oh...darn..

SA1988 wrote:

oh...darn..

I'm not certain if that's disappointment or sarcasm.

I mean that if they pull this stunt I will remove the Windows-specific code from the source base. I will no longer support or develop support to run DOSBox-X on Windows. I will not remove the ability to emulate DOS and Windows 3.1/9x or older versions of the NT kernel.

The reason I have for not wanting an automatic upgrade is that I already had one!
I upgraded my Windows 8.1 to 10.
Thing is, I keep older versions of Windows around for development and testing, so I have a copy of Windows 7 running... But it wants to upgrade that to Windows 10 as well. Which is pointless, because I already have Windows 10 on the same system.
8.1 was a free upgrade from Windows 8, which was a paid upgrade from Windows 7.
Somehow it doesn't quite feel right that I paid for both Windows 7 and Windows 8 to get to Windows 10, while others only had to pay for Windows 7 to get to Windows 10.
Oh well.

TheGreatCodeholio wrote:

I mean that if they pull this stunt I will remove the Windows-specific code from the source base.

they will, so you might as well go full hog and do your own little OS politics stunt right now

leileilol wrote:

TheGreatCodeholio wrote:

I mean that if they pull this stunt I will remove the Windows-specific code from the source base.

they will, so you might as well go full hog and do your own little OS politics stunt right now

Well, now, they have to do it first. I'll give them time to reconsider.

I think Microsoft probably do not like any DOS emulators including DOSBox (or DOSBox-X) to exist at all. They simply want DOS to die..

I don't think MS is aware ofyour threat.
I'm kind of frowning on developers saying "if this then development closes", in this case it's even worse.
Oh well...

I will put my foot down and I will drop Windows support from DOSBox-X entirely.

And be the next person after Microsoft taking choice away from the users.

Alright so it's rash. I won't remove Win32 support then if they do it, but I still think pushing a Windows Update that auto-upgrades Windows 7 & 8 is a bad sign of things to come and an iffy thing to do to your customers.

TheGreatCodeholio wrote:

Alright so it's rash. I won't remove Win32 support then if they do it, but I still think pushing a Windows Update that auto-upgrades Windows 7 & 8 is a bad sign of things to come and an iffy thing to do to your customers.

They haven't done it yet. For all we know, this is just another myth.
Reminds me of Vista, where people claimed before launch that it would remove all OpenGL support. They never did. They just removed the outdated software renderer, which was useless anyway.
But even today you still read claims from people that Microsoft removed OpenGL support. Anti-MS myths never die, it seems.

The Anti-OpenGL thing also goes back to pre-WinXP too. along with the anti-desktopicons rumor

leileilol wrote:

The Anti-OpenGL thing also goes back to pre-WinXP too. along with the anti-desktopicons rumor

Yea, it's sad how retarded the anti-MS crowd is.
They actually think that Direct3D's raison d'etre is only to kill off OpenGL.
Well, I have news for them: Direct3D was aimed at games, and has been around since 1996. The first OpenGL-based game (technically MiniGL, fullblown OpenGL didn't arrive on consumer-oriented 3d hardware until years later) was launched in 1997.
Alex St. John wrote a nice overview of that early history: http://www.alexstjohn.com/WP/2013/07/22/the-e … on-of-direct3d/
Microsoft actually wanted to make OpenGL into a gaming API first, but then decided against it, because OpenGL's professional focus and gaming hardware capabilities were just too far apart. Which is why there were no OpenGL games.

I found out that the Windows 10 Update files had quite insidiously found its way to my hard drive, ready to be installed. I downloaded GWX Control Panel and got rid of it. I will install Windows 10 when I feel like it, not when Microsoft tells me it feels like its best for my system.

There are ways to disable it, I'm not going to let Microsoft win that easily. 😜

TheGreatCodeholio wrote:

"arrogance in assuming they know what's best for your PC including what version of Windows you should be running. The "You are an idiot" mentality inherent in their OS design."

Err, but most users ARE idiots? I mean, look how long XP lasted, I actually approve of their efforts to eradicate unpatched insecure OS's! Mac's are almost as bad as the windows situation, though updates are free, they seem unwilling to optimise anything, so that the latest OSX makes you want to poke out your eyeballs without 8gb and an SSD. And on Linux, you might think it's not necessary, but look at Sony and their PSN breach, outdated apache and no firewalls!

So, yeh, shoving an OS upgrade in users faces - if it's free, hell yes 😀 Just came on to check on using Dosbox for running some older windows games, and got sidetracked 😜

BeardyDude wrote:

TheGreatCodeholio wrote:

"arrogance in assuming they know what's best for your PC including what version of Windows you should be running. The "You are an idiot" mentality inherent in their OS design."

Err, but most users ARE idiots? I mean, look how long XP lasted, I actually approve of their efforts to eradicate unpatched insecure OS's! Mac's are almost as bad as the windows situation, though updates are free, they seem unwilling to optimise anything, so that the latest OSX makes you want to poke out your eyeballs without 8gb and an SSD. And on Linux, you might think it's not necessary, but look at Sony and their PSN breach, outdated apache and no firewalls!

So, yeh, shoving an OS upgrade in users faces - if it's free, hell yes 😀 Just came on to check on using Dosbox for running some older windows games, and got sidetracked 😜

If it's a free offer, then OFFER the free upgrade to the user. Don't assume they want it. Users (dumb or not) who want it will happily give the OK to install it when presented with the offer. Those of us who would prefer not to update now or would never update, will decline. That's how you do a free offer. You don't repeatedly shove it in somone's face, because that will build resentment, and you don't just automatically do it, because users who didn't want it will hate you for it and the time spent running back through the uninstall process that may or may not screw up their current OS. You ASK for consent, you do not assume consent, no matter what the price of the software. The current best practices in the industry, whether iOS, Android, game consoles, etc. is to politely offer the update and install only if the user consents.

TheGreatCodeholio wrote:

The current best practices in the industry, whether iOS, Android, game consoles, etc. is to politely offer the update and install only if the user consents.

That sure doesn't look like this to me. I've had my share of automatic / forced upgrades from both iOS and Android phones. Sure, there is some setting to disable them, somewhere, but it is not always accessible, the updates are enabled by default, and sometimes they do get re-enabled "by accident".

And if you don't upgrade, they keep on nagging forever. I would not call that "polite".

Not to mention that it is usually far easier to accidentally upgrade the OS/FW on a Phone, than on a desktop PC. Often all it takes is one click.

Finally, I am sure you know that in the case of iOS at least, once you upgrade, it is impossible to ever downgrade your OS, at least not without hacking/jailbreaking means, and usually those that you prepared in advance. Not sure how Android is in this regard.

So, I would not consider Microsoft's policies to be any more invasive/annoying than those of the main competitors (Apple, Google) that your post alludes to. Not by any stretch of imagination.

dr_st wrote:

That sure doesn't look like this to me. I've had my share of automatic / forced upgrades from both iOS and Android phones. Sure, […]
Show full quote

TheGreatCodeholio wrote:

The current best practices in the industry, whether iOS, Android, game consoles, etc. is to politely offer the update and install only if the user consents.

That sure doesn't look like this to me. I've had my share of automatic / forced upgrades from both iOS and Android phones. Sure, there is some setting to disable them, somewhere, but it is not always accessible, the updates are enabled by default, and sometimes they do get re-enabled "by accident".

And if you don't upgrade, they keep on nagging forever. I would not call that "polite".

Not to mention that it is usually far easier to accidentally upgrade the OS/FW on a Phone, than on a desktop PC. Often all it takes is one click.

Finally, I am sure you know that in the case of iOS at least, once you upgrade, it is impossible to ever downgrade your OS, at least not without hacking/jailbreaking means, and usually those that you prepared in advance. Not sure how Android is in this regard.

So, I would not consider Microsoft's policies to be any more invasive/annoying than those of the main competitors (Apple, Google) that your post alludes to. Not by any stretch of imagination.

That's news to me. I don't own any iOS devices. The Android devices I own never pester me for a system update, though they will notify me if one is available.

So...
What you're saying is that you would punish the users for something Microsoft is doing?
What fucking logic is that?

Do you really think Microsoft cares what you do?

All I see here is a overpretentious developer.