Retiring ActiveSync for consumer accounts is not "trying to prevent Windows Phone from syncing calendar and contact data". Not even close. ActiveSync is a Microsoft-specific protocol which is so heavily protected by the patent system it requires fees.
Right, MS developed ActiveSync, filed patents, and licenses ActiveSync (licenses = requires fees). Google licensed it, used it for quite a while, and decided to migrate away. Nothing wrong with any of that. It's how that's done that's at issue here -- Google tried to fuck Windows Phone users over. It's really that simple.
By "hindering the development of a YouTube app" you actually mean requiring Microsoft to obey the terms of service, right?
If that's your interpretation then you've prostituted your brain to your employer. Google has willfully prevented MS from making a TOS-compliant Youtube app that compares to the apps on iOS and Android. Google refuses to make such an app themselves. Google repeatedly suggests that WP8 users "use the browser" (it's even in their official cease-and-desist letter). Google would never for a second release an Android phone that follows that suggestion.
The sort of thing Microsoft does here is exactly what Larry was talking about.
Larry Page is probably involved in the decisions to block MS on the YouTube app. He's blowing sunshine up your ass and you're opening wider.
Dude, that's the tip of the iceberg... you should see the things they've been doing to try to prevent windows phone from developing apps that use google services.. A couple of recent examples:
1) They tried to prevent WPs from syncing Gmail calendar and contact data (link). Note that this involves deliberately breaking something that wasn't broken. Making changes/improvements is cool -- but why not work with MS to ensure users don't get affected? How about a little heads up for a major change like that?
2) They've been hindering the development of a youtube app on WP (link). They've even deliberately broken third party youtube apps on WP more than once before this latest spat.
At least Apple and MS are honest about their intentions... I can't stand the doublespeak the comes out of Google's top leaders.
It's not just that tech industry viciousness is here to stay -- it's also that Google is a pretty strong participant in it. Google's been pretty good at appropriating the language of open source when it suits them, and using EEE tactics once they have the upper hand.
Please never assume you are even capable of evaluating design, never mind telling people who should and should not be involved in it. Even your comments are worthless -- it's not even possible to discuss a design properly with you because your comments only contain smugness and snarkiness, but no substance.
And this is exactly why I was being neither sarcastic nor snarky when I said this: "I willingly concede that I am incapable of explaining discoverability to someone like you."
Back to being snarky because you've run out of substance? If you have a point, and any conviction in it, don't be afraid to make it. Sometimes it takes more than half a sentence.
OP's post was about finding Control Panel -- which assumes knowledge of this abstract concept in Windows (from having used previous versions of it). You were unable to defend your initial stance so you decided to move the goal posts by considering a user who is not familiar with this abstract concept, and your accusation of it being "undiscoverable" still fails. Whether it's by using the old flow (windows key, and start typing) or whether you "discover" that swiping in from the edges brings you various menus, then "discovering" that one of those will always have a cog icon with the word "settings" below it, or "discovering" that same menu also has this thing called "control panel" above it that sounds like it just might have something to do with configuring your computer -- your assertion fails, and fails hard!
You want to discover? Explore the UI for 5 minutes and you will discover tons! But no -- you want to spout nonsense about power users preferring Unix (god knows which 'discoverability genius' designed the various Unix UIs over the years), reply with snarky one-liners, skirt the issue by saying you can't explain shit to someone like me (by which you mean anybody that doesn't agree with you). Fucking fool!
If I have to know the words "control panel" before finding it, then that is not discoverable. GTFO.
What setting were you trying to change? Try typing that. Little more intuitive. Perhaps even discoverable. Even saves a step. You're clutching at straws. GTFO indeed!
You're being pedantic. Seriously. You're clinging desperately to the menu system and calling it undiscoverable.
Win8 has done away with the thing you're triumphantly calling undiscoverable. It's replaced it with an easily discoverable method. This same easily discoverable method already existed in Win7 and Vista. So it's discoverable-to-the-max as something that's existed and is well-known for years now, and it does away with a method that was not scaling for hundreds upon hundreds of apps.
But I'm sure you'll come back with some stupid one-liner thinking it makes you sound like you know what the fuck you're talking about. Insufferable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say your chosen method is bad, whatever you find that is fast is great. So I am happy for you.
Wow. Condescending prick is condescending.
Discoverability has to do with how easy it is to figure out if you don't already know the hotkeys. That is what I was criticizing.
Oh really? So you're going to lecture people on what discover-ability is? Did you pause to consider that the method he mentions worked the same way in Vista and Win7 as it does in Win8 before you embarked on making an ass of yourself while trying to sound superior about it?
Had to reply to this again. This works the same way in Win8 that it did in Win7 (and in fact the same as in Vista). Do you even realize how monumentally stupid your comment was?
Any power user worth a dime would use Unix, but that's not what we're talking about here. UI discoverability, look it up, and don't design any software until you figure it out, please.
Regarding Unix -- you're welcome to your own dumb biases no matter how idiotic they make you sound. Power users don't give a fuck what OS it is -- they thrive regardless.
Regarding UI discoverability, it's laughable how you manage to sound so smug and yet not know your ass from your elbow. The first time you hit the Win key you will "discover" that it takes you to the new start page. The first time you hit any letter/number key on that screen you will discover that it filters programs. Get the fuck out of here with your condescending bullshit.
First -- if you are willfully ignorant of simple things, you lose the right to clamor about design deficiencies in the UI.
Second -- if you are even slightly honest, you will admit that the "highlight; middle-button-paste" paradigm has been so historically inconsistent across applications in Unix and Linux that you do not even have a leg to stand on if you're claiming that this is all you know.
Not really an assumption I made (i.e. I was addressing the parent in my post, not computer users in general)
Why does a non-power-user even care about the control panel? The settings available in the charms menu suffice for regular users. And a power user who wants the control panel at all costs has countless of ways of getting there. *One* of those ways is different now. Grounds for a hissy fit I guess.
Honestly, the slowdown in PC sales is a slowdown in PC sales -- not a referendum on Windows 8. We're at a point where personal computing technology has matured quite a bit and people don't run through computers quite like they used to. Microsoft's extremely long OS life cycles are also playing a part in it -- they are a software vendor that doesn't play the forced obsolescence game much. The anti Win8 noise is really just the typical Slashdot (who abhor anything Microsoft) and pro open source anti MS vox populi.
Just an FYI that Windows key + C (think "C for Charms") is faster than moving the mouse to the corner -- especially if you're on a multi-monitor setup.
While I'm at it, I might as well give you a couple of other options:
1) Touch screen option: Swipe from left, settings, control panel. Big, huge targets. Easy to discover.
2) Non-touch screen option: Win-C, settings, control panel. Big huge targets. Eventually everyone will know Win-C = Charms menu.
All this faux outrage from Slashdot. Such luddites, everyone here. Been learning new UI stuff on Linux every 6 months virtually, willing to switch between Gnome and KDE every couple of years, and then Unity, willing to jump through all kinds of hoops, but absolutely adamantly insistent that (a) Windows is not worth the money because nothing ever changes and (b) Windows must never change because it's too damn difficult to learn anything new.
When your UI is so undiscoverable that people need to use search to get anything done, then you know you have a lousy UI.
1. Do the exact same thing (Win-key, type "cont..") -- do the exact same thing in Win7 and Win8 and then post back about whether it's any different. (answer -- it's exactly the same. The only difference is visual -- the workflow, the clicks, the keystrokes, the responsiveness, are exactly identical).
2. Please don't tell me you actually used to click "start" and then click on "control panel"? It's okay to do that I suppose, but any power user worth a dime would follow the typing-based approach because it's much much faster, and it works for everything no matter how shallow or deep it's nested in the start menu (or even if it's not there at all).
Yet they dare not claim Google violates their patents because they know they will get their ass handed to them in court. So they pick on the weak, trying to build a wall of patent licenses to fall back on.
Google doesn't own the infringing code. Google doesn't manufacture the devices. Google doesn't offer indemnity to any Android OEMs. So on that technicality, MS couldn't sue them. Therefore Google was free to rip off Apple and Microsoft's IP and incorporate it into Android, and face none of the consequences. They even had their CEO sit on Apple board to learn from them! Perhaps now you can understand how Google co-opted the language of Open Source to get all of the advantages, but bear none of the responsibility. And BTW, in the case of Motorola you can now say that Google does manufacture the device -- but there's already litigation in progress between Motorola and Microsoft, so Microsoft doesn't appear to be shying from a fight here.
I'm not sure why you are so confident MS will get their asses handed to them in court by Google. What is it about Samsung, HTC, Foxconn, etc. that makes you think they are "the weak" and were defenseless against MS's claims?
Unlikely? Spoken like someone who has never had to support niche software on a corporate network.
I've supported stuff that was authored on PC DOS and was still running on NT4.0 decades later, and stuff that was designed for NT3.5 that was still running on Win2k in 2010.
One big problem is older.net applications, that are compiled explicitly against.net 1.0 or 1.1, which conveniently are not available to install on Vista / Windows 7 / Windows 8. Even with dot net 2,3,4, etc. installed those apps often flat out refuse to run because.net 1.0 subrevision 23B can't be found.
People running into this issue are authoring their own stuff in-house and should be able to rebuild. I guarantee you nobody is rebuilding against newer.Net runtimes and charging you $10,000 for their time.
Another issue us that quite a few of the really expensive niche software products still uses hardware dongles to enforce compliance. Changes to the windows driver model between XP and Windows 7 alone can keep those things from validating. Or, the software can lock itself onto other hardware components such as motherboard serial number, etc. Any re-install on a different server by itself could result in thousands of dollars mandatory 'installation support' before the vendor will authorize the new server and activate the software.
Again -- for such niche applications you usually use a dedicated machine that has no need to be connected to the internet and no need to be upgraded to Win7 if it's doing it's job fine. If it's not doing it's job fine, and the upgraded specialty software is needed for new features etc., then you had to incur that cost irrespective of whether you're upgrading Windows or not. And lastly, issues related to driver model changes do occur on all OSes. Goes back to the main point: specialty software is expensive software. This is true no matter the OS you run. The linked article had no insights related to Windows.
And that's aside from the problem that running medical software on a platform that it is not certified to run on can become a costly endeavor if there ever are big security problems or something and you're found to not be in compliance.
So don't do it! What's the prime mover for upgrading to Win7? A machine such as you described above has no business having internet access, so monthly patches cannot be the reason!
With all due respect, what the fuck do you really know? I use a MEMS layout editor that works great under Windows XP (or Windows 2000), but it's practically unusable under Windows 7 - the layout window flickers to the point that no practical work is possible. We tried all possible work-arounds but none solved the issue. A license for a new version of the software would cost us in the order of EUR 2000, so for now we just install XP.
What the fuck do you (with all due respect to you as well). You have an anecdote -- here's a cookie! First -- you're using software that was designed for Windows 2000, and you're here 13 years after that was released complaining about the cost of upgrading?
Do you need a new version of your MEMS s/w? If not, why do you want to upgrade? If yes, you have to incur that cost whether you upgrade windows or not. Do you want to upgrade to Win7? If yes, ask the ISV that made your MEMS software why their software that they made 13 years ago no longer runs on Windows, and ask them why it costs $2k. Come back and post here when they tell you to fuck off.
You've done nothing but prove my point -- that specialty software is expensive. It's a cost you have to incur in the business you're in, dickhead. You'd have the same issue on any OS. Do you know of some MEMS software that meets all your needs, and runs on Linux or OS-X or whatever, that was released 13 years ago, and runs on the latest versions of those OSes, and costs less than $2000? Get the fuck out of here you idiot.
You have made three assertions regarding likelihood of events based on what you read in the article.
Not really -- I merely showed three key pieces of data that absolutely should have been addressed in the linked article if it was to be given even a shred of credibility. Why wouldn't the author simply state the name and version of the software that was the central premise of the article??
Anyway, the way I read it, it's Microsoft's software "upgrade" she can't afford, because everything was fine until the day that the EOL of Win XP loomed large on the horizon, which means the computers at this business will be even more ridiculously prone to mal-ware attacks than it already is.
That doesn't make sense. Why does this computer need internet access? Why blame MS when the OS is 13 years old -- do Apple/Google/Canonical/Debian support their OSes for that long? Why put upgrade in quotes? This snarky BS is not conducive to intelligent conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
Retiring ActiveSync for consumer accounts is not "trying to prevent Windows Phone from syncing calendar and contact data". Not even close. ActiveSync is a Microsoft-specific protocol which is so heavily protected by the patent system it requires fees.
Right, MS developed ActiveSync, filed patents, and licenses ActiveSync (licenses = requires fees). Google licensed it, used it for quite a while, and decided to migrate away. Nothing wrong with any of that. It's how that's done that's at issue here -- Google tried to fuck Windows Phone users over. It's really that simple.
By "hindering the development of a YouTube app" you actually mean requiring Microsoft to obey the terms of service, right?
If that's your interpretation then you've prostituted your brain to your employer. Google has willfully prevented MS from making a TOS-compliant Youtube app that compares to the apps on iOS and Android. Google refuses to make such an app themselves. Google repeatedly suggests that WP8 users "use the browser" (it's even in their official cease-and-desist letter). Google would never for a second release an Android phone that follows that suggestion.
The sort of thing Microsoft does here is exactly what Larry was talking about.
Larry Page is probably involved in the decisions to block MS on the YouTube app. He's blowing sunshine up your ass and you're opening wider.
Dude, that's the tip of the iceberg... you should see the things they've been doing to try to prevent windows phone from developing apps that use google services.. A couple of recent examples:
1) They tried to prevent WPs from syncing Gmail calendar and contact data (link). Note that this involves deliberately breaking something that wasn't broken. Making changes/improvements is cool -- but why not work with MS to ensure users don't get affected? How about a little heads up for a major change like that?
2) They've been hindering the development of a youtube app on WP (link). They've even deliberately broken third party youtube apps on WP more than once before this latest spat.
At least Apple and MS are honest about their intentions... I can't stand the doublespeak the comes out of Google's top leaders.
It's not just that tech industry viciousness is here to stay -- it's also that Google is a pretty strong participant in it. Google's been pretty good at appropriating the language of open source when it suits them, and using EEE tactics once they have the upper hand.
Please never design anything.
Still no substance then?
Please never assume you are even capable of evaluating design, never mind telling people who should and should not be involved in it. Even your comments are worthless -- it's not even possible to discuss a design properly with you because your comments only contain smugness and snarkiness, but no substance.
And this is exactly why I was being neither sarcastic nor snarky when I said this: "I willingly concede that I am incapable of explaining discoverability to someone like you."
Back to being snarky because you've run out of substance? If you have a point, and any conviction in it, don't be afraid to make it. Sometimes it takes more than half a sentence.
OP's post was about finding Control Panel -- which assumes knowledge of this abstract concept in Windows (from having used previous versions of it). You were unable to defend your initial stance so you decided to move the goal posts by considering a user who is not familiar with this abstract concept, and your accusation of it being "undiscoverable" still fails. Whether it's by using the old flow (windows key, and start typing) or whether you "discover" that swiping in from the edges brings you various menus, then "discovering" that one of those will always have a cog icon with the word "settings" below it, or "discovering" that same menu also has this thing called "control panel" above it that sounds like it just might have something to do with configuring your computer -- your assertion fails, and fails hard!
You want to discover? Explore the UI for 5 minutes and you will discover tons! But no -- you want to spout nonsense about power users preferring Unix (god knows which 'discoverability genius' designed the various Unix UIs over the years), reply with snarky one-liners, skirt the issue by saying you can't explain shit to someone like me (by which you mean anybody that doesn't agree with you). Fucking fool!
If I have to know the words "control panel" before finding it, then that is not discoverable. GTFO.
What setting were you trying to change? Try typing that. Little more intuitive. Perhaps even discoverable. Even saves a step. You're clutching at straws. GTFO indeed!
I willingly concede that I am incapable of explaining discoverability to someone like you.
The snarky replies got old a long time ago and you can drop them now. Respond with substance, or not at all.
It's a good thing swearing makes you look smart. Otherwise I might not know how wrong I am. (Look! A three liner!)
On the other hand, sarcasm doesn't make you look smart. Nor does skirting the actual issue.
You're being pedantic. Seriously. You're clinging desperately to the menu system and calling it undiscoverable.
Win8 has done away with the thing you're triumphantly calling undiscoverable. It's replaced it with an easily discoverable method. This same easily discoverable method already existed in Win7 and Vista. So it's discoverable-to-the-max as something that's existed and is well-known for years now, and it does away with a method that was not scaling for hundreds upon hundreds of apps.
But I'm sure you'll come back with some stupid one-liner thinking it makes you sound like you know what the fuck you're talking about. Insufferable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say your chosen method is bad, whatever you find that is fast is great. So I am happy for you.
Wow. Condescending prick is condescending.
Discoverability has to do with how easy it is to figure out if you don't already know the hotkeys. That is what I was criticizing.
Oh really? So you're going to lecture people on what discover-ability is? Did you pause to consider that the method he mentions worked the same way in Vista and Win7 as it does in Win8 before you embarked on making an ass of yourself while trying to sound superior about it?
Had to reply to this again. This works the same way in Win8 that it did in Win7 (and in fact the same as in Vista). Do you even realize how monumentally stupid your comment was?
but any power user worth a dime would...
Any power user worth a dime would use Unix, but that's not what we're talking about here. UI discoverability, look it up, and don't design any software until you figure it out, please.
Regarding Unix -- you're welcome to your own dumb biases no matter how idiotic they make you sound. Power users don't give a fuck what OS it is -- they thrive regardless.
Regarding UI discoverability, it's laughable how you manage to sound so smug and yet not know your ass from your elbow. The first time you hit the Win key you will "discover" that it takes you to the new start page. The first time you hit any letter/number key on that screen you will discover that it filters programs. Get the fuck out of here with your condescending bullshit.
Sadly, they probably listened to the morons on Slashdot when they made that change.
First -- if you are willfully ignorant of simple things, you lose the right to clamor about design deficiencies in the UI.
Second -- if you are even slightly honest, you will admit that the "highlight; middle-button-paste" paradigm has been so historically inconsistent across applications in Unix and Linux that you do not even have a leg to stand on if you're claiming that this is all you know.
Not really an assumption I made (i.e. I was addressing the parent in my post, not computer users in general)
Why does a non-power-user even care about the control panel? The settings available in the charms menu suffice for regular users. And a power user who wants the control panel at all costs has countless of ways of getting there. *One* of those ways is different now. Grounds for a hissy fit I guess.
Honestly, the slowdown in PC sales is a slowdown in PC sales -- not a referendum on Windows 8. We're at a point where personal computing technology has matured quite a bit and people don't run through computers quite like they used to. Microsoft's extremely long OS life cycles are also playing a part in it -- they are a software vendor that doesn't play the forced obsolescence game much. The anti Win8 noise is really just the typical Slashdot (who abhor anything Microsoft) and pro open source anti MS vox populi.
Just an FYI that Windows key + C (think "C for Charms") is faster than moving the mouse to the corner -- especially if you're on a multi-monitor setup.
Psst. That is very much the real control panel. At least sniff-test your own FUD before posting it.
While I'm at it, I might as well give you a couple of other options:
1) Touch screen option: Swipe from left, settings, control panel. Big, huge targets. Easy to discover.
2) Non-touch screen option: Win-C, settings, control panel. Big huge targets. Eventually everyone will know Win-C = Charms menu.
All this faux outrage from Slashdot. Such luddites, everyone here. Been learning new UI stuff on Linux every 6 months virtually, willing to switch between Gnome and KDE every couple of years, and then Unity, willing to jump through all kinds of hoops, but absolutely adamantly insistent that (a) Windows is not worth the money because nothing ever changes and (b) Windows must never change because it's too damn difficult to learn anything new.
Pathetic.
When your UI is so undiscoverable that people need to use search to get anything done, then you know you have a lousy UI.
1. Do the exact same thing (Win-key, type "cont..") -- do the exact same thing in Win7 and Win8 and then post back about whether it's any different. (answer -- it's exactly the same. The only difference is visual -- the workflow, the clicks, the keystrokes, the responsiveness, are exactly identical).
2. Please don't tell me you actually used to click "start" and then click on "control panel"? It's okay to do that I suppose, but any power user worth a dime would follow the typing-based approach because it's much much faster, and it works for everything no matter how shallow or deep it's nested in the start menu (or even if it's not there at all).
Reading is fundamental. Read my comment again.
huh?
Yet they dare not claim Google violates their patents because they know they will get their ass handed to them in court. So they pick on the weak, trying to build a wall of patent licenses to fall back on.
Google doesn't own the infringing code. Google doesn't manufacture the devices. Google doesn't offer indemnity to any Android OEMs. So on that technicality, MS couldn't sue them. Therefore Google was free to rip off Apple and Microsoft's IP and incorporate it into Android, and face none of the consequences. They even had their CEO sit on Apple board to learn from them! Perhaps now you can understand how Google co-opted the language of Open Source to get all of the advantages, but bear none of the responsibility. And BTW, in the case of Motorola you can now say that Google does manufacture the device -- but there's already litigation in progress between Motorola and Microsoft, so Microsoft doesn't appear to be shying from a fight here.
I'm not sure why you are so confident MS will get their asses handed to them in court by Google. What is it about Samsung, HTC, Foxconn, etc. that makes you think they are "the weak" and were defenseless against MS's claims?
Unlikely? Spoken like someone who has never had to support niche software on a corporate network.
I've supported stuff that was authored on PC DOS and was still running on NT4.0 decades later, and stuff that was designed for NT3.5 that was still running on Win2k in 2010.
One big problem is older .net applications, that are compiled explicitly against .net 1.0 or 1.1, which conveniently are not available to install on Vista / Windows 7 / Windows 8. Even with dot net 2,3,4, etc. installed those apps often flat out refuse to run because .net 1.0 subrevision 23B can't be found.
People running into this issue are authoring their own stuff in-house and should be able to rebuild. I guarantee you nobody is rebuilding against newer .Net runtimes and charging you $10,000 for their time.
Another issue us that quite a few of the really expensive niche software products still uses hardware dongles to enforce compliance. Changes to the windows driver model between XP and Windows 7 alone can keep those things from validating. Or, the software can lock itself onto other hardware components such as motherboard serial number, etc. Any re-install on a different server by itself could result in thousands of dollars mandatory 'installation support' before the vendor will authorize the new server and activate the software.
Again -- for such niche applications you usually use a dedicated machine that has no need to be connected to the internet and no need to be upgraded to Win7 if it's doing it's job fine. If it's not doing it's job fine, and the upgraded specialty software is needed for new features etc., then you had to incur that cost irrespective of whether you're upgrading Windows or not. And lastly, issues related to driver model changes do occur on all OSes. Goes back to the main point: specialty software is expensive software. This is true no matter the OS you run. The linked article had no insights related to Windows.
And that's aside from the problem that running medical software on a platform that it is not certified to run on can become a costly endeavor if there ever are big security problems or something and you're found to not be in compliance.
So don't do it! What's the prime mover for upgrading to Win7? A machine such as you described above has no business having internet access, so monthly patches cannot be the reason!
With all due respect, what the fuck do you really know? I use a MEMS layout editor that works great under Windows XP (or Windows 2000), but it's practically unusable under Windows 7 - the layout window flickers to the point that no practical work is possible. We tried all possible work-arounds but none solved the issue. A license for a new version of the software would cost us in the order of EUR 2000, so for now we just install XP.
What the fuck do you (with all due respect to you as well). You have an anecdote -- here's a cookie! First -- you're using software that was designed for Windows 2000, and you're here 13 years after that was released complaining about the cost of upgrading?
Do you need a new version of your MEMS s/w? If not, why do you want to upgrade? If yes, you have to incur that cost whether you upgrade windows or not. Do you want to upgrade to Win7? If yes, ask the ISV that made your MEMS software why their software that they made 13 years ago no longer runs on Windows, and ask them why it costs $2k. Come back and post here when they tell you to fuck off.
You've done nothing but prove my point -- that specialty software is expensive. It's a cost you have to incur in the business you're in, dickhead. You'd have the same issue on any OS. Do you know of some MEMS software that meets all your needs, and runs on Linux or OS-X or whatever, that was released 13 years ago, and runs on the latest versions of those OSes, and costs less than $2000? Get the fuck out of here you idiot.
You have made three assertions regarding likelihood of events based on what you read in the article.
Not really -- I merely showed three key pieces of data that absolutely should have been addressed in the linked article if it was to be given even a shred of credibility. Why wouldn't the author simply state the name and version of the software that was the central premise of the article??
Anyway, the way I read it, it's Microsoft's software "upgrade" she can't afford, because everything was fine until the day that the EOL of Win XP loomed large on the horizon, which means the computers at this business will be even more ridiculously prone to mal-ware attacks than it already is.
That doesn't make sense. Why does this computer need internet access? Why blame MS when the OS is 13 years old -- do Apple/Google/Canonical/Debian support their OSes for that long? Why put upgrade in quotes? This snarky BS is not conducive to intelligent conversation.