Particularly w/ ChromeOS being rigged to be able to run apps available on Google Play. Better focus would be making more fully featured Chromebooks: not all of them have to be barebones netbooks based on Atoms & w/ 1GB RAM and 4GB storage.
I just wish they had! Had they made Windows 10 a 64-bit only OS, there wouldn't have been an issue. Continue selling Windows 7 to everybody w/ 32 bit CPUS, but for 64-bit upwards, make it Windows 10. That would have made their adaption easier: Windows 10 wouldn't have forcibly installed itself on 32-bit systems or anything
But by forcing themselves to support 32-bit x86, they contributed to this mess.
You computer is now too old, it will not longer allow windows 10, buy a new computer but don't forget you previous copy of windows 10 is tied to the old computer we wont provide upgrades for
So it's like a Mac?
Except that w/ a Mac, you never buy an OS w/o a computer, since Apple doesn't support Hackintosh. You automatically get OS X when you buy a Mac: you never get a Mac w/o the OS. Yeah, you could replace it w/ Windows, if you are stupid, but otherwise, there is never a case where the computer is not preloaded.
Besides, does Apple force previous owners to upgrade their OS the way Microsoft does? If my experience w/ iOS is any indication, after a certain point on an old device, the OS can't be updated. If one goes to the app store to get things for that, one would be SOL, but if one just makes do w/ what they have, one would be fine. Not the case w/ Windows.
Does PAE apply to main memory, or storage? I thought it was the latter. Windows never had PAE, or else, they wouldn't have needed to go from 32-bit to 64-bit, since that involves a major hit in storage requirements, cost & performance
I've never understood the artificial limits that are put on CPUs in terms of addressing. If something is 32-bit, let it address up to 2GB (assuming that one address line is needed for BIOS or IO or anything else. If something is 64-bit, there are enough addresses to have memory mapped IO, and a whole bunch of other things. There is no justification for capping it at 64GB or 1TB or anything - just have different memory maps for memory, IO, storage & anything else that could use addressing, including networking (like IPv6), and then make it all available. Having even a 1TB any limit in a 64-bit subsystem is stupid!
But this issue is the opposite - preventing not just the Creators upgrade, but Windows 10 itself from running on certain older CPUs. The mention of 32-bit vs 64-bit support doesn't make sense, since Microsoft made a conscious decision to include 32-bit support for Windows 10, despite the fact that one needs 4GB of RAM minimum to run this OS adequately.
Microsoft can't have it both ways - try to force everybody to upgrade to Windows 10, but then throw up when people try to do it on computers that were otherwise working perfectly fine for them
But Microsoft seems to have all but dropped Windows Phone/Windows 10 Mobile. Yeah, yeah, I know they've just discontinued the Lumias, but really, aside from HP's Elite, what other phone vendor still makes Windows phones? Blu just makes Androids, last I looked.
Given that, why persist w/ the Metro interface? Do 2 versions of the OS. Have the desktop mode for laptops & desktops, and tablet mode for tablets. Have continuum as an optional utility that can be added if there is a keyboard option to the tablet, like w/ the Surfaces or Transformers or Yogas
The only surviving workstation still around today is the Mac Pro. The Unixstations are all dead, and the PCs were where they ran. However, w/ Windows 10, the focus seems to have shifted to making Windows PCs compete w/ the Apple Store and the Play Store.
I've seen some nice HP workstations in the Microsoft Store, but I'm not convinced that Windows 10 is the vehicle for them. OS X seems better - could potentially support legacy Unix applications, while also providing a platform to run Xcode developed applications
By now, I've decided: my next computer will be a Mac. Currently, this laptop that I use has TrueOS, while my other laptop that I have is a Windows 10 for work stuff that must have Windows. But I refuse to get into a situation where I have to pay a subscription for the OS every year. So despite the fact that Macs are worse bang for buck, I'll just have to bite the bullet and buy a low end Mac whenever my Windows laptop croaks. This current one that I'm using does 90% of my usual internet related work
Which Android versions will this affect? I have v5 - Lollipop - on both my Android devices. Will it happen there, or will one have to upgrade to 6 or 7 to get this?
Given the intelligence then, the Iraq war seemed justified at the time due to the suspicion of WMDs, and them getting into the hands of Jihadists. But the real mistake in both Iraq & Afghanistan was making those long term projects.
In Afghanistan, in December 2001, after Kandahar fell to the US forces and the Taliban regime collapsed, that was when the war should have ended for the US. Yeah, have special forces in the country & Pakistan to scour for Osama, but don't try designing a new government. Instead, the US was a participant in the creation of a constitution that stated that no law would contradict Sharia, and put in power a corrupt leader as the president of Afghanistan, who's today a sourpus.
Similarly, in Iraq, after Iraqis pulled down that Saddam statue and President Bush stood on that ship saying 'Mission Accomplished', that's where it should have ended. Yeah, have a search for the WMDs, but aside from that, don't get into rebuilding the country. Reason Iraq & Afghanistan were a fiasco was that the US spent billions of dollars rebuilding them to levels that didn't exist even before the war. As it is, the US did a very surgical war destroying the Iraqi army, so there really wasn't much to repair. But making it a 10+ year long project just destroyed its popularity w/ the American people, who saw Kabul & Baghdad being built up while the infrastructure in New Orleans or Pittsburg was crumbling
You then had President Bush endorse the Sharansky Doctrine, which was the myth that simply unleashing democracy on a country would cure whatever ailed it. Except that that doctrine doesn't apply to Muslims, since democracy is incompatible w/ Islam, as per the Quran: everything is supposed to be in accordance w/ allah's wishes, & he doesn't share power w/ humans. And under Obama, that doctrine was extended in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and threatened to make inroads into Bahrein, Yemen & Syria. In Bahrein, the Saudis did something akin to the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956: they invaded and curbed a Shi'ite uprising. At the same time, they tried to help the Sunnites of Syria pull off what they denied the Shi'ites of Bahrein. Unlike in Egypt or Libya where there were homogenious Sunnite populations and so a regime change didn't threaten the existence of any ethnic group (other than Egyptian Copts), in Syria, an ouster of the Baathist regime would have meant a massacre of Alawites, Christians, Druze & others - something that actually happened in Homs & Allepo early during the conflict. And hence the civil war in Syria today, and the rise of ISIS.
That's why Trump is right: the last thing we need is have 'roles' to play in places like Syria or Libya or any of these hellholes. Particularly when that implies nationbuilding, and trying to make Damascus like Denver or Benghazi like Boston. If Russia wants those places to be in their 'zone of influence', let them. We now have enough energy production not just for ourselves, but also for the East Europeans, so that Russians can't squeeze them. If Putin wants to create an empire on the Mediterranean, let him. We need not be the ones to own that.
Also, as Bobbied mentioned, thank you for your service
The whole idea of NATO was to protect as many European countries as possible from Communism - namely the Warsaw Pact. In 1991, not only did the Warsaw Pact come undone, w/ the exits of Poland, Czechoslovakia & Hungary, but also the Soviet Union came undone. Some of the ex Soviet leaders remained in power in their countries, like in Belarus, Kazakhstan & Uzbekistan, but Russia, which was the successor state to the USSR, was no longer Communist.
Given that reality, NATO should have disbanded. Since the EU was looking at expanding, they could have included the Eastern European countries in an economic agreement, and gone as far as Ukraine, Georgia & Armenia. Even a rebranding of NATO might have helped. Instead, by continuing to expand NATO, they just made it impossible for Russia, who saw that the military threat against them wasn't going away, no matter what they did.
No, they were fighting Albanian Muslim separatists in Kosovo, who incidentally created problems not only for Serbia, but also for Macedonia, which was not a Serbian power oppressing Muslims
I woudn't draw that equivalence. The Contras in Nicaragua never became a permanent problem - in fact, they became extinct once Nicaragua went democratic. Afghanistan, OTOH, went from a Soviet occupied country to an Islamic ruled country to a Jihadist supporting regime in the Taliban to another Islamic regime under Karzai.
As dundelfalke pointed out above, the First Chechen war happened during Yeltsin's leadership, immediately after the Soviet Union dissolved. The Chechens wanted to become independent of Russia.
It might have been one thing to support them at the beginning. But years later, when the Chechens have shown that they are Jihadists - be it in the Moscow theater, Beslan, Boston or Chechnya itself, why does anybody who doesn't want to see the West destroyed think that the Chechens are worth supporting? It would instead make sense for the US to form an alliance w/ Russia against Islamic forces of all types - be it ISIS, Iran, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and so on
Crimea was legitimately Russian. It was gifted to Ukraine in the 1960s by Nikita Kryushchyev, when it hardly meant anything, since the Soviet Union was a single country. After 1991, it was legitimate to revisit that, since the majority of Crimeans were & are Russian. Moscow didn't do anything, and the only reason Russia rolled into Crimea was after Ukraine adapted a law making Ukrainian the sole official language, thereby making life potentially difficult for Russian speaking Ukrainians. That's why Russia rolled into Crimea, held an election there, and then annexed it.
The US would do well to drop Crimea, and just work on getting an agreement in the Donbass on getting Russian troops & operatives out of there, but guaranteeing Russian speaking Ukrainians all their usual rights under Kyiv
Since the fall of the Berlin wall and Glasnost in Russia, who has been the aggressor and why?
Okay, before Putin came to power, which is what you described, the US was the aggressor. Like during Clinton's 'Wag the dog' operation in bombing Serbia, which never did anything remotely anti-American. By supporting Chechen rebels against Russia. By continuing to expand NATO, despite the fact that NATO's rationale for existing - countering the Warsaw Pact & the Soviet Union - were gone!
GP was right. On 9/11, Islam showed us that it had succeeded Communism as the ideological enemy of not just the West, but the entire non-Muslim world. Yet we still have the bulk of our establishment politicians - both Democrat & Republican - obsessed w/ Russia. It showed in the 2000s, when the Bush Administration, despite the support from Uzbekistan, supported an attempt to oust the regime of Islam Karimov, who kept Jihadists in his country suppressed: in response to that, Tashkent canned 2 US air bases that were used in Afghan operations. The McCains, the Grahams, the Rubios are all a bunch of cretins who think that the hammer & sickle still fly in Moscow, but can't see Jihadists in Orlando or San Bernardino
I know that WhatsApp is FaceBook owned, and that FaceBook is hated in this department, but aside from that, what are the issues w/ WhatsApp? Just them peeping into our contacts list and pulling up the profiles of those people (if they're already on WhatsApp) based on the phone#?
Slashdot Mirror
Particularly w/ ChromeOS being rigged to be able to run apps available on Google Play. Better focus would be making more fully featured Chromebooks: not all of them have to be barebones netbooks based on Atoms & w/ 1GB RAM and 4GB storage.
I just wish they had! Had they made Windows 10 a 64-bit only OS, there wouldn't have been an issue. Continue selling Windows 7 to everybody w/ 32 bit CPUS, but for 64-bit upwards, make it Windows 10. That would have made their adaption easier: Windows 10 wouldn't have forcibly installed itself on 32-bit systems or anything
But by forcing themselves to support 32-bit x86, they contributed to this mess.
'This version of Windows' is one thing. 'This version of Windows 10' is an oxymoron
So has Creators' Update broken what you have? If not, you're not the subject of what's being discussed
You computer is now too old, it will not longer allow windows 10, buy a new computer but don't forget you previous copy of windows 10 is tied to the old computer we wont provide upgrades for
So it's like a Mac?
Except that w/ a Mac, you never buy an OS w/o a computer, since Apple doesn't support Hackintosh. You automatically get OS X when you buy a Mac: you never get a Mac w/o the OS. Yeah, you could replace it w/ Windows, if you are stupid, but otherwise, there is never a case where the computer is not preloaded.
Besides, does Apple force previous owners to upgrade their OS the way Microsoft does? If my experience w/ iOS is any indication, after a certain point on an old device, the OS can't be updated. If one goes to the app store to get things for that, one would be SOL, but if one just makes do w/ what they have, one would be fine. Not the case w/ Windows.
Does PAE apply to main memory, or storage? I thought it was the latter. Windows never had PAE, or else, they wouldn't have needed to go from 32-bit to 64-bit, since that involves a major hit in storage requirements, cost & performance
I've never understood the artificial limits that are put on CPUs in terms of addressing. If something is 32-bit, let it address up to 2GB (assuming that one address line is needed for BIOS or IO or anything else. If something is 64-bit, there are enough addresses to have memory mapped IO, and a whole bunch of other things. There is no justification for capping it at 64GB or 1TB or anything - just have different memory maps for memory, IO, storage & anything else that could use addressing, including networking (like IPv6), and then make it all available. Having even a 1TB any limit in a 64-bit subsystem is stupid!
But this issue is the opposite - preventing not just the Creators upgrade, but Windows 10 itself from running on certain older CPUs. The mention of 32-bit vs 64-bit support doesn't make sense, since Microsoft made a conscious decision to include 32-bit support for Windows 10, despite the fact that one needs 4GB of RAM minimum to run this OS adequately.
Microsoft can't have it both ways - try to force everybody to upgrade to Windows 10, but then throw up when people try to do it on computers that were otherwise working perfectly fine for them
But Microsoft seems to have all but dropped Windows Phone/Windows 10 Mobile. Yeah, yeah, I know they've just discontinued the Lumias, but really, aside from HP's Elite, what other phone vendor still makes Windows phones? Blu just makes Androids, last I looked.
Given that, why persist w/ the Metro interface? Do 2 versions of the OS. Have the desktop mode for laptops & desktops, and tablet mode for tablets. Have continuum as an optional utility that can be added if there is a keyboard option to the tablet, like w/ the Surfaces or Transformers or Yogas
The only surviving workstation still around today is the Mac Pro. The Unixstations are all dead, and the PCs were where they ran. However, w/ Windows 10, the focus seems to have shifted to making Windows PCs compete w/ the Apple Store and the Play Store.
I've seen some nice HP workstations in the Microsoft Store, but I'm not convinced that Windows 10 is the vehicle for them. OS X seems better - could potentially support legacy Unix applications, while also providing a platform to run Xcode developed applications
By now, I've decided: my next computer will be a Mac. Currently, this laptop that I use has TrueOS, while my other laptop that I have is a Windows 10 for work stuff that must have Windows. But I refuse to get into a situation where I have to pay a subscription for the OS every year. So despite the fact that Macs are worse bang for buck, I'll just have to bite the bullet and buy a low end Mac whenever my Windows laptop croaks. This current one that I'm using does 90% of my usual internet related work
Install ClassicShell, & Cortana will be a separate app that you'd have to look for. Associated Spyware - look for downloadable utilities
I thought msmash was a 'she'
Yes, replace billions of working C code with billions of lines of code in a new language. What could possibly go wrong?
Not just that, is Rust akin to a low level language that C is? Something that's close enough to assembly to be really portable b/w microprocessors?
Right, so is that what Ukraine is being given?
My question as well - what is 'cybersecurity equipment'? Thousands of servers preloaded w/ OpenBSD?
Which Android versions will this affect? I have v5 - Lollipop - on both my Android devices. Will it happen there, or will one have to upgrade to 6 or 7 to get this?
Given the intelligence then, the Iraq war seemed justified at the time due to the suspicion of WMDs, and them getting into the hands of Jihadists. But the real mistake in both Iraq & Afghanistan was making those long term projects.
In Afghanistan, in December 2001, after Kandahar fell to the US forces and the Taliban regime collapsed, that was when the war should have ended for the US. Yeah, have special forces in the country & Pakistan to scour for Osama, but don't try designing a new government. Instead, the US was a participant in the creation of a constitution that stated that no law would contradict Sharia, and put in power a corrupt leader as the president of Afghanistan, who's today a sourpus.
Similarly, in Iraq, after Iraqis pulled down that Saddam statue and President Bush stood on that ship saying 'Mission Accomplished', that's where it should have ended. Yeah, have a search for the WMDs, but aside from that, don't get into rebuilding the country. Reason Iraq & Afghanistan were a fiasco was that the US spent billions of dollars rebuilding them to levels that didn't exist even before the war. As it is, the US did a very surgical war destroying the Iraqi army, so there really wasn't much to repair. But making it a 10+ year long project just destroyed its popularity w/ the American people, who saw Kabul & Baghdad being built up while the infrastructure in New Orleans or Pittsburg was crumbling
You then had President Bush endorse the Sharansky Doctrine, which was the myth that simply unleashing democracy on a country would cure whatever ailed it. Except that that doctrine doesn't apply to Muslims, since democracy is incompatible w/ Islam, as per the Quran: everything is supposed to be in accordance w/ allah's wishes, & he doesn't share power w/ humans. And under Obama, that doctrine was extended in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and threatened to make inroads into Bahrein, Yemen & Syria. In Bahrein, the Saudis did something akin to the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956: they invaded and curbed a Shi'ite uprising. At the same time, they tried to help the Sunnites of Syria pull off what they denied the Shi'ites of Bahrein. Unlike in Egypt or Libya where there were homogenious Sunnite populations and so a regime change didn't threaten the existence of any ethnic group (other than Egyptian Copts), in Syria, an ouster of the Baathist regime would have meant a massacre of Alawites, Christians, Druze & others - something that actually happened in Homs & Allepo early during the conflict. And hence the civil war in Syria today, and the rise of ISIS.
That's why Trump is right: the last thing we need is have 'roles' to play in places like Syria or Libya or any of these hellholes. Particularly when that implies nationbuilding, and trying to make Damascus like Denver or Benghazi like Boston. If Russia wants those places to be in their 'zone of influence', let them. We now have enough energy production not just for ourselves, but also for the East Europeans, so that Russians can't squeeze them. If Putin wants to create an empire on the Mediterranean, let him. We need not be the ones to own that.
Also, as Bobbied mentioned, thank you for your service
The whole idea of NATO was to protect as many European countries as possible from Communism - namely the Warsaw Pact. In 1991, not only did the Warsaw Pact come undone, w/ the exits of Poland, Czechoslovakia & Hungary, but also the Soviet Union came undone. Some of the ex Soviet leaders remained in power in their countries, like in Belarus, Kazakhstan & Uzbekistan, but Russia, which was the successor state to the USSR, was no longer Communist.
Given that reality, NATO should have disbanded. Since the EU was looking at expanding, they could have included the Eastern European countries in an economic agreement, and gone as far as Ukraine, Georgia & Armenia. Even a rebranding of NATO might have helped. Instead, by continuing to expand NATO, they just made it impossible for Russia, who saw that the military threat against them wasn't going away, no matter what they did.
No, they were fighting Albanian Muslim separatists in Kosovo, who incidentally created problems not only for Serbia, but also for Macedonia, which was not a Serbian power oppressing Muslims
I woudn't draw that equivalence. The Contras in Nicaragua never became a permanent problem - in fact, they became extinct once Nicaragua went democratic. Afghanistan, OTOH, went from a Soviet occupied country to an Islamic ruled country to a Jihadist supporting regime in the Taliban to another Islamic regime under Karzai.
As dundelfalke pointed out above, the First Chechen war happened during Yeltsin's leadership, immediately after the Soviet Union dissolved. The Chechens wanted to become independent of Russia.
It might have been one thing to support them at the beginning. But years later, when the Chechens have shown that they are Jihadists - be it in the Moscow theater, Beslan, Boston or Chechnya itself, why does anybody who doesn't want to see the West destroyed think that the Chechens are worth supporting? It would instead make sense for the US to form an alliance w/ Russia against Islamic forces of all types - be it ISIS, Iran, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and so on
Crimea was legitimately Russian. It was gifted to Ukraine in the 1960s by Nikita Kryushchyev, when it hardly meant anything, since the Soviet Union was a single country. After 1991, it was legitimate to revisit that, since the majority of Crimeans were & are Russian. Moscow didn't do anything, and the only reason Russia rolled into Crimea was after Ukraine adapted a law making Ukrainian the sole official language, thereby making life potentially difficult for Russian speaking Ukrainians. That's why Russia rolled into Crimea, held an election there, and then annexed it.
The US would do well to drop Crimea, and just work on getting an agreement in the Donbass on getting Russian troops & operatives out of there, but guaranteeing Russian speaking Ukrainians all their usual rights under Kyiv
Who is WE you are talking about?
Since the fall of the Berlin wall and Glasnost in Russia, who has been the aggressor and why?
Okay, before Putin came to power, which is what you described, the US was the aggressor. Like during Clinton's 'Wag the dog' operation in bombing Serbia, which never did anything remotely anti-American. By supporting Chechen rebels against Russia. By continuing to expand NATO, despite the fact that NATO's rationale for existing - countering the Warsaw Pact & the Soviet Union - were gone!
GP was right. On 9/11, Islam showed us that it had succeeded Communism as the ideological enemy of not just the West, but the entire non-Muslim world. Yet we still have the bulk of our establishment politicians - both Democrat & Republican - obsessed w/ Russia. It showed in the 2000s, when the Bush Administration, despite the support from Uzbekistan, supported an attempt to oust the regime of Islam Karimov, who kept Jihadists in his country suppressed: in response to that, Tashkent canned 2 US air bases that were used in Afghan operations. The McCains, the Grahams, the Rubios are all a bunch of cretins who think that the hammer & sickle still fly in Moscow, but can't see Jihadists in Orlando or San Bernardino
One can make the argument that Putin is a thug. But Western enmity w/ Russia continued during the 8 years of Boris Yeltsin as well
I know that WhatsApp is FaceBook owned, and that FaceBook is hated in this department, but aside from that, what are the issues w/ WhatsApp? Just them peeping into our contacts list and pulling up the profiles of those people (if they're already on WhatsApp) based on the phone#?