Nearly all new Python development is done using Python 3, and this has been the case for many years now.
Unfortunately no, that is *not* the case. If you're lucky, new development supports both Python2 and Python3; however, more likely than not even new development is Python2 only, and on a rare occasion is Python 3 only. Why? It still comes down to dependencies as a lot of the time it is harder to get all your dependencies successfully working under a Python3 solution and when you end up in a time-crunch your manager ends up going "drop python3 and get it done" so then Python3 support gets put on the back burner.
Nope. Ada has all that, and has had it since before C++ existed. It even has an organization set up to validate Ada compilers, so that lazy vendors (*cough*Microsoft*cough*) can't plausibly put out supposed Ada compilers that aren't even close to conformant.
What's more, its actually a more capable language. Every update of C++ since its inception has been adding more features that Ada had for decades. Range-based for loops? Had 'em in 1983. Strongly-typed enums? Had 'em in 1983. Even with this new update, C++ still doesn't have an analog to Ada's features for record layout specification and concurrent programming from the 1983 version of the language. That means its still inferior both for portable low-level programming (which is supposed to be C++'s forte) and concurrent programming.
However, it is still way way way more complex than Ada. So its got that going for it. If you wanna write an API using generic programming techniques that presents the client with a 6-screen error message for a simple one-character typo, C++ is your language.
While I generally agree, Ada's type system was too strong at the same time, thereby making it harder to do some things.
Don't get me wrong - I love Ada/Pascal, and in many ways they are far superior to C++; but there's also something to be said for the type enforcement level C++ has and that probably went a long way to C++ gaining the major popularity and Ada/Pascal dieing off. Flexibility was key.
Rejecting a new keyword makes sense. It doesn't reveal any bad design. Adding new keywords increases the risk of breaking existing code that uses common English words. Not many people want to appreciate this, it seems. You can't in one breath criticize C++ for being complicated at the same time as criticizing it for not complicating things with new keywords.
Which is funny given that the C++ committee refused Microsoft's changes (which latter became C++/CLI and Managed C++) on the grounds that there were too many idiosyncrasies and minor behind the scenes changes that would confuse people, and told them to call it something other than C++. Shortly after C# was announced.
Of course, that person would also have to put up with the constant malware threats, the nuisance of Windows Update, the lack of a central package manager, and the general asshattery of Microsoft including its desire to spy on its paying customers.
#1 has never been a problem, it's extremely difficult to catch malware if you use legit sources for games, software and media. Fir everything else there's isolated VMs to do crazy stuff on.
#2 is NOT a nuisance, if you care to spend 2 minutes configuring it properly.
#3 is actually a strong point IMO.
#4 is easily avoided if you download one of the many available simple tools and spend 2 minutes clicking on checkboxes.
Well, starting with Windows 8 there is a central package manager - it's called the Microsoft Windows Store (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/windows?icid=en_US_Store_UH_apps_Win). *But* it has it's own issues - regarding licensing, usages, and more. They do (did?) have a relatively friendly Open-Source policy, but primarily to try to grab market share; however, even that hasn't really helped them gain any traction.
And yet people still complain...And no, I'm no fan of it.
Meh, I wrote a functional kernel-mode XML parser used in production for a job a few years back. Didn't use a single library string function, which was the point here. As the GPP said: anyone that needs to process text will build a proper parser.
Well, kernel-mode would prevent you from using something from libc any way...so yeah you don't have to but it's still better to do so when you can; kernel-mode stuff typically provides its own series of functions instead of using standard library stuff so as not to get unwanted dependencies - though that all depends on what you're willing to accept as a kernel writer (some may like to just import libc and provide the necessary hooks to just run it).
memcpy is different: it's full of surprisingly complex optimizations. But memcpy_s is fucking stupid.
all the *_s() functions are stupid. Every time I have to write code for Windows software I have to map numerous functions from _() to (); the _s() just uses it (or something very much like it) behind the scenes any way.
For instance, the C standard explicitly states that all pointers point to valid memory, and that having a pointer that points into non-valid memory is "undefined".
Define an "invalid pointer" value then?
Among the many uses of C is OS and Boot Loader programming, and in those cases the value "0" is still a valid memory address to use. IOW, there are some areas of programming where there is no invalid value. therefore you can't define what is non-valid and what is valid, therefore it is undefined. These areas are also a primary target of operation for the C Programming Language.
For the C language itself, there probably isn't really anything that could be improved in that manner. Most of what people can validly complain about as being "undefined" is not part of the C language but of the libC library, and in that case it basically came down to history and vendors being unable to agree upon a standard result because they already had their implementations, didn't want to significantly change them, and saw some value in how they were doing it that they didn't want to give up or change. Some string and memory functions fall exactly into this position.
Now, what would be extremely helpful is the incorporation of functionality that could help with tracking memory chunks and determining whether they were allocated by a given program or library instance, on the stack or the heap of said instance, and be able to report the size of the allocation. This would enable programs to be able to make simple queries in order to avoid buffer overflows.
And calls like the strcpy_s() are stupid when the solution really is strncpy(), which includes a parameter to define how large the output buffer is.
All these noobs preoccupied with the "security" of libc string function... nobody use the libc string function not because they are insecure, but because they are bad. They are also trivial to implement if you really need them. Anyone that need to process text will build a proper parser.
Except nearly all parsers will use them in some form.
String are the least important aspect of any programe... except helloworld.c which is all about string and accomplish nothing.
If you think string parsing, manipulation is the least important aspect, then it is very obvious you do not actually do any programming any more. Inputs are more and more becoming linked with string parsing, gaining larger and larger influences over RPC APIs since XML and now JSON.
Their figures work out at an average of $221,809 per job
And even more in New York where it's $252,169.
Given average wages in the IT sector are nothing close to that it goes to show just how much is being pumped away at the top.
I interviewed for a mid-level position a few years back that would have been $140k in NYC; while only $80-86k in SC. Rent for someplace in the NJ/NY area would have wiped out any real differences, consuming any extra I would have been able to take home.
Well, Microsoft *and* Oracle, Apple, and about a thousand other proprietary software vendors - essentially most big companies that actually require a license on their software to use it.
>> interested companies are still struggling to figure out what parts of Yahoo are worth purchasing
When you're having a garage sale and two people want to buy the same old Risk set for $2, does it really matter whether they agree the old pieces or the old board are really the most valuable thing?
It's more like having a garage sale where you're selling a couch, and different buys want different things from it. One buy wants the springs, feet, etc; another wants the pillows, stuffing, timber, and no one wants the cloth covering.
Elop still wins the day for worst CEO ever. What Marissa has done to Yahoo! is nothing compared to what Elop did to Nokia; even if Yahoo! completely disappears.
Yahoo shareowners are probably angry they didn't accept Microsofts $44 billion bid in 2008.
As a Yahoo! customer during that time, Microsoft buying Yahoo! would have led to faster decline than what was seen.
And in all honesty, Yahoo! is operating like they don't *want* to have customers. I consistently get mailing list notifications on my Yahoo! mail now, sometimes having to re-enable a mailing list a few times a week. They are their own worst enemy right now; most of their issues could be resolved if they actually started caring about their customers again.
Comcast, who built the Cable network? Comcast who got into a ridiculous legal battle with Level-3 because Level-3 wanted to peer with Comcast to route traffic to parts of the Interent which required Level-3 to cross Comcast's backbone, but Comcast tried (successfully) to make Level-3 pay for peering? Comcast, who supplies Comcast for Business, placing Internet Web sites for independent businesses *directly* on Comcast's network, which is nation-wide, run on Comcast's own equipment, across Comcast's own fiber, and addressed with public IPs, meaning many Web sites simply aren't reachable without going directly through Comcast?
You do realize that there are separate divisions/units/etc within Comcast, AT&T, Sprint, etc that deal with last-mile versus backbone. Yes, they may ultimately be under the same overall corporate entity, but they are internally segregated. Even internally businesses cross-charge their units; so the last-mile unit will purchase back-bone capacity from the backbone unit - even if it's just moving numbers around on paper.
The internal separation allows the company to easily migrate technologies (e.g dial-up -> Cable -> DSL) or service different kinds of customers differently, f.e business vs residential - each of which are serviced even for last-mile by different units with services that overlap and are substantially different, i.e businesses don't get data caps on their services.
Amusing that today's headline is liars accusing other liars of being liars.
These small cable operators don't build the back-end infrastructure of the Internet. They're last-mile carriers. They're like MVNOs who only piggy back on providers, and they're talking about what it's like to build and maintain the Internet backbone as if they actually do that.
The units of the ISPs imposing the data caps are not back-end infrastructure providers either; they internally lease the infrastructure from the other sections of the companies that do the back-end provisioning, often resulting in routes to competitors and other vendors.
Perimeter security?!? No, No, No! Every serious security professional knows that it does not work. Repeat after my: "Defense in-depth".
Agreed.
One of the big problems out there is that so much software is *written* to be insecure; at best it checks external inputs, but once you get past external inputs you pretty much have free reign over calling any other function that is accessible.
So until programmers start taking security seriously and start writing software with the goal of keeping people out unless the software is used correctly (e.g checking all inputs and outputs of functions at all levels, internal or otherwise) then there will always be a very large attack footprint. If developers got serious about security the attack foot print would significantly narrow; would it be perfect? No; but it'd be an awful lot harder (multiple orders of magnitudes) to get software to do something it wasn't suppose to.
The ironic thing is that developers will claim moving to a GC'd language (like Java) for security (no more points to worry about...well, we know there really are pointers in Java) but then completely ignore the elephant in the room of someone hacking into their software, or the performance penalties that are incurred.
Some simple security preventative measures:
always check all inputs to validate they are what are expected (prevents: someone trying to kill the software through bad inputs)
always check all results of function calls to validate they are what are expected (prevents: someone trying to kill the software through bad results)
generate error codes, not exceptions. Exceptions will likely end up in another section of code that will ultimately make the program do something else and can easily be manipulated by stack modifications (e.g push something into the exception handler, then cause an exception to occur).
if possible, cut off lines of communication instead of returning errors. For example, if dealing with a network comm protocol, if the protocol is not perfectly followed then the connection is terminated without any information being returned to the caller. If there is a security issue it will end up in the protocol design, not in the implementation. Obviously some protocols (e.g HTTP) do not permit this behavior.
You do realise Facebook and Messenger are two completely different apps right? The former is a bucket of shit and the latter makes Skype and Whatsapp look like they were coded by 2 year olds after their first learn to code class.
Yeah, I stopped using their chat functionality when they introduced the Messenger App. Still drives me nuts because the Facebook App still has section in it dedicated for the Messenger functionality - including giving you notifications (e.g you have 5 messages) about messages that only Messenger will let you read - but gives you zero actual access to those messages instead trying to push you into Messager, which I refuse to install. So the messages just sit there until I eventually get around to logging into the FB website every once in a blue moon.
I would say that 'With WinME and Win2K the differences became pronounced' then the last desktop-consumer related missing features were rolled into WinXP.
True, though I really didn't like XP's interface (eX-Professional - due to all the bubbles, etc - really made it seem childish to me). Between it and cost I jumped over to Linux for Desktop more quickly; though my employers stuck with Windows.
The release of Win2K really set back Linux on the desktop. For a long time it was the better-than-linux option for the desktop. For years linux advocates carped and whined about 'Windows problems' that were bound to the old Win9x codebase, because they couldn't afford to compare desktop linux to W2k.
Kind of. Win9x/Me and Win2k were pretty close in many respects as far as usability went from a user perspective. The jump from that to the Linux DE's was pretty significant so yes it made it harder especially since XP brought a good bit of compatibility with software written for the 9x line so people could move easily from 9x/Me to XP.
I don't really recall much complaining about issues other than Microsoft doing things like rewriting boot records to use their boot loader (which stopped with Vista, but if I'm not mistaken started again with Win8 and SecureBoot), effectively making dual booting a real chore to install correctly, not to mention (which still happens) manufacturers putting in the BIOS/EFI/UEFI configurations only for Windows and skipping any alternative - making use of power management features extremely difficult, and typically leaving the Linux devs to ignore the BIOS/EFI/UEFI as much as possible.
Overall yes, the usability of Win2k and even WinXP was high enough that it did keep people on Windows longer, thereby depressing the numbers that would have migrated to a Linux DE. Even Vista and Win7 have done that. Win8 was blessing to Linux DE since its complicated tile-based interface (Metro, aka Modern) pushed people away; and Win10 (with metrics, etc) isn't really a complete solution to that (it did resolve the Metro issue, but introduced others).
A better question is why Never10 or GWX Control panel weren't installed on it.
Wouldn't have mattered since Microsoft has been actively circumventing any tools like those that disable the Win10 update prompts.
Is that a fact? GWX Control Panel has been working for me. No nags, no installs, no update files taking up space on my drive.
Then you're one of the very few. There have been many news stories over the last year about GWX Control Panel and other similar tools breaking because of Microsoft doing stuff to re-enable settings for the Win10 updates that were disabled by those tools.
People have very little brand loyalty because companies do not give them a reason to remain loyal because of things like what we are discussing.
People don't expect them to last more than a few years, but they do expect them to be quite cheap.
Corporations expect them to only last a few years; people in general I think expect them to last longer than a few years, and typically replace stuff because some technician can't do their job and fix the problem (typically at the behest of a support manager that wants to help drive the sales portion of the business, e.g BestBuy), so they recommend replacement instead - which most just go along with. Most laptops and desktops will easily be usable for 8 years without much effort before they are truly obsolete.
Tablets and phones are generally the exception to this but mostly because the technology is still changing a lot faster, mostly around durable storage (SSD), batteries, displays, and touch recognition - the rest of the phone is pretty well known and fixed, with moderate upgrades. (Example: biggest processor difference between my 2010 NexusOne and my 2015 MotoG is not speed - speed difference is negligible - but number of cores. Overall biggest differences are RAM and SSD capacity.)
when is the next version of Windows that doesn't suck coming out
I'd say shortly after Duke Nukem Forever came out, but they did actually manage to release that...albeit over 10 years late.
That said, when did Microsoft ever release a version of Windows that did *not* suck?
So, probably when Hell freezes over and pigs grow wings and fly.
The reason is simple. You don't make money writing drivers for hardware you've already sold.
False.
You don't directly make money writing drivers for hardware you've already sold.
You do make money by encouraging buyers to come back due to your great support (including continuing to provide updated drivers) for products already sold.
And yes, this is one reason why I haven't bought another tablet yet. I'm not seeing the kind of support I'd like to, even among higher end tablets.
And yes, I especially would expect it with more traditional computers (laptops, desktops).
Ahh, so the claim of M$ that Win10 had a different code base compared to all the previous versions is false.
When did they make that claim? Never that I'm aware of.
Historically, Microsoft had two code bases: Win9x line, and NT line. With WinME and WIn2k/XP, the two lines merged. Then between Win2k/XP and Win2k3/Vista, there was a major refactor of the codebase, removing cyclic dependencies, user-kernel-user dependencies (so it was only user->kernel, no kernel->user), reducing headers so you could actually include simple headers instead of the entire Windows API all the time, and more. Every version of Windows since Vista has been an incremental change building off of that refactor.
Slashdot Mirror
Nearly all new Python development is done using Python 3, and this has been the case for many years now.
Unfortunately no, that is *not* the case. If you're lucky, new development supports both Python2 and Python3; however, more likely than not even new development is Python2 only, and on a rare occasion is Python 3 only. Why? It still comes down to dependencies as a lot of the time it is harder to get all your dependencies successfully working under a Python3 solution and when you end up in a time-crunch your manager ends up going "drop python3 and get it done" so then Python3 support gets put on the back burner.
After all, C++ is the one language that
Nope. Ada has all that, and has had it since before C++ existed. It even has an organization set up to validate Ada compilers, so that lazy vendors (*cough*Microsoft*cough*) can't plausibly put out supposed Ada compilers that aren't even close to conformant.
What's more, its actually a more capable language. Every update of C++ since its inception has been adding more features that Ada had for decades. Range-based for loops? Had 'em in 1983. Strongly-typed enums? Had 'em in 1983. Even with this new update, C++ still doesn't have an analog to Ada's features for record layout specification and concurrent programming from the 1983 version of the language. That means its still inferior both for portable low-level programming (which is supposed to be C++'s forte) and concurrent programming.
However, it is still way way way more complex than Ada. So its got that going for it. If you wanna write an API using generic programming techniques that presents the client with a 6-screen error message for a simple one-character typo, C++ is your language.
While I generally agree, Ada's type system was too strong at the same time, thereby making it harder to do some things.
Don't get me wrong - I love Ada/Pascal, and in many ways they are far superior to C++; but there's also something to be said for the type enforcement level C++ has and that probably went a long way to C++ gaining the major popularity and Ada/Pascal dieing off. Flexibility was key.
Rejecting a new keyword makes sense. It doesn't reveal any bad design. Adding new keywords increases the risk of breaking existing code that uses common English words. Not many people want to appreciate this, it seems. You can't in one breath criticize C++ for being complicated at the same time as criticizing it for not complicating things with new keywords.
Which is funny given that the C++ committee refused Microsoft's changes (which latter became C++/CLI and Managed C++) on the grounds that there were too many idiosyncrasies and minor behind the scenes changes that would confuse people, and told them to call it something other than C++. Shortly after C# was announced.
Of course, that person would also have to put up with the constant malware threats, the nuisance of Windows Update, the lack of a central package manager, and the general asshattery of Microsoft including its desire to spy on its paying customers.
#1 has never been a problem, it's extremely difficult to catch malware if you use legit sources for games, software and media. Fir everything else there's isolated VMs to do crazy stuff on. #2 is NOT a nuisance, if you care to spend 2 minutes configuring it properly. #3 is actually a strong point IMO. #4 is easily avoided if you download one of the many available simple tools and spend 2 minutes clicking on checkboxes.
Well, starting with Windows 8 there is a central package manager - it's called the Microsoft Windows Store (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/windows?icid=en_US_Store_UH_apps_Win). *But* it has it's own issues - regarding licensing, usages, and more. They do (did?) have a relatively friendly Open-Source policy, but primarily to try to grab market share; however, even that hasn't really helped them gain any traction.
And yet people still complain...And no, I'm no fan of it.
Meh, I wrote a functional kernel-mode XML parser used in production for a job a few years back. Didn't use a single library string function, which was the point here. As the GPP said: anyone that needs to process text will build a proper parser.
Well, kernel-mode would prevent you from using something from libc any way...so yeah you don't have to but it's still better to do so when you can; kernel-mode stuff typically provides its own series of functions instead of using standard library stuff so as not to get unwanted dependencies - though that all depends on what you're willing to accept as a kernel writer (some may like to just import libc and provide the necessary hooks to just run it).
memcpy is different: it's full of surprisingly complex optimizations. But memcpy_s is fucking stupid.
all the *_s() functions are stupid. Every time I have to write code for Windows software I have to map numerous functions from _() to (); the _s() just uses it (or something very much like it) behind the scenes any way.
(Firefox profiles) just use those.
This is using the profiles, just differently and oriented around tabs instead of user-launched processes.
For instance, the C standard explicitly states that all pointers point to valid memory, and that having a pointer that points into non-valid memory is "undefined".
Define an "invalid pointer" value then?
Among the many uses of C is OS and Boot Loader programming, and in those cases the value "0" is still a valid memory address to use. IOW, there are some areas of programming where there is no invalid value. therefore you can't define what is non-valid and what is valid, therefore it is undefined. These areas are also a primary target of operation for the C Programming Language.
For the C language itself, there probably isn't really anything that could be improved in that manner. Most of what people can validly complain about as being "undefined" is not part of the C language but of the libC library, and in that case it basically came down to history and vendors being unable to agree upon a standard result because they already had their implementations, didn't want to significantly change them, and saw some value in how they were doing it that they didn't want to give up or change. Some string and memory functions fall exactly into this position.
Now, what would be extremely helpful is the incorporation of functionality that could help with tracking memory chunks and determining whether they were allocated by a given program or library instance, on the stack or the heap of said instance, and be able to report the size of the allocation. This would enable programs to be able to make simple queries in order to avoid buffer overflows.
And calls like the strcpy_s() are stupid when the solution really is strncpy(), which includes a parameter to define how large the output buffer is.
All these noobs preoccupied with the "security" of libc string function... nobody use the libc string function not because they are insecure, but because they are bad. They are also trivial to implement if you really need them. Anyone that need to process text will build a proper parser.
Except nearly all parsers will use them in some form.
String are the least important aspect of any programe... except helloworld.c which is all about string and accomplish nothing.
If you think string parsing, manipulation is the least important aspect, then it is very obvious you do not actually do any programming any more. Inputs are more and more becoming linked with string parsing, gaining larger and larger influences over RPC APIs since XML and now JSON.
Their figures work out at an average of $221,809 per job
And even more in New York where it's $252,169.
Given average wages in the IT sector are nothing close to that it goes to show just how much is being pumped away at the top.
I interviewed for a mid-level position a few years back that would have been $140k in NYC; while only $80-86k in SC. Rent for someplace in the NJ/NY area would have wiped out any real differences, consuming any extra I would have been able to take home.
BSA is just a front for Microsoft
Well, Microsoft *and* Oracle, Apple, and about a thousand other proprietary software vendors - essentially most big companies that actually require a license on their software to use it.
>> interested companies are still struggling to figure out what parts of Yahoo are worth purchasing When you're having a garage sale and two people want to buy the same old Risk set for $2, does it really matter whether they agree the old pieces or the old board are really the most valuable thing?
It's more like having a garage sale where you're selling a couch, and different buys want different things from it. One buy wants the springs, feet, etc; another wants the pillows, stuffing, timber, and no one wants the cloth covering.
Take that Elop.
Elop still wins the day for worst CEO ever. What Marissa has done to Yahoo! is nothing compared to what Elop did to Nokia; even if Yahoo! completely disappears.
Yahoo shareowners are probably angry they didn't accept Microsofts $44 billion bid in 2008.
As a Yahoo! customer during that time, Microsoft buying Yahoo! would have led to faster decline than what was seen.
And in all honesty, Yahoo! is operating like they don't *want* to have customers. I consistently get mailing list notifications on my Yahoo! mail now, sometimes having to re-enable a mailing list a few times a week. They are their own worst enemy right now; most of their issues could be resolved if they actually started caring about their customers again.
You mean Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Sprint, etc.?
Comcast, who built the Cable network? Comcast who got into a ridiculous legal battle with Level-3 because Level-3 wanted to peer with Comcast to route traffic to parts of the Interent which required Level-3 to cross Comcast's backbone, but Comcast tried (successfully) to make Level-3 pay for peering? Comcast, who supplies Comcast for Business, placing Internet Web sites for independent businesses *directly* on Comcast's network, which is nation-wide, run on Comcast's own equipment, across Comcast's own fiber, and addressed with public IPs, meaning many Web sites simply aren't reachable without going directly through Comcast?
You do realize that there are separate divisions/units/etc within Comcast, AT&T, Sprint, etc that deal with last-mile versus backbone. Yes, they may ultimately be under the same overall corporate entity, but they are internally segregated. Even internally businesses cross-charge their units; so the last-mile unit will purchase back-bone capacity from the backbone unit - even if it's just moving numbers around on paper.
The internal separation allows the company to easily migrate technologies (e.g dial-up -> Cable -> DSL) or service different kinds of customers differently, f.e business vs residential - each of which are serviced even for last-mile by different units with services that overlap and are substantially different, i.e businesses don't get data caps on their services.
Amusing that today's headline is liars accusing other liars of being liars.
These small cable operators don't build the back-end infrastructure of the Internet. They're last-mile carriers. They're like MVNOs who only piggy back on providers, and they're talking about what it's like to build and maintain the Internet backbone as if they actually do that.
The units of the ISPs imposing the data caps are not back-end infrastructure providers either; they internally lease the infrastructure from the other sections of the companies that do the back-end provisioning, often resulting in routes to competitors and other vendors.
Perimeter security?!? No, No, No! Every serious security professional knows that it does not work. Repeat after my: "Defense in-depth".
Agreed.
One of the big problems out there is that so much software is *written* to be insecure; at best it checks external inputs, but once you get past external inputs you pretty much have free reign over calling any other function that is accessible.
So until programmers start taking security seriously and start writing software with the goal of keeping people out unless the software is used correctly (e.g checking all inputs and outputs of functions at all levels, internal or otherwise) then there will always be a very large attack footprint. If developers got serious about security the attack foot print would significantly narrow; would it be perfect? No; but it'd be an awful lot harder (multiple orders of magnitudes) to get software to do something it wasn't suppose to.
The ironic thing is that developers will claim moving to a GC'd language (like Java) for security (no more points to worry about...well, we know there really are pointers in Java) but then completely ignore the elephant in the room of someone hacking into their software, or the performance penalties that are incurred.
Some simple security preventative measures:
You do realise Facebook and Messenger are two completely different apps right? The former is a bucket of shit and the latter makes Skype and Whatsapp look like they were coded by 2 year olds after their first learn to code class.
Yeah, I stopped using their chat functionality when they introduced the Messenger App. Still drives me nuts because the Facebook App still has section in it dedicated for the Messenger functionality - including giving you notifications (e.g you have 5 messages) about messages that only Messenger will let you read - but gives you zero actual access to those messages instead trying to push you into Messager, which I refuse to install. So the messages just sit there until I eventually get around to logging into the FB website every once in a blue moon.
I would say that 'With WinME and Win2K the differences became pronounced' then the last desktop-consumer related missing features were rolled into WinXP.
True, though I really didn't like XP's interface (eX-Professional - due to all the bubbles, etc - really made it seem childish to me). Between it and cost I jumped over to Linux for Desktop more quickly; though my employers stuck with Windows.
The release of Win2K really set back Linux on the desktop. For a long time it was the better-than-linux option for the desktop. For years linux advocates carped and whined about 'Windows problems' that were bound to the old Win9x codebase, because they couldn't afford to compare desktop linux to W2k.
Kind of. Win9x/Me and Win2k were pretty close in many respects as far as usability went from a user perspective. The jump from that to the Linux DE's was pretty significant so yes it made it harder especially since XP brought a good bit of compatibility with software written for the 9x line so people could move easily from 9x/Me to XP.
I don't really recall much complaining about issues other than Microsoft doing things like rewriting boot records to use their boot loader (which stopped with Vista, but if I'm not mistaken started again with Win8 and SecureBoot), effectively making dual booting a real chore to install correctly, not to mention (which still happens) manufacturers putting in the BIOS/EFI/UEFI configurations only for Windows and skipping any alternative - making use of power management features extremely difficult, and typically leaving the Linux devs to ignore the BIOS/EFI/UEFI as much as possible.
Overall yes, the usability of Win2k and even WinXP was high enough that it did keep people on Windows longer, thereby depressing the numbers that would have migrated to a Linux DE. Even Vista and Win7 have done that. Win8 was blessing to Linux DE since its complicated tile-based interface (Metro, aka Modern) pushed people away; and Win10 (with metrics, etc) isn't really a complete solution to that (it did resolve the Metro issue, but introduced others).
A better question is why Never10 or GWX Control panel weren't installed on it.
Wouldn't have mattered since Microsoft has been actively circumventing any tools like those that disable the Win10 update prompts.
Is that a fact? GWX Control Panel has been working for me. No nags, no installs, no update files taking up space on my drive.
Then you're one of the very few. There have been many news stories over the last year about GWX Control Panel and other similar tools breaking because of Microsoft doing stuff to re-enable settings for the Win10 updates that were disabled by those tools.
People have very little brand loyalty these days.
People have very little brand loyalty because companies do not give them a reason to remain loyal because of things like what we are discussing.
People don't expect them to last more than a few years, but they do expect them to be quite cheap.
Corporations expect them to only last a few years; people in general I think expect them to last longer than a few years, and typically replace stuff because some technician can't do their job and fix the problem (typically at the behest of a support manager that wants to help drive the sales portion of the business, e.g BestBuy), so they recommend replacement instead - which most just go along with. Most laptops and desktops will easily be usable for 8 years without much effort before they are truly obsolete.
Tablets and phones are generally the exception to this but mostly because the technology is still changing a lot faster, mostly around durable storage (SSD), batteries, displays, and touch recognition - the rest of the phone is pretty well known and fixed, with moderate upgrades. (Example: biggest processor difference between my 2010 NexusOne and my 2015 MotoG is not speed - speed difference is negligible - but number of cores. Overall biggest differences are RAM and SSD capacity.)
when is the next version of Windows that doesn't suck coming out
I'd say shortly after Duke Nukem Forever came out, but they did actually manage to release that...albeit over 10 years late.
That said, when did Microsoft ever release a version of Windows that did *not* suck? So, probably when Hell freezes over and pigs grow wings and fly.
A better question is why Never10 or GWX Control panel weren't installed on it.
Wouldn't have mattered since Microsoft has been actively circumventing any tools like those that disable the Win10 update prompts.
The reason is simple. You don't make money writing drivers for hardware you've already sold.
False. You don't directly make money writing drivers for hardware you've already sold.
You do make money by encouraging buyers to come back due to your great support (including continuing to provide updated drivers) for products already sold.
And yes, this is one reason why I haven't bought another tablet yet. I'm not seeing the kind of support I'd like to, even among higher end tablets.
And yes, I especially would expect it with more traditional computers (laptops, desktops).
It keeps rearing its ugly head...did they reintroduce it again?
Ahh, so the claim of M$ that Win10 had a different code base compared to all the previous versions is false.
When did they make that claim? Never that I'm aware of.
Historically, Microsoft had two code bases: Win9x line, and NT line. With WinME and WIn2k/XP, the two lines merged. Then between Win2k/XP and Win2k3/Vista, there was a major refactor of the codebase, removing cyclic dependencies, user-kernel-user dependencies (so it was only user->kernel, no kernel->user), reducing headers so you could actually include simple headers instead of the entire Windows API all the time, and more. Every version of Windows since Vista has been an incremental change building off of that refactor.