I stopped trusting Microsoft ever since the GWX infection of 2015/16, during that time there were people disabling Windows Update just to avoid the GWX update and other updates that advertised Windows 10, I sure am glad they stopped that BS over a year and a half ago otherwise things would be ugly.

I kept trying Windows 10 ever since it came out, then I immediately ditch it once I get annoyed by its advertising bullcrap, I mean come on Microsoft, my computer is not an advertising billboard, why does it bother you if someone uses Mozilla Firefox/Google Chrome instead of your Edge browser? I thought we were supposed to have freedom of choice but apparently MS revoked the privilege with non-disableable MS product advertisements.

If Microsoft doesn't die, I'm sure the Windows market share would significantly decrease judging by how much people hate Windows 10. Come 2020 some of us will be acting like it's the end of the world once MS cuts support for Windows 7 (I know I would).

oeuvre wrote:

Oh and their desktop lines, especially the Mac Pro trashcan, are woefully outdated.

Yeah, no kidding, Apple hasn't updated their desktop lineup for nearly four years now, I hope they get around to releasing newer desktop models sooner or later, otherwise more people will turn to Hackintosh. 😜

Jo22 wrote:

Speaking of telemetry, yes, that's how it should be. Unfortunately, IPv6 and MAC addresses make it quite possible to identify a person's device.

MAC addresses do not traverse past routers. IP addresses - yes, but then the answer to that should be - you should stop using the internet altogether because it can be used to identify you!

Certain things are inevitable. Yes, your IP is exposed when Windows collects telemetry, but not in any different way that when you browse VOGONS! The question is - who collects that data and why. If someone says that they don't use it to identify you (which is not always easy anyways), then you either trust them, or you don't use their products. From the first moment Windows had TCP/IP capabilities, Microsoft had access to your IP. Nothing has changed in Windows 10 in this regard, except the number of paranoia-spewing garbage articles on the internet.

Jo22 wrote:

Now if a person uses several different accounts, by different services -which quite normal nowadays (facebook, amazon, etc)- on that device,
from which only one is registered to a name, then it is quite possible that over time this person get nasty personalized ads with the person's name in them.
Ads related to interests he/she was allegedly looking for in other services.

All this is and was possible for years now. This has nothing to do with the telemetry Microsoft collects for its own purposes.

Jo22 wrote:

Not that this an entirely bad thing per se, but I among many other users belive that at least someone's Personal Computer should stay a personal thing.
And that a user should be allowed to decide him-/herself how much or less service he needs (prior Windows releases sent less telemetry by far).

Again, telemetry has nothing to do with privacy.

Jo22 wrote:

It's already enough that Android with GPS disabled can conclude a device's location via WiFi, bluetooth and radio cells.
And by logging other users' devices when passing by (a bit like Nintendo's 3DS feature Streetpass). If location and time of user A is know when they met,
then the location of user B is, too.

Indeed all this is correct, but they don't change the fundamental truth, that you have to have certain level of trust towards the corporation whose device you use. You have to trust Microsoft that when they say that they don't store any personal information collected via telemetry channels, that they really don't. You have to trust Google that when you turn off location tracking in your Android device, it really stops tracking (even though it obviously still has the ability). If you don't trust them, you should not use their products.

KCompRoom2000 wrote:

I mean come on Microsoft, my computer is not an advertising billboard, why does it bother you if someone uses Mozilla Firefox/Google Chrome instead of your Edge browser? I thought we were supposed to have freedom of choice but apparently MS revoked the privilege with non-disableable MS product advertisements.

For the same reason Google is bothered if you use a browser other than Chrome. Are Google's product advertisements any more "disableable" than Microsoft's?

KCompRoom2000 wrote:

If Microsoft doesn't die, I'm sure the Windows market share would significantly decrease judging by how much people hate Windows 10.

Nah. Thanks to Microsoft's clever and pushy tactics, Windows 10 has the best adoption rate for any Windows OS ever. The loud haters are a small and insignificant group.

Errius wrote:

I bought a physical copy of Office 2007, back when it was new, which was in daily use nearly a decade. Great value for money.

I'm now subscribed to Office 365 and can see it's going to cost me much, much more over the long run. I can see why Microsoft likes this new business model.

Yeah, and this is the reason, why I'm still using my good old copy of Office 2007, even on my current Win 10 rig. And I don't have any problem with it, since it's still using Office Open XML and it's still supported on today's version of Win 10.

I don't understand the hate for Windows 10, personally I find every Windows got better and better

Win98 : unstable, a buggy program crash the whole OS, OS may get corrupted for no apparent reason

WinXP : much more stable, occasional bugs but quite easy to use

Win10 : fast and reliable. sometimes Microsoft mess up things with updates, and yeah they are more intrusive, but it's the most problem-free OS i've ever used. I literally never think about the OS, only about the apps I use, which is a good thing !

And for Linux, i never liked it very much for real use. Open source is great, but it always come with problems that are inherent to software made by thousand developers. Things are messy, unoptimized, especially when it comes to GUI, graphics drivers... Full control over everything cant come without counterparts.

okenido wrote:

I don't understand the hate for Windows 10, personally I find every Windows got better and better […]
Show full quote

I don't understand the hate for Windows 10, personally I find every Windows got better and better

Win98 : unstable, a buggy program crash the whole OS, OS may get corrupted for no apparent reason

WinXP : much more stable, occasional bugs but quite easy to use

Win10 : fast and reliable. sometimes Microsoft mess up things with updates, and yeah they are more intrusive, but it's the most problem-free OS i've ever used. I literally never think about the OS, only about the apps I use, which is a good thing !

And for Linux, i never liked it very much for real use. Open source is great, but it always come with problems that are inherent to software made by thousand developers. Things are messy, unoptimized, especially when it comes to GUI, graphics drivers... Full control over everything cant come without counterparts.

This may be true when they're installed on current hardware, but Windows has consistently grown fatter and fatter (in terms of RAM footprint, especially) as Microsoft has shoveled more (really necessary?) functionality into the OS. Not to mention their penchant to change things for changes sake.

Their main customers are OEMs and businesses within a three year (give or take) hardware cycle, and I think it shows in how new versions of Windows operate on older hardware.

gdjacobs wrote:

but Windows has consistently grown fatter and fatter (in terms of RAM footprint, especially)

That has not been true since Windows 8.
Because of Microsoft's goal of 'one Windows for all platforms', Windows 8 and 10 had to run not only on desktops, but also on game consoles, tablets and smartphones.
As a result, Windows 8 and especially 10 are a lot leaner-and-meaner than Vista and 7 were, especially in terms of memory usage.
I have upgraded several of my old laptops from Windows 7 to 10, to improve performance and get a few more years of life out of them.

We'll see what happens going forward. Note that Microsoft is not alone with this as it's a near universal trend in software. See Wirth's Law.

I do think that Windows 10 is better at avoiding needless swap thrashing, which is good.

okenido wrote:

And for Linux, i never liked it very much for real use. Open source is great, but it always come with problems that are inherent to software made by thousand developers. Things are messy, unoptimized, especially when it comes to GUI, graphics drivers... Full control over everything cant come without counterparts.

It took me trying a dozen distros to find the one for me. The plus side is there was plenty of choice and among it some as if made for me.

If microsoft were to die, would I want more people using linux? Not really but they're free to choose.

gdjacobs wrote:

Windows has consistently grown fatter and fatter (in terms of RAM footprint, especially) as Microsoft has shoveled more (really necessary?) functionality into the OS.

And why is this bad? We have much better hardware than we did 20 years ago, like by two order of magnitude! Shouldn't we take advantage of that hardware? Shouldn't we write programs that perform complex tasks, that were impossible 20 years ago, rather than worrying about hand-optimizing assembly code to save a few millions of CPU cycles (about 1 millisecond), and to get that program to fit on a 1.44MB floppy?

dr_st wrote:

gdjacobs wrote:

Windows has consistently grown fatter and fatter (in terms of RAM footprint, especially) as Microsoft has shoveled more (really necessary?) functionality into the OS.

And why is this bad? We have much better hardware than we did 20 years ago, like by two order of magnitude! Shouldn't we take advantage of that hardware? Shouldn't we write programs that perform complex tasks, that were impossible 20 years ago, rather than worrying about hand-optimizing assembly code to save a few millions of CPU cycles (about 1 millisecond), and to get that program to fit on a 1.44MB floppy?

In some ways, it's still bad. Writing code on the assumption that everyone has X processor, Y RAM, Z GB of hard drive space means leaving the people who have <X processor, <Y RAM, and <Z GB of hard drive space behind.

Remember when the web browser "Opera" fit on one 1.44MB floppy? Or the QNX demo on a floppy? Those were the days!

Also, Windows 10 runs a lot better on my Inspiron 6000 than XP did. Boots faster, all-around snappier. Windows 10 is really a marvel sometimes.

AlaricD wrote:

In some ways, it's still bad. Writing code on the assumption that everyone has X processor, Y RAM, Z GB of hard drive space means leaving the people who have <X processor, <Y RAM, and <Z GB of hard drive space behind.

You have to draw the line somewhere. It's reasonable to draw it at what was the entry-level device a couple of years back. Because the assumption is - the average Joe can certainly afford such a machine. Or should we still cater to XT and AT PCs?

I don’t understand the hate for Win10 either - I wonder how much of it is just people default setting; new Windows = bad. It boots up fast and gets out of the way to let me do my thing, and my main gaming PC is probably 8 years+ old.

And try going and booting up Opera from a floppy disk, compare the experience to a modern browser 😀

dr_st wrote:

gdjacobs wrote:

Windows has consistently grown fatter and fatter (in terms of RAM footprint, especially) as Microsoft has shoveled more (really necessary?) functionality into the OS.

And why is this bad? We have much better hardware than we did 20 years ago, like by two order of magnitude! Shouldn't we take advantage of that hardware? Shouldn't we write programs that perform complex tasks, that were impossible 20 years ago, rather than worrying about hand-optimizing assembly code to save a few millions of CPU cycles (about 1 millisecond), and to get that program to fit on a 1.44MB floppy?

This is a false dichotomy. The question is not efficient vs inefficient. It's a question of how you weigh the cost (and benefit) of an added feature. For instance, I don't give a crap about Windows Live integration. I'd probably want it gone and maybe save a bit of RAM resident size in the form of hooks to the DM, but for Microsoft it's a good thing so it goes in.

I see this dynamic in Linux all the time as well, except there's more flexibility in that case to keep a parsimonious setup.

dr_st wrote:

AlaricD wrote:

In some ways, it's still bad. Writing code on the assumption that everyone has X processor, Y RAM, Z GB of hard drive space means leaving the people who have <X processor, <Y RAM, and <Z GB of hard drive space behind.

You have to draw the line somewhere. It's reasonable to draw it at what was the entry-level device a couple of years back. Because the assumption is - the average Joe can certainly afford such a machine. Or should we still cater to XT and AT PCs?

We do, but what programmers are really using the SSE4 instructions (that is, if they're using assembly anyway)? What compilers can take high-level code and truly optimize it for a Core i7 wherein it can't run on a Core 2 Quad by virtue of using any of those instructions?

I know you meant your question as rhetorical, of course, when asking about catering to XT and AT machines. That means NOT using what is still today one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, leap in x86 computing: Virtual x86 mode.

I just don't see that the Windows operating system should *require* a Core iX processor, since there's really no compelling reason for that. It seems that sometimes programmers use "the computer is THIS powerful anyway" to be a bit sloppy in their code. I recall a programming class years ago, wherein the instructor was giving all kinds of ways to even reduce the complexity and memory/storage footprint of the source code, and someone asked with some derision "why does this matter? Everyone's got Pentium 100MHz processors and 8MB of RAM so why go to that extreme?" Guess the guy never had to constrain himself to ~37KB with 6502 assembly on a C64. 😀

badmojo wrote:

And try going and booting up Opera from a floppy disk, compare the experience to a modern browser 😀

So true!

The feature creep of websites themselves, though. Granted, some sites can be pretty got-dang cool, but do they NEED all those animations and stuff, if you're just hitting it up for information and whatnot? Even eBay was possible with that tiny Opera. And now Firefox is using over 1GB of RAM on my system (granted, I've got quite a few tabs open).

What I found particularly annoying was trying to grab a video driver from a company website that assumed you were looking at that site in 1024x768, 24bit color but you were stuck with 640x480x16 because you didn't have the driver you needed yet.

Sorry, but this is the same sh*t, like on (fortunately mostly old) Android discussion, where people write endlessly, "why is android using all of my RAM? A have to kill apps all the time to release free space in RAM"... Well, Android is using all the ram, because it can, since unused free space memory is pointless.

And the same applies for Windows as well. Why would programmers at MS tried to fit Windows into 1GB, for 1 core processor, ant to GPU with 4MB of memory. It doesn't make any sense, PC's are not like consoles with HW, which is obsolete at day of launch,but you still have to code fore that one HW (and even that doesn't apply today). PC's are still evolving, and sorry, nobody can say, that in x86 world, there is lack of backwards compatibility. With some of the PC's you can run any system from Windows 98 to Windows 10, officially! Who else can say that?

AlaricD wrote:

I recall a programming class years ago, wherein the instructor was giving all kinds of ways to even reduce the complexity and memory/storage footprint of the source code, and someone asked with some derision "why does this matter? Everyone's got Pentium 100MHz processors and 8MB of RAM so why go to that extreme?" Guess the guy never had to constrain himself to ~37KB with 6502 assembly on a C64. 😀

The important thing there is not the absolute figures or exact scenarios, but learning the mindset of working inside certain limitations and pushing the boundaries.
People who ask "Why does it matter" will never make good engineers.
Real engineers know that the answer is: "Because we can!"

I don't like Windows 10 because a perfectly good Win7 video card is not supported in 10. Re inventing the UI every so many years is NOT a good idea when the old ones works fine. Oh and having to deal with just stereo working on a newer sound chipset that works just fine in Win7.

Unknown_K wrote:

I don't like Windows 10 because a perfectly good Win7 video card is not supported in 10. Re inventing the UI every so many years is NOT a good idea when the old ones works fine. Oh and having to deal with just stereo working on a newer sound chipset that works just fine in Win7.

What video card would that be?
I'm running Windows 10 on an old Core2 laptop with Intel GM965 from 2007. I can just install Windows 7 or even Vista drivers on it.
Likewise the WiFi adapter on that laptop runs on a driver that was last updated in 2010, years before Windows 10 arrived. Works like a charm.