MS destroyed windows 7 in order to bring in a vastly inferior product packed with colorful bloat ware one of many such transgressions still better than apple though
Yes and no. XP had issues with 64-bit proccessing, being a 32-bit system, the 64-bit version was too little too late. It also had issues with segregation of software's direct access to hardware, therefore causing lockups just like 95/98. Was it an improvement? Sure, yes. Still had problems.
Over simplification I know, but XP, for all its goodness, was long in the tooth. Yes, they could have extended it further, but it needed such extensive code development, refinements, sect, they chose to call it a wrap. Nothing wrong with that.
Having said that, could, SHOULD they have done a lot better than 7, 8, 8.1, 10, etc?
Yes. Yes they should. XP was not a great OS, but with all the TLC, bug fixes, tweaks, etc, it was the most solid OS they had put out to date. (Still crap compared to Linux).
Uh, not exactly.
The cost to MS to provide Windows 10 Home to OEM manufacturers is like $5. It's also horribly hamstrung and locked to the physical system (unlike previous versions)- it was a necessity since manufacturers were providing Linux or No Preinstalled OS options at $50 less than Windows 7 Home / Basic.
MS makes their money on corporate versions and subscription software for home users like Office 365 and Defender, not the OS.
They are already rolling out a subscription-based 'desktop' OS that you can access from any internet connected device, that's the latest squeeze of the balls. They want monthly utility bills, not one-and-done purchases.
BSD was a UC Berkley project, that while funded by the USG, it's not "owned" by anyone. Its license is open to copy, modify and redistribute as long as you include the source code. That makes it legally incompatible with just about everything developed in the last 30 years under GPL licensing.
There used to be lots of BSD forks. Now there are like 2, for a lot of reasons. Linux FTW.
BTW, Steve Jobs' estate is still the owner of NeXTSTEP, not Apple. MacOS is technically a GNU Mach kernel, distinct from both BSD and Linux.
Oh for sure easy to install W10 for free from 7 without paying for the license. Still can do that today.
My fear is the stop security updates for W10, and then to get Win X or whatever they call it (Win 10 rebranded) you have to only pay $5 a month to keep getting your updates.
I'm sure they will offer businesses extended W10 updates like they did with Windows 7 extended updates but once they somehow can legally switch to monthly payments you know they are going to.
Yeah I follow what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that there had been a hard-push for win10, call it 'free', then (as you suggested) charge a sub fee to keep it updated in lieu of licensing fee; it makes sense.
imagine if you weren't paying a sub fee, what kind of root/admin settings, for instance, could the end-user lose access to? That's what I'm considering.
My thought process is: Who agreed to forced windows onto the consumer to begin with? And no one, but a bunch of Linux nerds even bothered to question it, revealed back in 1999 it was just a money grab scheme. Fast forward today; look at all the fuckery going on. Future proves past? What were they planning 22 years ago? Today.
I totally agree that MS is a scam since inception. The hard push for win10 was mostly in businesses who have to remain compliant to keep their licenses. If they still have Win 7 machines without a extended service patch license they are out of compliance.
Sad truth of the matter is most boxes that staff use are windows machines. Most servers I've seen in local municipalities are also all Windows boxes - typically you may get some Linux in banking and other more secure industries but you would be surprised how much medical and banking still runs on windows.
I think it's just a circle jerking scam where MS/Gov't are in it together to force compliance and then it's a vicious circle where MS profits based on more users/forced upgrades which they in turn lobby more money back to the Gov't who then makes more regulations which then profit MS and the cycle continues.
I have a book on my bookshelf that contains a Slackware distribution on CD. I built my first Linux kernel more than 25 years ago and escaped the MS enslavement campaign. Only MS product I use now is an occasional phone call using Skype. I only do that because it brings back all the old stories of them trying to transition the back-end from Linux to Windows and it gives me a good chuckle. They, having access to the source code for Windows, took three or four attempts to get a stable system and had to keep falling back to the original Linux implementation.
Only thing Gates has ever been good at is coercive marketing, but somehow "get the product out as fast as possible and fix the serious problems later" seems even more damaging when he's moved into the realm of vaccines (or human operating system as they like to call it).
MS destroyed windows 7 in order to bring in a vastly inferior product packed with colorful bloat ware one of many such transgressions still better than apple though
And before they destroyed Windows 7, they destroyed Windows XP, which was also a far superior product.
Exactly
Yes and no. XP had issues with 64-bit proccessing, being a 32-bit system, the 64-bit version was too little too late. It also had issues with segregation of software's direct access to hardware, therefore causing lockups just like 95/98. Was it an improvement? Sure, yes. Still had problems.
Over simplification I know, but XP, for all its goodness, was long in the tooth. Yes, they could have extended it further, but it needed such extensive code development, refinements, sect, they chose to call it a wrap. Nothing wrong with that.
Having said that, could, SHOULD they have done a lot better than 7, 8, 8.1, 10, etc?
Yes. Yes they should. XP was not a great OS, but with all the TLC, bug fixes, tweaks, etc, it was the most solid OS they had put out to date. (Still crap compared to Linux).
Uh, not exactly.
The cost to MS to provide Windows 10 Home to OEM manufacturers is like $5. It's also horribly hamstrung and locked to the physical system (unlike previous versions)- it was a necessity since manufacturers were providing Linux or No Preinstalled OS options at $50 less than Windows 7 Home / Basic. MS makes their money on corporate versions and subscription software for home users like Office 365 and Defender, not the OS.
They are already rolling out a subscription-based 'desktop' OS that you can access from any internet connected device, that's the latest squeeze of the balls. They want monthly utility bills, not one-and-done purchases.
BSD was a UC Berkley project, that while funded by the USG, it's not "owned" by anyone. Its license is open to copy, modify and redistribute as long as you include the source code. That makes it legally incompatible with just about everything developed in the last 30 years under GPL licensing. There used to be lots of BSD forks. Now there are like 2, for a lot of reasons. Linux FTW.
BTW, Steve Jobs' estate is still the owner of NeXTSTEP, not Apple. MacOS is technically a GNU Mach kernel, distinct from both BSD and Linux.
For all intent and purposes, this is correct.
Windows as a service probably will be a thing in 12 months.
5$ a month to keep your windows updates coming, you know Microsoft are drooling at this idea.
If they thought they could get away with that, they'd probably be doing it already.
makes sense; https://geeksadvice.com/upgrade-to-windows-10-for-free/
Oh for sure easy to install W10 for free from 7 without paying for the license. Still can do that today.
My fear is the stop security updates for W10, and then to get Win X or whatever they call it (Win 10 rebranded) you have to only pay $5 a month to keep getting your updates.
I'm sure they will offer businesses extended W10 updates like they did with Windows 7 extended updates but once they somehow can legally switch to monthly payments you know they are going to.
Yeah I follow what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that there had been a hard-push for win10, call it 'free', then (as you suggested) charge a sub fee to keep it updated in lieu of licensing fee; it makes sense.
imagine if you weren't paying a sub fee, what kind of root/admin settings, for instance, could the end-user lose access to? That's what I'm considering.
My thought process is: Who agreed to forced windows onto the consumer to begin with? And no one, but a bunch of Linux nerds even bothered to question it, revealed back in 1999 it was just a money grab scheme. Fast forward today; look at all the fuckery going on. Future proves past? What were they planning 22 years ago? Today.
I totally agree that MS is a scam since inception. The hard push for win10 was mostly in businesses who have to remain compliant to keep their licenses. If they still have Win 7 machines without a extended service patch license they are out of compliance.
Sad truth of the matter is most boxes that staff use are windows machines. Most servers I've seen in local municipalities are also all Windows boxes - typically you may get some Linux in banking and other more secure industries but you would be surprised how much medical and banking still runs on windows.
I think it's just a circle jerking scam where MS/Gov't are in it together to force compliance and then it's a vicious circle where MS profits based on more users/forced upgrades which they in turn lobby more money back to the Gov't who then makes more regulations which then profit MS and the cycle continues.
Great book, you may enjoy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Code
Last time I used Window$ was in 1999 and have been using Linux ever since.
I have a book on my bookshelf that contains a Slackware distribution on CD. I built my first Linux kernel more than 25 years ago and escaped the MS enslavement campaign. Only MS product I use now is an occasional phone call using Skype. I only do that because it brings back all the old stories of them trying to transition the back-end from Linux to Windows and it gives me a good chuckle. They, having access to the source code for Windows, took three or four attempts to get a stable system and had to keep falling back to the original Linux implementation. Only thing Gates has ever been good at is coercive marketing, but somehow "get the product out as fast as possible and fix the serious problems later" seems even more damaging when he's moved into the realm of vaccines (or human operating system as they like to call it).
Bc Kill Gates likes to rape everyone in more ways than one?
Lmao I've been pirating Windows 7 forever and have no intentions of stopping.