king of the
>> desktop hill.
>
> Probably, but many Macintosh users might disagree with you.

nospam is already frothing at the mouth.

I like the guy despite our disagreements but it's mostly because I don't
like zealots of any kind.

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-21 13:31, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 13:14:24 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:

< snip >

>>
>>>> Their OS is king of the
>>>> desktop hill.
>>>
>>> Probably, but many Macintosh users might disagree with you.
>>
>>
>> macOS is weird, to me.
>
> I know next to nothing about it, so I have no opinion, but my guess is
> that if I spent a few weeks on a Macintosh, I'd probably agree with
> you. Something different from what they're used would feel weird to
> most people.

It's different than Windows but not really weird. The way you install
and remove applications in it is very much superior to the way it's done
in Windows and you're not going to have to deal with malware in MacOS as
you would with Windows... or at least not to the same degree. For a home
user, the protections Apple offers while browsing, for backups and the
like are superior to what Microsoft offers by far as well.

>> Windows simply has the best interface, and
>> available software.
>
> Best? Yes, best to you, and also to me. But not everyone would agree
> with us.

It has the largest library of software which, by default, makes it the
best. This is one area where quantity is definitely to the user's
advantage because if one piece of software doesn't please them, there
are hundreds of others which might. Apple has less software and
therefore less choice but I'd say that the software Apple itself makes
and gives away for free is much better than that of Microsoft.

>> I am happy that I came back home to Microsoft,
>> after using Linux for two years on my old computer.
>
> I never used Linux.

You're not exactly missing much though it would have been beneficial for
you to at least learn how it works and get acquainted with the fairly
good open-source software most distributions are bundled with.

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-21 13:59, Joel wrote:
> rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch> wrote:
>
>>> I'll be 45 next week.
>>
>> When's your birthday? Mine's February 24th.
>
>
> March 1st.

As a fellow Piscean, you're safe from any kind of personal attacks. :)

>>> But I am completely serious. Microsoft has no
>>> motive to deprive us of anything useful. Their OS is king of the
>>> desktop hill.
>>
>> Actually agreed here.
>
> Yeah, I love Linux too, but for a desktop machine, it's gotta be
> Win11.

11 is indeed better than 10 but I'm still hoping my current installation
won't screw up on me with the Start menu garbage like the previous one did.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 2/21/22 10:16, rabidR04CH wrote:

[snip]

> Three version of Windows 95 as far as I know. You have the original, one
> which added IE and then one which added USB support as far as I recall.

Mine was OSR2, which introduced DOS7.1 / FAT32, with USB support.

[snip]

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Jesus said, 'Love your neighbors.' Well, I do love them. I love to kill
them." ["Nasty Nick," Croatian Policeman]

[Mayayana]

"knuttle" <keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

| If MS decides to take more control over its OS by forcing MS logon and
| possibly going to a subscription service as it does for part of it
| Office suite, MS will lose greater market share to other OS;s
|
| Many computer are being sold to school kids (K-16), and people who are
| buy a computer more for the recreational aspects that the business
| aspect. The are not going to pay $1k for a computer knowing they are
| going to continue to pay for the operating system on that computer.

You might be right. Chromebooks work if people
don't mind spying. I set up a Raspberry Pi 4 for
someone that's tha RPi, monitor, and bluetooth
keyboard/mouse. A whole Linux computer for $200.
It's very much adequate for basic needs.

[Roger Blake]

On 2022-02-21, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I love Linux too, but for a desktop machine, it's gotta be
> Win11.

Not for me. Linux on the desktop here for over 20 years. Windows 11
from what I can see is a nightmare. I have no desire to go where
Microsoft would lead me.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mayayana]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote

| Sure, but the numbers don't lie - Microsoft is dominant because it's
| the most universal OS.
|

Windows is now about 3/4 of desktops. It used to
be over 90%. They don't have a phone, so they're
only about 10% of device shipments and 30% of
online clients.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

Where they own the market is in corporate computing.
They've lost a lot with desktops, laptops, phones. Why?
Because their phones were crap and a lot of people moved
to Mac for convenience. I would never use a Mac myself,
but for people who just want to email, shop, and look hip
at Starbucks, Mac is it.

I don't expect MS are worried. Corporate have always been
their customer. SOHo is just icing on the cake. And now it's
an unpaid army of beta testing suckers. They're doing very well
with Azure. But they will lose share. The Windows niche is people
who really use a computer but don't want to tackle Linux, or
can't use the limited Linux software selection. The more
Windows becomes locked down, the less reason there will be
not to switch to Mac. With Mac "it just works".

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-21 4:41 p.m., Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 2/21/22 10:16, rabidR04CH wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Three version of Windows 95 as far as I know. You have the original,
>> one which added IE and then one which added USB support as far as I
>> recall.
>
> Mine was OSR2, which introduced DOS7.1 / FAT32, with USB support.
>
> [snip]

OK, so I might have gotten the order wrong. I figured the USB support
came after the IE bundling.


--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-21 8:02 p.m., Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2022-02-21, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, I love Linux too, but for a desktop machine, it's gotta be
>> Win11.
>
> Not for me. Linux on the desktop here for over 20 years. Windows 11
> from what I can see is a nightmare. I have no desire to go where
> Microsoft would lead me.

Windows for me is a necessity to play games. If I didn't play anything
anymore, I doubt that I would use anything other than Linux. I'm
comfortable enough with it to make it my daily operating system.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11

[Joel]

The desktop still has relevance to the consumer market. Microsoft is
nowhere near losing its dominance, there. Apple has made some
inroads, but its offerings are expensive, and simply don't have the
wealth of available software that Windows does.

--
Joel Crump

[Mayayana]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote

|
| The desktop still has relevance to the consumer market. Microsoft is
| nowhere near losing its dominance, there. Apple has made some
| inroads, but its offerings are expensive, and simply don't have the
| wealth of available software that Windows does.
|

The desktop is fading fast outside of office work. Even
college students now usually prefer laptops, so they can
work at Starbucks. And most of them are not computer
literate. Macs are expensive, it's true, but
their share is growing. A growing number of people only
need a phone and maybe an e-book reader. At my local
Staples store, there's a big table of Google-ish tablets.
There are also a few Windows laptops, but they're not cheap.
Desktops? I think they have 3. Shrunken Compaq or HP
crap or some such.

I write software and do web design. I wrote my own code editor.
I edit photos. I write a bit. I email. I manage business tasks like
writing out estimates and receipts, doing my taxes, etc. And I
spend a fair amount of time online, reading news and researching
ideas. I have maybe 35 VBScripts and HTAs on my desktop that
I use for all sorts of tasks. My computer is a customized workshop.

If Microsoft are going to force people into a spyware kiosk
system I'll be better off on Linux. I won't have the software or
usability of WinXP/7. But neither do Win10/11. I have a Win10
computer now. I only use it for Zoom. The woman I live with
uses it for Office 365, for her work, because Microsoft make
great efforts to ensure that their office file formats will break in
older software. There's nothing else I want Win10 for. It's
bloated, slow spyware. I've had a heck of a time just trying to
stop auto-updating. I think I've accomplished it, then I boot
to a hairpulling message that tells me to wait because Microsoft
is using my computer!

I can now have Linux on a Raspberry Pi, with ergonomic keyboard
and mouse, for a bit over $100. If trends keep up then I expect
that's what I'll end up using. I'll retire my workshop and only use
a computer for online reading/research and email.

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-22 08:39, Mayayana wrote:
> "Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> |
> | The desktop still has relevance to the consumer market. Microsoft is
> | nowhere near losing its dominance, there. Apple has made some
> | inroads, but its offerings are expensive, and simply don't have the
> | wealth of available software that Windows does.
> |
>
> The desktop is fading fast outside of office work. Even
> college students now usually prefer laptops, so they can
> work at Starbucks.

They all want to write the next great screenplay despite having no
imagination and even less life experience.

I would tell you that it's best to decide what you primarily intend to
use the computer for and then decide which operating system best suits
your needs. I have two machines: one is recent and intended for gaming
so it runs Windows where my collection is readily available; the other
_was_ a decent gaming laptop which is now too old to be so and has
become a Linux workstation. I could keep Windows 10 on it and use it
without issue until the EOL of the version but what's the point? Linux
has no such EOL.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29

[Ken Blake]

On 2022-02-22 08:39, Mayayana wrote:
> "Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> |
> | The desktop still has relevance to the consumer market. Microsoft is
> | nowhere near losing its dominance, there. Apple has made some
> | inroads, but its offerings are expensive, and simply don't have the
> | wealth of available software that Windows does.
> |
>
> The desktop is fading fast outside of office work. Even
> college students now usually prefer laptops, so they can
> work at Starbucks.

Good thing I'm not a college student. I hate Starbucks coffee and I
would never want a laptop except for traveling.

By the way, there were no laptops (or any kind of PCs) back when I was
a college student, but don't students take their laptops to classes
and use them there to take notes?

[Ken Blake]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 01:02:27 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
<rogb...@iname.invalid> wrote:

>On 2022-02-21, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, I love Linux too, but for a desktop machine, it's gotta be
>> Win11.
>
>Not for me. Linux on the desktop here for over 20 years.

That's fine. Each to his own.

For others, it's Macintosh, but for me it's Windows 11.

>Windows 11
>from what I can see is a nightmare.

You can undoubtedly find many people who would agree with that (there
are always many people who find any new version of Windows--or other
software--to be a nightmare), but not me. I've been using it since the
day it was released, and it's been fine

[Ken Blake]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 21:31:20 -0500, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch> wrote:

>On 2022-02-21 8:02 p.m., Roger Blake wrote:
>> On 2022-02-21, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah, I love Linux too, but for a desktop machine, it's gotta be
>>> Win11.
>>
>> Not for me. Linux on the desktop here for over 20 years. Windows 11
>> from what I can see is a nightmare. I have no desire to go where
>> Microsoft would lead me.
>
>Windows for me is a necessity to play games.

I'll just add to my previous message in this thread. I like Windows
fine, but I play no games.

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-22 10:55, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> On 2022-02-22 08:39, Mayayana wrote:
>> "Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> |
>> | The desktop still has relevance to the consumer market. Microsoft is
>> | nowhere near losing its dominance, there. Apple has made some
>> | inroads, but its offerings are expensive, and simply don't have the
>> | wealth of available software that Windows does.
>> |
>>
>> The desktop is fading fast outside of office work. Even
>> college students now usually prefer laptops, so they can
>> work at Starbucks.
>
>
> Good thing I'm not a college student. I hate Starbucks coffee and I
> would never want a laptop except for traveling.

I just recently tasted Starbucks coffee for the first time and I have to
say that it is some of the worst I've ever had, down there with Kicking
Horse and Folgers.

> By the way, there were no laptops (or any kind of PCs) back when I was
> a college student, but don't students take their laptops to classes
> and use them there to take notes?

Taking notes with them is much more convenient than a pad and paper,
that's for sure. I speak from experience having bought an iBook in my
last year of University.

[rabidR04CH]

Absolutely correct. I wanted to be able to say that Windows 11 was fine
for me as well and it is definitely better than 10, but since it keeps
returning some idiotic Star menu issue, I can't say that it's perfect.
You can't imagine how annoying it is to press the Start button and not
have the menu appear or only appear after you click like 50 times in a
row. I don't know what causes it but there doesn't seem to be a way to
fix it... not sfc, no restorehealth, no settings, no software removal, etc..

Here's a link about the problem but none of the fixes actually ever work.

<https://techpp.com/2022/02/10/windows-11-start-menu-not-working-fix/>

[nospam]

In article <7l1a1hl2sbq4qj8cf...@4ax.com>, Ken Blake

<K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:

> By the way, there were no laptops (or any kind of PCs) back when I was
> a college student, but don't students take their laptops to classes
> and use them there to take notes?

much more than just take notes, including whatever projects they are
working on.

[Ken Blake]

[Ken Blake]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:17:47 -0500, rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch> wrote:

>On 2022-02-22 10:55, Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>> On 2022-02-22 08:39, Mayayana wrote:
>>> "Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>> |
>>> | The desktop still has relevance to the consumer market. Microsoft is
>>> | nowhere near losing its dominance, there. Apple has made some
>>> | inroads, but its offerings are expensive, and simply don't have the
>>> | wealth of available software that Windows does.
>>> |
>>>
>>> The desktop is fading fast outside of office work. Even
>>> college students now usually prefer laptops, so they can
>>> work at Starbucks.
>>
>>
>> Good thing I'm not a college student. I hate Starbucks coffee and I
>> would never want a laptop except for traveling.
>
>I just recently tasted Starbucks coffee for the first time and I have to
>say that it is some of the worst I've ever had, down there with Kicking
>Horse and Folgers.

I don't know Kicking Horse or Folgers, but to me, Starbucks is not
"some of the worst," it's *THE* worst I've ever had.

>> By the way, there were no laptops (or any kind of PCs) back when I was
>> a college student, but don't students take their laptops to classes
>> and use them there to take notes?
>
>Taking notes with them is much more convenient than a pad and paper,
>that's for sure. I speak from experience having bought an iBook in my
>last year of University.

That's what I thought. When I was secretary of a local group, I used
to take notes for the minutes of our board meetings on my laptop.

[Ken Blake]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:21:07 -0500, rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch> wrote:

>On 2022-02-22 11:00, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 01:02:27 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
>> <rogb...@iname.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-02-21, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yeah, I love Linux too, but for a desktop machine, it's gotta be
>>>> Win11.
>>>
>>> Not for me. Linux on the desktop here for over 20 years.
>>
>>
>> That's fine. Each to his own.
>>
>> For others, it's Macintosh, but for me it's Windows 11.
>>
>>
>>> Windows 11
>>>from what I can see is a nightmare.
>>
>>
>> You can undoubtedly find many people who would agree with that (there
>> are always many people who find any new version of Windows--or other
>> software--to be a nightmare), but not me. I've been using it since the
>> day it was released, and it's been fine
>
>Absolutely correct.

Absolutely correct for me, and apparently for you as well, but not for
everybody.

>I wanted to be able to say that Windows 11 was fine
>for me as well and it is definitely better than 10,

I agree, but again, not everyone would.

>but since it keeps
>returning some idiotic Star menu issue, I can't say that it's perfect.

Of course it's not perfect. No piece of software is perfect. If I were
in charge at Microsoft, I'd make umpteen changes. You would make
umpteen other changes, a third person would make still others... We're
all different, and what's perfect for one of us isn't perfect for
others.

>You can't imagine how annoying it is to press the Start button and not
>have the menu appear or only appear after you click like 50 times in a
>row. I don't know what causes it but there doesn't seem to be a way to
>fix it... not sfc, no restorehealth, no settings, no software removal, etc..

No such problem here.

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-22 12:02, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:17:47 -0500, rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-22 10:55, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2022-02-22 08:39, Mayayana wrote:
>>>> "Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>> |
>>>> | The desktop still has relevance to the consumer market. Microsoft is
>>>> | nowhere near losing its dominance, there. Apple has made some
>>>> | inroads, but its offerings are expensive, and simply don't have the
>>>> | wealth of available software that Windows does.
>>>> |
>>>>
>>>> The desktop is fading fast outside of office work. Even
>>>> college students now usually prefer laptops, so they can
>>>> work at Starbucks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Good thing I'm not a college student. I hate Starbucks coffee and I
>>> would never want a laptop except for traveling.
>>
>> I just recently tasted Starbucks coffee for the first time and I have to
>> say that it is some of the worst I've ever had, down there with Kicking
>> Horse and Folgers.
>
>
> I don't know Kicking Horse or Folgers, but to me, Starbucks is not
> "some of the worst," it's *THE* worst I've ever had.

If ever you're forced to drink Kicking Horse, expect a total lack of
flavour. As for Folgers, there's a reason it's usually the least
expensive coffee you'll find in the supermarket: none of its flavours
should be anywhere near anything calling itself coffee.

>>> By the way, there were no laptops (or any kind of PCs) back when I was
>>> a college student, but don't students take their laptops to classes
>>> and use them there to take notes?
>>
>> Taking notes with them is much more convenient than a pad and paper,
>> that's for sure. I speak from experience having bought an iBook in my
>> last year of University.
>
>
> That's what I thought. When I was secretary of a local group, I used
> to take notes for the minutes of our board meetings on my laptop.

It's a lot faster than writing, that's for sure and you're not likely to
suffer wrist strain like I used to when typing as opposed to writing.

[Mayayana]

"Ken Blake" <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote

>
Good thing I'm not a college student. I hate Starbucks coffee and I
would never want a laptop except for traveling.
>

Me, too. Starbucks originally had high quality coffee, but
I didn't like it because it was burnt. Today it's just watery. But
I rarely buy any food out, anyway. My own cooking --
and coffee -- are better, cheaper, and don't produce non-recyclable
debris.

>
By the way, there were no laptops (or any kind of PCs) back when I was
a college student, but don't students take their laptops to classes
and use them there to take notes?
>

Apparently. From what I can gather, they're forced to buy
MS Office. Or these days they're assigned to work either
from Google Docs or Office 365. It's mostly online.

[Ken Blake]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 12:10:26 -0500, rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch> wrote:

>On 2022-02-22 12:02, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:17:47 -0500, rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-02-22 10:55, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-22 08:39, Mayayana wrote:
>>>>> "Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> |
>>>>> | The desktop still has relevance to the consumer market. Microsoft is
>>>>> | nowhere near losing its dominance, there. Apple has made some
>>>>> | inroads, but its offerings are expensive, and simply don't have the
>>>>> | wealth of available software that Windows does.
>>>>> |
>>>>>
>>>>> The desktop is fading fast outside of office work. Even
>>>>> college students now usually prefer laptops, so they can
>>>>> work at Starbucks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good thing I'm not a college student. I hate Starbucks coffee and I
>>>> would never want a laptop except for traveling.
>>>
>>> I just recently tasted Starbucks coffee for the first time and I have to
>>> say that it is some of the worst I've ever had, down there with Kicking
>>> Horse and Folgers.
>>
>>
>> I don't know Kicking Horse or Folgers, but to me, Starbucks is not
>> "some of the worst," it's *THE* worst I've ever had.
>
>If ever you're forced to drink Kicking Horse, expect a total lack of
>flavour.

That sounds much better than Starbucks. The problem with Starbucks is
not lack of flavor, it's *too much* flavor, and that flavor is burnt
and terrible.

>As for Folgers, there's a reason it's usually the least
>expensive coffee you'll find in the supermarket: none of its flavours
>should be anywhere near anything calling itself coffee.
>
>>>> By the way, there were no laptops (or any kind of PCs) back when I was
>>>> a college student, but don't students take their laptops to classes
>>>> and use them there to take notes?
>>>
>>> Taking notes with them is much more convenient than a pad and paper,
>>> that's for sure. I speak from experience having bought an iBook in my
>>> last year of University.
>>
>>
>> That's what I thought. When I was secretary of a local group, I used
>> to take notes for the minutes of our board meetings on my laptop.
>
>It's a lot faster than writing, that's for sure

If you say that, you must be a touch typist. I'm not.

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-22 12:27, Mayayana wrote:
> "Ken Blake" <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote
>
>
>>
> Good thing I'm not a college student. I hate Starbucks coffee and I
> would never want a laptop except for traveling.
>>
> Me, too. Starbucks originally had high quality coffee, but
> I didn't like it because it was burnt. Today it's just watery. But
> I rarely buy any food out, anyway. My own cooking --
> and coffee -- are better, cheaper, and don't produce non-recyclable
> debris.

All I can say for sure on my side is that Starbucks coffee was anything
but impressive and I have to wonder why people insist, daily, to spend
money there.

>>
> By the way, there were no laptops (or any kind of PCs) back when I was
> a college student, but don't students take their laptops to classes
> and use them there to take notes?
>>
>
> Apparently. From what I can gather, they're forced to buy
> MS Office. Or these days they're assigned to work either
> from Google Docs or Office 365. It's mostly online.

To collaborate on documents, what Google and Microsoft offer to
educational establishments is incomparable. There is nothing open-source
that compares favorably so I can imagine why they use it. Additionally,
Microsoft and Google benefit by selling these services at a small fee
because by the end of their university years, the students will have
written a bunch of documents in their format and gotten accustomed to
the interface of the software, rendering them unwilling to even consider
the competition.

[rabidR04CH]

I don't recall what was wrong with it but know very well that it gave me
pain to know that I had to drink it. I could have thrown it out, but I
paid for it and wanted something with caffeine. I imagine the watery
dirt Starbucks calls coffee at least has caffeine.

>> As for Folgers, there's a reason it's usually the least
>> expensive coffee you'll find in the supermarket: none of its flavours
>> should be anywhere near anything calling itself coffee.
>>
>>>>> By the way, there were no laptops (or any kind of PCs) back when I was
>>>>> a college student, but don't students take their laptops to classes
>>>>> and use them there to take notes?
>>>>
>>>> Taking notes with them is much more convenient than a pad and paper,
>>>> that's for sure. I speak from experience having bought an iBook in my
>>>> last year of University.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's what I thought. When I was secretary of a local group, I used
>>> to take notes for the minutes of our board meetings on my laptop.
>>
>> It's a lot faster than writing, that's for sure
>
>
> If you say that, you must be a touch typist. I'm not.

I don't think that I'm any good at typing. I generally use about three
fingers on each of my hand. I surprise myself with which fingers I
actually use to type. However, my typing style is not one people who
learned how to type properly would be too proud of.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11

[Whatnew]

rabidR04CH's profile photo
rabidR04CH
unread,
Feb 22, 2022, 9:51:09 PM
to
Absolutely correct. I found solution here
<https://www.geekman.in/how-to-update-drivers-on-windows-10>

[PRAKASH TIWARI]

On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 01:37:23 UTC+5:30, Big Al wrote:
> On 2/19/22 14:37, this is what Andy Burnelli wrote:
> > That means only Android, of all the major common consumer operating systems,
> > does _not_ require periodic logging into the mothership moving forward.
> Linux has no mothership either. You pick a name and password and it can be most anything.
https://hackreveal.com/