Most features are there, and I could open and edit a new blank doc.
You are the one who has created the straw man, stretching "most features are there" into "fully-features other than obscure features like version tracking".
You also seem to be assuming that muirhead was talking about the commercial version. He never stated that or indicated it in any way. The average user, by far, would be subject to the consumer edition and not the commercial one, so this is also quite a stretch you made.
It's not about whether I like your post, or whether you provided useful information. It's about you mixing FUD into your response.
Then leave. Go somewhere else. If the rent is so high that living elsewhere for a lower wage results in a significant increase in leftover income, then staying is a bad decision.
You might need to learn the difference between "Not correct" and "Pretty much exactly what you said, but I don't like it so I'm going to make a big deal where such is not warranted".
Windows 10 offers me nothing I want and a lot I don't want. I see absolutely no reason to upgrade from Windows 7, even if it is nominally "free".
That's up to you. But I'm surprised you find nothing good about Windows 10 when compared with 7. Better performance, virtual desktops, Cortana, notifications, improved Snap, quick settings, Edge, Store apps, improved interaction with the command prompt, streaming from Xbox One, DirectX 12, native video/game capture, and several other things I'm sure I missed... I'm not surprised you don't care for some of those, but I am surprised you don't want any of it.
These studies were done before the FCC's Net Neutrality regulations went into effect.
Actually, I'm lying. I don't know when they were done. The article links to... get this... no study. I can't find a single link on the Internet to the study that this article suggests happened.
So how can we draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of the new policies from this article?
I'm running 10130 on two machines and it works on both. It's not an automatic resizing. You just have to remove all your tiles, then it will allow you to manually resize it down. When tiles exist, it requires at least enough space for one tile group.
You can't rearrange the items on the menu; it's all alphabetical.
You can still pin items, in the tile area. They can be rearranged not only vertically (like in Windows 7) but also horizontally now.
The text in "All Apps" section is huge and absurdly widely-spaced, making even a short list of apps go on forever.
If you click on the headers (0-9, A, B, C, etc.) it will zoom out to show the full list of headers, and clicking on one can take you straight to that section.
Even if you remove all the live tiles, the menu still takes up a huge amount of space.
Incorrect. If you remove all live tiles, you can collapse the Start menu to a much smaller space than the Windows 7 Start menu. Or make it any size all the way up to full screen. Your choice.
Except the upgrade from W7 SP1 doesn't work. There's no option to upgrade even with KB3035583 installed and proper activation from bought deliverables.
You can't upgrade because it's not available. It doesn't show yet because either the update could not determine if your machine is compatible, you're running a pirated version of Windows, or you've turned off or blocked Windows Update. https://www.microsoft.com/en-u...
This is a deeply unpopular idea. Only 6% of Americans opt to direct a portion of their taxes to public election funding, despite costing them nothing to do so.
I don't know about everyone else, but I don't check that box because I would rather see that $3 go toward improving our infrastructure, reducing our debt, and a host of other things before I want it to go toward a political campaign. Campaigns already have too much funding as it is, why do they need more?
But it's different when campaigns only receive funding through the general budget. The Presidential Election Campaign Fund checkbox would disappear under these new rules, because it would no longer be funded by choice.
I see. So the Nazi Party, and the "Keg Party" would get the same funding as the Democrats and Republicans. We would soon have ten thousand political parties.
Who gets to decide who is a "candidate"?
There already exist ballot access rules that regulate whether someone can get on the ballot. Only candidates who appear on a ballot would be provided with campaign funding.
(Besides, the two party system is a problem, not something to cherish.)
no PACs, no tax checkoffs, no self-funding, no $5 checks from little old ladies... NO ELECTION MONEY PERIOD! go door to door, do a Sunday Silly Hour like BBC does and give all candidates their 5 minutes of TV
This is a nice ideal, but money has to be spent (in some form) so long as there is a goal to educate the people about the candidates.
I'd prefer:
1) all campaign funding to be provided from the general budget, equally to all candidates 2) a centralized government website for candidates to specify their opinions, answers, and rebuttals about the major issues, such that (at least some of) the data can be printed and distributed free-of-charge to any voting citizen that requests it... again all funded from the general budget
That's fine until perhaps you get accused of a sex crime you didn't commit. You are on the record as wearing women's clothing in bed? Your case just got harder.
I think a better example would be skirts. It is socially acceptable for a woman to go to work either in pants or a skirt. However, if I (as a male) came to work in a skirt I would be asked into the bosses office and told to go home and get changed.
And of course it goes much further than that. A man wearing a skirt or dress would be ridiculed in most of areas of society, no matter how good the guy looks or how manly the skirt/dress is.
I find it interesting that men have just a few more legal rights when it comes to dress (men can show their chests in public) but our society actually gives women many more options... pretty much everything a man can wear, plus skirts, low-cut shirts, high heels, nail polish, makeup, not even to mention that there are not many public places where it would be acceptable for a man to take off his shirt anyway.
Based on the response Microsoft got when Xbox One was announced as online-only, and considering that Xbox One is a lot more likely to exist in an always-connected environment than the thousands of different types of Windows machines, it would require extreme stupidity to try the same with Windows.
In any event, MS would be ill advised to open source anything. As soon as they do, they are no longer the only source for updates, and once they are no longer the only source for updates, they will no longer be the *best* source for updates, since it is likely that a young upstart company with some intelligence behind it is going to be able to run rings around MS.
It would still be the only official source for updates. Windows would almost certainly not accept third-party sources by default.
You have your opinion, that's fair. Mine is, I somewhat trust them because they currently need to make themselves trustworthy. This isn't the same stale Microsoft from the monopoly days that knew they had no legitimate competition... this is a fresh Microsoft with a new direction, new leadership, and a birth of openness unparalleled in their history.
It's my computer, not theirs.
If it's really your computer, then you'd know how to uninstall an update.
It depends on the subscription license model. For example, with MSDN you get perpetual use licensing where you can continue to use products after the subscription expires. You just do not receive feature updates and you no longer get support.
And then there's the expectation that eventually it becomes extortionware -- nice OS you have, shame if something happened to it if you stopped paying us.
Slippery slope.
You know what happens? Exactly what you expect, you no longer have support or feature updates. This is no different from what happened to people who are still using XP and never purchased an upgrade.
In fact, you could say that the traditional Windows licensing model isn't terribly different from subscription, but instead of paying a small amount yearly you're paying a larger amount every 5 years or so.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what any of that has to do with synchronization with solar time (which is the point of leap seconds). You'll need to provide more info.
This is nonsense. Data throttling had nothing to do with profitability of the warranty program. If the warranty program was found to be profitable for Sprint, they would keep it. They certainly wouldn't kill a money-maker right at the same time that they lost another money-maker.
That's all there is to it. This was coincidence, nothing more.
Slashdot Mirror
To quote muirhead:
Most features are there, and I could open and edit a new blank doc.
You are the one who has created the straw man, stretching "most features are there" into "fully-features other than obscure features like version tracking".
You also seem to be assuming that muirhead was talking about the commercial version. He never stated that or indicated it in any way. The average user, by far, would be subject to the consumer edition and not the commercial one, so this is also quite a stretch you made.
It's not about whether I like your post, or whether you provided useful information. It's about you mixing FUD into your response.
Then leave. Go somewhere else. If the rent is so high that living elsewhere for a lower wage results in a significant increase in leftover income, then staying is a bad decision.
Not correct.
You might need to learn the difference between "Not correct" and "Pretty much exactly what you said, but I don't like it so I'm going to make a big deal where such is not warranted".
Windows 10 offers me nothing I want and a lot I don't want. I see absolutely no reason to upgrade from Windows 7, even if it is nominally "free".
That's up to you. But I'm surprised you find nothing good about Windows 10 when compared with 7. Better performance, virtual desktops, Cortana, notifications, improved Snap, quick settings, Edge, Store apps, improved interaction with the command prompt, streaming from Xbox One, DirectX 12, native video/game capture, and several other things I'm sure I missed... I'm not surprised you don't care for some of those, but I am surprised you don't want any of it.
These studies were done before the FCC's Net Neutrality regulations went into effect.
Actually, I'm lying. I don't know when they were done. The article links to... get this... no study. I can't find a single link on the Internet to the study that this article suggests happened.
So how can we draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of the new policies from this article?
I'm running 10130 on two machines and it works on both. It's not an automatic resizing. You just have to remove all your tiles, then it will allow you to manually resize it down. When tiles exist, it requires at least enough space for one tile group.
You can't rearrange the items on the menu; it's all alphabetical.
You can still pin items, in the tile area. They can be rearranged not only vertically (like in Windows 7) but also horizontally now.
The text in "All Apps" section is huge and absurdly widely-spaced, making even a short list of apps go on forever.
If you click on the headers (0-9, A, B, C, etc.) it will zoom out to show the full list of headers, and clicking on one can take you straight to that section.
Even if you remove all the live tiles, the menu still takes up a huge amount of space.
Incorrect. If you remove all live tiles, you can collapse the Start menu to a much smaller space than the Windows 7 Start menu. Or make it any size all the way up to full screen. Your choice.
Except the upgrade from W7 SP1 doesn't work. There's no option to upgrade even with KB3035583 installed and proper activation from bought deliverables.
You can't upgrade because it's not available. It doesn't show yet because either the update could not determine if your machine is compatible, you're running a pirated version of Windows, or you've turned off or blocked Windows Update. https://www.microsoft.com/en-u...
Lush is Apple?
Many states' ballot access rules are compatible with being done earlier in the process. This isn't hard.
This is a deeply unpopular idea. Only 6% of Americans opt to direct a portion of their taxes to public election funding, despite costing them nothing to do so.
I don't know about everyone else, but I don't check that box because I would rather see that $3 go toward improving our infrastructure, reducing our debt, and a host of other things before I want it to go toward a political campaign. Campaigns already have too much funding as it is, why do they need more?
But it's different when campaigns only receive funding through the general budget. The Presidential Election Campaign Fund checkbox would disappear under these new rules, because it would no longer be funded by choice.
I see. So the Nazi Party, and the "Keg Party" would get the same funding as the Democrats and Republicans. We would soon have ten thousand political parties.
Who gets to decide who is a "candidate"?
There already exist ballot access rules that regulate whether someone can get on the ballot. Only candidates who appear on a ballot would be provided with campaign funding.
(Besides, the two party system is a problem, not something to cherish.)
VB 6 was still supported, and continued to have service pack releases, for several years after VB.NET was produced.
Why? Most money goes to paying for commercials on TV. The actual cost to run campaign is far less that what is being raised.
Sure, but the amount of money required for campaigning is still non-zero. Strict campaign funding rules are needed even if the cost isn't exorbitant.
who in the right mind would buy a car with wheel sensors?
Someone who could save a few bucks by joining the "Safe Habits Driving Bonus" program.
no PACs, no tax checkoffs, no self-funding, no $5 checks from little old ladies... NO ELECTION MONEY PERIOD! go door to door, do a Sunday Silly Hour like BBC does and give all candidates their 5 minutes of TV
This is a nice ideal, but money has to be spent (in some form) so long as there is a goal to educate the people about the candidates.
I'd prefer:
1) all campaign funding to be provided from the general budget, equally to all candidates
2) a centralized government website for candidates to specify their opinions, answers, and rebuttals about the major issues, such that (at least some of) the data can be printed and distributed free-of-charge to any voting citizen that requests it... again all funded from the general budget
That's fine until perhaps you get accused of a sex crime you didn't commit. You are on the record as wearing women's clothing in bed? Your case just got harder.
I think a better example would be skirts. It is socially acceptable for a woman to go to work either in pants or a skirt. However, if I (as a male) came to work in a skirt I would be asked into the bosses office and told to go home and get changed.
And of course it goes much further than that. A man wearing a skirt or dress would be ridiculed in most of areas of society, no matter how good the guy looks or how manly the skirt/dress is.
I find it interesting that men have just a few more legal rights when it comes to dress (men can show their chests in public) but our society actually gives women many more options... pretty much everything a man can wear, plus skirts, low-cut shirts, high heels, nail polish, makeup, not even to mention that there are not many public places where it would be acceptable for a man to take off his shirt anyway.
Based on the response Microsoft got when Xbox One was announced as online-only, and considering that Xbox One is a lot more likely to exist in an always-connected environment than the thousands of different types of Windows machines, it would require extreme stupidity to try the same with Windows.
I wouldn't worry much about that.
Or, keep using some pink, but stop the stereotype that it's only for girls. Most boys are fine with pink until told that it's wrong.
In any event, MS would be ill advised to open source anything. As soon as they do, they are no longer the only source for updates, and once they are no longer the only source for updates, they will no longer be the *best* source for updates, since it is likely that a young upstart company with some intelligence behind it is going to be able to run rings around MS.
It would still be the only official source for updates. Windows would almost certainly not accept third-party sources by default.
So, I don't think it is a slippery slope
Well none of what you wrote above that is a slippery slope, or relevant, because Windows 10 is not using a subscription model. This conversation is mostly hypothetical.
I don't trust them to play fairly and honestly.
You have your opinion, that's fair. Mine is, I somewhat trust them because they currently need to make themselves trustworthy. This isn't the same stale Microsoft from the monopoly days that knew they had no legitimate competition... this is a fresh Microsoft with a new direction, new leadership, and a birth of openness unparalleled in their history.
It's my computer, not theirs.
If it's really your computer, then you'd know how to uninstall an update.
It depends on the subscription license model. For example, with MSDN you get perpetual use licensing where you can continue to use products after the subscription expires. You just do not receive feature updates and you no longer get support.
And then there's the expectation that eventually it becomes extortionware -- nice OS you have, shame if something happened to it if you stopped paying us.
Slippery slope.
You know what happens? Exactly what you expect, you no longer have support or feature updates. This is no different from what happened to people who are still using XP and never purchased an upgrade.
In fact, you could say that the traditional Windows licensing model isn't terribly different from subscription, but instead of paying a small amount yearly you're paying a larger amount every 5 years or so.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what any of that has to do with synchronization with solar time (which is the point of leap seconds). You'll need to provide more info.
But this would be *gasp* a SUBSCRIPTION plan!!!
The HORROR!!
At least, that's what I believe because I'm from Slashdot and that's what they tell me to believe.
This is nonsense. Data throttling had nothing to do with profitability of the warranty program. If the warranty program was found to be profitable for Sprint, they would keep it. They certainly wouldn't kill a money-maker right at the same time that they lost another money-maker.
That's all there is to it. This was coincidence, nothing more.