Sean's bitching about another suspected Microsoft plot to rule the universe

[Floppies_only]

Gang,

Someone might have mentioned this already, but something like a few months ago the Windows XP operating system installed on the computers belonging to the three organizations that let me use them stopped copying selected text when I press Control-C, unless the text is a URL. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I still haven't completely gotten used to this broken functionality. I can still copy non-URL text by using the menu command, but once in a while I forget that, use the keyboard and then paste the old (current) contents of the clipboard. It's most inconvenient - just the sort of thing to change if you wanted to encourage users to upgrade to the newer hardware hog version of Windows (with new security holes at no extra charge - they'll hire fewer programmers and testers and pass on the savings to the Gates Foundation - we get to suffer identity theft so that the population of Africa can accellerate towards the inevitable population crash.

I wish Microsoft wasn't so enthusiastic about rubbing my nose in the fact that I can't afford to buy the newest, fastest, most expensive computer every three years. Hell, I've actually read about them admitting that they designed FSX for systems that hadn't been designed yet. IIRC, they were designing for three years past the release date.

I think a new Macintosh costs a lot less in the long run - you spend fifty bucks every few years to upgrade to the newest system software instead of four hundred for a new computer, and you can do it over and over with the Mac.

O.K., defenders of Microsoft, here's your cue

Sean

 

[brad162]

im def not going to be your man if you want a MS defense, i own mac, and they have been my primary computer since '98 I've had a G3 PowerMac (used for three years),got a G4 Cube (Used it for ~8 years) and now on my MacBook Pro.

Macs definitely cost less in the long run, as my G4 Cube all i did to it in the 8 years of ownership was buy a memory upgrade, a few OS X upgrades, and one processor upgrade 4 1/2 years into service, so the life cost of that machine was great as it's been the "cheapest" computer i've owned based on how long it lasted and the few upgrades i had to do it. Oh and did i mention the screen had the best picture of ANY screen i've ever had, the computer still functioned when i sold it and still even ran PS fairly well (Had a 1.25GHz G4 processor upgrade going in it), but unfortunately when i made the permanent move to AZ from OH, i did not have room for her and the screen, so i sold it and i deeply regret getting rid of that machine as it was my all time favorite.

I just like to work on PC's because tech is what i love, but if i didnt work on them, or collect old school IBM's as a hobby now, i'd never have a PC in my house to be honest.

 

[NathanAllan]

This is the heart of Windows country and I love my Macs, too. Being in Windows country and a tech myself, I have a lot of work cut out for me. So it's a love-hate relationship I have with M$ stuff-- love it because it likes to break down and have all kinds of infections, hate it because I am forced to use it all the time if not for gaming then compatibility with other peoples' stuff.

No argument here.

 

[Ole Juul]

I don't know what MS has to do with computers other than being a software company, but Mac is another thing. However, they're still proprietary and that became old school in 1982 when the first clone come out.

There are some good reasons for using Microsoft and certainly there can be benefits, I could just never get past the ethics. After reading some of the transcripts from Comes v. Microsoft I honestly won't ever need any more convincing and I'm sure most people would agree if they took the time to look into it. That said, I always felt that using "Windows" was a bit like keeping the picture of the smiling young lady in the picture frame one bought at the variety store. I find it curious that so many people keep the demo.

Hehe, just thought I'd add a bit of fuel.

 

[Dave Farquhar]

Does the problem only happen in IE? I suspect it does. There's a known security issue with copy/paste in Internet Explorer, so it could be those organizations disabled copy via a group policy setting. That would be my guess, because I've never seen CTRL-C randomly quit working like that. I have a computer at home that I built in 2002, running Windows 2000. CTRL-C still works just fine on it. My main PC at home is a 2 GHz Celeron from 2003 or so. I bought it used 3 years ago. CTRL-C works fine on it too. I have two PCs at work. One is new, it replaced a 4-year-old PC that worked fine, it had just gotten a little slow. My secondary work PC is at least 5 years old, running XP, and works fine.

Best solution is to use another web browser if possible, which is a good idea anyway.

I'm not normally a Microsoft apologist (I was a rabid OS/2 user in the 1990s), and I hate IE, but Windows 2000 and XP were both very reliable. Comparable to what OS/2 would have been had it survived. I administered networks with hundreds of PCs running 2000 and XP, with minimal problems.

As for cost, for my personal use at home, the last time I needed a PC, I bought an off-lease business PC for $150, added memory, did a clean install of Windows, and went to town. Three years later I'm still happy. I liked the result so much, I had my mom and sister buy the same type of PC and did the same thing. I've built hundreds of PCs, but if I can buy an adequate PC for $150, I might as well. I would like to get something with a multi-core CPU and at least 4 GB of RAM to have something more modern. I may do that later this year or sometime next year. If I can find an off-lease PC that fits the bill, I'll buy one of those, otherwise I'll build. Regardless of which I do, I have some parts I'll be able to recycle from whichever PC it replaces.

In the last 8 years, I've spent well under $1,000 on computer equipment, and a big chunk of that was to get better hard drives and to upgrade to LCD monitors.

 

[barythrin]

I also think it may be a security policy gone wrong or some disabling of extended keyboard keys. I'm surprised the mouse works but could also be IE has an exception just like AV programs and other little guardian applications usually do. Did other things change as well like no run option under the start menu? What's more fun is get even more old school on em.. stop using ctrl+c/ctrl+v and go back to ctrl+ins shift+paste heh.. it'd be funny if that worked since it's been out prior to windows. If it makes you feel any better I have a fully patched XP box at both work and home (required and automated to have latest patches at work) and everything is working as expected.

The only error I did experience was on Windows 7 after watching Dr. Horrible's Sing along blog and watching the Emmy take over video (hulu) while he mucked with a control it completely crashed my Windows 7 box lmao (screen went black and loud fan noise until I manually shut laptop down). Got a kick out of that. I dunno about Mac's being cheaper. Once there are a few competitors on the hardware then the market could open up more and they'd sell better but I've never been sold on Mac or the software. I guess if the software I bought worked on either platform it'd be a cheaper idea to transition but I still can't get over a one button mouse..(any portal fans out there?)

 

[Lutiana]

My question for people that are bashing MS for the official drop in XP support is when do you think they should axe it? Never?

Considering Windows XP was released in 2002 it has had a great 8 year run and I believe that it is time for them to retire it. I truly don't think they should continue to support an OS simply because the IT guys out there don't want to learn something new. As to the home users, most of them don't get support from MS anyways since they probably have an OEM copy of the software and the support falls to the OEM provider.

It does suck that there won't be any new security patches for XP Sp2 or older, but I am not up in arms about it. Out with the old in with the new, Windows 7 is an excellent OS and I am very glad they are shifting their focus to it. Also its not like the previous patches won't be available, just no new ones will be written.

MS is in fact forcing the market to upgrade and move away from XP, but in all honesty that is not a bad thing. It is in fact a very good thing since 7 is far more secure from the ground up than XP ever was. Also, from a hardware standpoint Windows 7 runs very well on just about any machine that runs XP, just upgrade the RAM which is a fairly inexpensive thing to do. I ran 7 on a P3 1ghz system with 512mb of RAM and it was sluggish, but overall it was very useable. I upgraded the system to 1gb of RAM and it ran great, even a bit faster than XP ever did on that machine.

I don't protest to be an MS fan boy, they have as a company made some major mistakes (Windows ME for instance) but overall I feel that most MS bashing is done simply because they are the big (successful) boys on the block. Overall they are a very decent company that puts out a very rock solid line of products that have only gotten better with time. As to their ethics, as Juul pointed out, they are questionable at times, but no more or less than any of the other big silicon valley companies, its just that MS's practices get way more publicity than the others.

Anyways, that's the end of my rant hopefully it is not too far off topic.

 

[barythrin]

Took long enough to find a simpler timeline but thought it'd be interesting to see years of released operating systems and trend of MS. It's still surprising to me to see how close 2000 and XP were. Not sure why they wanted folks to get out of 2000, honestly I ended up liking it second to 98se for gaming. XP until the games matured still gave me problems. I only upgraded after they dropped directx support for the later games that required it... interesting hack idea to get directx to run on older OS's though.. bet the games would run better again (as I typed that I realized this would need driver ports, etc so probably not that feasible).

 

[kishy]

2000 was never intended to be a home OS. The home 'equivalent' would have been the axed-during-development Neptune, which was replaced with everyone's favourite ME...slapped together fairly quickly if I understand it correctly, which explains a lot.

XP, offering both home and business targeted versions (though the differences are minor...) helped get everything back "in sync" in the home and business product lines.

Lutiana's views are right on par with mine. XP was and is a great OS, but 7 kicks the crap out of it in many cases. 8 years is a long run for the same basic OS under the hood. I also agree that MS bashers are just doing it because MS is the big guy on the block...or because it's the "cool thing to do", or something like that.

 

[Dave Farquhar]

Service Pack 3 for XP is still getting patches. It's been standard procedure for MS to stop releasing patches for previous service packs after a while. It looks like XPSP3 will continue to get security patches until April 2014, if I'm reading Microsoft's site correctly. That's a good run. Those of us who haven't switched to Windows 7 yet still have time and options.

MS has done a lot of things that are ethically questionable (lots of DOS dirty tricks, IE dirty tricks, tying and bundling) and there's not much need to rehash all of them here. That said, there are plenty of Iphone developers who question Apple's business practices right now.

I never really cared for either MS or Apple, which was the main reason I went Amiga in 1990 or 91, whenever it was. In 1994 when I bought my first PC, my first software purchase was OS/2 3.0 after a couple of weeks of putting up with Windows 3.1 and realizing it wasn't as stable as my Amiga if you wanted to multitask a lot. OS/2 came up lacking in the fit and finish department, but I could run my PC for months at a time between reboots with it. I didn't run Windows full-time until 1998, and Windows 2000 was the first Microsoft OS that didn't make me miss OS/2.

I am glad to see that Microsoft's dominance with Windows and Office hasn't translated into dominance in search, smartphones, tablets, and other emerging technologies. Their products are being forced to compete on their own merits, rather than riding Windows' and Office's coattails, which is nice. Which should mean we'll see more innovation this decade than the last. I don't think many people here will argue with me if I say the 2000s weren't as interesting as the 1980s and 1990s were. (I was born in the 1970s and didn't use a computer or game system until 1981 or 82, so I can't speak from firsthand experience about the '70s.)

 

[MikeS]

...MS bashers are just doing it because MS is the big guy on the block...or because it's the "cool thing to do", or something like that.

Yeah, same old, same old...
-Someone has a problem with XP that no one else seems to have, but it must be part of a sinister MS plot; maybe an all-night radio talk show'd be interested...
-Folks refuse to use MS products for ethical reasons but probably don't care much about the really unethical and exploitative practices of the companies who make their jeans, food, gasoline, etc.
-Folks complain about MS forcing them to upgrade when many people are still happily running DOS and Win98 (support files and info still freely available, unlike many others') and it is in fact the 3rd party manufacturers whose products won't run in older versions that are forcing upgrades.
-Folks complain about new versions coming out every few years but have no problem with new cars, new TVs, new clothes, etc. etc.

And a lot of apples(!) vs. oranges comparisons comparing a software company to a hardware-with-captive-software company with disturbing ethical practices of their own; had to laugh at Apple forbidding their dealers to sell for cash, no doubt secretly in collusion with the credit card companies... ;-) Imagine the outcry if Microsoft configured Windows so that you could not run any applications unless you got them through a Microsoft store, even if many were only .99 ea or even free...

 

[Ken Vaughn]

XP was and is a great OS, but 7 kicks the crap out of it in many cases.

I have used XP on a desktop and notebook, and Vista X64 on a desktop and notebook also. My initial dissatisfaction with Vista was the same as most Vista detractors -- there are some software packages which don't run well, or at all, on a Vista machine, especially X64. That said, I have been pretty satisfied with Vista X64. I have not upgraded my Vista desktop to Windows 7, but have considered doing that.

What does Windows 7 do so much better (honest question)? Does Windows 7 suffer from the same problems running 32 bit software, or do most Windows 7 users not use any 32 bit applications any more?

 

[barythrin]

I steered away from Vista due to all the complaints but eventually a friend with a spare business license/edition talked me into trying it out as it supported one of the new directx libraries natively that I think or was told XP didn't. That of course is a gaming perspective though. Now I have 64-bit Windows 7 on the last laptop I bought, I don't see much in the way of improvements. There are add-on/modules you can put on the sidebar on the desktop which make it appear a little more linux/Macish. I haven't had any luck at all running older software from 9x era even with compatibility mode but I don't recall this working well post 2000 so I can't say it's specific to 7 vs Vista. I'm in the same pickle as I didn't realize the laptop came with *HOME* Premium and I was just assuming premium as with previous products was better than pro. That was wrong I guess, so I can't install the latest Virtual PC to even emulate an older system to use older software. I've installed VMWare Server 2.x since that's free and not being an MS product they don't care if you're running "home" edition of Windows.

Software/games that run ok on XP will probably run ok in 64-bit Windows 7 if you run them with compatability mode set for XPsp2.. without it you can end up with some weird long wait periods and graphic bugs (had that issue with Diablo 2, and Neverwinter Nights 1 ..i.e. programs that didn't require XP or higher).

The biggest hitch still seems to be lack of support for 64-bit operating systems. It's quite annoying although I suppose if you're rarely faced with the requirement it's a tough sell to recompile ones applications for it. I'm sure this year will be a large leap though as almost all systems getting sold now have more than 4GB of RAM which is forcing folks over to 64-bit. I just hate running 32-bit applications though in emulation mode, just seems inefficient. Still waiting for a real 64-bit version of Firefox (WITH shockwave?! .. wtf adobe?!)..er..what was this thread about?

 

[Dave Farquhar]

I agree that 64-bit seems to be waiting for critical mass. That's the big reason I haven't made upgrading to it a big priority yet. Once there's a 64-bit Firefox with the major plug-ins, it'd be worth it. I could run 64-bit Firefox and 64-bit OpenOffice (if that's out by then; I haven't looked). Until then, why bother? If I'm going to upgrade from XP to 7, I might as well go to 64-bit. But without apps, why not wait for apps? 7 won't get any cheaper, but whether it takes 6 months or 12 months for them to arrive, memory will be cheaper then. SSDs will be cheaper and/or better, and CPUs at the very least will give better performance per watt.

It seems like it's taking a while to move to 64 bits, but the move to 32 bits wasn't fast either. The first 386 systems started showing up in 1986-87. It wasn't until 1990 that there was much of anything that took advantage of the 386's capability, and it was slow going to get to the 32-bit versions of OS/2 (which few people bought) and Windows. Win 3.1 required a 386, I think, but wasn't fully 32-bit. Win95 was a bit closer to fully 32-bit, and it was with Win95 that we got a good number of 32-bit apps. So it wasn't until the first generation of 32-bit CPUs was obsolete that we got an OS and apps that really needed its capabilities.

 

[Lutiana]

there are some software packages which don't run well, or at all, on a Vista machine, especially X64.

Such as? I ran Windows Vista Ultimate x64 from the day it came out and had very few software titles that would not run, or run badly. There were a few that I had to upgrade to the latest version, but that was par for the course.

I run the x64 version of Windows 7 Ultimate now, and thats mostly because I have 8gb of RAM in this system.

The Vista "issues" were actually few and far between and mostly centered around some really propitiatory software companies that refused to spend the money to update their software. Outside of that the "issues" with Vista were very rare and mostly quite specific and almost always had to do with 3rd party drivers or software. I will admit that Vista is quite resource heavy, and it is to 7 as ME was to XP (though not as drastic a change in functionality and reliability).

I have never seen an MS OS get attacked as violently as Vista has been, not even ME which had very real insurmountable flaws unlike Vista that seems to have mostly imaginary flaws or easily solved ones.

Since Windows 95 I have always jumped on their new releases immediately after the release, and with the exception of ME, I have never been disappointed. I even ran Windows NT 4.0 for my main machine for a while.

Another pet peeve I have is that people complain about needing new and more powerful hardware to run Windows 7, but as I said memory is just about all you need in most cases, but they forget that when Windows XP came out the average system was running 128Mb - 256Mb of RAM and XP was not very happy with that much memory and in most cases an upgrade was needed. I would also like to point out that when I upgraded our Mac Mini at work from OS X 10.4 - 10.5 I had to double the RAM as well. So its not only MS that has this issue.

I defend MS not because I believe they are the greatest company in the world, I do it because most of the attacks are completely unjustified and seem to come from either ignorance or sheer malice.

 

[MikeS]

Something I don't get: People complain about MS "forcing" them to upgrade, but I don't recall anyone at my door or even an email from MS telling me that I must upgrade my Win98 to Win 7, and frankly I don't think Bill would care if I kept on using W3.1 until I die.

I'm actually getting the opposite impression from some of these posts, that people are demanding and can't wait for MS and others to issue an upgrade even though there are presumably going to be compatibility challenges.

So, inquiring minds want to know:

- How is Microsoft forcing you to upgrade?
and
-Why is it so important to you to upgrade from 32bit XP to 64bit 7?

 

[Lutiana]

- How is Microsoft forcing you to upgrade?
and
-Why is it so important to you to upgrade from 32bit XP to 64bit 7?

Some see as the drop in support (ie retirement) of the OS as MS manipulating the market and thus "forcing" companies to upgrade. But you are right, there is no revocation of licencing or the likes. I actually contacted MS not too long ago to enquire about how I get a licence to run MS-DOS 6.22, they gave me the run around and it ended up with them telling me they don't supply licences anymore, but do in fact enforce all of their copyrights (ie you can't buy it, but if we feel like it we may come after you for the pirating it).

As to why use a 64bit OS over a 32bit one, it comes down to memory support, its the software equivalent to the maximum memory a platform can address. 4Gb on a 32bit system and quite a few terabytes on a 64bit system. If you have less than 4gb of RAM there really is no compelling reason to switch to a 64bit OS. But if you have 4gb+ then in order to use the extra RAM you need a 64bit OS.

The only other major difference I have run into between the x32 and x64 OS is that the 32bit versions of Windows XP, Vista and 7 still have 16bit support and can run some DOS apps and old Win3.x apps. The 64bit versions simply throw up and error when you attempt to do run a 16bit app.

 

[vwestlife]

Some see as the drop in support (ie retirement) of the OS as MS manipulating the market and thus "forcing" companies to upgrade. But you are right, there is no revocation of licencing or the likes. I actually contacted MS not too long ago to enquire about how I get a licence to run MS-DOS 6.22, they gave me the run around and it ended up with them telling me they don't supply licences anymore, but do in fact enforce all of their copyrights (ie you can't buy it, but if we feel like it we may come after you for the pirating it).

Microsoft offers MS-DOS 6.0 and 6.22, Windows 3.1 and 3.11, and Windows for Workgroups 3.11 through their Developer Network (MSDN) Subscriber Downloads. They also made Word 5.5 for DOS available as a free download (to anyone, not just MSDN subscribers) some years ago.

 

[kishy]

As to why use a 64bit OS over a 32bit one, it comes down to memory support, its the software equivalent to the maximum memory a platform can address. 4Gb on a 32bit system and quite a few terabytes on a 64bit system. If you have less than 4gb of RAM there really is no compelling reason to switch to a 64bit OS. But if you have 4gb+ then in order to use the extra RAM you need a 64bit OS.

This...bothers me.

Memory support is a secondary benefit of the switch to 64 bit...

With only 1GB of RAM (DDR 400 no less) in my desktop, I still see significant general performance increases (with regards to processor intensive stuff) running 64 bit compared to 32 bit.

As for licensing, I've been trying for quite some time to get to the bottom of this question: if they aren't taking away our right to use the software, do they intend to provide Windows Product Activation services for WinXP for the rest of eternity?

When they discontinue support, shouldn't they issue a downloadable activation patch which allows you to use your software legally despite them not providing activation support anymore?

 

[Floppies_only]

Does the problem only happen in IE? I suspect it does. There's a known security issue with copy/paste in Internet Explorer, so it could be those organizations disabled copy via a group policy setting. That would be my guess, because I've never seen CTRL-C randomly quit working like that.

Foiled again (in my efforts to justify disliking Microsoft). CTRL-C does in fact work in Wordpad, so your explaination is probably what happened.

Sean