Replies

You are modest. But my real intention is to have a reference piece that is easy to point to within the AskWoody domain. I recognize the base you used to comment from, but much of the advice is not dependent on that source alone. It is general good advice, gathered into one readable comment, appropriate and useful to many of the user population that turns to AW for guidance.

Not quite clear on the additional classifications added in later comments. Caveat emptor has always been a good guide to get sufficient quality at the pricepoint available. Research always pays dividends. Seeking a McLaren when a Cooper would do makes little sense. Buying from the junkyard always has its drawbacks. Maybe I have missed the humor.

1 user thanked author for this post.

AlexEiffel

It only looks risky from the outside, using the assumption that Microsoft wants to keep pouring money into an operating system structure and maintenance.

Microsoft has already run the exact same decision matrix you lay out. Their result is clear. If alternative OSes are available for free, then there is no money to be had in that segment of the market. They are in the process of ditching all non Enterprise Windows right now, in real time, while we read and write about the impact here.

And they are utilizing all hooks and croziers available to push pull or drag anyone willing to pay a premium price for a working OS to Enterprise. It continues to astonish them that anyone is still hanging on to such outdated OSes.

So I guess I’m saying Microsoft agrees with your opinion entirely. I hope that hasn’t come as a surprise to you.

1 user thanked author for this post.

ch100

Interesting locale, cozy confines, friendly neighbors.

Noel Carboni wrote:

… just something that works right and supports serious use.

Sure sounds like something we used to expect from any product right of the shelf.

Would not have predicted as
Did not predict as a younger man that we could be retrained into such lowered expectations.

I have to admit, a peculiar funny bone is tickled whenever you take a deep dive into geek culture references. Stretched my memory a bit on Mentat, yes I cheated with Wikipedia. I enjoy when you sprinkle these into your articles. Adding a smile at the end does make a biter pill easier take and reduces the bad reaction. Thanks for the extra service.

My first thought on reading that line was on the selective nature of ‘bugs’ involved. Since Microsoft is a responsible corporation that keeps a tight lip concerning its flaws, we resort to Occam and his friends to deduce likely causes.

Win10’s relative ‘youth’ and hypercycling redesign are easy first explanations for a bugcount. Not a complete explanation, because it is so much more complex with a realignment of business goals and all that, but enough to wave away initial concerns.

Win7 is just ancient, out of date, so pervasive that is makes an easy target. Think barn door in terms of vulnerability. Again, not a fair assessment, but it is variations on this theme that get the endless criticism.

One common description of Win8 is as a dual purpose bridge from Win7 to the wonderful world of touchscreens and associated GUI full of tiles. Another oversimplification. But I cannot find a reasonable explanation for this platform’s immunity to Microsoft’s ‘bugs’.

You jest, and I enjoy it. But it really does reflect the feeling that once Win7’s eulogy is read and the last shovel tamps done the dirt, Win8.1 will begin to receive the full Microsoft attention it deserves. Not a friendly feeling.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

AlexEiffel wrote:

The greatest risk for Microsoft is to run out of beta users as maybe more and more home and small users will buy Macs. … Or maybe Chromebooks.
…

Your use of ‘beta’ is not unique, and is widely understood by the Windows using community. But a new thought occurred while reading these several comments. In the matrix of results tabulated by Microsoft’s best analytical AI, what value of success or failure is assigned to installation ID’s that suddenly stop contributing telemetry?

Do they adequately account for users that have consciously abandoned the Windows environment? Or are they simply on extended vacation? Because they have been so successful they can afford a year long tour of the globe.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

This also may be an indicator of how badly users wanted off of 1709, but worried that 1703 would age out soon. Woody has also noted 1709 seems improved now a month later than would have been helpful for some peoples decision process.

I’d like to nominate @AlexEiffel ‘s #post-195209 as a companion piece regarding router security in the AskWoody KnowledgeBase 4million series.

4 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, Elly, Bill C., AlexEiffel

Reading first Ascaris then Kristy, egged on a certain thought I’ve held for a while.

In one era of the OS wars, Apple made new feature after new feature. It was a flurry of body blows that a dazed Microsoft did not know how to counter. Every attempt only made Apple seem more agile and innovative. Being noncritical hits, there was no knockout punch involved. So Microsoft remained the only ‘sensible’ choice for business. I may not be current with real development at present, but I recall reading things complaining that the Mac environment was being ignored in favor of gadgets like pods, phones, and associated killer apps.

I have no idea if it is an intentional goal, or just happenstance. But Apple’s neglect looks a lot like the stability many small users seek. I would be disappointed if this were an accident. When your largest opponent is willing to do so much self inflicted damage, just stay out of the way. Don’t do anything to draw attention away from the implosion.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

OscarCP wrote:

Cascadian! You have misread my intentions here!

This jumped out at me. Before I have even read the rest, I wanted to respond, for fear that delaying until a thoughtful reply is made, a misunderstanding would persist.

Reading quickly while distracted with other thoughts can often lead to poor comprehension. It is one of the largest reasons I hold back from pouring out more of the dreck that sometimes comes to mind. I know I don’t write with the best clarity, and worry that my meander looses meaning in the reading.

If I hove done the same disservice to you, I truly apologize. I will give better attention, and give a more fully considered response later. Further, I’ll try to use questions where I want better understanding. I recognize where I have made statements instead, thinking I was giving points you could respond to.

I do seek understanding, which is a point you also have made. And regret if I have made that more difficult.

For anonymous #post-194930, to extend on points made by #post-194968, and @EP.

Have you checked on the specifications for your motherboard? It would be an old machine that has been very well kept that is not capable of running 64bit Operating Systems. That may indeed be your case. But you should check into it to be sure.

If your hardware is limited to 32bit, then you have provided more memory than it can adequately address. With software that may not notice the limitation, this has the potential to write to locations that latter cannot be read. This will cause unpredictable consequences that can make troubleshooting interesting and more difficult than it needs to be.

Perhaps you already know this, and have reasons for this unusual configurations that did not fit into your brief comment.

I appreciate the appeal to authority aspect of having a more organized call for change, complete with institutional presence and recognizable names. But the very logical argument is rhetoric all the same. It reads as making the very same points that have been discussed in this Lounge and other fora some time now. Is there any indication or even hope left that Microsoft might finally adjust their obvious path, now that one more opinion piece has been written?

I would like to see the change happen, and will welcome it if it comes. But I will also continue to inhale and exhale all the same. Holding my breath in anticipation has proven poor for my health.

5 users thanked author for this post.

fk5353, HiFlyer, lanceboil, woody, Ascaris

OscarCP wrote:

…aiming beyond just the short-term solution of stopping Pai and his fellow travelers ASAP. Something that, by the way, I am all for.

Oh that part comes through, loud and clear. Thank you for choosing your words so carefully. The strain of your restraint is evident in your florid adjectives. I continue to believe we seek the same solution.

Some believe that solution may come from different sources. I look to open opportunity for individual creativity to access private funding (the way a USAmerican uses the private/public descriptives) to develop ideas to their fruition. That fruit can then be offered to the marketplace for consummers to decide what is worth rewarding with their hard earned paycheck. Conversely, what is not worth supporting is left on the shelf. Meanwhile limited household funds are put to better use in the interest of each family’s self determined best interest.

Some may argue that individuals on the whole are dumb, stupid, or at best ill informed as to what is actually best for them. That the masses require the firm hand of guidance from a benificient government that knows better how to provide. I disagree.

OscarCP wrote:

… and from hearing endlessly about the, to me, equally uninteresting idea of an absolute free-for-all as the right way to go, which is how, it seems to me, Net Neutrality tends to get defined by default, whether unintentionally, or lazily, or both. Hoping, instead, to hear also about what can be done, in the longer run, to ensure a sustainable increase in the use of the Internet that serves the needs of most people well and fairly.

I fear that here, you fall again back into an either or all or nothing position. I also fear I’m about to revert to automotive analogy again. Yep, here goes.

There are a few privately funded roads in the US, and many people prefer to find different routes to drive rather than pay the tolls associated with using these private roads. (The fact that many governments have also picked up on this business model is a different discussion.) For the most part we seem to allow that Government is good at providing basic infrastructure. We also like that it is in society’s interest to allow Government to register all users of the roads, even check for a minimum level of knowledge and proven ability, set certain rules, patrol for compliance, and punish noncompliance.

We also balk when Government oversteps their role by creating speedtraps for revenue over safety, changes traffic patterns that inconvenience us, or make arbitrary rules that claim certain benefits that are provably silly.

The ideas that led to coding that makes networking possible were individual accomplishments. The infrastructure that makes the internet work was a Federal program for Government purposes. It is a benefit to us all that this structure was opened for general use. I will now mix side by side the respective examples.

When I’m on the Interstate Highway/information highway, I respect and give deference to USArmy convoys/government traffic. I also enjoy seeing private carrier trucks/Hulu packets using the same infrastructure. But I would not appreciate the highway patrol limiting all private traffic to the same 35mph speed limit required of the USArmy convoys/treat all traffic exactly alike. And I would feel very uncomfortable if olive green were the only color seen on the road/other packets being excluded. That would suggest to me that very bad things have happened/like censorship of intellectual properties.

OscarCP wrote:

Without discarding offhand, but neither taking for granted, the possibility of technical breakthroughs that might revolutionize communications some day.

This is where it seems like you are back onboard with a more complex solution where some burden is supported by government, and some liberty remains for the wacky ideas that should be experimented with crazy investments instead of taxpayers hard earned money. When that one from a thousand attempts pays off, the government has never been shy about incorporating the success. In the interest of society, of course. Usually making adequate compensation to the developer.

Holding back from going further afield. I also hope to see more views ahead of changes taking effect. Discussion ahead of time is better than trying to undo ill conceived regulation. That part I think is already agreed. Even if we have different views of wellness.

Yes, having a legitimates sounding reason was predictable. And who knows, sometimes incompetence and reluctance appears identical to bad business practice. @Karlston has this in his sigbox

Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

It would be good to follow up with @MrJimPhelps ‘s second paragraph as well. It is solid advice grounded in moral and ethical reasoning. With a healthy piece of covering your own exposure to liability. He restrained from pointing out that if you do choose to power it up and use it, then ethically you should pay the bill. If you do not want it, do everything in your power to return it in the same condition you received it. With Microsoft paying all shipping charges.

Hope you find an alternative that fits your needs.