Windows 10 Passes Windows XP In Market Share

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows 10 Passes Windows XP In Market Share

Posted by timothy on Tuesday February 2, 2016 @05:14AM from the playing-with-numbers dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Six months after its release, Windows 10 has finally passed 10 percent market share. Not only that, but the latest and greatest version from Microsoft has also overtaken Windows 8.1 and Windows XP, according to the latest figures from Net Applications. Windows 10 had 9.96 percent market share in December, and gained 1.89 percentage points to hit 11.85 percent in January. Maybe it will jump even faster soon, but not necessarily for the best of reasons.

315 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Of course ... by gstoddart · 2016-02-02 05:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because they're kind of forcing people to update, whether they want to or not.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:Of course ... by smooth+wombat · 2016-02-02 05:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's like claiming more people have health insurance when you force them to hand over their money to a private company whether they want to or not.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
2. Re: Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  And even more annoying, they're not allowing the people that most benefit, those running XP or Vista, to upgrade.
3. Re:Of course ... by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-02-02 05:34 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  It's like claiming more people have health insurance when you force them to hand over their money to a private company whether they want to or not.
  How is health insurance different from auto insurance? You're still required to hand over money to a private company whether you want to or not. But society as a whole when everyone gets insured.
4. Re:Of course ... by SirSlud · 2016-02-02 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Which is the way it should be.
  
  --
  "Old man yells at systemd"
5. Re:Of course ... by mlw4428 · 2016-02-02 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah. Shame on Microsoft for making people get off an OS that isn't receiving updates and for pushing for people to get off an OS that will stop receiving them in a handful of years. Yeah, how horrible. People should just run outdated and unsupported software, connect to the internet, and help spread malware. Yeah, freedom, 'MURICA. Yeah, you can't tell ME what to do my MY server is nothing like making companies stop dumping nuclear waste into drinking wells. Yeah. You go you freedom lover, you.
6. Re:Of course ... by SirSlud · 2016-02-02 05:41 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  How is health insurance different from auto insurance?
  That's your thesis?
  
  --
  "Old man yells at systemd"
7. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  How is health insurance different from auto insurance?
  Driving is optional. Breathing isn't.
8. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:46 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You're still required to hand over money to a private company whether you want to or not.
  Auto insurance isn't mandated at a Federal level. Many states do not require auto insurance, even for people owning and operating vehicles. Surety bonds are the usual alternative.
  Choosing to forego all that is hardly comparable to the fact that you now need to put a bullet in your head to avoid being fined if you don't want health insurance.
9. Re:Of course ... by gstoddart · 2016-02-02 05:47 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Yeah. Shame on Microsoft for making people get off an OS that isn't receiving updates and for pushing for people to get off an OS that will stop receiving them in a handful of years.
  The biggest problem is they've decided that users don't get a vote in if they want this, they've decided to shove in additional tracking and ad infrastructure without telling people or having them opt-in, and have more or less decided it's their computer and not yours.
  It is, and remains MY FUCKING COMPUTER. Whether or not I upgrade it isn't their choice.
  And given their track record, I'm also betting they're going to leave people with borked systems, and then refuse to do anything about it.
  Everything about this upgrade is largely stuff which benefits Microsoft, and which is being done TO their users ... because all those people who will now get "you must get auto-updates which we will do anything we wish with your computer", those people are eventually going to get screwed by that idiotic policy.
  Don't fucking act like Microsoft is doing this to benefit people. All that extra telemetry and ad information is to benefit them.
  Windows 10 is basically spyware.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
10. Re:Of course ... by The+Grim+Reefer · 2016-02-02 05:47 · Score: 2
  
  How is health insurance different from auto insurance? You're still required to hand over money to a private company whether you want to or not.
  
  I know many people who live in cities who do not own a car. So they don't pay car insurance.
11. Re:Of course ... by Holi · 2016-02-02 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  And dead people aren't required to have health insurance.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
12. Re:Of course ... by XxtraLarGe · 2016-02-02 05:55 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  How is health insurance different from auto insurance? You're still required to hand over money to a private company whether you want to or not. But society as a whole when everyone gets insured.
  Nobody has to own a car. Obamacare is a tax on existence.
  
  --
  Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
13. Re: Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  And even more annoying, they're not allowing the people that most benefit, those running XP or Vista, to upgrade.
  That's a sound business decision. Anyone who stuck with XP all this time is a clearly a major tightwad, so no money to be made there. They can have a new OS when they clear the cobwebs off their wallet and buy a new PC. Anyone who stuck with Vista all this time is clearly a masochist, and would be unhappy if the pain of Vista was taken away, so as a humanitarian gesture, it's better to leave them with what they've got.
14. Re:Of course ... by smooth+wombat · 2016-02-02 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Because having health insurance means you will never die.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
15. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  I always find it fascinating how in the US of A these days, ideology systematically trumps pragmatism. Like that lady who had no health insurance because she could not afford it, with Obamacare could, but still refused to, choosing instead to pay a penalty. All for ideological reasons - cut off my nose to spite you. Cute.
16. Re:Of course ... by ls671 · 2016-02-02 06:00 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Is this why I find that the look and behavior of my desktop have changed lately??? I can't seem to find where to click anymore to do the tasks I used to do. I had trouble and failed to upload pictures to Facebook lately while I swear I was an expert at it before.
  Also, some strange menus appear and I can't find a way to close them so I need to unplug my computer every time in order to reboot it. I asked my nephew to come and have a look at my computer next time he is in town because I am afraid I might have a virus...
  How do I find out if I am still on XP or if am running Windows 10???
  Thank you very much sir!
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
17. Re:Of course ... by quintessencesluglord · 2016-02-02 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I know, no one forces you to buy a vehicle (especially if you can't afford it). You also have a few options for motorized transportation (30cc moped, public transport, etc.) that don't require insurance. State I lived in even had the option for you to put up a bond with the state (helpful if you have a large car collection) instead of buying insurance to cover damages.
  With the present US healthcare, quite a few people still can't afford insurance, even with government subsidizes, and worse are penalized for it. It's like a tax on being alive. Not to mention the numerous database hacks of health companies, it's not only your health that you are worried about. It's not like you have the option not to do business with them because their security sucks.
  All that taken into consideration, it's hard to say if the ACA really saved any money at all.
18. Re:Of course ... by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-02-02 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  I know many people who live in cities who do not own a car. So they don't pay car insurance.
  I currently don't own a car and take public transit to work. I pay $75 per year for auto insurance on the off chance that I might need to drive someone else's car or a rental car.
19. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2016-02-02 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Shame on Microsoft for making people get off an OS that isn't receiving updates and for pushing for people to get off an OS that will stop receiving them in a handful of years.
  Windows 7 extended support runs until 14 January 2020.
  That's almost four more years that Microsoft have committed to supporting the OS.
  A significant number of computers that haven't even been bought yet could run Windows 7 for their entire working lifetimes and still be within the extended support period.
  Also, merely "connecting to the Internet" is highly unlikely to leave a system vulnerable even if it isn't fully patched, and I'll take "outdated and unsupported" over "actively damaged at arbitrary intervals by compulsory updates you can't block".
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
20. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  You understand that's to stop freeloaders right? Freeloaders cause rates to be high for those of us who actually buy insurance. If freeloaders died in the street when they got sick or injured I wouldn't have a problem with them, but as it is they get free health care and I have to pay for it.
21. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  When I bought Windows 7 I first compared it to Windows 8 and decided that 7 was the version I wanted.
  As for security holes and other bugs they should be fixed by Microsoft regardless, just like IKEA sends out missing pieces.
  They shouldn't have been there to begin with and Microsoft is at fault for shipping a product before those issues were solved.
  When I can no longer run the version I purchased I will ask for a refund.
22. Re:Of course ... by aaron4801 · 2016-02-02 06:08 · Score: 2
  
  Except that there is no direct upgrade path from XP to 10, so the systems that MS is forcing upgrades on (7/8) ARE still receiving updates. XP has been EOL for almost two years now, and while there are undoubtedly some people that are just now getting around to upgrading/buying a new machine, most of the XP decline in real numbers has already happened. This market share news is almost certainly a function of WIn10 upgrades rather than XP reductions.
  For people making the conscious choice to move to 10, there is no issue, but it's hard to determine how many "upgraders" really made that conscious choice due to Microsoft's spammy behavior.
23. Re:Of course ... by Wdomburg · 2016-02-02 06:08 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Even where insurance is required (not everywhere, and certainly not for people who do own vehicles or drive them on public roads) that's liability insurance, due to the risk you pose to other people and other people's property. It is not a precondition for citizenship or even car ownership.
24. Re:Of course ... by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-02-02 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  Driving is optional. Breathing isn't.
  You must not live in California.
25. Re:Of course ... by Junta · 2016-02-02 06:25 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  How is health insurance different from auto insurance?
  Health insurance is there to pay for *your* needs. Auto insurance is there to pay for *other's* needs, for whom you are liable.
  I think health is one of those things that doesn't go well with capitalist incentives, but there is an easy to tell difference from mandating liability insurance versus health insurance.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
26. Re:Of course ... by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-02-02 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  That's your thesis?
  It's a good thesis. I just post my comment and watch head explodes. Nine comments in as many minutes isn't bad. Sometimes the comments are a lot worse than my thesis.
27. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  Bingo. I have had far more incidents of faulty Windows updates cripple my machine, forcing me to reload from a backup. The last time I've had a malware infection that wasn't trivially fixable by dumping the web browsing VM and moving to a known good snapshot... was, well, never.
28. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  1. Auto insurance covers accidental damage not routine matinance (your auto insurance won't pay for an oil change).
  2. The insurance you are mandated to have mostly covers damage you do to other people's property or person. the stuff that covers you is more optional.
  By contrast health Insurance
  1. Covers routine matinance not just accidental damage. This is absolutely asinine for an insurance product, but makes perfect sense as a function of government provided the nation is wealthy enough to afford it.
  2. Covers the insured not people they harm. This makes mandating it less reasonable as an uninsured person harms themslef not others if they can't afford treatment, and harms no one if they can pay out of pocket.
29. Re:Of course ... by The+Grim+Reefer · 2016-02-02 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  And dead people aren't required to have health insurance.
  That seems a little extreme just to get out of paying for health insurance.
30. Re:Of course ... by Junta · 2016-02-02 06:47 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Whether they *should* and whether they *must* or *can* provide bugfix/security updates for old platform is a different thing. No you will not get a refund on your 10 year old copy of Windows when you are no longer able to run it either.
  Note that as much bitching there is about MS, there isn't really a game in town with a better track record. Windows 7 is older than Ubuntu 10.04, but Ubuntu EOLed 10.4 last year even for servers (and much earlier for desktops). Centos6 came out two years after 7, but will EOL at the same time as Windows 7.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
31. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  If you crash your car into mine, you owe me for damages and medical costs, and I really need the money. If you simply don't have the money, I'm fucked. So, by requiring you to have insurance, I guarantee that I get the money whether you have it or not. If the consequence of this is me buying insurance that I can afford, then it is worth it.
  If you get sick and die, you don't owe me a dime, and I don't need your money anyway. So, I have no reason to require you to get medical insurance.
32. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  Rental car comes with compulsory insurance. Easy to get confused since when hiring a car there is an optional insurance part, but that is only to reduce the excess from $1000-$5000 (depending on company) to zero (or other low number). I would be *very* surprised if your $75 per year premium would cover that excess gap.
  As for driving someone else's car...well, this is something I always thought way royally fucked up about the US. How can you possibly have a civilised society when you can't lend your car to a friend or family member (or even a friendly stranger in some circumstances: due to personal injury, for example) when you need to????
  Other countries in the world manage to do this without any trouble at all, so can someone who knows more than I do tell me why it's different in the US?
33. Re:Of course ... by Xrikcus · 2016-02-02 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know if that is a perfect comparison. I have been wondering for a long time why liability cover on US car insurance policies is so low compared with UK liability cover. Default cover at a pathetic 100,000USD instead of the 8,000,000GBP that my last UK policy had.
  I recently spent some time reading web sites suggesting how to assess how much cover you need and they suggest it based on the value of your assets. So it strikes me that while UK auto insurance is designed to have a high enough liability cover amount to make sure that those you harm don't lose out (within reason, clearly a person who loses a leg loses out, but the value should at least cover their medical bills and given them some compensation given the loss of income), US insurance cover is intended to cover you as a driver against the risk of losing your assets to legal action on the part of those you harm.
  So although clearly the payout on auto insurance does go to others, to then cover their costs while health insurance directly covers your costs, the actual goal of the insurance strikes me as protecting yourself in both cases - at least in the US.
34. Re:Of course ... by truck_soccer · 2016-02-02 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Except microsoft just announced that they aren't pushing support for new hardware to windows 7. So yeah, you can use windows 7 for 4 more years, but you won't be doing it on new metal.
35. Re:Of course ... by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-02-02 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  I would be *very* surprised if your $75 per year premium would cover that excess gap.
  My current AAA policy is identical to my previous policy when I owned a car — last one died with a blown head gasket and a broken piston — except I no longer own a car. So I'm paying $75 per year without a car versus $180 per year with a car. Also, my policy carries a $5,000 medical liability in case any passengers are injured during an accident.
36. Re:Of course ... by mlw4428 · 2016-02-02 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  What are you doing that MS is crippling your machine? I haven't had a Windows 10 update that was bad for me (I did update after the last group of bad updates hit...but that was some time ago). Windows 10 has been very stable for me.
37. Re:Of course ... by PRMan · 2016-02-02 07:23 · Score: 2
  
  If you don't like it, your only choice is to install Linux...
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
38. Re: Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  What? I noticed the people with the best computers typically run XP versus 8! They're more technical so they want something that doesn't throw away the start menu. So, you're saying the people that spend the most money on computers are tightwads. You're not making a damn bit of sense.
39. Re:Of course ... by Opportunist · 2016-02-02 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  If you need a health related parallel, it's more like claiming more people use MMS than leeches. One modern snakeoil instead of an ancient one.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
40. Re:Of course ... by LynnwoodRooster · 2016-02-02 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have to have car insurance unless I want to drive on public roads. And I do not have to insure the value of the car, if I do not want to. And here in CA, I can post a $25K bond and forgo car insurance altogether (bond is the replacement for it).
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
41. Re: Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  Wat
  The people that need a computer the most are the ones still running stable versions. That has nothing to do with how much money they spend.
42. Re: Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  I'm dumber for having read that. The people that need computers the most, and thus willing to spend the most money, are the ones running the more reliable version of Windows.
43. Re:Of course ... by schlagzeug · 2016-02-02 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  How is health insurance different from auto insurance?
  Auto insurance (liability insurance) is required to protect OTHER people from your stupid choices. Health insurance protects YOU from your stupid choices. So the law is requiring you to be protected from the consequences of other peoples actions, but if you want to protect yourself from your own actions, that's your choice.
44. Re:Of course ... by LVSlushdat · 2016-02-02 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  I keep wondering WHY everybody keeps calling it the "Affordable Care Act"... By this time, its PAINFULLY clear its the "UNaffordable Care Act"..... (shakes head)
  
  --
  THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
45. Re: Of course ... by Type44Q · 2016-02-02 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Many??
46. Re:Of course ... by Anon-Admin · 2016-02-02 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the cost of your medical has more to do with the AMA restricting the number of doctors that can graduate, than the number of people who do not pay.
47. Re: Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  So the people that spend the most money are tight wads? What?
48. Re:Of course ... by whoever57 · 2016-02-02 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Also, my policy carries a $5,000 medical liability in case any passengers are injured during an accident.
  $5,000 for medical costs? LOL! $5,000 will be spent getting an ambulance out and getting one person into an emergency room. Emergency treatment? That's going to run an order of magnitude more.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
49. Re:Of course ... by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-02-02 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  And here in CA, I can post a $25K bond and forgo car insurance altogether (bond is the replacement for it).
  That sounds expensive. My AAA non-ownership auto policy is only $75 per year. My last car died from a blown head gasket and a broken piston several years ago. Since my job has a sweet public transit commute, I haven't bothered with finding a replacement car.
50. Re:Of course ... by LVSlushdat · 2016-02-02 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  Windows 10 is basically spyware.
  Theres NOTHING "basic" about it.. Windows 10 *is* blatant spyware, of the worst kind. Sure, if you read AND *actually* understand 50+ pages of legalese in their EULA, the lawyers at MS tell what they're gonna do. They tell you they are hoovering up EVERYthing you do on *your* computer and they *may*, in their sole judgment, shuffle that info off to law enforcement at any time.. I retired after nearly 20 years of using/supporting MS products, as a sysadmin, but when I retired in 2010, I decided I was done with MS products, and I'd run Linux on all of my home systems. After seeing (and trying out, for a while, in a VBox VM) Windows 10, both the preview and the release, I shudder when I think of all of the naive joe-six-packs who now have a Geoge Orwell-approved/1984-compatible spy device in their very own home.
  
  --
  THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
51. Re:Of course ... by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-02-02 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  $5,000 will be spent getting an ambulance out and getting one person into an emergency room.
  I'm paying a little extra — $16 or so per year — so one of my passengers can get a free ride in the ambulance in the event of a catastrophic car crash. For $16, I can knock $5,000 off their medical bills.
52. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  I live in LA and get around just fine without a car. It's more likely that you are simply lazy.
53. Re:Of course ... by Firethorn · 2016-02-02 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Health insurance protects YOU from your stupid choices.
  So, it was my father's choice to get cancer? My mom's got get an infection, then a bad reaction to a sulfa drug that messed up her immune system?
  Smoking, obesity, and such I'll give you.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
54. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  I currently don't own a car and take public transit to work. I pay $75 per year for auto insurance on the off chance that I might need to drive someone else's car or a rental car.
  Then you're an idiot. Insurance follows the car, not the driver.
55. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  That's like telling someone who has been shot that you've bandaged their paper cut.
  Also the passenger's mandatory health insurance means that any necessary ambulance ride will already be covered.
56. Re: Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  It's called permissive use of vehicle. Most states the insurance follows the car not the person....unless your renting and then only for a 30 day period after that it becomes a lease (usually) and then insurance policy has to be changed.....usually
57. Re:Of course ... by LynnwoodRooster · 2016-02-02 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Well, posting a bond is basically free - it's simply putting money in a trust account. I can withdraw the bond at any time, and get all the money back. But the point is - no need for insurance, at least in CA.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
58. Re:Of course ... by whoever57 · 2016-02-02 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  With the present US healthcare, quite a few people still can't afford insurance, even with government subsidizes, and worse are penalized for it.
  
  I would be willing to bet that many of those people live in Republican-controlled states (especially those that refused to extend Medicaid) and either don't vote, or keep voting for "lower taxes".
  
  California provides free healthcare for those with low or no incomes
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
59. Re:Of course ... by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-02-02 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  That's like telling someone who has been shot that you've bandaged their paper cut.
  How often are your passengers shot at while you're driving?
  
  Also the passenger's mandatory health insurance means that any necessary ambulance ride will already be covered.
  Assuming that they have health insurance and their health insurance actually covers ambulance rides. Just because Obamacare is the law of the land, it doesn't mean that every insurance policy covers every foreseeable circumstances.
60. Re:Of course ... by Anne+Thwacks · 2016-02-02 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  The UK insurance takes into consideration the possibility that you might write off a stretched limo* full of celebrities registered with "Celebrity Lawyers R us" - or that someone may make a false claim of that nature, which they will immediately settle without arguing - in order to justify their outrageous premiums.
  --
  * spell check seems to suggest that "stretched llamas" may be covered too. Premiums indicate this is also plausible.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
61. Re:Of course ... by Anne+Thwacks · 2016-02-02 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  If you get sick and die, you risk infecting everyone else.
  That is how pretty much everyone except Americans see it.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
62. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2016-02-02 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  But this isn't really about new hardware, it's about people with existing hardware being tricked into updating to Windows 10 when they don't want to.
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
63. Re:Of course ... by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-02-02 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Then you're an idiot. Insurance follows the car, not the driver.
  What if I borrow a car and it doesn't have insurance? The police aren't going to cite me for driving without insurance if I have my own liability policy.
64. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  "How is health insurance different from auto insurance?"
  You can choose not to own a car.
  Was that supposed to be an example of your amazing logic? If it was, you might want to do a bit thinkin'.
65. Re:Of course ... by Anne+Thwacks · 2016-02-02 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Do leaches reduce the risk of Win10, or are they only effective against systemD?
  Enquiring minds need to know!
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
66. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  How often are your passengers shot at while you're driving?
  In L.A.? Probably once or twice a year. The doors have more Bondo covering up the holes than sheet metal.
67. Re:Of course ... by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-02-02 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  I live in LA and get around just fine without a car. It's more likely that you are simply lazy.
  I live in the SF Bay Area and get around just find without a car. However, I do have a cheap storage unit in Sacramento. Since I currently don't have a car, I haven't been able to make the 300 mile round-trip to visit it.
68. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2016-02-02 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Windows 10 has been very stable for me.
  That's great, but as a few moments searching the web could tell you, not everyone has been so fortunate. There have already been several widespread instances of hardware/driver issues, reboot loops, software being uninstalled due to being deemed no longer compatible, and similar problems reported by Windows 10 users.
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
69. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  Nowadays Microsoft is just like any other malware vendor; they do their best to force or lure people to install their crap and after the mistake has happened, they steal people's data. Perhaps the next step is then the ransomware, when they start to extort monthly payment or their computer stops working and loses the data.
70. Re:Of course ... by kheldan · 2016-02-02 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Nice when someone other than me is the first one saying this.
  Yes, someone really needs to figure out how to differentiate between users forced to update at gunpoint, and users who (for some unfathomable reason) voluntarily updated. I think once that was done, we'd see that the adoption rate is as dismally low as you'd expect it to be.
  
  --
  Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
71. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe he doesn't live in the US.
  $5,000 in medical cover will pay for lot's of peripheral medical expenses in some countries.
72. Re:Of course ... by truck_soccer · 2016-02-02 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough.
73. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  I can choose not to own a car. That's how it's different. I plan to move to a city that has decent public transportation. I will no longer need auto insurance.
  I can't just chose not to have a body and find an alternate means of existing.
  Was it really that hard?
74. Re:Of course ... by vel-ex-tech · 2016-02-02 10:01 · Score: 2
  
  That's because you're a damned moron if you can't figure out why auto insurance is different from health insurance.
  (Please be trolling! Please be trolling!)
75. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 11:48 · Score: 0
  
  Why not? When I lived in the Bay Area I took Greyhound out to Sac, Tracy and Manteca numerous times. Never had a problem. Also, there is no location in the Bay Area that is 300 miles round trip to Sac. You're looking at 250 miles max and that's if you live on the outskirts like San Jose or Milpitas or something.
  Better yet, go rent a U-Haul for a day and move your stuff to a storage unit closer to you.
76. Re:Of course ... by dryeo · 2016-02-02 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  And when you hit someone and turn them into a quadriplegic, society has to pay for the poor guys medical, lost wages, etc. Unless you guys just leave them to die.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
77. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  How often are your passengers shot at while you're driving?
  It's commonly called an "analogy".
  
  Assuming that they have health insurance and their health insurance actually covers ambulance rides. Just because Obamacare is the law of the land, it doesn't mean that every insurance policy covers every foreseeable circumstances.
  It is illegal to not have health coverage.
78. Re:Of course ... by dryeo · 2016-02-02 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  So true that freedom includes being able to walk around with infective diseases and give them to others and then blame them for catching that TB from you.
  Just like to be totally safe from vehicles means staying far away from roads, being safe from someones choice to not have medical means staying away from all people.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
79. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 11:57 · Score: 0
  
  Who do you know that owns a car without the mandatory auto insurance?
  First you talk about passengers illegally not having health insurance. Now you talk about car owners who don't have auto insurance. Do you hang out with a lot of criminals or something?
80. Re:Of course ... by interval1066 · 2016-02-02 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  I live in SF proper, and don't use a car to get around except in rare circumstances. HOWEVER, I have strong ties to San Jose, and using something like CalTrain to go to SJ from here can be a problem. First, taking the metro from my house to the 4th & King Caltrain station is a little painful; then, on a good day, taking cal on to SJ can take 1 1/2 hours. On good days that's a 2 1/2 hour trip. Now that the super bowl is happening we're expecting 2 hour trips from SF to SJ. I can hop on the 280 right from my house in Ingelside to Campbell (SJ) in usually under 40 minutes. Its a no-brainer.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
81. Re:Of course ... by ChrisMaple · 2016-02-02 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  Rental cars come with an optional insurance "waiver". The rental companies abuse/reverse the meaning of the word "waiver." Tel them "I'll waive the insurance" and they'll charge you for it.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
82. Re:Of course ... by ChrisMaple · 2016-02-02 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's illegal not to have health coverage except for the exceptions. There are specific exemptions for groups that cut deals with Obama. Also, if you don't have any taxable income, you're exempt. If you're a member of certain religious groups, you're exempt.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
83. Re:Of course ... by ChrisMaple · 2016-02-02 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  So you live in a slave state wherein auto insurance is mandatory. Sucks to be you.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
84. Re:Of course ... by Cito · 2016-02-02 14:25 · Score: 2
  
  That's why my gaming pc I still run windows 7
  it's being patched till 2020, by that time it'll be obsolete but it's overkill at the moment
  x79 chipset intel core i7 3960x
  32 gigs ram
  2 x evga 670 ftw editions sli
  ssd system drive
  wd black hdd for game installs
  I should be fairly good to go with windows 7 for a while longer. At most perhaps a video card upgrade in a year or so.
  then 2018 I'll start rebuilding new game pc :P
  I always try to build one to last 5 years so i tend to go overboard, but all my past systems had been AMD, and my 2 linux boxes are my 2 previous 'game' boxes the oldest is a fileserver with bunch of hdd's tossed in as a home "cloud". And my previous is debian/browsing/etc while im gaming on main screen.
  I may go back to amd to save money cause when I built this x79 system I bought it when the cards and chips were brand new so it ran me around $1850
  Im definitely not taking this to windows 10. Once this pc gets replaced in 2018/19. It will be reinstalled with linux and by then I may just stick with steam on linux gaming.
  I really think windows 7 will be my last microsoft OS. Unless someone at microsoft gets head out of ass which I doubt will ever happen.
85. Re:Of course ... by ChrisMaple · 2016-02-02 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  If you get sick and die, you risk infecting everyone else.
  That is how pretty much everyone except Americans see it.
  Nope. They see it as "Yippie! Free stuff that rich guys pay for. Now I don't have to take care of myself."
  There is the further flaw in your argument that except for iatrogenic infections, death in first world countries is rarely the result of infectious diseases.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
86. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 15:42 · Score: 0
  
  Windows users are different from Linux users. Windows OS is predominantly used by grannies and not very tech savvy. While Linux users are techies who wants to use those bleeding edge versions of Linux distro's. Hence most Windows users prefer to stay on an old OS where they are familiar, while techies will try the latest OS being released because there's nothing to lose, it is OSS and free anyway. If M$ wants to follow the OSS philosophy, MS better open source all their software.
87. Re:Of course ... by ChrisMaple · 2016-02-02 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  The concept "innocent until proven guilty" never occurs to you.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
88. Re:Of course ... by dryeo · 2016-02-02 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? I'm thinking of the case where someone has lost the lawsuit but has inadequate insurance and inadequate funds.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
89. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 18:50 · Score: 0
  
  Is the trust account interest-bearing?
90. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 23:23 · Score: 0
  
  It's like people not having health insurance, using the emergency room and getting the costs written off, then my premium going up to pay for them freeloading?
91. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  you can choose not to have a car (at least here in europe) , and thus, no car insurance
  you cannot choose not to have a body, and thus, no health insurance
92. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  And get sued into oblivion when the other parties want more than 5k. LOL. I had a small fender bender at 10MPH, and the other lady walked with 12 grand!
93. Re:Of course ... by joeboomer628 · 2016-02-03 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't like it, your only choice is to install Linux...
  Well not exactly, however, many of the people that I have introduced to linux are amazed that it: 1. Costs $0 vs $119, 2. Has free applications to suit their every need, 3. Is supported by much nicer people than MS products, 4. Is easy to use, not just for geeks anymore, 5. Does not care what you want to do with it within the GPL, 6. Is less vulnerable to cyber crime, 7. Has more flavors than Baskin Robbins, And much more
  
  --
  JoeR
94. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  Also, if you don't have any taxable income, you're exempt.
  Wrong. You are still required to apply and receive Medi-Cal, Medicare or other insurance that is covered by the government.
95. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  If you operate a motor vehicle, yes, auto insurance is mandatory and I like it that way. I don't want to get into an accident with some irresponsible bozo who can't pay for damages and/or medical expenses.
  It's called being a part of a society. There are more people out there than just you, you selfish prick.
96. Re:Of course ... by Espectr0 · 2016-02-03 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  you may eat your words when directx 12 games start coming out and benchmarks show a big increase.
  
  --
  Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
97. Re:Of course ... by vandamme · 2016-02-03 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Turn around and bend over.
98. Re:Of course ... by Cito · 2016-02-03 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe so.
  I am getting older though so gaming isn't anywhere near important to me as it once was.
  Hell my first mmorpg was "Meridian 59" ha!
  I began in computers at age 11, and have had the tandy 1000, trs80, commodore, amstrad, amiga, the original ps2 (ibm ps/2) that is :P
  I'll be 40 later on this year, as a gen x'er I grew up in the era you HAD to know how to program to get your computer to do anything, otherwise it was a boat anchor pretty much, especially in deep south where only software was "PC Home and Office computing" magazine subscription that for a "centerfold" had 2 sometimes 3 programs, usually 2 games and a utility app in basic you had to copy and write in manually.
  Was really great times.
  I enjoy rpg's though, I put in 240 hours in witcher 3, and have about 180 so far in da:i, they are my favorite. If they go away then my desktops will be for work only as I am a programmer that got lucky enough after 15 years I'm finally able to work from home and make enough to pay bills with debugging work, bug bounty, and random projects where indie companies will hire "temp" workers.
  And being in small town I've got the city contract on the city hall network/police dept network/public library network upgrade/repair/etc.
  Took damn long enough to get to where I'm my own boss, work from home at least enough to pay the bills, and put a little bit into savings monthly.
  If games stop supporting windows 7 and there is no linux equivalent, then I'll game on my android tablet.
  The only 3 gaming consoles I have ever owned and still do are a 1979 pong, an Atari 2600, and original nintendo that needs some repairs or swap out the cartridge connector as it bugs out a lot.
  I've been one of the stereotypical "anti console" folks dub "pc master race" jokingly. I guess thats it, I just loathe walled gardens. It's why in early 90's after I was running my own BBS with Fidonet support we got local numbers for Compuserve/Prodigy but I had a SLIP dialup account with my college.
  btw configuring SLIP dialup in Windows 3.11 could be enough to put you in an insane asylum :P I was so glad when PPP became the go to method. But eventually MCI offered PPP dialup direct to internet, no walled garden and it was before AOL released the "noobs" to the internet, ha!, as they were still stuck in the walled garden.
  Anyhow im nostalgic rambling, excuse me, I could ramble forever being a reclusive hermit :P
  Point is, I've seen things come and go, protocols obsolete...
  For example Banyan Vines networking prior to the popularity and ease of tcp/ip, configuring that was a beast, and the assholes charged extra for tcp/ip support:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  or pppoe replacing pppoa, etc.
  So if games stop supporting windows 7 then I'll game on linux / android tablet or play the classics while I write my own for nostalgia purposes. :P
99. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-05 14:44 · Score: 0
  
  They are BOTH examples of government-backed thievery. In IL we require something like $25,000 liability. But I can't simply put $25,000 escrow and tell ins co to go pluck itself. I have to be a captive customer spending $1000+/year. Now if I had a DUI or an accident I couldn't cover, then maybe some court-ordered insurance thing might make sense.
  The kicker is that, I am well covered via insurance and - like a sensible person - I have UNINSURED motorist coverage. This is exactly the product to buy if worried about the impoverished or the deadbeats or the driveaways hitting you. I.e., insure yourself. Being a captive customer with another thing for kops to demand ... that's bullshit. Health insurance is worse and the reasons go back over 200 years and relate to, oddly, abortion.
Late to the game by bondsbw · 2016-02-02 05:22 · Score: 5, Informative

Windows 10 surpassed XP back in October.
It has now passed every OS other than Windows 7.

--
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
1. Re:Late to the game by invictusvoyd · 2016-02-02 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  i.e. The world was dumb and is getting dumber.
2. Re:Late to the game by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  I don't like $thing, therefore no one should like $thing!
3. Re:Late to the game by Opportunist · 2016-02-02 07:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, using Win10 is not dumber than using WinXP. At least there is still some kind of support for Win10 instead of using a security nightmare, potentially connected to the internet. "Better" is relative, though. It's kinda like sitting on a pile of broken glass instead of using a rotating saw as a support device for your ass.
  If it was, say, using Win10 instead of Win7, yes, you'd have a case.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:Late to the game by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  $thing=NULL
5. Re:Late to the game by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 10:46 · Score: 0
  
  The interesting thing in those numbers is that "unknown" has gone from 1.7% to 3.7% over the last 6 months. That could indicate a lot more people trying out alternate OSs (besides OS X).
6. Re:Late to the game by unixisc · 2016-02-02 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  i.e. The world was dumb and is getting dumber.
  Why? Windows 7 is the best version out there, and that's the one 10 hasn't surpassed. All the others were second rate or really expired, and those are the ones Windows 10 needs to surpass
7. Re:Late to the game by AmiMoJo · 2016-02-03 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  By the time you have done enough hacking to make XP usable (install a reasonable firewall, some anti-virus, install the >9000 updates, disabled autoplay etc.) it's probably more work than it takes to fix Windows 10. There are apps that block all the crap in a couple of clicks.
  Personally I'm quite happy with 7 and 8.1. In fact 8.1 is the current sweet spot for me. Proper BitLocker SED support, per-monitor DPI settings and a few fixes to bugs found in 7. Install Classic Start Menu and it's a nice system.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Now that's a low bar by goombah99 · 2016-02-02 05:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

Unfortunately this is no a limbo contest. Crossing such a low bar of an obsolete unsupported os installs with a flag ship os that older os try to force on you is not impressive.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Netapplications a dubious source for this by bazmail · 2016-02-02 05:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

Many websites are blocking Windows XP as it doesn't support stronger than SHA-1 certs so the numbers will be skewed. Win XP clients will be invisible to Net applications metrics.
1. Re:Netapplications a dubious source for this by Bert64 · 2016-02-02 05:31 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Only if you're using IE, you can still access such sites using Firefox which has its own SSL libraries.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
2. Re: Netapplications a dubious source for this by Billly+Gates · 2016-02-02 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Or developers are tired of workarounds from IE specific bugs and CSS.
  Most sites are still html4 and CSS 2. Just do not want rendering bugs
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
3. Re:Netapplications a dubious source for this by phorm · 2016-02-02 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  And I've still seen plenty of XP machines on non-internet-enabled networks (or not networked at all). I recently was in a major hospital and saw what appeared to be a good many XP machines.
4. Re:Netapplications a dubious source for this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  So you're saying that Netcraft *can't* confirm it?
5. Re: Netapplications a dubious source for this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  Or having a layout.
6. Re:Netapplications a dubious source for this by Opportunist · 2016-02-02 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  You REALLY expect people who still use XP to even KNOW that there are other browsers?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
7. Re:Netapplications a dubious source for this by Anne+Thwacks · 2016-02-02 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  You REALLY expect people who still use XP to even KNOW that there are other browsers?
  People who are still using XP are probably using it for good reasons, and have the skill to avoid unwanted MS updates - many people need to run it to maintain compatibility with extremely valuable hardware. Most machines in this category are probably not connected to the net, but there are huge numbers of them.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
8. Re:Netapplications a dubious source for this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 15:33 · Score: 0
  
  I am on currently on XP and this system is well behaved. The OS which is using most of my router bandwidth is Win7. There's no Win8 & Win10 on my LAN. I did, thanks to Wireshark, a deep packet inspection of those streams leaving the Win7 machine and the packets are telemetry data on its way to Microsoft. Win7 and Win10 are really not that different anymore when were talking about telemetry and 'phone home' capabilities of your browsing habits.
9. Re:Netapplications a dubious source for this by dbIII · 2016-02-02 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  XP is still on a pile of office machines out there. Compatibility issues with label printing stuff and a pile of other little applications prevented a move to Win7, especially since MS Office still works on XP. Because IE is unfit for use in the ongoing malware swamp such machines have had firefox, chrome etc since initial installation.
  Yes a VM can run that stuff that win7 can't. You'd do it that way, I'd do it that way, but people who already have an XP machine seem to be really annoyed by the extra steps and the entire confusing concept of another desktop on their desktop. It's not ideal but it seems to be why there are still so many XP things out there on recent hardware that can happily run Win7 or later.
10. Re:Netapplications a dubious source for this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 21:17 · Score: 0
  
  I have an XP VM for the few windows applications I need, if it gets infected I just restore it from a snapshot.
11. Re:Netapplications a dubious source for this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 22:47 · Score: 0
  
  I would expect most people still using xp have not used ie in years. If you have a current browser and are behind a decent firewall an old xp computer is perfectly fine to use for a lot of tasks. It does not matter that there are a lot of unpatched attack surfaces if none of them is actually exposed to the world.
This numbers are dishonest by ilsaloving · 2016-02-02 05:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

Microsoft is forcing people to update, which makes these numbers meaningless. The only people who arn't going to update are the ones with the knowledge to block it.
This is like saying murders are way down, but ignoring to mention that you've put the entire population in straight jackets.
The fact that despite these strong-arming efforts, they're *still* only just now surpassing XP and Win8, says a lot about how much people don't want this latest and not-so-greatest OS.
I feel bad for Microsoft developers. When I tried the OS, I actually *liked* it. But then Microsoft had to go screw everything up with their OS-as-a-privacy-killing-service bullshit.
1. Re:This numbers are dishonest by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  When I tried the OS, I actually *liked* it. But then Microsoft had to go screw everything up with their OS-as-a-privacy-killing-service bullshit.
  Maybe the closed source community could create and maintain a hack-pack to disable all of the datamining? We have things like AdBlock and Ghostery, why not Microsoft-datamining-block as well? As you said, it's actually a great OS otherwise.
2. Re:This numbers are dishonest by dejitaru · 2016-02-02 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  the numbers might be "meaningless" in your view, but they are still numbers if the user is using the OS. It's like saying that majority of the Android 6.0 numbers are meaningless because those users are forced to upgrade. These numbers are actually much more accurate than websites that spout how many users they have (think facebook) when there's a good chunk of the accounts are actually dormant.
3. Re:This numbers are dishonest by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  It all depends on your goal. The numbers are meaningless if you want to know which OS people naturally prefer, but they're meaningful if you're a developer targeting platforms and you want to know which OS people are actually running.
4. Re:This numbers are dishonest by bondsbw · 2016-02-02 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't make the numbers meaningless. The meaning of the numbers are just different from what you seem to expect.
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
5. Re:This numbers are dishonest by pr0fessor · 2016-02-02 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft is forcing people to update
  I wasn't aware that MS was forcing the update to win 10 only that it was offering it in an annoying manner that only the initiated can get rid of.
6. Re:This numbers are dishonest by gsslay · 2016-02-02 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft is forcing people to update, which makes these numbers meaningless.
  
  This statement just shows you are thinking about the situation from completely the wrong angle. The numbers are not a way to win a popularity contest (and MS are cheating and should be disqualified!!1!111!1), they are a reflection of reality. Regardless of what causes people to migrate to Windows 10, the number show that they are migrating. If you are writing software or websites then these numbers means something very important.
7. Re:This numbers are dishonest by ilsaloving · 2016-02-02 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I was thinking in terms of Microsoft using the numbers to show how much people love their new OS, which is something they love to crow about. I didn't think of other possible interpretations.
8. Re:This numbers are dishonest by ilsaloving · 2016-02-02 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Someone has written a tool to automate and manage the problem:
  http://ultimateoutsider.com/do...
  And as a sister comment said, Microsoft has switched the update to "Recommended" status. It's only a matter of time before they decide it becomes Critical.
9. Re:This numbers are dishonest by ilsaloving · 2016-02-02 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  True, however Microsoft will also use those numbers to represent popularity of their OS. Mark my words, in a few weeks Microsoft will be putting out a press release about the sudden jump in numbers, and trumpet how much people are "loving" Windows 10.
  I realize my reaction is fundamentally an emotional one. I just find Microsoft's behaviour really galling. So much for Microsoft trying to clean up their act.
10. Re:This numbers are dishonest by pr0fessor · 2016-02-02 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  I imagine they would need to do something to stop it from offering it to incompatible hardware since the gwx keeps offering it to me even though my stuffs not compatible.
11. Re:This numbers are dishonest by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  Microsoft is in the slow but inevitable decline and they now it for some time, this is just a panic reaction not to loose desktop and thats why it's free but to get some revenue back now they will sell all the data on desktops to whoever pays more....saying that this my backfire on them on a long run...time will show...
12. Re:This numbers are dishonest by Opportunist · 2016-02-02 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe our three-lettered friend could add the MS domains to his hosts file?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
13. Re:This numbers are dishonest by flappinbooger · 2016-02-02 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  I like 10 better than 8, but 7 JUST WORKS. 7 is not annoying, file sharing makes sense, and everything works as expected.
  With 10, file sharing is different, authentication is different, it messes with the start menu still, but golly gee things are shiny. Not a fan, but you're better off with 10 than 8.
  I've been using 7 since it's been out and I plan to keep it for a while yet. However I am getting ready to move to linux with an assortment of VMs of 7 for all my specific windoze needs. I plan to keep 7 working as long as possible.
  
  --
  Flappinbooger isn't my real name
14. Re:This numbers are dishonest by ilsaloving · 2016-02-02 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Well, Microsoft isn't even trying to block the update on incompatible machines. I've already read stories elsewhere about people running into this exact issue.
15. Re:This numbers are dishonest by Gr8Apes · 2016-02-02 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  If you are writing software or websites then these numbers means something very important.
  I write software and websites, and for both these numbers are meaningless. I write to standards, and the sites do what they are supposed to do. I do not write for that special snowflake software 1 vendor wants you to lock into.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
16. Re:This numbers are dishonest by wikthemighty · 2016-02-02 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  This is like saying murders are way down, but ignoring to mention that you've put the entire population in straight jackets.
  Murder Rates and IE usage are both down!
  
  --
  "There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
Re:This is excellent news by bluefoxlucid · 2016-02-02 05:38 · Score: 4, Funny

I actually use both. I find Windows 10 a well-made OS, finally catching up to Linux at current. It's usable and reasonable, although I had to go into the installer and modify the boot.wim and install.wim file because it was hard-freezing my CPU at boot. Had to remove the GenuineIntel_mcupdate.dll file out of system32 (it was inserting invalid microcode). This is still a problem on the current Windows 10 release.
I use Linux a lot more, but Ubuntu doesn't support ASP.NET development. Mono installs pretty broken, and monodevelop is horrendously unusable. Besides that, I wanted Windows for Unity 3D.
The Microsoft graphics stack still has some bugs, enough for OpenGL rendering of 2D canvases to stutter and spit when trying to use graphics applications. Things like Krita work better on Linux, although Wacom driver support is slightly better on Windows. ArtRage works decent, too, but only on Windows.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:It's the privacy, stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:40 · Score: 1

I feel bad for Microsoft developers. When I tried the OS, I actually *liked* it. But then Microsoft had to go screw everything up with their OS-as-a-privacy-killing-service bullshit.
I've been reluctant to install and use Windows 10 because I'm not sure where the authoritative guide to ensuring I'm not leaking info to Microsoft and the internet. I've done it on a machine and not been displeased other than the vague feeling of unease.
When remember when we were using XP? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:41 · Score: 0

Back when Slashdot mattered, the Lunix year of the desktop was on the horizon and Microsoft was an evil empire? Lol. Those were the good ol days
1. Re:When remember when we were using XP? by Holi · 2016-02-02 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  But back then Microsoft was only evil to competitors, not their customers. Now, who knows if we are the customer or the product.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
2. Re:When remember when we were using XP? by jones_supa · 2016-02-02 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Well, back then, Linux actually was better than Windows.
3. Re:When remember when we were using XP? by sims+2 · 2016-02-02 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  What are we talking about?
  Because windows and more linux distros than I would like are now heavily slanted toward users with touch screens. That's fine if you have a touch screen but even microsoft had to admit windows 8 is crap without a touch screen and while windows 10 does a lot to address the problems I still don't like it as well as 7. But I'm probably not the typical user as I personally don't care if the UI looks like windows NT just as long as it doesn't lag every time I open a window for some fancy graphic effect someone thought looked pretty. Gnome was pretty lightweight a few years ago but last I looked it had as much shiny as KDE. I'm not sure what happened there. It's like firefox being near indistinguishable from chrome from a distance. And now they are ripping out themes support so it stays that way...
  
  --
  Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
4. Re:When remember when we were using XP? by sims+2 · 2016-02-02 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Does windows 10 have ip over firewire support? I know vista doesn't
  
  --
  Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
5. Re:When remember when we were using XP? by Opportunist · 2016-02-02 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  It still is.
  Though, admittedly, that got easier in the past few years.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
6. Re:When remember when we were using XP? by toddestan · 2016-02-04 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft has been pulling more and more firewire support with each version of their OS, so I doubt it. If anything, I bet Firewire works better in Vista than it does in 10.
In the old days by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:49 · Score: 0

No one on this site would give a rat's ass about Window$ market share because we all used Unix OSes.
Agreed, 110% & well put (mod ilsaloving up) by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:51 · Score: 0

See subject: I also futher agree in myself addressing an issue http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... to BOTH M$' VP of the Performance Client Division & Sinofsky (the dear departed traitor imo, a rat leaving a sinking ship whom I truly feel TOLD Mr. Richard Russell via Ballmer the TRUE source of it no less to NOT fix the issue I point out above, for rather reprehensible & illogical reasons pointed out in that link THAT HAPPENED RIGHT HERE ON SLASHDOT no less + on Sinofsky's blog "Building Windows 8" too).
* When a company selling a product FORGET THE CARDINAL RULE of "give people what they want, NOT what they DON'T want", they're dying due to greed...
APK
P.S.=> I've seen it happen in my time on this earth for 1/2 a century++ w/ IBM before, now a shadow of its former self hemorrhaging money (once thought to be "invincible"/"too BIG to FAIL" too like MS now, but for how long?) - MS is heading the same way, this is a "portent of things to come" IF they don't shape up & concentrate on what they're good at, stalling feature-bloat (a major source of error & security bug creep), securing what they DO have, + giving folks what they want... vs. not doing so!
... apk
Sad... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:52 · Score: 0

...having to compare Win10 against a 14 year old edition of Windows in order to look good.
Re:This is excellent news by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:53 · Score: 0

Nice to know your alpha-level tweaks cause you to like Windows 10. Do you have a way of automating them for 80 year old arthritic pensioners too? If not, I'm going to rush something to that burgeoning market. Then I'm on to the $500/hour lawyers who find that 6GB install a tad...um...expensive.
By design by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem here in the US is that we have neither free market health care nor socialized health care, but rather the bastard offspring of the two combined. The result is not the best of both worlds, but the worst of both worlds: the socalized part serves only to corral the sheep into the shearing barn, where the "free market" part is free to gouge them into financial ruin. The end result is that in the US, medical expenses are the #1 cause of bankruptcy -- and that's by design, my friends. All by design.
1. Re:By design by justthinkit · 2016-02-02 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Very well said. Comment of the year nominee.
  
  --
  I come here for the love
2. Re: By design by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  I think the high costs are more an issue of less than ideal communication and transparency in care and billing.
3. Re:By design by PRMan · 2016-02-02 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  This needs to be modded up (I had mod points yesterday but they're gone now... :( )
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
4. Re: By design by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  I think the high costs are more an issue of less than ideal communication and transparency in care and billing.
  Yes, and that 'less than ideal communication and transparency' are part of 'all by design'.
  Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence.
5. Re:By design by david_thornley · 2016-02-03 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  The ACA isn't great, but it isn't the worst of both worlds. The socialized part puts the insurance companies into direct competition, which by free market principles lowers the premiums. This is masked by the fact that people can now get insurance who couldn't before, meaning that many more people have access to health care in some means other than showing up at an emergency room and raising everybody's costs. Premiums were going up rapidly before the ACA, also, so it's difficult to judge the effect. In the meantime, broadening the insurance pool will reduce overall costs. It's a pity that we have so many US-haters around here who are absolutely insistent that the US government can't be useful, no matter how hard they need to sabotage it, but every other developed country has a far cheaper and generally better system that we don't copy.
  I can't blame you for thinking it bad, because it isn't enough of an improvement over the earlier system.
  Medical expenses are the #1 cause of bankruptcy, and I don't believe that's changed yet.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Market share is what it is by sjbe · 2016-02-02 05:55 · Score: 1

It's like claiming more people have health insurance when you force them to hand over their money to a private company whether they want to or not.
Do they have health insurance? Then it is true regardless of your political feelings on the matter. Forced or not is a separate issue.
I'm about as thrilled as most people around here regarding Windows 10 but the market share numbers are what they are. Frankly I don't really see anything in Windows 10 that is truly better than Windows 7 as far as I'm concerned, though it is a damn sight better than Windows 8/8.1. Hell I still use some XP machines and other than some security concerns I'm mostly fine with XP.
1. Re:Market share is what it is by cbhacking · 2016-02-02 14:22 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  In no particular order, and off the top of my head:
  Win10 uses less RAM and boots faster than Win7. *
  Win10 has a built-in "reset the OS" feature that basically does the "clean re-install" process for you, like factory-reset on a phone (Win7 doesn't have this). *
  Win10 has a pretty good built-in email client, easily an alternative to Outlook if you don't need full MS Exchange support (it has some Exchange support).
  Win10 supports sandboxed apps seamlessly with "classic" desktop apps, which largely fixes Win8's "Metro apps suck" problem.
  Win10 has virtual desktop support built in.
  Win10 has greatly-improved multi-monitor support, such as showing the taskbar across monitors or not, and controlling which taskbars icons appear on. *
  Win10 has significantly improved on the "Aero Snap" feature (snap to corners, move the edge between two apps with one drag, etc.).
  Win10 has native USB3 support. *
  Win10 has native support for mounting ISO files. *
  Win10 supports using a Microsoft account to sign in, so all your PCs get the same OS settings, wallpapers, automatic sign-in to Skype and OneDrive, etc. *
  Win10's notification center lets you see alerts that you missed or ignored.
  Win10 finally has a decent terminal emulator (conhost.exe) that supports things like line-based select and horizontal resize (with re-flow, where relevant).
  Win10 has Cortana, which automatically does stuff like track package shipping numbers and tell you when to leave to get to events in your calendar.
  That's far from a complete list, but I didn't consult any lists anybody else put together either. That's all just stuff I actually use. I also omitted everything that has to do with touch, focusing exclusively on stuff useful with a keyboard and mouse. Of course, I also didn't list the negatives (and there are some) but there are definitely many things in Win10 that are "truly better than Windows 7".
  * denotes changes that were introduced in Win8.x and are still in Win10.
  
  --
  There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
2. Re:Market share is what it is by dbIII · 2016-02-02 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  Win10 has greatly-improved multi-monitor support
  At least that's something. Win7 even does annoying shit like deciding on the fly to rearrange things and move an active window to a monitor that is turned off - very annoying when watching movies or playing video games.
  WinXP didn't do that. Neither did Win2k.
3. Re:Market share is what it is by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 19:11 · Score: 0
  
  Most of those things are cons, not pros. Also the whole spying and restricting user control negates everything and makes Windows 10 the worst version of Windows ever.
Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:55 · Score: 0

I was happily ignorant of this triviality... Microsoft lost my confidence when it steamrolled Vista over its retail customer base as well as every peripheral manufacturer on the planet in order to keep Wall Street's analysts happy and the appearance of 'competing' up with the Macintosh OS prettiness.
Microsoft was forced to clean up its vomit by engineering Windows 7, and now it's forcing Windows 10 in order to take advantage of the fact that the internet has become the Wild West of sociological data collection for which 10 is Microsoft's latest final solution.
Thanks Timothy!
Unpopular even among gamers by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:56 · Score: 0

Not even the DirectX 12 carrot is earning them the market share they want.
They can't even by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 05:57 · Score: 0

give away his POS spyware ridden OS away for free.
1. Re:They can't even by Opportunist · 2016-02-02 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Worse, even. They can't even cram it down everyone's throat.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, Timothy beats this with 100% share by Bearhouse · 2016-02-02 05:58 · Score: 1

Of Slashdot posts...either the poor lad's working around the clock or Whipslash and the others are posting using the Tim profile.
I understand that these things take time, but guys, if you could avoid posting Windows 10 non-stories every 5 minutes that would be an improvement.
1. Re:Well, Timothy beats this with 100% share by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  That's because Mr. Whipslash fired all the other editors as soon as he walked in the door.
2. Re:Well, Timothy beats this with 100% share by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  Timmy is a bot. He'll break once the host accidentally installs a Win10 recommended update.
3. Re:Well, Timothy beats this with 100% share by Opportunist · 2016-02-02 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  You really think something good could come out of a Win10 update?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The numbers are objective facts by sjbe · 2016-02-02 06:01 · Score: 1

Microsoft is forcing people to update, which makes these numbers meaningless.
No it doesn't. The numbers are what they are. It's not a measure of voluntary vs involuntary use. Market share is an objective fact regardless of the reason for it.

The fact that despite these strong-arming efforts, they're *still* only just now surpassing XP and Win8, says a lot about how much people don't want this latest and not-so-greatest OS.
No, it says a lot about how people shop on the Windows platform. Most people upgrade their OS when they buy a new machine. If what you have works then there is little reason to upgrade. I still have Windows XP machines here in my shop that will only get upgraded when they die. No reason to replace them as they work fine for their intended purpose. Windows 10 could be the most amazing operating system to ever grace the earth and I still wouldn't upgrade these machines because there is no gain to be had.
1. Re:The numbers are objective facts by ilsaloving · 2016-02-02 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  And that's all fine and good. But if you're using anything newer than Windows XP, you are going to have to jump through hoops to NOT get upgraded.
  That means all machines released in... what? The last 10 years, give or take, are going to be forcibly upgraded to the new OS unless you know enough to stop it.
A very definitive guide & "automation more" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:03 · Score: 0

See subject: From here on down @ The Register between username "Snake" there & myself http://forums.theregister.co.u...
(Since it's FAR MORE than just removing KB's 2952664 + 3035583 alone - there's TONS OF SCRAP it leaves behind too... cluttering your disks & WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE, possibly!)
APK
P.S.=> For the "enterprising souls" amongst you with the skills? I've also started a .cmd file to automate ALL of it, but I am VERY busy w/ a business I run which is primary to my existence vs. that + another software project of mine (also subordinate, but in motion http://www.start64.com/index.p... & "It's working - Neville, it's working...) - with even the ACL rights altering tools for scripting the rest in Regini. etc. listed - go for it, IF you like, building on the foundation already there in place IF you wish... apk
1. Re:A very definitive guide & "automation more" by ilsaloving · 2016-02-02 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Check his page. It does cover a lot of ground, including cleansing various registry entries, deleting win10 if it's already been downloaded, etc.
  Like I said, it's the most thorough one I've found so far, and the dev is actively keeping up with events and responding accordingly.
Hardly anyone installs Windows by jetkust · 2016-02-02 06:07 · Score: 1

All the forced upgrades hardly matter in the long run. Windows 10 is gaining market share in the same way that Windows has always maintained a high market share: Forcing their OS onto the computers people buy. The same with Apple. Look at google's ChromeOS. As soon as it was pre-installed, people bought it. Otherwise, nobody would have cared. This is the main reason Linux isn't widely adopted on the desktop. Barely any PCs or laptops come pre-installed with Linux. If it had been, all the hardware compatibility issues with Linux would gradually vanish (at least to the level of Windows issues), because they will have already been worked out before anyone buys the machine. Microsoft has everyone locked into their ecosystem so deep, their software doesn't even have to be any good. Right now they are just in a war against the ghosts of their past. In the end, they will win.
1. Re:Hardly anyone installs Windows by sims+2 · 2016-02-02 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Someone should tell HP they are supposed to check their software as every single hp/compaq machine I have ever did a wipe/reset with the built in recovery the hp get started wizard is slow and jittery and then after you get into windows it prompts you to allow it to check for updates from hp and the prompt promptly hangs there for a few minutes before it lets you make a selection. It's been like that for years.
  
  --
  Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
2. Re:Hardly anyone installs Windows by PRMan · 2016-02-02 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Because the first thing that happens when someone brings home a pre-installed Linux machine is a phone call asking, "How do I install Microsoft Office on it?" And when the answer is, "You can't", it gets boxed up and sent back to the store.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
3. Re:Hardly anyone installs Windows by nukenerd · 2016-02-02 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  ... when someone brings home a pre-installed Linux machine ..
  
  Who are these people and what country are you in? In the UK it is not possible to buy a PC pre-installed with Linux (or ever has been AFAIR) except from a few very specialised build-to-order companies selling mainly to professionals. Such customers would know exactly what they want.
Re:It's the privacy, stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:10 · Score: 0

It's creeping to the Linux distros as well. Ubuntu had the Amazon shopping lens. Now Fedora also asks during setup if you want apps to share your location and whether full system reports are sent to Red Hat. There might be more happening. Have you ever checked what your machine sends?
One stubborn lady by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:12 · Score: 0

Amazing how one stubborn lady can speak for an entire nation, isn't it?
Everybody uses health care by sjbe · 2016-02-02 06:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nobody has to own a car. Obamacare is a tax on existence.
Please find me a single person who never uses health care and incurs no cost to the system. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Actually no I won't because there is no such person. EVERYBODY uses the health care system whether they want to or not and therefore everybody should have some skin in the game whether they want to or not. Every other civilized country in the world has figured this out. Auto insurance and health insurance are not and never will be the same because not everybody needs to drive or own a car.
1. Re:Everybody uses health care by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-02 06:38 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  The Amish
  http://www.nbcnews.com/health/...
  Not everyone believes in private insurance.
2. Re:Everybody uses health care by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  Hi. I am that guy. I don't go to hospitals, dentists, walk in clinics, family doctors, mental health providers. I haven't gone to any healthcare establishment unless it was in regard to pre employment screening since my father's military insurance stopped covering me about 20 years ago. At this point, if I become injured or sick in such a way that requires assistance to keep me alive, I'd rather not receive that assistance, and I have all the proper DNR boxes checked. Here is a news flash: We are all going to die. Your life is short, and worrying about bullshit treatments to prolong my misery, giving me more time to worry about stuff is just that: bullshit. My father died because of the chemo treatments. He was vomiting so much that the lining of his esophagus wore thin, causing bile and stomach fluids to leak into his body cavity, eventually suffocating him to death. My mother was diagnosed with Crohn's disease, and has taken a serious turn for the worse ever since she started "treating" it. Before she knew that she had it, she was physically fine, occasional bouts of stomach upset and bad poops. Now she has a bag, is missing several inches of her lower intestine, her immune system basically goes defcon 5 over a common cold, and she barely has enough strength to walk to her bedroom at night. I'll take my chances.
3. Re:Everybody uses health care by clovis · 2016-02-02 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  The Amish
  http://www.nbcnews.com/health/...
  Not everyone believes in private insurance.
  You seem to be replying to sjbe's assertion that "everyone uses the health care system".
  You provided an interesting link; however, the article you linked supports sjbe's assertion that everyone uses the health care system.
  
  While practices vary by community, most Amish fund their health care through a system that merges church aid, benefit auctions and negotiated discounts with local hospitals - promising quick cash payment in exchange for lower rates.
  The man from Kinzers said his community relies on two funds. Nearly every family contributes monthly to a hospital aid fund, while large bills are also paid with free-will offerings.
  Some Amish carry benefit cards, which identify them as members of a community but do not bear names or photographs, to help hospitals keep track of those discounts.
  What the Amish are doing is using the public health care system and they pay for care through their own community based insurance.
  This is much like any other insurance company's affinity group plan except for the details of how the plan is funded.
4. Re:Everybody uses health care by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  Hi. I am that guy. I don't go to hospitals, dentists, walk in clinics, family doctors, mental health providers.
  Are you Bruce Willis' character from Unbreakable?
5. Re:Everybody uses health care by fbobraga · 2016-02-02 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  not everyone believe in biological evolution :P
6. Re:Everybody uses health care by swb · 2016-02-02 07:26 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  There are some extremely limited religious exemptions to Obamacare, which cover the Amish objection to insurance.
  Apparently the house has even debated (but not passed yet?) an exemption for people like Christian Scientists (and you thought military intelligence was an oxymoron) totally opposed to any healthcare.
  You could, of course, argue that there may be circumstances where a person who objects to healthcare or insurance getting into an accident and being rushed to the hospital. Unconscious and not identifiable as a Christian Scientist, they undergo a life-saving operation and recuperate for days in intensive care before regaining consciousness and/or being identified to loved ones.
  Bam! Now they have incurred tens of thousands of dollars in health care for which they cannot (and may refuse on religious grounds?) to pay for.
  Obviously there's enough ethical questions there to start a whole podcast series for, but you can make an argument that they got care that now somebody else may have to pay for.
7. Re:Everybody uses health care by Anon-Admin · 2016-02-02 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  ME!
  Yes I do use health care, however i negotiated with my doctor and pay cash! He gives me better discounts than he gives the insurance companies because
  1) He knows he will get paid.
  2) He does not have to pay someone to manage the paperwork.
  3) He knows it is paid in CASH which is far less hassle than checks, credit, or insurance.
  My advantages are
  1) When I call him, I am at the front of the line.
  2) It is cheaper than paying for insurance.
  So I have skin in the game, it comes out of my pocket and I pay for services rendered. You should try it some time and stop asking for handouts from the government. No more long lines, no more rejections from the insurance company, no more problems.
8. Re:Everybody uses health care by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-02 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  The OP above me said "everyone uses healthcare", I provided an example that proved his statement incorrect.
  You reply with more nuance, and your points are reasonable to discuss, but the main key remains, not "everyone" wants to be part of modern medicine, for better or worse.
  The whole idea of freedom is that people should be able to make that choice.
9. Re:Everybody uses health care by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-02 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  I replied and said "not everyone believes in private health insurance", and indeed the Amish ar exempt from that part of the ACA, much as they are exempt from social security.
10. Re:Everybody uses health care by smooth+wombat · 2016-02-02 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Please find me a single person who never uses health care and incurs no cost to the system. Go ahead, I'll wait.
  
  You're asking two different questions, one of which is ridiculous.
  
  Everyone at some time will need to see a doctor. Without exception. That is not the issue. The issue is why should someone be forced to hand over thousands of dollars every year but get nothing in return when instead they can pay when they need to?
  
  Do you walk into a store every month, hand over a couple hundred dollars and tell them, "When I need it, I'll be back."? Of course not. You pay when you purchase your goods.
  
  Yet somehow people have been swindled into believing that handing over their money now means they won't have to pay in the future. Which is of course completely false. You continue to pay even after you've already paid.
  
  I have a minor medical issue, nothing which will kill me. Even though I and my employer have paid tens of thousands of dollars over the years to provide me with medical coverage, I have to convince my doctor that to get this issue resolved it is a medical necessity, otherwise I am on the hook for hundreds of out of pocket expenses.
  
  What the hell have we been paying for all these years if I have to cough up more money? It is demonstrably cheaper and more efficient for me to pay when I need the service than it is for me, and my employer, to lose money down the black hole of insurance every year. If I were to pay as I need, I would incur no costs to the system.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
11. Re:Everybody uses health care by AlanBDee · 2016-02-02 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  I do know people who once entering adulthood would rather die then go to a doctor. But they're crazy and I agree with your argument and everybody should have a stake in health care.
12. Re:Everybody uses health care by sjames · 2016-02-02 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  It's been 30 years since I used any part of healthcare.
  However, I do support actual socialized medicine. I do not support the insurance scam. All the insurance does is perpetuate the extreme costs of health care in the U.S. and remove what little option there was to leave a failed market.
13. Re:Everybody uses health care by swb · 2016-02-02 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  That's fine, but short of a biometric database indicating who has irrevocably opted out of healthcare forever (and all the attendant ethical questions associated with it), it's not possible to say a given person will never use healthcare because there all manner of scenarios where a person may actually end up using healthcare, even if it was against their wishes.
  Besides an accident scenario, there's people changing their minds, the intervention of family members who may not share the convictions, etc.
  My biggest problem with your "freedom" argument is that it could be extended to pretty much anything. I could decide I will never fly, so why I should have to pay for the FAA or airports? Extend that to anything people decide they want to opt out of.
  I don't think you can just opt out of civilization on a cafeteria basis.
14. Re:Everybody uses health care by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  Posting AC because of previous moderation.
  Except your very evidence directly admits that they are consumers of healthcare. The very article you linked to in your earlier post:
  
  While practices vary by community, most Amish fund their health care through a system that merges church aid, benefit auctions and negotiated discounts with local hospitals - promising quick cash payment in exchange for lower rates.
  "The way they come together to pay for health care is amazing," said Jan Bergen, chief operating officer at Lancaster General Health. "It's a tithing. Their sense of responsibility extends beyond themselves and to the community."
  They use health care. They just use a different method of insurance where the church pays for it all. They pay the church in the form of tithings and then the church pays for any health care needs. The hospitals gives them discounts in exchange for timely cash payments.
  To say they don't use health care is incorrect. Everyone uses the healthcare system at some point. A lot of people will use it unwillingly due to an accident or injury.
15. Re:Everybody uses health care by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 09:20 · Score: 0
  
  >Please find me a single person who never uses health care and incurs no cost to the system. Go ahead, I'll wait.
  >Actually no I won't because there is no such person. EVERYBODY uses the health care system whether they want to or not and therefore everybody should have some skin in the game whether they want to or not. Every other civilized country in the world has figured this out. Auto insurance and health insurance are not and never will be the same because not everybody needs to drive or own a car.
  Please find me a single person who never pays for entertainment services and incurs no cost to the system.
  Actually no I won't because there is no such person. EVERYBODY uses the entertainment system whether they want to or not and therefore everybody should have some skin in the game whether they want to or not. Every other civilized country in the world has figured this out. Auto insurance and Obamacircuses are not and never will be the same because not everybody needs to drive or own a car.
16. Re:Everybody uses health care by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-02 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  My biggest problem with your "freedom" argument is that it could be extended to pretty much anything. I could decide I will never fly, so why I should have to pay for the FAA or airports? Extend that to anything people decide they want to opt out of.
  The difference is that the FAA is a public agency funded by tax dollars.
  Blue Cross/Blue Shield is not.
  Make it single payer national health care not run by private companies and you'd have a point.
  If you really want to make health care actually cost less, you have to remove two things from it. Insurance companies and paperwork.
  I've commented on this before, my wife is a doctor. She earns a comfortable six figure income, but she also spends more than $50K a year in admin overhead. That would largely go away under a better system.
  She has told me that it would actually make sense to take a 50% pay cut, if the government would simply hire her on a salary and tell her to treat all comers, free of charge. She would take home about the same amount of money, at a far lower cost to society.
17. Re:Everybody uses health care by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-02 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  To say they don't use health care is incorrect.
  You are correct, I left an important word off my post...
  "not everyone uses healthcare INSURANCE". :)
  It changes the meaning a lot, and that was my error.
  Where I have a problem is in the attempt to get me to buy a private medical policy from a private company with all that comes along with it.
  During the time I had insurance, I attempted to use it a few times, only to find out that it is a PITA to use. It isn't accepted very many places, it doesn't actually cover all that much, and it still costs a ton of money.
18. Re:Everybody uses health care by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  The US should have socialized healthcare, not this half-in Obamacare bullshit that ends up costing way more.
  My healthcare provider is a local clinic. I pay $25 per visit with no insurance. If the government wants to fine me $700, they can go ahead. It will still be cheaper than the $200+ I would have to pay every month for insurance.
19. Re:Everybody uses health care by clovis · 2016-02-02 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  I replied and said "not everyone believes in private health insurance", and indeed the Amish are exempt from that part of the ACA, much as they are exempt from social security.
  You're right about the Amish, and I pretty much agree with you except for a definition in terms.
  "Private health insurance" is any insurance that is not public health insurance. Public health insurance is governmental plans such as medicare, medicaid, and similar state plans.
  What the Amish is doing is private health insurance. The big insurance companies would like us to believe that they're the only alternative to public health insurance, but as the Amish (and others such as self insured affinity groups) have shown, you can have your own private insurance.
  I think what you meant to say is "The Amish do not believe in public health insurance".
20. Re:Everybody uses health care by ChrisMaple · 2016-02-02 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  Some of the expenses of airports and the FAA come from fees that are included in the ticket price. Properly, the whole amounts should be funded in that manner. There's no question of needing to opt out of something you don't use and don't pay for.
  Generally, that's the principle that should apply to everything. There are some things that are mostly impossible not to be needed equally by everyone within a political jurisdiction and that everyone should therefor pay for, examples include protection from foreign invaders and local gangs (armed forces and police), setting up a system of mandatory rules for rightful behavior (legislature), etc.. Unnecessarily taking from someone is wrong.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
21. Re:Everybody uses health care by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-02 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  You are correct... When I said "private health insurance", I was intending to refer to the huge mega insurance companies.
  But you're right, what the Amish are doing is also private health insurance, but I have no issue with what they are doing.
  I WOULD have an issue if the government wanted to try and mandate that I join the Amish, or any other private group, which is what they are doing with the ACA.
  ---
  As a side note, I don't really have a problem with the idea of government health care. There are issues and concerns with it, to be sure, but it is different than the government telling me I must join a private company/group/association.
  We have government roads, government schools, etc. and while they aren't perfect, they are better than nothing. In some ways, the ACA *IS* worse than nothing.
22. Re:Everybody uses health care by ChrisMaple · 2016-02-02 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  What your wife doesn't see is the people who currently don't come to her for trivial complaints. When Sally comes in with her special snowflake who fell down and scratched her hand, demanding that you apply an antibacterial ointment and a bandaid, 20 times each month, your wife will see her time being wasted. People with serious problems will be kept waiting while the lonely and hypochondriacs get attention. Some of those people with serious problems won't get the prompt service they need, and their conditions will worsen and some will die. Things will get worse, waiting lists will form, and the lists will get longer until they extend a half year and more into the future. As people complain about the waits, government will take action and start making decisions about who gets treated and who doesn't. You know the governor, you get treated. You're 78 years old, you've lived long enough already and don't get treated. You criticized $PRESIDENT on twitter, you don't get treated.
  There are already numerous examples of people who call for an ambulance because they don't want to pay for a taxi ride. Do you seriously think the rest of the medical system won't be similarly abused?
  This sort of thing is already happening. It is not "a far lower cost to society."
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
23. Re:Everybody uses health care by dbIII · 2016-02-02 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's said that politics is the art of the possible, hence the insurance scam that continues to pay Danegild to those that used their influence to stop anything else.
24. Re:Everybody uses health care by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-02 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  When Sally comes in with her special snowflake who fell down and scratched her hand, demanding that you apply an antibacterial ointment and a bandaid, 20 times each month, your wife will see her time being wasted. People with serious problems will be kept waiting while the lonely and hypochondriacs get attention. Some of those people with serious problems won't get the prompt service they need, and their conditions will worsen and some will die.
  Doctors clearly need the ability to make judgement calls, such as telling Sally that she is overdoing it.
  Most doctors became doctors, not for the money, but because they actually want to help people. Oh sure, there are those in it for the money, but frankly I can tell you that many doctors would be happy with a flat salary and a commitment to helping all comers, with the condition that they can place them in order of medical need.
  
  There are already numerous examples of people who call for an ambulance because they don't want to pay for a taxi ride.
  And such people should be denied that ride, if in the judgement of the medical personal, it is not needed.
  ---
  If you call the fire department over every little thing, they'll either start billing you, or stop coming. Same with the police department.
  The medical community needs the ability to do the same thing. If you abuse the system, you can get cut off.
25. Re:Everybody uses health care by Trogre · 2016-02-02 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  Wow.
  I sincerely hope you never break an arm, pop a hip, or contract an infection from a cut.
  Not all sicknesses are life threatening but can seriously degrade your quality of life.
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
26. Re:Everybody uses health care by swb · 2016-02-03 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  I don't disagree with you. I think Obamacare is the worst possible result, the casting in stone of a flawed system that now has no need to reform itself because it has just been enshrined as a permanent monopoly.
  For all of its flaws, the pre-Obamacare system was at least vulnerable to its own worst impulses. Without ACA I think it would have been forced to adapt its cost structure, but now it doesn't have to. We just make people buy insurance they increasingly can't afford and which doesn't really provide them with an guarantees of protection from catastrophic health costs.
  And I absolutely agree with the idea that removing the profit skim and administrative overhead required for "insurance" would provide worthwhile cost reduction in a single payer model.
  I think, though, that we need to dig even deeper than that and address some of the labor side costs as well. Part of the reasons doctors expect or want to earn high incomes is that it cost them so much to become doctors. I would think we could make medical school free but tack on a requirement that the first five years after your internship you have to work as a salaried provider. Remove the argument that you have $150k in loans and costs therefore you need to make bank in order to pay them off.
  I also wonder if the labor division between "doctors" and "nurses" is all that relevant anymore, it seems to be a relic of a more aristocratic division of labor. We need more, better trained nurse practitioner types who can practice more independently and reserve the investment in doctors for areas where more specialization is needed. I can't think of a single thing I've seen a general practitioner for that even an RN couldn't handle. Bottom line, the same money might buy is more people able to provide the basic services needed while still supplying levels of specialty where that's needed.
27. Re:Everybody uses health care by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-03 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  I don't disagree with you. I think Obamacare is the worst possible result, the casting in stone of a flawed system that now has no need to reform itself because it has just been enshrined as a permanent monopoly.
  For all of its flaws, the pre-Obamacare system was at least vulnerable to its own worst impulses. Without ACA I think it would have been forced to adapt its cost structure, but now it doesn't have to. We just make people buy insurance they increasingly can't afford and which doesn't really provide them with an guarantees of protection from catastrophic health costs.
  You put into words exactly how I feel about it.
  
  I think, though, that we need to dig even deeper than that and address some of the labor side costs as well. Part of the reasons doctors expect or want to earn high incomes is that it cost them so much to become doctors. I would think we could make medical school free but tack on a requirement that the first five years after your internship you have to work as a salaried provider. Remove the argument that you have $150k in loans and costs therefore you need to make bank in order to pay them off.
  Amen... My wife in her 40s still owes more than $50K in student loan debt. If it weren't financed at such a cheap interested rate, I'd have long since paid it off, since we have the money, but at the 2 something percent it is financed at, why bother?
28. Re:Everybody uses health care by swb · 2016-02-03 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Amen... My wife in her 40s still owes more than $50K in student loan debt. If it weren't financed at such a cheap interested rate, I'd have long since paid it off, since we have the money, but at the 2 something percent it is financed at, why bother?
  Every time we've looked at refinancing our house my wife worries that "we're starting over at 30 years" again, despite the fact that we save 10s of thousands of dollars over the life of the loan (and generally pay little to nothing in closing costs).
  I keep having to explain to her that if I could refinance the house for 10,000 years and end up with a monthly payment of $10 I would do it, even if I would never "pay it off".
29. Re:Everybody uses health care by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-03 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  :) I understand...
  We recently refinanced our home, purchased 2006 at 6.25%, for 15 years at 3.5%.
  I could have done 30 years at 3.25%, but honestly the 15 years does save a ton of interest over 30 years and we consider it forced savings for retirement.
  I now own more than 50% of my home, and could probably pay it off too, but what a waste of money? I make far more than that on investments.
30. Re:Everybody uses health care by david_thornley · 2016-02-03 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  On what planet do you live? On this one, health care systems that are vulnerable to that sort of exploitation cost far less for generally better results.
  Why don't you find some way to talk to random people in other developed countries about their health care? None of the systems are perfect, but they tend to be better than the US system at a far lower cost.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
31. Re:Everybody uses health care by david_thornley · 2016-02-03 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, someone sold you a crap insurance policy, and so you think insurance policies are crap. A policy that falls under the ACA categories will be accepted at enough places to be really useful, will cover much more, and is in a competitive market which will keep the premiums down. Before the ACA, lots of companies sold bad policies for high premiums.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
32. Re:Everybody uses health care by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-03 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, someone sold you a crap insurance policy
  No, I bought my policy off the Federal Marketplace, it was a silver policy with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas.
  
  A policy that falls under the ACA categories will be accepted at enough places to be really useful
  You keep thinking that, I found it to be less than useful.
33. Re:Everybody uses health care by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  Blue Cross is shit. You should have gone with Kaiser-Permanente.
Re:It's the privacy, stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:27 · Score: 0

The "full system report" isn't a new thing.
Where's the choice? by wkwilley2 · 2016-02-02 06:28 · Score: 1

It really is the same as Obama boasting about how many people signed up on Healthcare.gov.

--
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
1. Re:Where's the choice? by hyades1 · 2016-02-02 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Or American conservatives bragging that they've finally raised their average IQ to 85.
  :-)
  
  --
  I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
2. Re:Where's the choice? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, our dream is to one day be as smart as all you gay potheads with your degrees in African Womens' Studies from Berkeley.
3. Re:Where's the choice? by hyades1 · 2016-02-02 15:17 · Score: 0
  
  Unless you find a way to elevate yourselves by quite a lot, at least to the point where you won't lose two out of three intelligence contests to a retarded chimp, you won't have even a faint chance to start the process of getting to be as smart as a liberal.
  Sorry. I know truth is a hard thing for conservatives to face.
  
  --
  I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Re: Agreed, 110% & well put (mod ilsaloving up by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:29 · Score: 0

When the product becomes free, the customer becomes the product.
Does it cover ALL that's needed? See inside by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:33 · Score: 0

It's going to have a TOUGH TIME of it if in programmatic form: ACL on the filesystem is 1 thing, the registry is QUITE another as "Trusted Installer", doing it MINUS programmatic impersonation... Admin user will NOT cut it fully, especially in the registry.
* See here for COMPLETE details & what REALLY fully needs doing in great detail http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> I'm not kidding & NOT trying to "cut you down" - I am merely telling you that most of THOSE automators do NOT 'cut it' fully, removing ALL the remnants - the above will, & even has a foundation for FULL BLOWN complete automation - I'd do it were I not "otherwise encumbered" here with businesses primarily + other software projects noted (secondary)... the FOUNDATION for automation (what's there IS complete & works as a guide though), a good 99% of it, IS there though - for "enterprising souls"... apk
1. Re:Does it cover ALL that's needed? See inside by ilsaloving · 2016-02-02 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's the single best one I've found so far. And the creator is constantly updating it to keep up with the changes Microsoft has been making.
  It also has a monitoring mode where it stays in memory and warns you if Microsoft re-enables the updates.
Usually, but NOT in my case here... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:39 · Score: 0

Pure altruism-> APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...
-
FREE, not 'souled-out' to advertisers, adds speed, security & reliability.
Does far more w/ far less more efficiently vs. addons (clarityray blockable, redundant + RAM/CPU wasteful & 'souled-out' crippled by default) & local DNS servers @ home.
Fixes DNS' security issues & stops tracking @ webpage + DNS levels via 1 file you NATIVELY have!
(Firewalls do rest on FAR less used IP address trackers/threats vs. host-domain names).
-
Obtains data vs. online threats & ads via 10 reputable security community sites - easily edited by you using my program.
-
SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways:
Adblocking ALL ads + local RAM cached fav. sites @ TOP of hosts for faster resolution vs. remote DNS (for reliability + speed) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!
-
All via what you already have vs. illogically "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" (clarityray detected/blockable + usermode slow & increased messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads)
-
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee verified it's source as safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
&
MalwareBytes = BEST antivir per a recent test of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
Safe proven by 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
Installer-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
-
* "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend".
APK
P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:
"The image this title brings to mind's a mighty military commander who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" -> https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THE WORD = hosts!
(Accept NO substitutes)
...apk
1. Re:Usually, but NOT in my case here... apk by Opportunist · 2016-02-02 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  There you are, I was just talking about you.
  Are the MS domains responsible for spying on customers in your hosts file?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
will hit 20% with help of MiB knocking on doors by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:40 · Score: 0

hardballing updates via their OS update system gets them to 10% so with help from Microsoft in Black guys knocking on doors, maybe even offering $$, they can get 20% in a couple of years.
Tracking 40,000 Web Sites + 430 search engines. by westlake · 2016-02-02 06:40 · Score: 2

Many websites are blocking Windows XP as it doesn't support stronger than SHA-1 certs so the numbers will be skewed.

But not enough to matter.

We collect data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on-demand network of HitsLink Analytics and SharePost clients.
The network includes over 40,000 websites, and spans the globe.
We 'count' unique visitors to our network sites, and only count one unique visit to each network site per day. This is part of our quality control process to prevent fraud, and ensure the most accurate portrayal of Internet usage market share.
The data is compiled from approximately 160 million unique visits per month.
The information published on www.netmarketshare.com is an aggregation of the data from this network of hosted website traffic statistics.
In addition, we classify 430+ referral sources identified as search engines. Aggregate traffic referrals from these engines are summarized and reported monthly. The statistics for search engines include both organic and sponsored referrals.
These statistics include monthly information on key statistics such as browser trends (e.g. Internet Explorer vs. Firefox market share), search engine referral data (e.g. Yahoo vs. Bing vs. Google traffic market share) and operating system share (Windows vs. Mac vs. Linux market share or even the iOS market share vs. Android) The data is made available free of charge on a monthly basis that includes monthly usage market share and trends for browsers, operating systems and search engines.
I would like to see some examples of sites which are blocking XP and draw numbers on the scale of, let us say, Amazon.com, CNN, Fox News, Disney or Universal Studios.
Re:This is excellent news by sims+2 · 2016-02-02 06:42 · Score: 2

How did you get windows 10 to only use 6GB HD space after install and updates?
The computer I'm writing this on is a windows 7 laptop the windows folder is 62.6GB. As it happens I have a few machines running windows 10 all up to date:
A Lenovo win10 bare install 8.84GB
A Dell upgraded from win8 9.49GB
A Hp upgraded from win8 15.9GB
A Hp upgraded from win8 21.8GB
Windows seems to like space on a old sony vaio VGN-UX490N after reinstalling windows vista from recovery iirc it only had 3GB free space.
Sure you can use nlite and strip out everything but the calculator but still?

--
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
err.. Intel PC's wLGA sockets are failing.. by FirstOne · 2016-02-02 06:43 · Score: 1

Several of my newer Intel XP based laptops have died suddendly, (no bios, no beep), meanwhile nearly all of my AMD based systems, + plus older intel PGA socketed systems still boot up(15-20 years) run older OS's.(WIn 95, Linux) with no issues.
I suspect Intel is well aware of these LGA socket lifespan issues, and that's why they're switching to all BGA soldered in processors(2016).
.
We don't really need these stories anymore. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 06:48 · Score: 0

I can help curb the seemingly endless cycle of Microsoft news by summarizing past and future events: Microsoft is bad, Unix based systems are good. Nothing to see here, move along.
More bullshit from Timmy by hyades1 · 2016-02-02 06:59 · Score: 0

Hey, Timothy, is it true that if Microsoft had a cock, you'd want to suck it?
This is a question long-time Slashdot commenters are starting to ask.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Too bad it doesn't work. by tekrat · 2016-02-02 07:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

I was called to a friend's house to fix his PC. He has downloaded and installed the Windows 10 update on his Win 7, HP-1100 series box. The box itself is completely stock because my friend doesn't know much about the inner working of PCs.
Either way, Windows 10 refused to see the CDROM/DVD drive, which, being HP, is I believe is also a lightscribe burner. But I digress.
Hardware manager took a long time to find, but once found, was useless. It's not that it didn't recognize the hardware due to a lack of driver, it's as if the hardware physically did not exist. You couldn't even force Windows to try looking for it because it claimed there were no hardware problems.
So, I go to HP's website to try and find a driver that would force Windows to admit a CD drive existed. HP's site offer to diagnose my PC's problems. I let it. Animated graphic cycles for what seems like a day, and then I get the wonderful message "An error has occurred, please try again later" Bullshit -- this has probably never worked, but HP won't admit that. I try and manually find the driver based on the Box's model.
There are no drivers available for this machine. At least, nothing for Windows 10. How is this possible?
I was unwilling to take apart the machine to find the type of CD drive it is (assuming HP had marked anything), so, with little choice left, I had Win 10 degrade itself back to Win 7.
After 30 minutes of that; we were back to Windows 7 and the CD drive worked as expected.
Windows 10 is a piece of shit, and it's apparently an unsupported piece of shit. Why are there no drivers or any way to force Windows 10 to look for a common piece of hardware? a CD/DVD drive? That's like not recognizing a mouse.

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
1. Re:Too bad it doesn't work. by PRMan · 2016-02-02 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Or you could spend $20 on a new DVD burner. Seriously, this is a non-issue if HP used some cheap piece-of-crap that doesn't have a standard interface and made it work on Windows 7 with band-aids and duct tape.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
2. Re:Too bad it doesn't work. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  I had Win 10 degrade itself...
  Yeah, Win 10 is a pretty degrading experience.
3. Re:Too bad it doesn't work. by djm · 2016-02-02 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  It could be that the drive is connected to a PATA or SATA controller for which a driver wasn't installed, which would explain why Windows couldn't see the drive at all. That should be evident from the BIOS bootup screens. I have an ASUS desktop motherboard which needs a hard to find Windows driver to make its PATA controller work, and that's what that PC's optical drives are attached to.
4. Re:Too bad it doesn't work. by thegarbz · 2016-02-02 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  That's interesting. We have a laptop here that after the Windows 10 upgrade also has a non-functional CD drive. I haven't bothered trying to fix it because frankly we haven't used the drive in about 3 years. But interesting to see this isn't an isolated problem.
  Weren't CD drives handled generically anyway?
5. Re:Too bad it doesn't work. by roc97007 · 2016-02-02 09:39 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It's probably a CD on a PATA interface that's not supported by Win10. That would cause the drive not to show up at all. You may have an error elsewhere showing a controller not supported. I'd swap out the drive for a modern SATA DVD or blu-ray drive, either plugging it into an open SATA port or putting in a SATA controller card if none exists.
  Oh, who am I kidding? I wouldn't do that. I'd just backrev to Win7 like you did. Win10 doesn't have anything worth having that justifies screwing with the hardware.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
6. Re:Too bad it doesn't work. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 12:56 · Score: 0
  
  a cd or dvd drive is a cd or dvd drive.. even if the lightscribe feature didn't work in windows 10 (high probability without reinstalling *that* software which is specific to that function only), the drive itself should still have functioned 100% in windows 10 as a read or read/write optical drive using standard built in microsoft-provided drivers. there is no proprietary interfaces for consumer cd or dvd drives, and haven't been since the the early 90s (mitsumi's proprietary interface and mostly-scsi compatible interfaces found on some sound cards of the era). windows 10 is the devil's spawn, quit trying to defend it.
7. Re:Too bad it doesn't work. by Bite+The+Pillow · 2016-02-02 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'm waiting for the class action suit based on replacement costs for hardware without Win 10 drivers. Almost any hardware bought before the w10 developer preview wilL be out of warranty. Lots supported, sure, but most not.
  One update you didn't ask for and your hardware is bricked. It's going to be glorious.
8. Re:Too bad it doesn't work. by sjames · 2016-02-02 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  More probably, it's Window's bad habit of demanding a special snowflake driver even for bog standard hardware.
9. Re:Too bad it doesn't work. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 23:24 · Score: 0
  
  "Or you could bend over and...".. Thanks for that mate, we'll know where to come when we need a doormat.
10. Re:Too bad it doesn't work. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 15:13 · Score: 0
  
  You have to remove upper/lower filters in the registry. Google it and thank me later.
Your mom. by truck_soccer · 2016-02-02 07:18 · Score: 1

My mom too. When windows 95 came out I was 10 years old, reports of the evil Microsoft product "phoning home" were all the rage. Literally, my mom was seething with anger about this. How dare companies collect data about her usage habits! How dare the NSA sniff for packets! Here we are, 2 decades later, and Microsoft is still evil for collecting user data. The NSA is eye of Providence, and war... war never changes.
1. Re:Your mom. by LinuxIsGarbage · 2016-02-02 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  Reports of Windows "Phoning home" started with XP and product activation. Back in '95 days Internet access wasn't even assumed.
2. Re:Your mom. by truck_soccer · 2016-02-03 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  You're absolutely correct, my B.
What part of everyone was unclear? by sjbe · 2016-02-02 07:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Amish
What about them? They go to hospitals, they use medicines, etc. They require health care just like everybody else. The fact that they try to do it as much as possible within a community does not mean they do not participate in our health care system. Their church acts very much like a private group health insurance program that they all pay into.

Not everyone believes in private insurance.
So what? Ideology regarding private versus public insurance is irrelevant. Everybody uses health care whether they want to or not and therefore everybody needs to pay into the system to the extent they are able. Health care is a basic human right and nobody should be unable to get treatment because they are poor. We all need it sooner or later so we all should pay. Most sensible countries have solved this problem with a public health care system. The US has gone a different route (mostly for idiotic ideological reasons) but the result still needs to be that EVERYBODY pays whether they like it or not.
1. Re:What part of everyone was unclear? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  People can pay into the system by paying for the health care they receive, out-of-pocket, on an as-needed basis. That is how most things work, actually.
  One problem with insurance is that it drives health care costs up. Insurance companies can afford to pay more than private individuals, so hospitals jack up the prices....since they are legally required to charge providers the same as what they charge individuals, they must jack up the prices for individuals too. This prevents market forces from keeping prices fair, and forces people to spend a lot more on health care than they would otherwise need to (by buying insurance they won't normally need or facing astronomical prices for rare care that would be much more affordable in a free market).
  Universal health care creates an environment in which a disproportionately high amount of economic resources flow into the pockets of the ringleaders of health care, and out of the pockets of people who are required to pay at a much higher level than they actually need.
2. Re:What part of everyone was unclear? by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-02 07:47 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The Amish don't believe in buying private health insurance.
  That is what about them... But in your rush to counter me, you missed that point.
  I don't mind taking my kids to the doctor and paying the doctor. What you're suggesting is that I should prepay for services I may not need, to make sure my money covers everyone else.
  The only system where that is acceptable is national single payer healthcare. Similar to roads, schools, military, etc.
  The existing private health insurance system is not a part of that.
3. Re:What part of everyone was unclear? by bondsbw · 2016-02-02 09:08 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Everybody uses health care whether they want to or not and therefore everybody needs to pay into the system to the extent they are able.
  But this doesn't answer the question of whether health insurance as we know it in the US is best for everyone, or even for most people. Asserting that people need to pay does not assert how they need to pay.
  Concierge medicine, where a patient decides not to use insurance but instead pays their doctor on a subscription plan, is an alternative to health insurance that may be much better for many people. Regulation tends not to address people who think outside the box, favoring a particular business model and forcing other possibilities out.
  I like regulation, mind you. I just don't like how it often punishes those who might bring new and workable ideas to the table.
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
4. Re:What part of everyone was unclear? by ChrisMaple · 2016-02-02 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  Everybody uses health care whether they want to or not and therefore everybody needs to pay into the system to the extent they are able.
  Well hello, Karl Marx. According to you, I should spend everything I own and my whole life's labor paying for the healthcare of everyone else, including whores, addicts, and people with incurable fatal genetic defects.
  Your logic is completely defective. Using healthcare no more means that I should pay for everyone's healthcare than eating means I should pay for everyone's food or sitting means I should buy chairs for everyone. I am morally required to pay for the healthcare I use, and no more. I am responsible for my health and nobody else's because it's my body and my actions. I'm not responsible for your healthcare and I'm not going to pay for it. You're not responsible for my healthcare and I won't accept your help.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
5. Re:What part of everyone was unclear? by ChrisMaple · 2016-02-02 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  Additionally, the money that insurance company employees live on come from the premiums.
  Insurance industry comprises over 2% of the US workforce. That's a completely nonproductive 2% drain on the economy, people who could be otherwise employed making things, entertaining, or otherwise not doing things that pollute the intellectual atmosphere.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
6. Re:What part of everyone was unclear? by dbIII · 2016-02-02 16:15 · Score: 2
  
  According to you, I should spend everything I own and my whole life's labor paying for the healthcare of everyone else, including whores, addicts, and people with incurable fatal genetic defects.
  What's the wild man of the woods doing in some place with electricity and network infrastructure - doesn't he know that his weird "I've got mine" ideology is supposed to depend on operating outside society or otherwise he'll just look like a sociopathic prick?
  Civilisation means sharing the load, even for those that in a far more brutal society would be left out in the snow to die.
7. Re:What part of everyone was unclear? by Cyberax · 2016-02-02 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  I don't mind taking my kids to the doctor and paying the doctor. What you're suggesting is that I should prepay for services I may not need, to make sure my money covers everyone else. The only system where that is acceptable is national single payer healthcare. Similar to roads, schools, military, etc.
  What's the fundamental difference between those two? (Not that I'm against a single-payer health system)
8. Re:What part of everyone was unclear? by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-02 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  What's the fundamental difference between those two? (Not that I'm against a single-payer health system)
  The difference is the demand that I sign up with a private company and contract for their services, even if I don't like them.
  Keep in mind that the United States spends more money per person on health care, while providing a whole lot less care, than most other 1st world nations.
  There is a stupid amount of overhead in the insurance companies and for-profit hospitals.
  The very idea of a for-profit hospital is about as stupid as a for-profit police department. I don't mind some socialist services (and I say that as a right-winger). It makes for a nicer civilization.
  I like good police, good fire protection, good roads, good schools, and a nice zoned city to live in. All of that requires government in some form. It makes sense if that everyone (or ALMOST everyone) needs health care, then perhaps we should all collectively provide it to ourselves. But it shouldn't be via for-profit private insurance companies marking up the services of private for-profit hospitals.
  It would be much cheaper to simply hire doctors directly and pay them a salary, than to use the system we have now.
  ---
  Side note: Just because I'm against the ACA doesn't mean I think our old system was good, it sucked too. Health insurance should not be connected to your work, many people end up taking jobs for the health insurance. That's nuts. Whoever designed that system needs a kick in the teeth (and yea, I know it started back in WWII as a way to compete for employees when wages were frozen).
9. Re:What part of everyone was unclear? by david_thornley · 2016-02-03 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  Insurance companies do their best to drive health care costs down, since they only get to keep the difference between what they take in in premiums and what they have to pay out in claims. Sometimes they're far too successful. In any case, health care costs are necessary expenses for insurance companies.
  Health-care providers generally jack prices up much beyond what the insurance companies will pay. If you look at the resolution of an insurance claim, you'll see an initial billed amount that's paid partly by you, partly by the insurance company, and a large chunk that's taken off the top because the insurance company insists on it. If you have to pay your own medical bills, you don't have the negotiating power to do that, so you're screwed if the provider doesn't have mercy on you. Any legal requirement to charge the same to different recipients is cosmetic only, because the fact is that an insurance company WILL pay less than you need to for anything halfway expensive.
  That's one reason why people paying for health care as they use it doesn't work. The other reason is that it's easy to wind up with a medical bill that's really high, and you need insurance to smooth out the risk. My heart attack cost in excess of $70K before everything was accounted for, and that's enough money to push lots of people into bankruptcy.
  One reason why health care expenses are so high is that many people don't have insurance. If they have insurance, so they can afford health care, they can go to a doctor or nurse practitioner and get reasonable care in relatively economical settings and be able to afford it. If they don't, they have to wait until whatever they've got has had time to get really threatening and then go to the emergency room guaranteeing that they need major care in the most expensive possible way. Hospitals have to make up for that somehow. Hospitals are legally required to do this by a Reagan-era law, if you were wondering.
  Patients in other countries pay much less for expensive procedures, and the big difference between here and there is that everybody gets some level of health insurance over there. I've seen a lot of examples when it's cheaper to fly to another country and have a procedure done there than to have your local medical facility do it. A free market is not going to drive the expensive stuff down in price, but universal insurance will.
  Universal health care creates an environment in which much less in economic resources flows into the system for the ringleaders to rake off. Check any listing of health care expenses per capita by country. The US is alone up there, with countries like Germany coming up distant seconds.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
10. Re:What part of everyone was unclear? by david_thornley · 2016-02-03 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Excessively rhetoric much? There's probably a med for that that costs $5K/month in the US and $50/month in countries with reasonable health care systems. Having people pay for everybody else's health care makes more people healthy at a considerably lower cost. I take it you insist on paying more and risking more for your principles?
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
11. Re:What part of everyone was unclear? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 13:34 · Score: 0
  
  One problem with insurance is that it drives health care costs up. Insurance companies can afford to pay more than private individuals, so hospitals jack up the prices....since they are legally required to charge providers the same as what they charge individuals, they must jack up the prices for individuals too. This prevents market forces from keeping prices fair, and forces people to spend a lot more on health care than they would otherwise need to (by buying insurance they won't normally need or facing astronomical prices for rare care that would be much more affordable in a free market).
  Universal health care creates an environment in which a disproportionately high amount of economic resources flow into the pockets of the ringleaders of health care, and out of the pockets of people who are required to pay at a much higher level than they actually need.
  Unfortunately, your psuedo-economic theories fail the real world test.
  The Swiss health system has insurance companies.
  It doesn't have the problem of high costs.
  Hence, insurance -- in and of itself -- does not drive health care costs up.
  You'll have to look elsewhere for the reasons the US health care system is screwed up.
  Lack of appropriate regulation of US health care insurance might be a good starting point. The Swiss system is based on heavy regulation of these companies.
  Washington Post correspondent Reid has a book on comparative health care systems that is worth reading for some information on the differences between countries.
  The need for regulation for capitalism to work for the public good has been understood since Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations" (the first major text on capitalism, and in many ways still the most important) in 1776.
  However, the USA is particularly good at ignoring this detail, which works out really well for the super rich and screws massive numbers of ordinary people.
  This, too, goes back a long time. Adam Smith was opposed to slavery, and yet around half the US colonies decided to continue that institution in a nation supposedly dedicated to protecting the "rights of man". Morris of NY pointed out that this was a contradiction during the Constitutional Convention (go look up his speech), but then as now large numbers of US lawyers weren't interested in being ethical.
  The USA has many propaganda specialists who are very successfully finding clever ways to redirect the public from acting in its own best interests: the current approach involves creating the impression that regulation somehow equals socialism.
a bad case of the vbvbs by epine · 2016-02-02 07:25 · Score: 1, Funny

but the market share numbers are what they are
No.
When words cease to mean what they were intended or traditionally understood to mean, people with working brains find a new lexicon. We have a name for language that continues to circulate at the hands of the disengaged: cliche.
If the minds of the disengaged have any taste (lazy though it be, to be sure) they stock their cliche pantry with Shakespearean cliche. What the hell is a "salad day" anyway? Doesn't matter. The Bard didn't become the Bard by coining phrases that later flip tits up and float to the top of the scum pond, there to rot in the hot afternoon sun.
"Market share" is a phrase created by bean counters, subtype "venal" and is in fact principally circulated by the venal beancounter's venal beancounter: advertising men.
For example, my household is probably numbed among the vbvb as a "cable cutter", this though I have not resided anywhere with a working cable service for nearly thirty years, and that was an entire four month term at university, before which my family used this contraption called an "antenna", the kind you could see from the other side of the valley. A large, rusty pipe wrench lived full time at the bottom of the pole, seeing as, weather permitting, we could sometimes pick up Bellingham, and thereby upgrade in a scandalous moment from The Beachcombers to The Love Boat. David Suzuki on The Nature of Things would soon wrench us back to our senses, such being the paucity of science coverage in those times, good bad or ugly (Suzuki being a uneven trail mix I tended to score as "all of the above").
By this point in my young life I had passed judgement on television as mode of knowing shit about anything, hence the my thirty years in the un-television wilderness (and counting).
Nevertheless, to a moral certainty, I am surely categorized as a "cable cutter" (hey, we didn't say when).
Yes, those fucking vbvbs. We all know the drill.
Microsoft 10's "market share" is a fresh, tender patty of the same basic construction, whose turbid run off is additionally clouded by the chocolate-flavoured Ex-Lax served up by Windows Update.
Secondly, there is a key point to understand about how vbvbs do basic arithmetic.
Those least able to shuffle off the mortal coil of an undesired Windows 10 upgrade are the most important people to count. Your value in this pendant statistic is inversely proportional to your capacity to successfully wipe your own ass. These people are everything you want in a community of unwitting Guinea pigs to beta test suspect patches you are withholding from enterprise (tetchy, uptight people who actually know the difference and who, like Gandalf, only lose their shit precisely when and where they mean to).
Which brings us to "caveat emptor", the original market creed, and durable cliche of the highest Imperial coinage.
Let's suppose in Roman times you buy a pig in a poke. You take it home, release it from the bag—no surprise to you, since you checked carefully, it really is a baby piglet of sound mind & body—and you feed it the many different kinds of root vegetables that were not yet regarded as fit for human consumption, until the bacon is practically hanging in folds from its oversized rump. Then one dark and rainy night, a woman next door with more than the socially acceptable number of facial warts and moles twitches her nose and your domestic pig metamorphs inside your dwelling into a 600-lb toadstool (one with no prominent swollen bulboe labelled "drink me" to reserve the spell).
I am a great deal more than pretty much certain—one does not bet upon the Roman character lightly—that to the Roman mind, this scenario goes a great deal past caveat emptor, and well into lynch mob territory.
A "market" is a human institution where the receiver of the goods makes a dangerous but informed decision and then
You create costs by existing by sjbe · 2016-02-02 07:26 · Score: 0

I am that guy. I don't go to hospitals, dentists, walk in clinics, family doctors, mental health providers. I haven't gone to any healthcare establishment unless it was in regard to pre employment screening since my father's military insurance stopped covering me about 20 years ago.
No you aren't "that guy". Sooner or later you will create a financial cost on the medical system. Avoiding medical care usually ends up in bigger costs down the line. But even if you completely avoid doctors and modern medicine you still will create medical costs by your existence.

At this point, if I become injured or sick in such a way that requires assistance to keep me alive, I'd rather not receive that assistance, and I have all the proper DNR boxes checked.
Oh bullshit. Even if you did have the sort of death wish you claim it doesn't matter. You still will cost the health care system by your mere existence. You think all that paperwork regarding your alleged DNR is free of cost? Do you think that you won't get carted to the hospital if you are in an accident? Do you think end of life care is free even for someone not seeking medical care? Nope. EVERYBODY uses the health care system whether they want to or not. EVERYBODY in society creates costs that others have to share. Only way to avoid it is to go deep into the wilderness and live off the land until you die, away from all humanity. Something basically nobody does.
If you want to be a part of society you get to share in some of the costs. Deal with it.
1. Re:You create costs by existing by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-02 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  The grand flaw in your argument is that you are taking a moral stand that you expect others to just accept.
  The person you replied to is not asking for society to spend money on him, so he isn't much interested in the bill for any of it.
  You're suggesting that since you value such things, he should have to pay for it, wanted or not.
  ---
  Last year I have health insurance, my out of pocket cost was under $100. The cost to society was far higher, but I can't control that, only what I spend myself.
  This year, my cost rose to over $350 a month. I no longer see value at that price. So I dropped insurance.
  I completely understand your point, and the purpose of the ACA requiring me to buy insurance, it is to pay for those people who do get sick. But just like the cost to society, that is beyond my control.
  $350 a month for a product I don't use is a bad deal for me. It begins and ends there.
  Now I know what you'll say, "sooner or later I'll need it". Yes, that might be true, but I'll take my chances at age 40 that it won't be this year.
  That $4k+ per year will go a. Ice way towards funding my retirement, 10 years of that, plus interest, will be a nice chunk of money when I'm 65.
2. Re:You create costs by existing by Anne+Thwacks · 2016-02-02 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  If you get Zika virus, and risk infect others with it rather than seeking treatment, should we get Putin to vaccinate you with Polonium in the interests of the greater good? Or just shoot you on the spot?
  You are permitted to phone Donald Trump before answering.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
3. Re:You create costs by existing by Merk42 · 2016-02-02 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  sjbe wasn't arguing whether or not the AC should be costing people money, just that AC is.
4. Re:You create costs by existing by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-02 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, he was arguing that since the AC would need healthcare sooner or later, they had an obligation to pay for it now.
  Or to put it another way, sjbe was arguing that since the AC might cost society *something, someday* the AC had an obligation to pay towards everyone's health care today.
5. Re:You create costs by existing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 17:48 · Score: 0
  
  The grand flaw in your argument is that you are taking a moral stand that you expect others to just accept.
  The person you replied to is not asking for society to spend money on him, so he isn't much interested in the bill for any of it.
  You're suggesting that since you value such things, he should have to pay for it, wanted or not.
  ---
  Last year I have health insurance, my out of pocket cost was under $100. The cost to society was far higher, but I can't control that, only what I spend myself.
  This year, my cost rose to over $350 a month. I no longer see value at that price. So I dropped insurance.
  I completely understand your point, and the purpose of the ACA requiring me to buy insurance, it is to pay for those people who do get sick. But just like the cost to society, that is beyond my control.
  $350 a month for a product I don't use is a bad deal for me. It begins and ends there.
  Now I know what you'll say, "sooner or later I'll need it". Yes, that might be true, but I'll take my chances at age 40 that it won't be this year.
  That $4k+ per year will go a. Ice way towards funding my retirement, 10 years of that, plus interest, will be a nice chunk of money when I'm 65.
  Until you have a heart attack when you are in your early 50s and get slugged with $100k+ worth of hospital bills...
6. Re:You create costs by existing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 10:55 · Score: 0
  
  You're obviously not living out in the woods "off grid" or you wouldn't be posting here, so how do you think your weekly/monthly supermarket shop gets onto the shelves?
  The farmers, transport workers, warehouse staff, supermarket staff, construction workers, road maintenance workers, power workers, truck builders etc. who get the food onto the shelves all use the healthcare system so you do too by relying on them for your existence.
  I've not noticed any entrepreneurs setting up supermarkets that don't rely on any workers who use the healthcare system so maybe that is an opportunity for you to set up the first one and become a billionaire.
7. Re:You create costs by existing by david_thornley · 2016-02-03 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  It was a refutation of the AC, who said he would not pay for healthcare and not receive any. Since AC is quite likely to need expensive health care at some point when AC can't or won't stand on principles and refuse, AC is likely to incur considerable health care expenses where AC wants to or not. Since the contrary was the main basis of AC's argument, AC's argument is invalid.
  This isn't the equivalent of the Ace Attorney video game series, where beating a murder charge requires coming up with solid evidence that a specific other person committed the murder. It's possible to refute an argument without supplying an ironclad argument for something else.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
8. Re:You create costs by existing by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-03 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  Since AC is quite likely to need expensive health care at some point
  "Need" or "want?
  Those are two different things... Or are you suggesting that the AC has lost all free will and can't turn healthcare down?
  
  AC is likely to incur considerable health care expenses where AC wants to or not.
  That is society's problem, not the AC's. If society doesn't want to incur those costs, then we can switch to not treating all comers, regardless of ability to pay. That is a different choice, one we aren't likely to make.
  But we could.
  Regardless, you aren't going to convince the AC of anything with your moral argument of what he/she should or should not do, they don't really care.
9. Re:You create costs by existing by david_thornley · 2016-02-04 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  As a society, we have made the choice not to let people die in the streets because they haven't made adequate provisions for health insurance. It would be immoral dehumanizing, and unhygienic. AC has made the choice to live in that particular society.
  Also, there are times when we don't have free will, due to incapacitation of some sort or another, and those are the cases where we are most likely to need expensive medical treatment. They aren't predictable, either. If AC gets into a bad accident, we'll say not AC's fault, and is unconscious and seriously injured in other ways, AC is going to be hauled to the emergency room and receive some very expensive medical attention before AC can choose to refuse it.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
10. Re:You create costs by existing by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-04 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  As a society, we have made the choice not to let people die in the streets because they haven't made adequate provisions for health insurance. It would be immoral dehumanizing, and unhygienic.
  And in fairness, I tend to agree with that decision.
  
  AC has made the choice to live in that particular society.
  Have they? We no longer really live in a world that gives people that choice. The world is full, there is nowhere *new* to go that doesn't have governments and "society".
  I didn't pick to be born here, or live here. I don't have unlimited freedom to move to any nation on Earth, they don't have to accept me. And even if they did, they have their own rules that I might or might not agree with.
  Unless you're suggesting that the AC has the right to kill themselves if they don't like "our rules"? If not, then what are you suggesting? Because honestly, I can't see that they got much of a say in any of it.
  
  Also, there are times when we don't have free will, due to incapacitation of some sort or another, and those are the cases where we are most likely to need expensive medical treatment. They aren't predictable, either. If AC gets into a bad accident, we'll say not AC's fault, and is unconscious and seriously injured in other ways, AC is going to be hauled to the emergency room and receive some very expensive medical attention before AC can choose to refuse it.
  Yes, I get that. Would you suggest some type of registration system that allows him to op-out in advance? Or perhaps we treat him anyway and just eat the cost, since that was our choice to not refuse treatment on the basis of money?
  May I further suggest that if you wish to take the moral stand that we should not refuse treatment on the basis of money, that we also should not allow for-profit health insurance or for-profit doctors/hospitals? That it should be more like the fire department or police, we all pay for it, but we all get it free of charge to the person?
  After all, the police and fire departments do not send a bill for their services. Neither is driven by profit. They exist to serve all of us.
11. Re:You create costs by existing by david_thornley · 2016-02-05 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Morality gets a lot more complicated when there's no lawless frontier, yes. However, AC lives in this society and benefits by all sorts of things we do as a society, and really can't pick and choose what AC wants and what AC doesn't want. If given the choice, I'd opt out of paying for the war in Iraq and the two new sports stadiums in my city, but it's all part of living in a society that has created a government that does a lot more good things than bad. I'm much better off, net, with the government. I take advantage of the stuff the government offers to me. That, in my opinion, creates a responsibility to pay back somehow. Also, it is possible to live in this country and be effectively out of government control, and some people do, as long as they don't give the law a good reason to come after them, and AC was not giving any sign of opting out as much as AC could.
  I do believe AC has the right to commit suicide, but that has nothing to do with social contracts or anything like that. However, morality doesn't exist completely devoid of real-world considerations (I don't think any branch of ethics does), and so we have to deal with the morality of the current world.
  
  Or perhaps we treat him anyway and just eat the cost, since that was our choice to not refuse treatment on the basis of money?
  
  To answer this question intelligently, I have to know what we mean by "we". I don't think there's a rule in society that somebody doesn't disagree with. We have rules against killing other people without good reason, and I know at least one anarchist who doesn't think there should be such a fixed rule. (He's a very moral guy, and isn't going to kill another without darn good reason, so he's not just trying to justify his own inclinations.) If we're talking about we as a society and government, we need to realize that there are dissenters, and what to do about them. We have to compel participation to some extent, to avoid the free-rider problem.
  When we have decided we have such-and-such a right, I don't see that it matters much whether we get it publicly or privately. As a homeowner in this city, I have the right to water, sewer, natural gas, electrical, telephone, garbage pickup, and education services to name some of them, since that's what the appropriate governments have decided. (I do have to pay directly for most of them, but there are some provisions to provide some of these services under some conditions if the resident can't pay, and there are some I do not directly pay for.) The water and sewer service are provided directly by the city, and I am billed for these. The natural gas, electricity, and telephone connections are provided by private companies who operate under government regulation, and I pay these separately. Garbage pickup at least used to be provided by private companies under contract to the city (it may have changed recently, and I would not necessarily have noticed), and is billed separately. Education can be provided by the public school system, and there are charter schools that receive government funding, and this is straight from property taxes. It all works reasonably well.
  Health care can work well under all of these systems. We do have to let practitioners make good money, or we aren't going to have enough, so we do have to allow something like for-profit doctors.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
12. Re:You create costs by existing by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-05 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  However, AC lives in this society and benefits by all sorts of things we do as a society, and really can't pick and choose what AC wants and what AC doesn't want.
  That is true, to a point... You can move outside of a city and county school area and cut your housing tax obligations by a lot, just as an example.
  I live in a major city, my property tax bill is substantial. While I don't *LIKE* it, I understand it and pay it without serious complaint, because it buys me civilization. If you came to me tomorrow and said "we want to raise your annual property tax bill by $1,000, but we will pass a law requiring class sizes be cut to 1 teacher per 10 students", I would pay it in a heartbeat, without complaint.
  So there ARE things I'll pay for, but I also get that not everyone would agree. People who have no kids would probably not like the above very much.
  
  As a homeowner in this city, I have the right to water, sewer, natural gas, electrical, telephone, garbage pickup, and education services to name some of them, since that's what the appropriate governments have decided.
  It may just be a word choice, but I think it is worth pointing out that you actually don't have the *right* to those things, you have the privilege to pay for them. You don't have to buy your *rights*. If I don't pay my water bill, they turn off the water.
  I don't have to buy my freedom of speech, for example.
  
  Health care can work well under all of these systems. We do have to let practitioners make good money, or we aren't going to have enough, so we do have to allow something like for-profit doctors.
  I don't consider a doctor's paycheck to be "for-profit", at least no more than the paycheck of anyone who works for the government. I'm more thinking of the billions of dollars insurance companies and large hospital systems make.
  ---
  If the Government decided tomorrow that Blue Cross/Blue Shield was going to run national health care, fine. Then everyone gets it without having to fill out endless forms and pay a bunch of fees. It is just paid for by our taxes, and it could be like a regulated utility.
  What I DO object to is being forced to shop for private products and services that I may not want, that come with a lot of expenses and conditions attached, that I didn't ask for.
  If Bernie Sanders gets his way and raises taxes to provide Medicare for all, with no charge to have it, I'm ok with that actually.
  Maybe that seems strange to some, but it works for me.
13. Re:You create costs by existing by david_thornley · 2016-02-08 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Back before I had a kid, I voted for every tax increase for schools and libraries that came up on the ballot. There was a particularly large one to reduce class sizes, and I happily voted for it. Then, when my kid got old enough, class sizes were back to what they were. The story of my life: stuff I pay for tends to be gone by the time I personally want to use it. Oh well.
  I was using "right" a little loosely there. There's stuff I have the right to buy, stuff I have the right to (public education for my kid, for example), stuff that happens that I'm billed for, stuff I have the right to do personally, and stuff I have no right to. Around here, I have the right to have an electric line run to my house, and the right to get power by paying the electric company. I do not have the right to buy fat-free mozzarella, and no grocery store is required to stock it. (Don't knock it; it's just fine on a pizza made on french bread.)
  The idea behind the ACA is that the government creates a competitive market, and the only way this works is to get everyone to participate. It's a really clunky system, and I really prefer single-payer, but it's a move in the right direction.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
14. Re:You create costs by existing by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-08 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Back before I had a kid, I voted for every tax increase for schools and libraries that came up on the ballot. There was a particularly large one to reduce class sizes, and I happily voted for it. Then, when my kid got old enough, class sizes were back to what they were. The story of my life: stuff I pay for tends to be gone by the time I personally want to use it. Oh well.
  Yea, I hear you... When my 10 year old son started in school, class sizes were about 20 to 1. My 7 year old daughter now has 27 total kids in her class, for 1 teacher. In 2nd grade!
  I'm not happy about this at all. That is way too high for that age, it shows in her work compared to my older son when he had fewer kids in class at that age.
  My options however, are quite limited. I can home school him, or move. We live far enough outside of the city center that private school options are sparse and far enough away that it would be a challenge to get the kids to them every day. Doable, but moving would be easier.
  If we move to another area that has lower class sizes, nothing assures me that will hold for any amount of time.
  
  I was using "right" a little loosely there. There's stuff I have the right to buy, stuff I have the right to (public education for my kid, for example), stuff that happens that I'm billed for, stuff I have the right to do personally, and stuff I have no right to. Around here, I have the right to have an electric line run to my house, and the right to get power by paying the electric company. I do not have the right to buy fat-free mozzarella, and no grocery store is required to stock it. (Don't knock it; it's just fine on a pizza made on french bread.)
  Fair enough... I just see "rights" tossed around like candy sometimes and I think people forget about what a "right" actually is. But clearly you understand, so moving on. :)
  
  The idea behind the ACA is that the government creates a competitive market, and the only way this works is to get everyone to participate. It's a really clunky system, and I really prefer single-payer, but it's a move in the right direction.
  I get the idea, and it sounds great on paper. But it only works if multiple companies are honestly competing for your business. At least in the case of Texas, that is largely no longer true.
  I had coverage last year, it was about $90 a month out of pocket (with a lot more from our friends at Uncle Sam), and the coverage was decent, if you had a major medical emergency. We went through multiple primary care providers, trying to find one that could get us a reasonable appointment schedule. That is harder than you think when so few accept the insurance.
  You see, Blue Cross/Blue Shield sells policies on the ACA exchanges, then they sell "other policies" off the ACA exchanges. My wife accepts the latter type, but not the former. If you have a healthcare marketplace policy, you can't go see her, she won't accept the reimbursement rates they offer. She gets nearly twice as much money from the non-marketplace policies.
  Now the hospitals and emergency rooms don't get that choice, but my wonderful ACA exchange policy had a $500 co-pay for an ER visit. No big deal to me, but to a lot of people, that isn't affordable (it should be, but that is another conversation).
  The family annual deductible on the policy last year was just over $11,000, with $5,500 per person. The co-pay was 20%, until the deductible was met. Those are not affordable to many people, and that was the silver plan.
  The ACA sounds nice in principle, but I suspect as people try to actually use the policies and discover how much additional out of pocket you end up having to spend, combined with fewer doctors accepting the policies, you'll see a backlash trend. Sure, young people who don't use many medical services will take time to figure this out, but it will happen.
  Side note: In case you were curious. My wife is cons
15. Re:You create costs by existing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks to the ACA, the older plans no longer exist.
  Nope, thanks to the insurance companies and other members of the health industry lobby.
  I say industry, not care, for a reason.
  They knew what they wanted, and it wasn't the kind of policy you're talking about.
  Those polices were bad for them.
  I swear, people freak out over the ACA, yet they don't seem to know who wrote it.
  Here's a hint, it wasn't Dingell. He proposed stuff for 40 years, it got ignored.
16. Re:You create costs by existing by david_thornley · 2016-02-09 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  OK, you got screwed by how the ACA was put into practice. I hadn't realized the companies in Texas had managed to abuse it so badly. Around here, things seem to work a lot better. I've got a friend and a relative with pretty bad medical problems that are doing just fine with the ACA in Minnesota and Wisconsin. My priest friend in South Dakota tells me that she's very happy about the ACA and what it means for her poorer parishioners. (Texas has always wanted to do things its own way, which can be good or bad. Last I dealt with power generation, there were three big grids in the US: East, West, and Texas.)
  I'm also on the same insurance I had before the ACA, which is superb.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:This is excellent news by PRMan · 2016-02-02 07:28 · Score: 1

32-bit is much smaller than 64-bit, for one thing.
That's how my HP Stream 7 is using only 23 GB in its Windows 10 partition, and I have Office and Olive Tree Bible reader on there as well as my standard Ninite.com freeware.

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Re:This is excellent news by Opportunist · 2016-02-02 07:29 · Score: 1

Nah, actually very comforting.
As long as the market share is low, there's no reason to worry that malware will find its way onto Linux. Like any software, it's a business. Infections happen where people are who are using it. Nobody using Linux on a desktop, no worry that it would become a target platform.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:This is excellent news by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 07:30 · Score: 0

GP was probably referring to the 6GB in installation source files being downloaded over any available connection without users consent.
Not requiring insurance by Firethorn · 2016-02-02 07:55 · Score: 1

Many??
Correct. It's not often advertised, but most states allow you to post some sort of bond, often in the sum of required insurance levels, instead of getting insurance.
Basically, if the state policy adds up to $300k of coverage, you put $300k into the bond and you don't need to pay for insurance otherwise.

--
I don't read AC A human right
1. Re:Not requiring insurance by dryeo · 2016-02-02 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  How the hell can $30,000 be considered adequate insurance? Would that even cover the ambulance ride to emergency down there? I feel bad only carrying $2 million in the land of govt. healthcare as if I ever put someone in a wheelchair, I'd like to cover their expenses.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
2. Re:Not requiring insurance by Firethorn · 2016-02-02 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  How the hell can $30,000 be considered adequate insurance? Would that even cover the ambulance ride to emergency down there? I feel bad only carrying $2 million in the land of govt. healthcare as if I ever put someone in a wheelchair, I'd like to cover their expenses.
  1. You're missing a zero. My example was $300k, not $30k.
  2. Sadly, the actual limits are lower in a lot of states. For example, Florida only requires $10k of personal injury protection liability insurance.
  3. In the USA, though, liability doesn't end with insurance, however 'most' people are judgement proof. IE if I'm a millionaire and carry the Florida minimum, hit somebody and do $100k of damage, my insurance will pay $10k and I'll have to pay $90k. Plus court costs, most likely. However, most people don't have the assets to pay their own lawyer through a trial, much less a judgement.
  4. Car insurance in the USA tends to be more about protecting your own assets than making the other person whole.
  5. My insurance is $250k/person, $500k/incident.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
3. Re:Not requiring insurance by dryeo · 2016-02-02 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  Probably got confused by the guy up the page who was proud to carry $5K liability.
  10K is really ridiculously low.
  Here liability doesn't end with insurance either though under-insured motorist protection is compulsory so if you hit me and your insurance doesn't cover it, mine will kick in and my insurance will sue you for the money. (courts are more reasonable here so usually don't have to worry about excess punitive damages)
  Here the government doesn't want to have to cover shortfalls so insists on higher liability. Not sure what it is now, perhaps $500K.
  My liability is $2 million which would be split if more then one person made a claim. It also covers me if your insurance comes up short. I'd have higher if it was as cheap as it used to be. Generally I'm a good driver but like everyone I have bad days, tired, stressed out or just plain old spaced so the possibility of injuring someone is real.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:This is excellent news by LVSlushdat · 2016-02-02 08:00 · Score: 1

Unix and linux are for morons. Come on guys get with the f*ckin program.
Ok then, I guess, according to you, I'm a moron then, since I don't use ANYthing on my computers besides Linux. But though I'm a moron, I'm
a thousand times more intelligent than *you*... Of course, that goes without saying since you don't have the balls to post without hiding behind
AC...

--
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
Re:This is excellent news by LVSlushdat · 2016-02-02 08:02 · Score: 1

Hey Sparky.. you'd lose that bet BIG time... I tried Windows 10 for a couple of weeks on a spare system, and all I could think of, was HOW THE FUCK ANYBODY can use this crapfest.. I went back to Linux and reformatted the Windows 10 disk.... shudder

--
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
Sounds good... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 08:06 · Score: 0

Like most apps that are good, he's adding proper featuresets, & IF you like it as much as you say, check the points I noted... if not, TELL HIM of those.
* Trust me on this, as the "voice of experience" building apps for folks online since 1996 - devs like being notified WHEN it's valid & necessary for improvement...
APK
P.S.=> In any event, utter agreement with all your points for the most part - 'great minds think alike' & all that, lol... apk
In MINE personally? Yes! On others? apk by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 08:14 · Score: 0

See subject: Probably - someonewhocares has them afaik, & my program has them as a datasource. I'm merely a broker of OTHERS' data for consolidating them all + sorting & deduplating them AND filtering them vs. false postives (7,500++ of them)
So that all said & aside?
Yes most likely even in the ones folks get via my program, as they do NOT get MY personal hosts file (Again, that's since I use the best lists for it from the security community itself that produce them (God Bless them for doing it)).
APK
P.S.=> Mine's NOT like anyone elses - 2nd largest in existence that I know of, VERY comprehensive but potentially full of false positives due to sinkholing/killing them off @ ICANN & DNS levels (usually takes 1-6 months for that to occur provided fastflux design's not used, almost unkillable permanently, but blockable quickly - they're "reincarnatable" for lack of a better expression) - the reason mine's SO big (nearly 4 million lines) was a PERSONAL test of seeing how BIG I can make hosts before it become problematic on how I set up hosts read priority & turning off usermode slower faulty with large hosts dns cache client in Windows (which allows for hosts as large as mine, saving cpu cycles & ram + other forms of I/O wasted on it being faulty with larger hosts due to FIFO algorithm on a LIMITED fixed size datastructure used to construct it's lists, indexed speeds or not, it's busted (I informed MS, no change - they don't want hosts OR ANYTHING working vs. ads (witness no addons Edge in Win10)).
"LIMITLESS"... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 08:18 · Score: 0

See subject: "I'm 50 moves ahead of you Karl" -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
* :)
("Ask & YE shall receive", but... it's not really ME doing it, it's my sources, one has those, & yes, it's on by default as an importable in my program (you don't get MY personal hosts file)).
APK
P.S.=> "VOILA" & "there ya go" - Onwards & UPWARDS... apk
Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 08:24 · Score: 0

Can ghostery do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C server talk
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C server talk
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C server talk
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get dns blocks
12.) Keep off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) Ez data control
16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory use vs. addons
* ANSWER ="NO" to each on Ghostery doing all or @ all + hosts = on devices natively.
APK
P.S.=> Addons do FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
---
Addons add complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
---
ClarityRay defeats addons like Ghostery via native browser methods.
---
Better than ghostery by FAR = APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified its source is safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
GUARANTEED safe & clean per 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
So is its installer -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
... apkb
Free and nagging will do that. by Lumpy · 2016-02-02 08:29 · Score: 1

Plus It's also a great way to get a Pirated copy of 7 to become a legit one. Works great if you have the right kind of pirated windows 7.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Re:Free and nagging will do that. by roc97007 · 2016-02-02 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Plus It's also a great way to get a Pirated copy of 7 to become a legit one. Works great if you have the right kind of pirated windows 7.
  Except that, then you'd have Windows 10.
  Lessee.... pirated Win7... legitimate Win10... It'd be legitimate, but, you know,,,, pirated Win7...
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:This is excellent news by sims+2 · 2016-02-02 08:38 · Score: 1

That's only $90 in overages if your on vzw @ $15/GB I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with that ;-)

--
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
That's kinda sad by YoungManKlaus · 2016-02-02 08:39 · Score: 1

not that Win 10 passes XP, but that XP still has such a huge market share and this moment only is now and not like a week after you launch anything at shitty sales.
Re:This is excellent news by sims+2 · 2016-02-02 08:52 · Score: 1

In the interest of comparing apples to apples all systems I listed with the exception of the windows vista machine are 64bit and the sizes listed are the windows folder by itself.
32bit windows systems are pretty rare now days. Plus I really like having more than 4GB of ram.

--
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Re:It's the privacy, stupid by vux984 · 2016-02-02 08:57 · Score: 2

If you using 7 or 8 the telemetry stuff is being backported and applied to your OS.
If you aren't sure how to prevent 10 from leaking info, then you aren't sure how to prevent 7 or 8 from leaking info either, and not upgrading isn't really a win for you.
This is my current go to:
https://www.safer-networking.o...
If any one has any criticism of it, I'm definitely listening.
For what its worth, I've upgraded my main PC to 10 now, and after a few customizations to basically shut off cortana, web search from the start menu, live tiles, and other crap, I'm pretty happy with it.
There are quite a few real improvements.
Staying on 7 over the privacy didn't make sense given they were rotting the privacy in 7 as well. And if I'm going to run something like spybot on 7 ... then I figured I might as well run it on 10.
Unity3D for Linux is coming! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 09:05 · Score: 0

Have faith:
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/unity-on-linux-release-notes-and-known-issues.350256/
Re:This is excellent news by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 09:07 · Score: 0

"...although I had to go into the installer and modify the boot.wim and install.wim file because it was hard-freezing my CPU at boot. Had to remove the GenuineIntel_mcupdate.dll file out of system32 (it was inserting invalid microcode). This is still a problem on the current Windows 10 release...
Most people would run for the hills if they had to sort crap like that out. Good thing you have the knowledge to go in and fix stuff.
(Posted anonymously since I upvoted a couple of posts here.)
The difference being, by roc97007 · 2016-02-02 09:31 · Score: 1

...your computer didn't upgrade to Windows XP in the middle of the night without your permission.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Linux Mint is the real Windows Successor by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 09:47 · Score: 0

Sorry Microsoft, but you are a pile of shit now... you are not engineering led, and deserve to die under your scumbag MBA and marketing idiot managers.
Microsoft is about greed, exploitation and zero innovation... does not give a shit about its customers wants. Does not focus on performance but does crap like DRM and subscription models... go to hell with that shit thinking.
The PC market is ready for a true disrupter and I think Linux Mint with a future add on of the Vulcan API will be king of the hill. Great UI, useful, high performance and does not get in the way of your work...
What about XP on VMs? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 09:59 · Score: 0

Do the statistics count XP on VMs on Windows 8 or 10 because some legacy app won't run?
1. Re:What about XP on VMs? by LinuxIsGarbage · 2016-02-02 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  Only if you're surfing online with them.
  Likewise stats don't count embedded or industrial applications.
Re:This is excellent news by vux984 · 2016-02-02 10:10 · Score: 1

I tried Windows 10 for a couple of weeks on a spare system, and all I could think of, was HOW THE FUCK ANYBODY can use this crapfest.
Ok.. I'll bite... what was the problem? I mean, it boots to the desktop, i have my usual apps pinned to the desktop (remote desktop, thunderbird, outlook, excel, firefox, visual studio, teamviewer, etc...)
I launch less common stuff via the 'search' box on the desktop. (from powershell, to cmd, gimp, to notepad++, etc...)
Its quick and efficient at launching programs. The desktop environment is perfectly adequate. (I prefer it to OSX; and think its on par with Cinnamon and other popular Linux window managers)
I've also got a macbook pro laptop, and its perfectly serviceable as well. I like it because its sturdy and light, and the battery lasts forever with how I use it. I just use it for remote desktop, email, and web.
I ~also~ use linux, but it hasn't become my primary desktop mostly due to:
windows isn't expensive relative to the hardware so its not an expense i'm looking to avoid.
Plus I use steam (games), excel/outlook (work), and visual studio (work); which linux doesn't support well.
I can understand the objection to Win10 on some the principled grounds -- Microsoft's general business practices, its not free software, and especially the telemetry issues, etc. But I simply can't understand the objections on pure usability "HOW THE FUCK CAN ANYBODY USE THIS CRAPFEST". Windows 8 had its irritating issues, windows 10 has some dumb defaults out of the box, but otherwise the user experience is fine.
Anyone coming from Linux, or comparing to linux should have no difficulty whatsoever tweaking windows into submission.
When I see a post like yours I presume your simply pre-disposed to hate it for reasons unrelated to the actual experience of using, then install it so you can really hate it properly, and then uninstall it so you can boast how much you hated it. But I'm open to hearing your actual criticisms.
Not trying this crap again anytime soon by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 10:23 · Score: 0

I actually tried this crappy thing called windows 10 some days ago.
Spent two days trying to fix that thing, upgraded to the latest release the took ages to download and ages to install (while the box was unusable for like an hour, did not think it was possible to actually do this kind of upgrade process in 2016).
Using group policy to disable shitty antivirus software that randomly decide to use 2 CPU core for no reason?
Nothing to be done for mouse lag issue in fullscreen direrctx applications?
I finally removed this crap when it started to download something using the 2/3 for my bandwidth for, again, no apparent reason, while not even telling what (suspect it was windows update, the bandwidth-using PID was a svchost where windows update was attached too, nothing was told about it in the windows update screens)
Privacy issues are one thing, technical crap is another. I won't say anything on the first point, but the second is also an issue here.
Re:It's the privacy, stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 10:42 · Score: 0

It's creeping to the Linux distros as well. Ubuntu had the Amazon shopping lens. Now Fedora also asks during setup if you want apps to share your location and whether full system reports are sent to Red Hat. There might be more happening. Have you ever checked what your machine sends?
Debian has had popcon for a really long time.
Re:This is excellent news by stooo · 2016-02-02 11:14 · Score: 1

>> It's usable and reasonable...
You didn't read the EULA.

--
aaaaaaa
Re:This is excellent news by stooo · 2016-02-02 11:17 · Score: 1

>> windows 10 has some dumb defaults out of the box, but otherwise the user experience is fine.
getting spied on, and forced upgrades is what you call "user experience "?

--
aaaaaaa
Re:This is excellent news by c · 2016-02-02 11:38 · Score: 1

I find Windows 10 a well-made OS, finally catching up to Linux at current. It's usable and reasonable, although I had to go into the installer and modify the boot.wim and install.wim file because it was hard-freezing my CPU at boot.
That's not catching up to Linux at current. That's catching up to Linux circa 1997.

--
Log in or piss off.
Re:This is excellent news by vux984 · 2016-02-02 12:03 · Score: 1

getting spied on, and forced upgrades is what you call "user experience "
I don't actually "experience" those.
First, I've installed a telemetry blocker (Spybot anti beacon is the one I went with, and I started using it BEFORE upgrading to 10 since the telemetry was backported to 7/8) to block and disable those elements. So to the best of my knowledge its not spying on me.
Second, even when they were running efore I blocked them, they didn't contribute anything to the "user experience". They were silent, and invisible. That's pretty much the definition of something one does not "experience".
You (and I) may object strongly to the telemetry, but its still not part of the "user experience" as in a thing that the user actually experiences.
Plus... as noted... it can be blocked.
As for forced upgrades it didn't force me to upgrade. I explicitly opted in. And again, how is that part of the experience of using it, at best that's the experience of getting it from a previous version, that some small number of users have experienced. (although from what I can tell, most if not all of them did actually opt in... and then after opting in couldn't figure out how to back out. The final page of the upgrade wizard in particular is "schedule it for sometime in the next 3 days" and "do it now" without a "oops i fucked up and now I want to back out completely" option, at least not that i noticed. And I'm willing to concede that that final window SHOULD have a "Cancel entirely" button, but you still had to opt to upgrade before you get to that window.
Re:This is excellent news by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-02 15:06 · Score: 0

32 bit XP stats:
Disk space [c:\Windows] = 1.23 GB
RAM usage including Virtual Mem [upon boot up] = 92 MB
I have read somewhere that the Win10 RAM usage upon boot up is around 14 GB. W.T.F! 14 times heavier than XP? Are the built-in spyware of Win10 compiled using a VB compiler?
Now if only my stupid Start button would work by DG · 2016-02-02 16:18 · Score: 1

Bloody Windows and no way to troubleshoot this.

--
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Or XP declines ... by sgunhouse · 2016-02-02 17:47 · Score: 1

My "day job" is working for a major retailer, a couple of weeks ago they told us they'd finally had to upgrade all their systems from XP to 7. Given their size that's a substantial drop in market share for XP, but I have no reason to presume they are the only one to finally be upgrading. So did 10 pass XP, or did XP pass 10 going the other way?
Re:This is excellent news by stooo · 2016-02-03 11:26 · Score: 1

>> First, I've installed a telemetry blocker ....
So you definitely experience it.
You have to put on a kludge to block an unwanted feature. This burns your time, and you are not even sure the kludge fully works.

--
aaaaaaa
Re:This is excellent news by vux984 · 2016-02-03 12:41 · Score: 1

So you definitely experience it.
You have to put on a kludge to block an unwanted feature.
Semantics at best, a one time install step during the initial install is irrelevant to the regular daily user experience.
Furthermore, I ALSO have do that kludge with windows 7 and 8. So its nothing specifically to do with the windows 10 experience. Its certainly not a reason to stay on Windows 7.
At best it's a reason to switch to Linux; but that's a far larger investment of time and a much more significant adjustment, and one that comes with significant other sacrifices.

This burns your time
Yeah, 15 seconds plus or minus. I can deal with it. Installing and tweaking an OS takes some time. Linux and OSX each have a bunch of post install steps I have to take to correct defaults that I dislike. Switching off windows isn't going make an iota of difference there.

and you are not even sure the kludge fully works.
Of course. Certainty is for fools.
But I am pretty confident it works, and my own investigations and packet traces have been reassuring. If windows is updated to open a new hole I have confidence it will be caught and plugged in short order by the community around this tool. And its not the only tool I use to secure my network.
Its a balancing act. I use several things that run on windows. Some I might find a suitable replacement for, but not all of them. Some of those I might be able to get working adequately on WINE, but that is no less a kludge and some things still won't run. Perhaps the rest I could run in a Virtual Machine... accomplishing what exactly? Now I get to maintain Linux AND Windows on this system? That seems like a real time saver.