Kickin' it with Windows Mojave

[lxskllr]

The way I look at it is that any device that is capable of sending and receiving a signal over a network has the potential to be monitored and tracked and no O.S. is truly safe if some entity wants to invade your privacy bad enough.

There's a big difference between a technical possibility, and overt malice. The possibility of the NSA hoovering your data isn't justification for handing it over to any company that asks, or gives shiny baubles to play with.

 

[MongGrel]

My wife still uses my old copy of Vista x64 in the house.

Still refuses to leave it.

 

[ImpulsE69]

The way I look at it is that any device that is capable of sending and receiving a signal over a network has the potential to be monitored and tracked and no O.S. is truly safe if some entity wants to invade your privacy bad enough.

And in any case if you plan to do anything illicit online your best bet has always been to not use Windows, OSX, (or anything common among consumers) and to not use your personal internet connection.

It really doesn't have anything to do with if you are doing anything wrong or not, nor does it have to do with your comfort level of being safe on the internet. It has to do with an expectation that you just should give it over because 'we'll do no harm and we're innocent and your data is safe with us'. Windows 10 isn't free because MS felt generous, or even wants everyone to be on Windows 10 because all those other old OS's are insecure. It was a calculated decision based off the potential to make money behind the scenes and in the future.

People don't 'not' upgrade because they can't afford a new OS. They don't upgrade because for most people if it ain't broke don't fix it and for most it is just a pain in the butt to overhaul the OS (and associated programs and in many cases hardware) when everything is already working just fine. People only look to upgrade to fix issues they actually have, or for additional features they feel they need/want. MS has had a difficult time convincing people that they need what they offer in the new OS versions to make it worth the jump. They all but removed that decision in Windows 10 by making it more or less an easy upgrade but also by nagging the end users to install it for free(for most). It will be interesting to see where it is after a year.

 

[88keys]

There's a big difference between a technical possibility, and overt malice. The possibility of the NSA hoovering your data isn't justification for handing it over to any company that asks, or gives shiny baubles to play with.

Not saying that it is, but I am saying that it is a reason to not be paranoid. My opinion is that people need to change the way they think about the internet in general.
Most ISPs and Wireless carriers do the same thing. Even android has backdoors to circumvent the users privacy.

What existed to stop M$ from releasing software updates to Windows XP that could potentially be used to spy on people? My point is that the internet is public domain and what you do online is public in the same sense that what you do outdoors is public. If you have something that you do not want shared online that don't have it on an internet enabled device. Just like if you happen to have a bag of weed in your possession; the front porch is probably not the best place to put it.

 

[norseamd]

The main reason Vista got a bad rep was partly because of initial hardware incompatibility/poor driver support. Which wasn't entirely Microsoft's fault, really, but it made me frustrated with Vista when I first used it.

The other reason was UAC. UAC isn't a bad feature now, but it was annoying going from XP to Vista when Vista was prompting you for seemingly every single task.

I told a lot of people (non-techie friends and family) not to get Vista at the time. I'm sure a lot of people here did the same. So when Vista was finally perfectly usable and stable (especially after SP1), even people who had no first-hand experience with it knew it by it's bad reputation. Yes, people are vulnerable to the power of suggestion, but it's not surprising given that none of us can be experts on everything. We often have to rely on intuition, out-of-date information, "expert" opinions, and potentially flawed memories of past experiences. As long as you, as an individual, question your own opinions and try to determine and counteract what biases you may have, you'll be able to make rational decisions... at least most of the time.

I don't think anyone who avoided Vista really missed out on anything, considering 7 was better and was mostly polished right from the beginning. The same can be said of 8.1 and 10.

Considering that I dealt with Windows ME for a long time Windows Vista more or less was fully working software. The problems of Windows Vista were very overhyped.

 

[Ichinisan]

I prefer Windows Whistler.

Longhorn / Mojave or nothing.

 

[Ichinisan]

It really doesn't have anything to do with if you are doing anything wrong or not, nor does it have to do with your comfort level of being safe on the internet. It has to do with an expectation that you just should give it over because 'we'll do no harm and we're innocent and your data is safe with us'. Windows 10 isn't free because MS felt generous, or even wants everyone to be on Windows 10 because all those other old OS's are insecure. It was a calculated decision based off the potential to make money behind the scenes and in the future.

People don't 'not' upgrade because they can't afford a new OS. They don't upgrade because for most people if it ain't broke don't fix it and for most it is just a pain in the butt to overhaul the OS (and associated programs and in many cases hardware) when everything is already working just fine. People only look to upgrade to fix issues they actually have, or for additional features they feel they need/want. MS has had a difficult time convincing people that they need what they offer in the new OS versions to make it worth the jump. They all but removed that decision in Windows 10 by making it more or less an easy upgrade but also by nagging the end users to install it for free(for most). It will be interesting to see where it is after a year.

It was free because, as the market shrinks, their share is losing out to OSX...and major OSX updates have been free for a couple years now. The competition is killing Microsoft and they're trying to keep up.

 

[ImpulsE69]

It was free because, as the market shrinks, their share is losing out to OSX...and major OSX updates have been free for a couple years now. The competition is killing Microsoft and they're trying to keep up.

That may have played into it some...but I think it has more to do with the business model that Apple/Google/FB have shown to work. Apple isn't THAT big of an issue for MS. If MS can copy those business models they stand to possibly make much more money than just having people flat out buy their OS.

 

[darkswordsman17]

It was free because, as the market shrinks, their share is losing out to OSX...and major OSX updates have been free for a couple years now. The competition is killing Microsoft and they're trying to keep up.

Has little to nothing to do with OSX but rather iOS and Android.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Considering that I dealt with Windows ME for a long time Windows Vista more or less was fully working software. The problems of Windows Vista were very overhyped.

This. Same with 8. There were issues, but fucking idiots acted like it was worse than ME and generally didn't know what they were talking about.

 

[mmntech]

One point that never comes up in the Windows 10 privacy debates is that it's not actually free. Just the upgrade is. You still have to pay the usual $100 for new licenses. Those upgrades are also only "free" for the first year IIRC.

I'm willing to bet most people don't upgrade their OS between buying computers. So in the long run, "free" Windows 10 isn't a game changer. It's just a short term marketing gimmick.

Since a couple of built in features went "freemium", I'd argue that you're getting less for the same money. Microsoft in the meantime gets to profit off selling your personal information to advertisers. And they'll keep doing so long after the "free" upgrade period expires. Seems like a raw deal to me.

It was free because, as the market shrinks, their share is losing out to OSX...and major OSX updates have been free for a couple years now. The competition is killing Microsoft and they're trying to keep up.

Microsoft isn't loosing much market share to OS X. Apple is a luxury brand and the high price of their computers has kept adoption low. Their software is also exclusive to their hardware, limiting growth. That's not likely to change anytime soon.

Google is what Microsoft is really scared of. They've pooped the bed on mobile and are now rushing to play catch up. Why have a lot of money when you can have all the money?

 

[88keys]

It really doesn't have anything to do with if you are doing anything wrong or not, nor does it have to do with your comfort level of being safe on the internet. It has to do with an expectation that you just should give it over because 'we'll do no harm and we're innocent and your data is safe with us'. Windows 10 isn't free because MS felt generous, or even wants everyone to be on Windows 10 because all those other old OS's are insecure. It was a calculated decision based off the potential to make money behind the scenes and in the future.

.

If that were the case M$ would have made it free to everyone regardless of whether or not they had previously purchased Windows.

It really has to do with two combined factors.

• We don't need to upgrade our hardware as often so the need to upgrade software as often either.
• Desktop PCs/Laptops have lost considerable marketshare to mobile devices and hence.

The notion of being able to charge $300 for a new desktop OS is no longer a viable business model due to the above factors.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I don't have a lot of memories about vista. I remember being overjoyed when I figured out how to turn off UAC, but otherwise it wasn't really a problem. It did seem a bit slow, but that could have been the hardware I was running at the time.

 

[darkswordsman17]

One point that never comes up in the Windows 10 privacy debates is that it's not actually free. Just the upgrade is. You still have to pay the usual $100 for new licenses. Those upgrades are also only "free" for the first year IIRC.

I'm willing to bet most people don't upgrade their OS between buying computers. So in the long run, "free" Windows 10 isn't a game changer. It's just a short term marketing gimmick.

Since a couple of built in features went "freemium", I'd argue that you're getting less for the same money. Microsoft in the meantime gets to profit off selling your personal information to advertisers. And they'll keep doing so long after the "free" upgrade period expires. Seems like a raw deal to me.



Microsoft isn't loosing much market share to OS X. Apple is a luxury brand and the high price of their computers has kept adoption low. Their software is also exclusive to their hardware, limiting growth. That's not likely to change anytime soon.

Google is what Microsoft is really scared of. They've pooped the bed on mobile and are now rushing to play catch up. Why have a lot of money when you can have all the money?

Yeah it's not free, but we'll see how that goes. I don't think it was a marketing ploy, but rather a strategic one. Getting people to migrate to a common OS helps Microsoft a ton. Plus it gives people who have been hating on Windows since Vista an easy way to try it out and see how much Windows has changed.

We'll see. Considering Microsoft has sold off a lot of their advertising stuff, I don't know that's their end game. Well hopefully you don't use an Android device if you think that's a raw deal. Win10 is waaaaaaaaaay more robust than Android yet people are making a big deal out of Win10 when Android is doing the things they're claiming while also having massive security issues on the level of WinXP pre-SP2. Google straight up admits that they're money largely comes from advertising revenue. Microsoft much less so.

I'd agree, but iOS absolutely is right up there. I think Microsoft is more concerned with it in fact as Google apparently wants to make all the same mistakes that Microsoft was back with XP, only Google went out of their way to make it so that they're not going to be able to fix things very well. Android could go to shit in a hurry if they don't find a way to be able to support and patch devices better. Plus Android doesn't seem that sustainable. Apple is making all the profits in the industry. I could see a lot of OEMs ditch Google and move to Win10 (whatever they're calling the phone/mobile version now), as it is more secure, and apps might not take much work. Microsoft has changed their licensing deals massively as well (and a lot of those royalty payments might drop if they switch focus to Microsoft vs Google), which means companies could possibly see billions more in income by ditching Android.

No that's not going to happen overnight, but Win10 could be a big shakeup for Android, and it could hit at a really bad time for Google (seriously Android might be worse than XP with security, especially since malware now you very well won't know you have it instead of it being a blatant pop-up/etc).

 

[Ichinisan]

I don't have a lot of memories about vista. I remember being overjoyed when I figured out how to turn off UAC, but otherwise it wasn't really a problem. It did seem a bit slow, but that could have been the hardware I was running at the time.

I recall that Adobe Reader would actually fail to install if UAC was disabled.

 

[darkswordsman17]

If that were the case M$ would have made it free to everyone regardless of whether or not they had previously purchased Windows.

It really has to do with two combined factors.

• We don't need to upgrade our hardware as often so the need to upgrade software as often either.
• Desktop PCs/Laptops have lost considerable marketshare to mobile devices and hence.

The notion of being able to charge $300 for a new desktop OS is no longer a viable business model due to the above factors.

I think that definitely comes into play. There are other benefits as well.

And Microsoft actually has made 10 free on a lot of devices. IIRC tablets under 8" will get free licensing. They made licensing cheaper across the board I believe as well. They even have a version for Raspberry Pi. Unifying their OS, has major benefits for them. They're so far ahead of both Apple and Google in realizing a unified setup it's not even funny. And I think a lot of people are not fully understanding just what Microsoft is accomplishing. They've gotten Windows into such shape that it is going on embedded stuff up to servers, and everything in between. And it is in many ways a better OS than the ones made for more targeted platforms (it is more robust than Android and iOS easily, and yet its performance is possibly even better than theirs, and depending on how all their new apps stuff goes, it actually will have more widespread feature support for development than them as well). That is mindblowing.

While there are legitimate concerns about Microsofts data gathering and how it will update, but other than that, Win10 is seriously impressive. And there's more to come with DX12.

 

[bbhaag]

This. Same with 8. There were issues, but fucking idiots acted like it was worse than ME and generally didn't know what they were talking about.

I would love to see a similar experiment done with Windows 8. Like the OP mentioned the power of suggestion goes along way.

 

[Eug]

Windows 8.0 was an abomination. No, 8.0 wasn't worse than ME, but ME came out in the previous century.

Windows 10 is a huge improvement over 8.0, but it's buggy, and feels unfinished. And of course there are the privacy issues.

 

[BUTCH1]

Not saying that it is, but I am saying that it is a reason to not be paranoid. My opinion is that people need to change the way they think about the internet in general.
Most ISPs and Wireless carriers do the same thing. Even android has backdoors to circumvent the users privacy.

What existed to stop M$ from releasing software updates to Windows XP that could potentially be used to spy on people? My point is that the internet is public domain and what you do online is public in the same sense that what you do outdoors is public. If you have something that you do not want shared online that don't have it on an internet enabled device. Just like if you happen to have a bag of weed in your possession; the front porch is probably not the best place to put it.

Isn't exactly this the reason that drove people to VPN's in horde's?

 

[SparkyJJO]

The taskbar, listing/connecting-to wireless networks...massively improved.

Well yeah. You could make 7's taskbar look like Vista if you really wanted to without much effort.

The flat glass of 7 is inferior to Vista. "Nearly" isn't close enough when you can't change it.

Flat glass? Sorry not sure what you mean by that. I only ever used Aero.

 

[lxskllr]

Flat glass? Sorry not sure what you mean by that. I only ever used Aero.

Flat, no curve, and no gradient. I only used Aero also.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I still make mine look as close to classic as possible :/ I hated aero.

 

[lxskllr]

I still make mine look as close to classic as possible :/ I hated aero.

"Classic" looked like shit. They got rid of the good classic themes. I love Rainy Day, and when I get some free time, I want to recreate it in Xfce.

 

[MongGrel]

It was free because, as the market shrinks, their share is losing out to OSX...and major OSX updates have been free for a couple years now. The competition is killing Microsoft and they're trying to keep up.

Somehow, I doubt that is valid.

ME I hated with a passion, I think I used it two days tops.

 

[ImpulsE69]

"Classic" looked like shit. They got rid of the good classic themes. I love Rainy Day, and when I get some free time, I want to recreate it in Xfce.

Oh I agree, it didn't look pretty..but that wasn't the point.