Never said it was. You asked "what were they and for which version" and I replied.
Well you're telling me your Thinkpad "flies on XP" so it can't be that bad.
Are you a software/OS guy like most Slashdotters (I'm not, I'm hardware)? I ask because if you are, I can't believe you are actually advocating that I ignore every security patch that Windows put out- regardless if they will make no new ones.
What? I said you don't need to run Windows Update anymore, the bug that was reported in the spring about updates causing a huge issue was in Windows Update. Since there are no more updates once you're up to date you no longer need to run Windows Update because there will be no more updates.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how it is relevant in this context, a task you failed at yet again because you lack the intelligence to comprehend the topic of discussion. How many more times will you demonstrate your ineptitude? I've detailed comprehensively exactly why it is not relevant to this discussion - a discussion you lack the cognitive ability to partake in - yet you maintain, in spite of all the evidence, your baseless assertion that it is relevant but the fact is it is not relevant yet you're too mentally defective to articulate your thoughts.
There are simple workarounds to the issue though. There's the boot-to-desktop option, there's the option of Classic Shell if you really need a start menu and then there's complete shell replacements like LiteStep.
Now with boot-to-desktop you don't have a start menu, for those indoctrinated in Windows usage that may be an issue so you probably want either Classic Shell or to adapt your workflow but for most of us that often or mostly work on platforms other than Windows (which don't have a start menu) this isn't a big deal. Application launching mechanisms like those on OS X map to Windows without the start menu: Dock (Taskbar), Finder (Explorer), Spotlight (Search), Desktop Icons (Desktop Icons), Launchpad (Start Screen)... so the lack of a start menu is easy for those of us that use multiple platforms.
I already explained that to you, I didn't exclude it from being discussed, in fact I conceded the point however he explicitly separated the two issues, he did the opposite of discussing them in relation to one another. It's all here in plain English, very, very simple to understand.
So, again, explain how it is relevant in this context. Whether that's a point you want to make or a point you think he was making. If you understand the issues at hand it would be very easy, the reason you cannot do it is because you lack the ability to understand the issues. Come on, I've asked you this numerous times and every time you have failed, undoubtedly you will fail again, but try anyway.
Don't know about him, but I do believe we had an article on here back in the spring about the updates being a huge issue for Win XP.
Yes a bug in the windows update algorithm for previously applied updates, that would occur predominantly when running windows update if you had IE 6 or 7 installed. Given that XP support has been dropped there is no reason to run windows update on it so it isn't an issue anymore.
Yeah, yeah, I know, Win XP is old and we shouldn't care but you go ahead and tell my 2007 model Thinkpad that. It still flies on XP
Well then this OS decay issue probably doesn't affect you.
So what you're saying is that you cannot articulate how it would be relevant to the discussion, now the reason you can't is because it isn't relevant, as I have clearly explained time and time again.
And yes, when you've failed at reading comprehension so many times even when I've dumbed it down to list form for you and even explained what these posts mean in the context of the discussion it is indeed time for you to give up. You clearly lack the cognitive ability to have this discussion or to even be educated about it. Your only response has been open hostility, an expression of your own frustration at your inability to understand this discussion and/or articulate your thoughts about it.
As I have already said, I'm happy to hear why you think it's relevant and to discuss it but you can't seem to articulate your thoughts. Stay calm, think and try again.
What of it? It's the side-by-side assembly folder to manage multiple versions of the same DLL on an application-specific basis, the UNIX way (which IMHO is better) is to have the version in the filename. I'm not quite sure how you equate this to "OS decay" though, sure it could eat up more disk space if you install and uninstall a lot of applications with poor uninstallers that don't remove their files properly but that won't necessarily slow the OS down.
You can easily see this by installing a "clean" system, examine its timing (please don't even think about using system internal benchmarks...), then patch it and notice just how much speed you suddenly miss.
Not that I can be bothered actually doing that but since you're saying that I'm guessing you've done it and had significant results, what were they and for which version?
The discussion was about monopoly. TFA is about bundling. Monopoly, bundling and exclusivity cause each other, in some ways. How can it be NOT relevant ?
No, if you think that then you obviously couldn't comprehend it, the discussion is about abusing a monopoly to bundle additional software and I even annotated the progression of the discussion for you in list form quite clearly here since you were unable to follow the thread. If you have a point to make about partner exclusivity agreements and how they relate to software bundling in this context then make it but the post you are so vehemently defending - yet obviously didn't read - does the opposite, it splits separates the two issues: What he said was:
"And that was what I consider the real issue. I don't give a damn if MS installed IE on those computers I was forced to buy with an MS operating system on them. It was trivial enough to install another browser"
He didn't care about the bundling issue, what he cared about was a different issue, the partner exclusivity agreements (yes the two issues could affect eachother but whether they do or not makes no difference to his point). Now Google is doing bundling but does not have partner exclusivity agreements, so if you don't care about bundling but do care about partner exclusivity agreements then this Google issue isn't going to affect you so partner exclusivity agreements are irrelevant to this discussion. Understand yet?
If you don't understand then explain to me how partner exclusivity agreements are relevant to the discussion, if you understand the issues and the discussion then that should be extremely simple to do, the fact that you haven't been able to do it thus far proves you don't understand any of this.
So precisely what relevance does partner exclusivity have in the context of this discussion? Many things are related to bundling, that doesn't mean they are all relevant to every discussion about bundling.
If two points are related and affect each other, why do you exclude one when the other is being discussed?
They can affect eachother, in this instance whether they do or do not is not relevant. And I didn't exclude it from being discussed, in fact I discussed and conceded his point, but then you lack the cognitive ability to comprehend that. So again, what is your point?
Actually I did, but the fact that software bundling and partner exclusivity agreements can possibly have an impact on one another was never in dispute, nor is that fact relevant to this discussion, if you thought it was then you clearly didn't understand it. So again, what is your point? Try and concisely explain your point.
Also since you weren't part of the original discussion perhaps you should explain to me what you think it is about and how it relates to the presented story, because obviously you've misunderstood so let's try and find out where your misunderstanding is and I can educate you on that and help you to understand.
No one said "anti-trust issues with preloading software on a monopoly platform" except you.
That is precisely what this story is about: Google To Require As Many As 20 of Its Apps Preinstalled On Android Devices <-bundling software, nothing about partner exclusivity agreements
It really can't be any more clear. Now let's assume you lack the cognitive ability to follow a simple list, if you look here I conceded his point even though that isn't what I and the people I responded to were discussing anyway. So what is your point?
"Monopoly abuse" started it in this particular thread, and preloading, partner exclusivity all are being discussed in that context.
No, nobody was discussing partner exclusivity until this, but again your inability to follow a simple comment thread fails you.
If you want to refute this then do it with quoted examples then I can educate you on where you failed reading comprehension.
Seriously how is this impeding you from doing your work? Like a genuine example rather than a contrived, intentionally obtuse one. None of my applications work any differently on Windows 8 than they did in Windows 7. If you can't manage without the start menu then obviously OS X (not having a start menu) is not competition they would need to worry about.
Turn off SecureBoot then. When did the intelligence level of the slashdot audience drop to a point at which changing a BIOS setting ended up in the "too hard" basket? You can also still partition your hard drive and install the OSes side-by-side.
Because they don't actually hate Microsoft, it's just something to complain about. If they really hated Microsoft they simply wouldn't use it and would instead advance desktop Linux operating systems. But look at the hundreds of comments any story about Microsoft gets (and just look, most of them are about the marketing of name of it) and then when there is a new Linux kernel version you see a dozen or so comments at best, very few people here care about technical details or being clever anymore, it's just trolls, flamebait and irrelevance.
This site used to be about technical details and hacks to make things work differently, now it's about complaining that the out-of-the-box experience isn't palatable to whichever audience it isn't palatable to (if it's too user-friendly then it's too power-user hostile and vice versa). Nevermind that the obvious solution to any geek or hacker for the Windows 8 Metro thing is to replace the shell with something like LiteStep or install Classic Shell and boot-to-desktop, if the out-of-the-box experience isn't what they want then they'll buy it anyway and complain about it rather than taking the initiative to make it work how they want.
That sounds like an awfully complex setup, a mobile device, a computer running the transcoding software, a ChromeCast dongle and a TV just to play a video? Just plug the PC into your TV, that way you don't waste all that power doing transcoding and you can eliminate a bunch of devices that you don't need. You could even use the mobile device with a bluetooth/wifi mouse/keyboard app if you want to control it from there.
No it is about anti-trust issues with preloading software on a monopoly platform, that's what this whole story and discussion thread is about. What relevance does partner exclusivity agreements have in this context?
Yes you seem to have interjected in a discussion about the anti-trust issue with something else. Yes it was more difficult to find systems without Windows pre-installed back then and yes if you couldn't you had to pay a few dollars for the Windows license.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong, try again: How is partner exclusivity agreements relevant to the discussion?
He said get an SSD, so if you're going to do that get one bigger than 32GB.
mentioning the cause of an issue is considered relevant.
Partner exclusivity agreements is not the cause of software bundling.
False, you're a mental defective.
Never said it was. You asked "what were they and for which version" and I replied.
Well you're telling me your Thinkpad "flies on XP" so it can't be that bad.
Are you a software/OS guy like most Slashdotters (I'm not, I'm hardware)? I ask because if you are, I can't believe you are actually advocating that I ignore every security patch that Windows put out- regardless if they will make no new ones.
What? I said you don't need to run Windows Update anymore, the bug that was reported in the spring about updates causing a huge issue was in Windows Update. Since there are no more updates once you're up to date you no longer need to run Windows Update because there will be no more updates.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how it is relevant in this context, a task you failed at yet again because you lack the intelligence to comprehend the topic of discussion. How many more times will you demonstrate your ineptitude? I've detailed comprehensively exactly why it is not relevant to this discussion - a discussion you lack the cognitive ability to partake in - yet you maintain, in spite of all the evidence, your baseless assertion that it is relevant but the fact is it is not relevant yet you're too mentally defective to articulate your thoughts.
The only crashes I've had with Windows 7 or 8 were from bad graphics card drivers causing a BSOD.
There are simple workarounds to the issue though. There's the boot-to-desktop option, there's the option of Classic Shell if you really need a start menu and then there's complete shell replacements like LiteStep.
Now with boot-to-desktop you don't have a start menu, for those indoctrinated in Windows usage that may be an issue so you probably want either Classic Shell or to adapt your workflow but for most of us that often or mostly work on platforms other than Windows (which don't have a start menu) this isn't a big deal. Application launching mechanisms like those on OS X map to Windows without the start menu: Dock (Taskbar), Finder (Explorer), Spotlight (Search), Desktop Icons (Desktop Icons), Launchpad (Start Screen) ... so the lack of a start menu is easy for those of us that use multiple platforms.
I already explained that to you, I didn't exclude it from being discussed, in fact I conceded the point however he explicitly separated the two issues, he did the opposite of discussing them in relation to one another. It's all here in plain English, very, very simple to understand.
So, again, explain how it is relevant in this context. Whether that's a point you want to make or a point you think he was making. If you understand the issues at hand it would be very easy, the reason you cannot do it is because you lack the ability to understand the issues. Come on, I've asked you this numerous times and every time you have failed, undoubtedly you will fail again, but try anyway.
Don't know about him, but I do believe we had an article on here back in the spring about the updates being a huge issue for Win XP.
Yes a bug in the windows update algorithm for previously applied updates, that would occur predominantly when running windows update if you had IE 6 or 7 installed. Given that XP support has been dropped there is no reason to run windows update on it so it isn't an issue anymore.
Yeah, yeah, I know, Win XP is old and we shouldn't care but you go ahead and tell my 2007 model Thinkpad that. It still flies on XP
Well then this OS decay issue probably doesn't affect you.
So what you're saying is that you cannot articulate how it would be relevant to the discussion, now the reason you can't is because it isn't relevant, as I have clearly explained time and time again.
And yes, when you've failed at reading comprehension so many times even when I've dumbed it down to list form for you and even explained what these posts mean in the context of the discussion it is indeed time for you to give up. You clearly lack the cognitive ability to have this discussion or to even be educated about it. Your only response has been open hostility, an expression of your own frustration at your inability to understand this discussion and/or articulate your thoughts about it.
As I have already said, I'm happy to hear why you think it's relevant and to discuss it but you can't seem to articulate your thoughts. Stay calm, think and try again.
What of it? It's the side-by-side assembly folder to manage multiple versions of the same DLL on an application-specific basis, the UNIX way (which IMHO is better) is to have the version in the filename. I'm not quite sure how you equate this to "OS decay" though, sure it could eat up more disk space if you install and uninstall a lot of applications with poor uninstallers that don't remove their files properly but that won't necessarily slow the OS down.
I definitely remember it from the old Windows 9x days but not since the move to NT.
You can easily see this by installing a "clean" system, examine its timing (please don't even think about using system internal benchmarks...), then patch it and notice just how much speed you suddenly miss.
Not that I can be bothered actually doing that but since you're saying that I'm guessing you've done it and had significant results, what were they and for which version?
The discussion was about monopoly. TFA is about bundling. Monopoly, bundling and exclusivity cause each other, in some ways. How can it be NOT relevant ?
No, if you think that then you obviously couldn't comprehend it, the discussion is about abusing a monopoly to bundle additional software and I even annotated the progression of the discussion for you in list form quite clearly here since you were unable to follow the thread. If you have a point to make about partner exclusivity agreements and how they relate to software bundling in this context then make it but the post you are so vehemently defending - yet obviously didn't read - does the opposite, it splits separates the two issues:
What he said was:
"And that was what I consider the real issue. I don't give a damn if MS installed IE on those computers I was forced to buy with an MS operating system on them. It was trivial enough to install another browser"
He didn't care about the bundling issue, what he cared about was a different issue, the partner exclusivity agreements (yes the two issues could affect eachother but whether they do or not makes no difference to his point). Now Google is doing bundling but does not have partner exclusivity agreements, so if you don't care about bundling but do care about partner exclusivity agreements then this Google issue isn't going to affect you so partner exclusivity agreements are irrelevant to this discussion. Understand yet?
If you don't understand then explain to me how partner exclusivity agreements are relevant to the discussion, if you understand the issues and the discussion then that should be extremely simple to do, the fact that you haven't been able to do it thus far proves you don't understand any of this.
So precisely what relevance does partner exclusivity have in the context of this discussion? Many things are related to bundling, that doesn't mean they are all relevant to every discussion about bundling.
If two points are related and affect each other, why do you exclude one when the other is being discussed?
They can affect eachother, in this instance whether they do or do not is not relevant. And I didn't exclude it from being discussed, in fact I discussed and conceded his point, but then you lack the cognitive ability to comprehend that. So again, what is your point?
Actually I did, but the fact that software bundling and partner exclusivity agreements can possibly have an impact on one another was never in dispute, nor is that fact relevant to this discussion, if you thought it was then you clearly didn't understand it. So again, what is your point? Try and concisely explain your point.
Also since you weren't part of the original discussion perhaps you should explain to me what you think it is about and how it relates to the presented story, because obviously you've misunderstood so let's try and find out where your misunderstanding is and I can educate you on that and help you to understand.
No one said "anti-trust issues with preloading software on a monopoly platform" except you.
That is precisely what this story is about: Google To Require As Many As 20 of Its Apps Preinstalled On Android Devices <-bundling software, nothing about partner exclusivity agreements
But since you failed to comprehend that I'm not surprised you're having such difficulty with following a discussion thread so I'll point it out for you in list form that perhaps you have the cognitive ability to process:
Remember when simply bundling IE was a monopoly abuse? Google is behaving in exactly the same way <-bundling software
I think Microsoft also required OEM's to not preload Netscape. <- bundling software
I don't think so, Compaq shipped Windows PCs with Netscape preloaded. <- bundling software
And then this post changed the topic of discussion from bundling software to exclusivity licensing.
The real issue back then was that MS required OEMs to install MS OS on every computer they sold <- not bundling software, exclusivity agreements
It really can't be any more clear. Now let's assume you lack the cognitive ability to follow a simple list, if you look here I conceded his point even though that isn't what I and the people I responded to were discussing anyway. So what is your point?
"Monopoly abuse" started it in this particular thread, and preloading, partner exclusivity all are being discussed in that context.
No, nobody was discussing partner exclusivity until this, but again your inability to follow a simple comment thread fails you.
If you want to refute this then do it with quoted examples then I can educate you on where you failed reading comprehension.
Seriously how is this impeding you from doing your work? Like a genuine example rather than a contrived, intentionally obtuse one. None of my applications work any differently on Windows 8 than they did in Windows 7. If you can't manage without the start menu then obviously OS X (not having a start menu) is not competition they would need to worry about.
Turn off SecureBoot then. When did the intelligence level of the slashdot audience drop to a point at which changing a BIOS setting ended up in the "too hard" basket? You can also still partition your hard drive and install the OSes side-by-side.
Because they don't actually hate Microsoft, it's just something to complain about. If they really hated Microsoft they simply wouldn't use it and would instead advance desktop Linux operating systems. But look at the hundreds of comments any story about Microsoft gets (and just look, most of them are about the marketing of name of it) and then when there is a new Linux kernel version you see a dozen or so comments at best, very few people here care about technical details or being clever anymore, it's just trolls, flamebait and irrelevance.
This site used to be about technical details and hacks to make things work differently, now it's about complaining that the out-of-the-box experience isn't palatable to whichever audience it isn't palatable to (if it's too user-friendly then it's too power-user hostile and vice versa). Nevermind that the obvious solution to any geek or hacker for the Windows 8 Metro thing is to replace the shell with something like LiteStep or install Classic Shell and boot-to-desktop, if the out-of-the-box experience isn't what they want then they'll buy it anyway and complain about it rather than taking the initiative to make it work how they want.
That sounds like an awfully complex setup, a mobile device, a computer running the transcoding software, a ChromeCast dongle and a TV just to play a video? Just plug the PC into your TV, that way you don't waste all that power doing transcoding and you can eliminate a bunch of devices that you don't need. You could even use the mobile device with a bluetooth/wifi mouse/keyboard app if you want to control it from there.
No it is about anti-trust issues with preloading software on a monopoly platform, that's what this whole story and discussion thread is about. What relevance does partner exclusivity agreements have in this context?
Yes you seem to have interjected in a discussion about the anti-trust issue with something else. Yes it was more difficult to find systems without Windows pre-installed back then and yes if you couldn't you had to pay a few dollars for the Windows license.