| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 35 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 21:31:08 |
| Calls: | 331 |
| Files: | 986 |
| Messages: | 107,658 |
Johnny LaRue to CrudeSausage:
That is honestly very interesting. It's looking like
Microsoft is borrowing Apple's approach to support.
Good. It's about damn time. Very hard to move forward
when you are still supporting ancient hardware (and
software).
And let's face it. To have any future at all, Windows
desperately needs to move forward.
Progress for the sake of progress is meaningless. Progress
shall serve the benefit of the end user, e.g. by helping
them use their computer, OS, and software without the
incessand upgrade treadmill, unless they need some
functionality that cannot be implemented on their hardware
for technical -- rather than capitalistic -- reasons.
rbowman:
CrudeSausage:
Have you ever considered that an operating system could
offer layers of functionality? For example, a 286 could
run Windows 3.0, but if you wanted the enhanced
features, you needed a 386. Why can't it be that way
with Windows again?
So a software company would have to maintain, build, and
test several branches, some of which would have minimal
sales? No thanks.
Not at all. This kind of compatibility is not maintained in
branches, but rather in a common code base with perhaps (but
not necessarily) some platform-specific fragments govenred
by conditinal compilation. Modern technology offers many
open, stable, and well-supported standards and protocols to
make software that lasts.
A reponsible developer uses the oldest technology that suits
the task, to save the users from the upgrade treadmill. For
example, a terminal text editor may support 132x60 true-
color terminals, but it will always support the standard ISO
screen of 80x25 characters as the common denominator. It
may support Unicode, but will always support 7- and 8-bit
codepages, and so on. That way, computer can have their
natural usable lifespan of 20-25 years for the majority of
everyday tasks.
Many requirements are the result of a collusion between
hardware, OS, and software makers to force usees (as
xwidnows calls them) continuosly to pay for newer hardware,
OSes, and software -- merely too keep the PC usable.
Hackers have demonstrated that many games and some browsers
do not work on Windows XP simply because of an explicit
version test in the code, removing which lets the program
run.
This article is made in Windows XP: written in RPad32,
formatted with GNU Troff,
and posted via Sylpheed.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-02-17 3:23 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-02-16 2:18 p.m., Johnny LaRue wrote:
On Feb 16, 2025 at 8:53:44 AM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-02-16 6:04 a.m., Joel wrote:
https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-removes-windows-11-24h2-official-support-on-8th-9th-10th-gen-intel-cpus/
So, I can still boot Win11 on my box, because it's grandfathered in, >>>>>>> from 2021. OK. Great. Nah, I'll stick with Linux, thanks.
That is honestly very interesting. It's looking like Microsoft is
borrowing Apple's approach to support.
Good. It's about damn time. Very hard to move forward when you are still >>>>> supporting ancient hardware (and software).
And let's face it. To have any future at all, Windows desperately needs to
move forward.
Have you ever considered that an operating system could offer layers of >>>> functionality? For example, a 286 could run Windows 3.0, but if you
wanted the enhanced features, you needed a 386. Why can't it be that way >>>> with Windows again?
Because judging the tech market by 30 year old standards is daft. Windows >>> 11 has nothing in common with Windows 3.0.
Yes, but it can easily make itself available to lower-end machines by
turning off some graphical features which are enabled by default and
some security features which aren't supported on older machines.
Given the significant risks of cyber threats no-one is going to advocate
for removing security features.
The
core of Windows 11 should run on machines from the 2006-2007 era, it
just won't.
Are you a developer with intimate knowledge of the inner workings of
Windows? Windows doesn't work that way mostly for marketing reasons.
What you're looking for is linux, that way -->
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
But the point is not that I couldn't run Win11 anymore, it's that it'd
*suck* to do so - whereas Linux is running like a dream.
Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2025 7:42 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:Hmmm! Is that, sort of, like Iraq War??
I've been on both sides of the fence. When current software wouldn't
install/run on my Windows 7 box it became a Linux box.
I think this calls for a famous quote from a newsgroup, a long, long >>> time ago:
Supported, known to work -> warm fuzzies all around
Supported, known to not work -> an <redacted>ite is in trouble >>> Unsupported, known to work -> lucky today, unlucky tomorrow? >>> Unsupported, not known to not work -> there but for the grace of Turing
Unsupported, known to not work -> no, it was not deliberate ;-) >>>
[Hi Rick!]
There are Known Knowns.
There are Known Unknowns.
There are Unknown Knows, and,
There are Unknown Unknows!!
c. Early 1990, so GW Bush Snr or his Defence Boss. ;-P
That was in 2003 or later, Sec. Rumsfeld regarding the invasion of
Iraq under GWB, not the elder Pres. Bush in the '90s.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:23:49 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
Have you ever considered that an operating system could offer layers of
functionality? For example, a 286 could run Windows 3.0, but if you
wanted the enhanced features, you needed a 386. Why can't it be that way
with Windows again?
So a software company would have to maintain, build, and test several branches, some of which would have minimal sales? No thanks.
Progress for the sake of progress is meaningless.
Progress shall serve the benefit of the end user, e.g.
by helping them use their computer, OS, and software
without the incessand upgrade treadmill, unless they
need some functionality that cannot be implemented on
their hardware for technical -- rather than capitalistic
-- reasons.
Feh.
It's a well-known business model; FWSE: 'built-in
obscelence'. I do /not/ need extra spyware or AI bots,
Thanks.
This article is made in Windows XP: written in
RPad32,
nearly 400k for a mere notepad treplacement ?!
- ah maybe cyrillic support takes it there.
formatted with GNU Troff,
formatting? feh, a few linewraps is easy.
and posted via Sylpheed.
That's a good choice.
Kerr-Mudd, John to Anton Shepelev:
Progress for the sake of progress is meaningless.
Progress shall serve the benefit of the end user, e.g.
by helping them use their computer, OS, and software
without the incessand upgrade treadmill, unless they
need some functionality that cannot be implemented on
their hardware for technical -- rather than capitalistic
-- reasons.
Feh.
feg is a good image viewer.
Sure, hackers can figure out what does or doesn't work.
Commercial software creators don't want to deal with
'maybe it will work most of the time'.
I run Okular in both Windows and bash shell, as an example
of cats sleeping with dogs.
Kerr-Mudd, John to Anton Shepelev:
This article is made in Windows XP: written in
RPad32,
https://corewar.co.uk/coreops/coreops02.txt
rbowman:
Sure, hackers can figure out what does or doesn't work.
Commercial software creators don't want to deal with
'maybe it will work most of the time'.
Then add a disclamer instead of crippling the software
because it /might not/ work on older OSes or hardware.
Paul:
I run Okular in both Windows and bash shell, as an example
of cats sleeping with dogs.
Impossible: Okural is a GUI program, not a terminal one.
Paul:
I run Okular in both Windows and bash shell
Impossible: Okural is a GUI program, not a terminal one.
Possible.
The "bash shell", so called, has a graphics stack called
WSLg.
I run Firefox in it every day :-) Linux Firefox. On
Windows.
<https://i.postimg.cc/sDd22g3Q/bash-shell-WSLg-Firefox.gif>
Running Linux okular is just as easy as Linux Firefox, to
operate. I can run Windows, bash shell (linux kernel)
container, VMWare, and VirtualBox all at the same time. At
one time, it wasn't advised to do that, but all of that is
running under an inverted hypervisor. The Windows OS is
virtualized, as is the bash shell, and the two VM hosts.
VirtualBox had to be modified to run under an inverted
hypervisor, and between VirtualBox running in Linux and
VirtualBox running in/on Windows, the Virtualbox
developers have to support two hypervisor environments.
https://corewar.co.uk/coreops/coreops02.txt
Golly, that's a blast from the past; I recall seeing CW in
the early 80's; but I never did get into it enough to
create any warriors.
Paul:
I run Okular in both Windows and bash shell, as an example
of cats sleeping with dogs.
Impossible: Okural is a GUI program, not a terminal one.
Paul to Anton Shepelev:
Paul:
I run Okular in both Windows and bash shell
Impossible: Okural is a GUI program, not a terminal one.
Possible.
The "bash shell", so called, has a graphics stack called
WSLg.
I fear you misunderstand the terminology. In Microsoft's
"bash shell" is just a text shell, not an environment for
GUI programs. WSLg is not part of the shell.
bash$ echo $DISPLAY
WSL2 + WSLg - Now, you no longer need XMing.
rbowman:
Sure, hackers can figure out what does or doesn't work.
Commercial software creators don't want to deal with 'maybe it will
work most of the time'.
Then add a disclamer instead of crippling the software because it /might
not/ work on older OSes or hardware.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:16:06 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:
rbowman:
Sure, hackers can figure out what does or doesn't work.
Commercial software creators don't want to deal with 'maybe it will
work most of the time'.
Then add a disclamer instead of crippling the software because it /might not/ work on older OSes or hardware.
Yeah, that works so well. You can add a 30 point disclaimer that
FireAardvark may not work on Windows 8 and the users will still bitch long and loud when it doesn't. In the rare case they submit a bug report bamboo slivers under the fingernails will be required before they'll admit they tried to use it on Windows 8.
I've been on both sides of the fence. When current software wouldn't install/run on my Windows 7 box it became a Linux box.
The original offering was "bash shell".
Johnny LaRue to CrudeSausage:
And let's face it. To have any future at all, Windows desperately
needs to move forward.
Progress for the sake of progress is meaningless.
Windows 11 has nothing in common with Windows 3.0.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:18:24 +0000, Johnny LaRue wrote:
Very hard to move forward when you are still supporting ancient hardware
(and software).
Linux seems to do a better job of the ancient-hardware bit. And it manages
it with a fraction of the resources available to Microsoft.
Very hard to move forward when you are still supporting ancient hardware
(and software).
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 17:50:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Are you a developer with intimate knowledge of the inner workings of
Windows? Windows doesn't work that way mostly for marketing reasons.
Nobody knows how Windows works, not even Microsoft’s own engineers.
Who in the world, inside or outside of Microsoft, can answer yes to the
first question? Nobody.
Are you a developer with intimate knowledge of the inner workings of
Windows? Windows doesn't work that way mostly for marketing reasons.
On 2025-02-20 7:19 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 17:50:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Are you a developer with intimate knowledge of the inner workings of
Windows? Windows doesn't work that way mostly for marketing reasons.
Nobody knows how Windows works, not even Microsoft’s own engineers.
Who in the world, inside or outside of Microsoft, can answer yes to the
first question? Nobody.
I would be surprised about this considering how they rewrote most of it
in the mid-2000s.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:40:12 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:
Johnny LaRue to CrudeSausage:
And let's face it. To have any future at all, Windows desperately
needs to move forward.
Progress for the sake of progress is meaningless.
Particularly when most of what seems to be called “progress” these days (at least in the proprietary world) seems to be about promotion of new
GUI fashions.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:25:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:40:12 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:
Johnny LaRue to CrudeSausage:
And let's face it. To have any future at all, Windows desperately
needs to move forward.
Progress for the sake of progress is meaningless.
Particularly when most of what seems to be called “progress” these days (at least in the proprietary world) seems to be about promotion of new
GUI fashions.
Like the women's fashion industry the new Guis are what was popular 10
years ago. Are we past flat and back to skeuomorphic yet?
Paul
Paul
Paul
https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-removes-windows-11-24h2-official-support-on-8th-9th-10th-gen-intel-cpus/
So, I can still boot Win11 on my box, because it's grandfathered in,
from 2021.
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
I've been on both sides of the fence. When current software wouldn't
install/run on my Windows 7 box it became a Linux box.
I think this calls for a famous quote from a newsgroup, a long, long
time ago:
Supported, known to work -> warm fuzzies all around
Supported, known to not work -> an <redacted>ite is in trouble Unsupported, known to work -> lucky today, unlucky tomorrow? Unsupported, not known to not work -> there but for the grace of Turing Unsupported, known to not work -> no, it was not deliberate ;-)
[Hi Rick!]
On 2025-02-17 3:23 a.m., Chris wrote:from the 2006-2007 era, it just won't.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-02-16 2:18 p.m., Johnny LaRue wrote:
On Feb 16, 2025 at 8:53:44 AM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-02-16 6:04 a.m., Joel wrote:
https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-removes-windows-11-24h2-official-support-on-8th-9th-10th-gen-intel-cpus/
So, I can still boot Win11 on my box, because it's grandfathered in, >>>>>> from 2021. OK. Great. Nah, I'll stick with Linux, thanks.
That is honestly very interesting. It's looking like Microsoft is
borrowing Apple's approach to support.
Good. It's about damn time. Very hard to move forward when you are still >>>> supporting ancient hardware (and software).
And let's face it. To have any future at all, Windows desperately needs to
move forward.
Have you ever considered that an operating system could offer layers of
functionality? For example, a 286 could run Windows 3.0, but if you
wanted the enhanced features, you needed a 386. Why can't it be that way >>> with Windows again?
Because judging the tech market by 30 year old standards is daft. Windows
11 has nothing in common with Windows 3.0.
Yes, but it can easily make itself available to lower-end machines by turning off some graphical features which are enabled by default and some security features which aren't supported on older machines. The core of Windows 11 should run on machines
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:32:44 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-02-20 7:19 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 17:50:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Are you a developer with intimate knowledge of the inner workings of
Windows? Windows doesn't work that way mostly for marketing reasons.
Nobody knows how Windows works, not even Microsoft’s own engineers.
Who in the world, inside or outside of Microsoft, can answer yes to the
first question? Nobody.
I would be surprised about this considering how they rewrote most of it
in the mid-2000s.
They tried to. Remember “Longhorn”, which became Windows Vista? They were promising a whole bunch of new major technologies, none of which
eventually shipped. Remember why it was so late? Because somebody had the bright idea of writing core parts of it in Dotnet. Which turned out to be
a really bad idea. So the infamous “Longhorn Reset” involved chucking out and replacing all that Dotnet code. And even with the delay, they still
had to rush to get it out. Hence all the bugs and inefficiencies and instabilities and other trouble.
Why does Windows need to reboot about 5 times during an install? Because nobody at Microsoft knows to reliably shut down and restart their own services, so it’s easier just to reboot everything.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:27:56 -0500, Paul wrote:
The original offering was "bash shell".
“Bash” stands for “Bourne-Again SHell”. So what you have there is the “bourne-again shell shell”.
On 21/02/2025 7:42 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
<Snip>
I've been on both sides of the fence. When current software wouldn't
install/run on my Windows 7 box it became a Linux box.
I think this calls for a famous quote from a newsgroup, a long, long time ago:
Supported, known to work -> warm fuzzies all around Supported, known to not work -> an <redacted>ite is in trouble Unsupported, known to work -> lucky today, unlucky tomorrow? Unsupported, not known to not work -> there but for the grace of Turing
Unsupported, known to not work -> no, it was not deliberate ;-)
[Hi Rick!]
Hmmm! Is that, sort of, like Iraq War??
There are Known Knowns.
There are Known Unknowns.
There are Unknown Knows, and,
There are Unknown Unknows!!
c. Early 1990, so GW Bush Snr or his Defence Boss. ;-P
On Thu, 2/20/2025 4:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:27:56 -0500, Paul wrote:
The original offering was "bash shell".
“Bash” stands for “Bourne-Again SHell”. So what you have there is the
“bourne-again shell shell”.
I didn't pick the name for this thing.
I'm forced to use terminology that other
people in the group might recognize.
That's the shorthand for the "we don't know why they are doing Linux" project.
The original justification for doing it, was pretty lame.
There is probably only one other person than myself using it.
The audience here isn't really interested.
But if you want to have XEyes on your Windows desktop, you can.
[Picture]
https://i.postimg.cc/s2sSnJS9/xeyes-are-watching.gif
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:32:44 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-02-20 7:19 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 17:50:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Are you a developer with intimate knowledge of the inner workings of
Windows? Windows doesn't work that way mostly for marketing reasons.
Nobody knows how Windows works, not even Microsoft’s own engineers.
Who in the world, inside or outside of Microsoft, can answer yes to the
first question? Nobody.
I would be surprised about this considering how they rewrote most of it
in the mid-2000s.
They tried to. Remember “Longhorn”, which became Windows Vista? They were promising a whole bunch of new major technologies, none of which
eventually shipped. Remember why it was so late? Because somebody had the bright idea of writing core parts of it in Dotnet. Which turned out to be
a really bad idea. So the infamous “Longhorn Reset” involved chucking out and replacing all that Dotnet code. And even with the delay, they still
had to rush to get it out. Hence all the bugs and inefficiencies and instabilities and other trouble.
Why does Windows need to reboot about 5 times during an install? Because nobody at Microsoft knows to reliably shut down and restart their own services, so it’s easier just to reboot everything.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:23:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Windows 11 has nothing in common with Windows 3.0.
Oh, it has plenty in common. Drive letters, default extensions for
finding executables, crap .BAT files, “reserved” file names (anybody
know what they are?), tendency to become flaky over time, difficulties
with multi- tasking ...
And that’s just off the top of my head.
On Thu, 2/20/2025 8:29 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:[...]
Why does Windows need to reboot about 5 times during an install? Because nobody at Microsoft knows to reliably shut down and restart their own services, so it?s easier just to reboot everything.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-client/setup-upgrade-and-drivers/windows-10-upgrade-issues-troubleshooting
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:56:23 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:23:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Windows 11 has nothing in common with Windows 3.0.
Oh, it has plenty in common. Drive letters, default extensions for
finding executables, crap .BAT files, “reserved” file names (anybody
know what they are?), tendency to become flaky over time, difficulties
with multi- tasking ...
And that’s just off the top of my head.
How about the "hide known file extensions" feature that makes it easier
for malware writers? Where an EXE file called "help.txt.exe" can look like
a harmless text file.
On Thu, 2/20/2025 8:29 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
...
Why does Windows need to reboot about 5 times during an install?
Because nobody at Microsoft knows to reliably shut down and restart
their own services, so it’s easier just to reboot everything.
2) SafeOS phase: ...computer is booted into Windows PE during the
SafeOS phase
Now the computer has a known good OS, to
continue the installation process
The logfiles go in a different place now.
and somewhere in there, is the "Migration phase", where programs are reinstalled one by one.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:25:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Particularly when most of what seems to be called “progress” these
days (at least in the proprietary world) seems to be about promotion
of new GUI fashions.
semi-transparent is like so cool!
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 2/20/2025 8:29 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:[...]
Why does Windows need to reboot about 5 times during an install? Because >>> nobody at Microsoft knows to reliably shut down and restart their own
services, so it?s easier just to reboot everything.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-client/setup-upgrade-and-drivers/windows-10-upgrade-issues-troubleshooting
[Lots deleted.]
I think the answer to Lawrence's claim got lost in your elaborate
details.
So *how many* reboots are there actually during an install?
I haven't experienced anything over only *two*, for Windows 10.
Windows 11 was only one, but that was an 'install' from a new preloaded laptop, so probably more a 'setup' than an install.
Anyway, two is quite a bit less than Lawrence's "about 5 times".
Not that a few reboots during an *install* are anything to get one's knickers in a twist, but apparently some knickers get twisted rather
easily.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 10:53:10 -0500
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 2/20/2025 4:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:As Anton has said, that's not a picture, it's a web page with stuff that might show you a picture.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:27:56 -0500, Paul wrote:
The original offering was "bash shell".
“Bash” stands for “Bourne-Again SHell”. So what you have there is the
“bourne-again shell shell”.
I didn't pick the name for this thing.
I'm forced to use terminology that other
people in the group might recognize.
That's the shorthand for the "we don't know why they are doing Linux" project.
The original justification for doing it, was pretty lame.
There is probably only one other person than myself using it.
The audience here isn't really interested.
But if you want to have XEyes on your Windows desktop, you can.
[Picture]
https://i.postimg.cc/s2sSnJS9/xeyes-are-watching.gif
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:23:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Windows 11 has nothing in common with Windows 3.0.
Oh, it has plenty in common. Drive letters, default extensions for finding executables, crap .BAT files, “reserved” file names (anybody know what they are?), tendency to become flaky over time, difficulties with multi- tasking ...
And that’s just off the top of my head.
