Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #683622 > unrolled thread
| Started by | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-01-10 12:37 -0500 |
| Last post | 2025-01-16 11:35 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 186 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-10 12:37 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-10 12:43 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-10 13:59 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 09:30 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-11 07:30 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-20 16:39 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-20 20:39 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-21 06:05 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-21 08:49 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-10 20:14 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-10 16:35 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 09:31 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-01-11 12:15 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-12 23:20 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-13 12:45 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-13 22:50 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-21 22:43 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-10 12:54 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 09:27 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 04:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-11 07:38 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-11 07:28 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-12 08:38 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-12 09:36 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-13 12:40 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-13 10:05 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-11 20:11 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-11 17:28 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-12 08:40 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-12 09:55 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-13 12:44 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-12 08:39 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-12 23:23 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> - 2025-01-13 21:25 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-13 16:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-13 17:44 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-13 17:54 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-13 18:10 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-13 18:25 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-13 17:52 -0600
Cult of Unix (was: Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-01-15 00:30 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-14 20:05 -0600
Re: Cult of Unix Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-15 03:16 -0500
Re: Cult of Unix vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-01-15 09:02 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-01-15 11:10 -0700
Re: Cult of Unix Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-16 05:03 +0000
Re: 🏳️🌈Cult of Unix🏳️🌈 🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈Jen🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 Dershmender 💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🐶笛🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2025-01-16 05:28 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-16 10:34 -0500
Re: Cult of Unix vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-01-16 16:04 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-16 14:48 -0600
Re: Cult of Unix Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-16 18:06 -0500
Re: Cult of Unix Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-17 02:49 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-01-17 03:51 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-17 02:10 -0500
Re: Cult of Unix Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-17 23:55 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-17 20:53 -0500
Re: Cult of Unix Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-19 00:54 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-17 16:46 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-17 23:56 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-17 20:54 -0500
Re: Cult of Unix Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-19 00:55 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 20:01 -0500
Re: Cult of Unix Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-17 00:10 +0000
Re: 🏳️🌈Cult of Unix (was: Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs)🏳️🌈 🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈Jen🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 Dershmender 💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🐶笛🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2025-01-15 05:24 +0000
Setting up old-style backup on Windows 11 (was: Re: Cult of Unix) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-01-15 08:38 +0000
Re: 🏳️🌈Setting up old-style backup on Windows 11 (was: Re: Cult of Unix)🏳️🌈 🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈Jen🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 Dershmender 💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🐶笛🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2025-01-15 17:22 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-13 21:44 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-14 03:09 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-15 06:56 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-15 02:52 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-17 00:11 +0000
Defragging (was: Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-01-17 03:45 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-17 23:10 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-15 10:40 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-15 23:14 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-15 20:15 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-01-16 01:29 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-17 05:05 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-17 08:53 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-17 10:43 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-17 11:07 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-17 17:19 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-17 18:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-20 16:40 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-20 20:41 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-17 17:18 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-17 18:15 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 13:07 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-18 16:08 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 17:22 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-01-18 23:30 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 19:04 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-19 04:40 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-18 18:50 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 19:08 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-18 21:10 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-18 22:14 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 11:38 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-19 12:23 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 12:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-19 15:54 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 15:59 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-19 18:44 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 20:28 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-19 21:10 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 22:22 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 07:22 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-19 06:03 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-20 03:53 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 23:08 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-20 08:45 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-21 06:40 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-19 19:36 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-20 03:56 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-01-19 08:53 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-19 06:09 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-14 12:46 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-15 13:51 +0100
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-15 09:58 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-15 16:20 +0100
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-15 23:20 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-16 15:36 +0100
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-17 00:12 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-15 18:09 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-16 15:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-14 05:48 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-13 16:48 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-13 23:54 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-15 11:33 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-15 10:46 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-15 11:33 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-01-15 17:02 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-15 12:33 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-16 05:40 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-16 06:27 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-27 22:49 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-15 14:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-15 15:52 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-15 20:34 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-16 00:41 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-16 06:42 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-16 14:40 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-16 16:34 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-16 16:56 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-16 22:40 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-17 02:04 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-17 07:34 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs roger <rduffy@hotmail.com.invalid - 2025-01-17 14:01 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-17 17:15 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-17 15:57 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-17 16:50 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-17 21:52 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-16 21:38 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-16 18:33 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-16 15:44 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-16 15:51 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-16 16:11 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-01-17 13:03 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-17 16:00 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-17 23:15 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-17 18:10 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-17 18:13 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-30 13:35 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-30 17:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-02-01 00:20 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-01 06:58 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-01 07:18 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-02-01 06:31 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-01 12:39 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-02-02 16:00 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-02-02 15:59 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-16 06:22 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-16 12:10 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-16 12:28 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-17 00:27 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-16 23:47 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-20 16:41 -0500
Gaming Laptops (was: Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-01 12:58 +0000
Re: Gaming Laptops Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-01 19:22 -0500
Re: Gaming Laptops chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-02-02 08:05 -0600
Re: Gaming Laptops candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-02-03 20:10 +0000
Re: Gaming Laptops Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-03 19:24 -0500
Re: Gaming Laptops pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-02-04 00:45 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-01-16 18:45 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-16 16:05 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-16 11:35 -0500
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 15:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vmjopa$2e0o4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684339 |
On 1/19/25 12:32 PM, Joel wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > >> Original context: >>>>>> .... There was pressure to buy new hardware every two >>>>>> or three years back in the 90s, but hardware nowadays easily >>>>>> goes a decade with the original operating system on it. >>>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> For you to be right for my machine, Win10 would need support... >>>>> >>>>> Win10 need[s] support till >>>>> 2031, it's ending this year with an optional paid extension. >>>> >>>> Not necessarily: Win10 came out back in 2015, and your current PC >>>> was a license transfer from an older machine. >>>> >>>> When was that older PC originally put into service with Win10? >>> >>> Think, power user, is anyone other than Relf's old computer running a >>> vintage *build* of Windows 10, since an expert knows it grew bloat- >>> wise at least until 20H2. It would save me from Win11 hell, if it had >>> real extended support, but they'll make it short-term. M$ has >>> endorsed GNU/Linux. >> >> Irrelevant to the question posed on lifecycle costs ... >> >> "When was that older PC originally put into service with Win10?" > > > My PC started life with 20H2, which was a dream. Which PC? The new one that you've since given up on Windows for? And when was this, for the question still remains unanswered: "When was that older PC originally put into service with Win10?" > M$ has disowned numerous computers. By almost as much as you've avoided answering this simple question. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 15:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1opqojdsmei692rjbghl1t3e1rijq2239c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #684344 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>>>>> Win10 need[s] support till >>>>>> 2031, it's ending this year with an optional paid extension. >>>>> >>>>> Not necessarily: Win10 came out back in 2015, and your current PC >>>>> was a license transfer from an older machine. >>>>> >>>>> When was that older PC originally put into service with Win10? >>>> >>>> Think, power user, is anyone other than Relf's old computer running a >>>> vintage *build* of Windows 10, since an expert knows it grew bloat- >>>> wise at least until 20H2. It would save me from Win11 hell, if it had >>>> real extended support, but they'll make it short-term. M$ has >>>> endorsed GNU/Linux. >>> >>> Irrelevant to the question posed on lifecycle costs ... >>> >>> "When was that older PC originally put into service with Win10?" >> >> My PC started life with 20H2, which was a dream. > >Which PC? The new one that you've since given up on Windows for? My Linux dream machine, yes. >And when was this, for the question still remains unanswered: > >"When was that older PC originally put into service with Win10?" At 10's release, it had 7 and 8/8.1, then 7 again, then 10, then Linux. >> M$ has disowned numerous computers. > >By almost as much as you've avoided answering this simple question. Win10 would make this PC golden, but support is dropped. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 18:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vmk2p8$2he6g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684345 |
On 1/19/25 3:59 PM, Joel wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> Win10 need[s] support till >>>>>>> 2031, it's ending this year with an optional paid extension. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not necessarily: Win10 came out back in 2015, and your current PC >>>>>> was a license transfer from an older machine. >>>>>> >>>>>> When was that older PC originally put into service with Win10? >>>>> >>>>> Think, power user, is anyone other than Relf's old computer running a >>>>> vintage *build* of Windows 10, since an expert knows it grew bloat- >>>>> wise at least until 20H2. It would save me from Win11 hell, if it had >>>>> real extended support, but they'll make it short-term. M$ has >>>>> endorsed GNU/Linux. >>>> >>>> Irrelevant to the question posed on lifecycle costs ... >>>> >>>> "When was that older PC originally put into service with Win10?" >>> >>> My PC started life with 20H2, which was a dream. >> >> Which PC? The new one that you've since given up on Windows for? > > > My Linux dream machine, yes. Which is the evasion that I expected, for I was asking of its predecessor. >> And when was this, for the question still remains unanswered: >> >> "When was that older PC originally put into service with Win10?" > > > At 10's release, it had 7 and 8/8.1, then 7 again, then 10, then > Linux. Meaning that it predated Win10's 2015 release date, so you did get roughly ten (10) years life out of that legacy hardware, as per what DFS was saying. >>> M$ has disowned numerous computers. >> >> By almost as much as you've avoided answering this simple question. > > Win10 would make this PC golden, but support is dropped. Support hasn't been dropped yet. MS has extended claimed EOL's in the past and could easily do so again. Plus Win10 currently has a 62.7% usage share of all Windows OS systems, and it doesn't seem all that likely that its usage is going to drop fast enough to make it an insignificant percentage by October 2025 <https://gs.statcounter.com/os-version-market-share/windows/desktop/worldwide> Plus even if an OEM's official support has ended, there's nothing which prevents you from just continuing to run a legacy OS. Case in point, 3% of Windows usage share is of pre-Win10 OS's (XP/7/8/etc) still in use. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 20:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2q8roj9bg3jaap1b16iafm7qc08itflu3b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #684346 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>> And when was this, for the question still remains unanswered: >>> >>> "When was that older PC originally put into service with Win10?" >> >> At 10's release, it had 7 and 8/8.1, then 7 again, then 10, then >> Linux. > >Meaning that it predated Win10's 2015 release date, It was two years old for W8 upgrade ($40 for Pro). > so you did get >roughly ten (10) years life out of that legacy hardware, as per what DFS >was saying. It got whatever Windows 8.1 was supported for*, 10 became poor (2019). * Jan. 10, 2023, 12 years after initial build >>>> M$ has disowned numerous computers. >>> >>> By almost as much as you've avoided answering this simple question. >> >> Win10 would make this PC golden, but support is dropped. > >Support hasn't been dropped yet. I need something less on its deathbed. > MS has extended claimed EOL's in the >past and could easily do so again. There will be paid extended support for security fixes. But it's clinging. >Plus Win10 currently has a 62.7% usage share of all Windows OS systems, >and it doesn't seem all that likely that its usage is going to drop fast >enough to make it an insignificant percentage by October 2025 > ><https://gs.statcounter.com/os-version-market-share/windows/desktop/worldwide> > >Plus even if an OEM's official support has ended, there's nothing which >prevents you from just continuing to run a legacy OS. Case in point, 3% >of Windows usage share is of pre-Win10 OS's (XP/7/8/etc) still in use. Microsoft doesn't understand the reluctance to use Linux. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 21:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vmkbbe$2lqpb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684348 |
On 1/19/25 8:28 PM, Joel wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > >>>> And when was this, for the question still remains unanswered: >>>> >>>> "When was that older PC originally put into service with Win10?" >>> >>> At 10's release, it had 7 and 8/8.1, then 7 again, then 10, then >>> Linux. >> >> Meaning that it predated Win10's 2015 release date, > > > It was two years old for W8 upgrade ($40 for Pro). Windows 8 came out in 2012, so this was then a 2010 purchase. Which also then means your CoVid stimulus check PC was +10 years later. Ergo: "...so you did get roughly ten (10) years life out of that legacy hardware, as per what DFS was saying." > It got whatever Windows 8.1 was supported for*, 10 became poor (2019). > > * Jan. 10, 2023, 12 years after initial build Which is even better than a 10 year useful service life. >>>>> M$ has disowned numerous computers. >>>> >>>> By almost as much as you've avoided answering this simple question. >>> >>> Win10 would make this PC golden, but support is dropped. >> >> Support hasn't been dropped yet. > > I need something less on its deathbed. For a mid-2020 planned purchase, this was already after MS had made their announcement in 2019 that Win10 was to be replaced. MS had been pushing TPM 2.0 since at least 2015 (Win8), so that's an obvious hardware requirement, plus whatever other else was already known or likely for Windows-after-10: its the 'Caveat Emptor' for DIY'ers. >> MS has extended claimed EOL's in the >> past and could easily do so again. > > > There will be paid extended support for security fixes. But it's > clinging. Yes, paying is an option too. Thanks for adding it to the list. >> Plus Win10 currently has a 62.7% usage share of all Windows OS systems, >> and it doesn't seem all that likely that its usage is going to drop fast >> enough to make it an insignificant percentage by October 2025 >> >> <https://gs.statcounter.com/os-version-market-share/windows/desktop/worldwide> >> >> Plus even if an OEM's official support has ended, there's nothing which >> prevents you from just continuing to run a legacy OS. Case in point, 3% >> of Windows usage share is of pre-Win10 OS's (XP/7/8/etc) still in use. > > Microsoft doesn't understand the reluctance to use Linux. The slow rate of uptake of Win11 over the past three years isn't really a problem per se - its just verification that the hardware replacement cycle really has slowed by as much as what DFS was indicating. FYI, my desktop didn't come with Win11, but its handling it fine; YMMV if its because I did better research before purchasing than you did, or perhaps it was that your PC never was actually 'broken', etc. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 22:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <caerojtfo7jokh8hmmnoutvdic047ra0mn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #684350 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>>>> And when was this, for the question still remains unanswered: >>>>> >>>>> "When was that older PC originally put into service with Win10?" >>>> >>>> At 10's release, it had 7 and 8/8.1, then 7 again, then 10, then >>>> Linux. >>> >>> Meaning that it predated Win10's 2015 release date, >> >> It was two years old for W8 upgrade ($40 for Pro). > >Windows 8 came out in 2012, so this was then a 2010 purchase. >Which also then means your CoVid stimulus check PC was +10 years later. > >Ergo: > >"...so you did get roughly ten (10) years life out of that legacy >hardware, as per what DFS was saying." > >> It got whatever Windows 8.1 was supported for*, 10 became poor (2019). >> >> * Jan. 10, 2023, 12 years after initial build > >Which is even better than a 10 year useful service life. Although, I got it with Linux instead of restoring Win8.1. >> Microsoft doesn't understand the reluctance to use Linux. > >The slow rate of uptake of Win11 over the past three years isn't really >a problem per se - its just verification that the hardware replacement >cycle really has slowed by as much as what DFS was indicating. > >FYI, my desktop didn't come with Win11, but its handling it fine; YMMV >if its because I did better research before purchasing than you did, or >perhaps it was that your PC never was actually 'broken', etc. "Broken", no, Win11 will always be support for my hardware. Linux far better, though. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 07:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vmi97u$1j4he$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684309 |
On 2025-01-18, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > On 1/18/25 4:08 PM, DFS wrote: >> On 1/18/2025 1:07 PM, Joel wrote: >>> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote: >>> >>>>> I reject the Win platform as a dead end. >>>> >>>> Windows will long outlive you and all the other doomsday cola advocates. >>> >>> >>> Explain how to keep up with demands on hardware without replacing >>> motherboard every three years. "Don't upgrade to Win12" only supports >>> my point. >> >> >> Total absurd bullshit. >> >> You have NEVER needed to upgrade/replace your mobo every 3 years for a >> new version of Windows. >> >> As I've requested several times, make sure to keep your current hardware >> around so I can rub your Linuxy face in it when Win13 installs and runs >> just fine on it. > > I have to agree with you here. There was pressure to buy new hardware > every two or three years back in the 90s, but hardware nowadays easily > goes a decade with the original operating system on it. However, Windows > in that time will become unbearably slow for most users since they > usually have no idea how to maintain it. Linux, for its part, will be > just as fast ten years down the line as it was on day one. And considerably faster if you replace the hard drive with an SSD. My old computers are "living" proof of that. -- “Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 06:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m_4jP.1667554$bYV2.111704@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #684325 |
On 1/19/25 2:22 AM, RonB wrote: > On 2025-01-18, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >> On 1/18/25 4:08 PM, DFS wrote: >>> On 1/18/2025 1:07 PM, Joel wrote: >>>> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I reject the Win platform as a dead end. >>>>> >>>>> Windows will long outlive you and all the other doomsday cola advocates. >>>> >>>> >>>> Explain how to keep up with demands on hardware without replacing >>>> motherboard every three years. "Don't upgrade to Win12" only supports >>>> my point. >>> >>> >>> Total absurd bullshit. >>> >>> You have NEVER needed to upgrade/replace your mobo every 3 years for a >>> new version of Windows. >>> >>> As I've requested several times, make sure to keep your current hardware >>> around so I can rub your Linuxy face in it when Win13 installs and runs >>> just fine on it. >> >> I have to agree with you here. There was pressure to buy new hardware >> every two or three years back in the 90s, but hardware nowadays easily >> goes a decade with the original operating system on it. However, Windows >> in that time will become unbearably slow for most users since they >> usually have no idea how to maintain it. Linux, for its part, will be >> just as fast ten years down the line as it was on day one. > > And considerably faster if you replace the hard drive with an SSD. My old > computers are "living" proof of that. I can't even imagine using a computer with a hard disk nowadays. I guess it takes severe retardation, like the one Larry Pietraskiewicz is suffering from, to see benefits to using one. -- CrudeSausage Gab: @CrudeSausage Telegram: @CrudeSausage Unapologetic paleoconservative KDE supporting member ASUS Zephyrus GA401QM on Manjaro
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-20 03:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vmkhbe$2riia$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684328 |
On 2025-01-19, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > On 1/19/25 2:22 AM, RonB wrote: >> On 2025-01-18, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>> On 1/18/25 4:08 PM, DFS wrote: >>>> On 1/18/2025 1:07 PM, Joel wrote: >>>>> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> I reject the Win platform as a dead end. >>>>>> >>>>>> Windows will long outlive you and all the other doomsday cola advocates. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Explain how to keep up with demands on hardware without replacing >>>>> motherboard every three years. "Don't upgrade to Win12" only supports >>>>> my point. >>>> >>>> >>>> Total absurd bullshit. >>>> >>>> You have NEVER needed to upgrade/replace your mobo every 3 years for a >>>> new version of Windows. >>>> >>>> As I've requested several times, make sure to keep your current hardware >>>> around so I can rub your Linuxy face in it when Win13 installs and runs >>>> just fine on it. >>> >>> I have to agree with you here. There was pressure to buy new hardware >>> every two or three years back in the 90s, but hardware nowadays easily >>> goes a decade with the original operating system on it. However, Windows >>> in that time will become unbearably slow for most users since they >>> usually have no idea how to maintain it. Linux, for its part, will be >>> just as fast ten years down the line as it was on day one. >> >> And considerably faster if you replace the hard drive with an SSD. My old >> computers are "living" proof of that. > > I can't even imagine using a computer with a hard disk nowadays. I guess > it takes severe retardation, like the one Larry Pietraskiewicz is > suffering from, to see benefits to using one. Hard drives work pretty well for backing up files when used in USB enclosures. That's basically all I use them for now. -- “Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 23:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lliroj9tl3cj3pbvmo40m2732lehvesitv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #684354 |
RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >On 2025-01-19, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>> >>> replac[ing] the hard drive [in an older computer] with an SSD [makes them considerably faster]. My old >>> computers are "living" proof of that. >> >> I can't even imagine using a computer with a hard disk nowadays. I guess >> it takes severe retardation, like the one Larry Pietraskiewicz is >> suffering from, to see benefits to using one. > >Hard drives work pretty well for backing up files when used in USB >enclosures. That's basically all I use them for now. I like external drives inclusive of HDDs. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-20 08:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2ssjP.1041130$aTp4.837653@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #684354 |
On 1/19/25 10:53 PM, RonB wrote: > On 2025-01-19, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >> On 1/19/25 2:22 AM, RonB wrote: >>> On 2025-01-18, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>> On 1/18/25 4:08 PM, DFS wrote: >>>>> On 1/18/2025 1:07 PM, Joel wrote: >>>>>> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I reject the Win platform as a dead end. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Windows will long outlive you and all the other doomsday cola advocates. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Explain how to keep up with demands on hardware without replacing >>>>>> motherboard every three years. "Don't upgrade to Win12" only supports >>>>>> my point. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Total absurd bullshit. >>>>> >>>>> You have NEVER needed to upgrade/replace your mobo every 3 years for a >>>>> new version of Windows. >>>>> >>>>> As I've requested several times, make sure to keep your current hardware >>>>> around so I can rub your Linuxy face in it when Win13 installs and runs >>>>> just fine on it. >>>> >>>> I have to agree with you here. There was pressure to buy new hardware >>>> every two or three years back in the 90s, but hardware nowadays easily >>>> goes a decade with the original operating system on it. However, Windows >>>> in that time will become unbearably slow for most users since they >>>> usually have no idea how to maintain it. Linux, for its part, will be >>>> just as fast ten years down the line as it was on day one. >>> >>> And considerably faster if you replace the hard drive with an SSD. My old >>> computers are "living" proof of that. >> >> I can't even imagine using a computer with a hard disk nowadays. I guess >> it takes severe retardation, like the one Larry Pietraskiewicz is >> suffering from, to see benefits to using one. > > Hard drives work pretty well for backing up files when used in USB > enclosures. That's basically all I use them for now. Perhaps, but I wouldn't even trust them for that. The WD laptop hard disk I got to replace the one that came with my Sony laptop died within eight months. The one it replaced lasted a year. I bought an external 2TB Seagate hard disk from Walmart and I just found out that it died too, about two years after purchase. The only hard disk I can think of that lasted a while is the one in my parents' Mac Mini which is still kicking after more than a decade. The technology is just not as sturdy as it once was. -- CrudeSausage Gab: @CrudeSausage Telegram: @CrudeSausage Unapologetic paleoconservative KDE supporting member ASUS Zephyrus GA401QM on Manjaro
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-21 06:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vmnfgk$3s4es$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684358 |
On 2025-01-20, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > On 1/19/25 10:53 PM, RonB wrote: >> On 2025-01-19, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>> On 1/19/25 2:22 AM, RonB wrote: >>>> On 2025-01-18, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>> On 1/18/25 4:08 PM, DFS wrote: >>>>>> On 1/18/2025 1:07 PM, Joel wrote: >>>>>>> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I reject the Win platform as a dead end. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Windows will long outlive you and all the other doomsday cola advocates. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Explain how to keep up with demands on hardware without replacing >>>>>>> motherboard every three years. "Don't upgrade to Win12" only supports >>>>>>> my point. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Total absurd bullshit. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have NEVER needed to upgrade/replace your mobo every 3 years for a >>>>>> new version of Windows. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I've requested several times, make sure to keep your current hardware >>>>>> around so I can rub your Linuxy face in it when Win13 installs and runs >>>>>> just fine on it. >>>>> >>>>> I have to agree with you here. There was pressure to buy new hardware >>>>> every two or three years back in the 90s, but hardware nowadays easily >>>>> goes a decade with the original operating system on it. However, Windows >>>>> in that time will become unbearably slow for most users since they >>>>> usually have no idea how to maintain it. Linux, for its part, will be >>>>> just as fast ten years down the line as it was on day one. >>>> >>>> And considerably faster if you replace the hard drive with an SSD. My old >>>> computers are "living" proof of that. >>> >>> I can't even imagine using a computer with a hard disk nowadays. I guess >>> it takes severe retardation, like the one Larry Pietraskiewicz is >>> suffering from, to see benefits to using one. >> >> Hard drives work pretty well for backing up files when used in USB >> enclosures. That's basically all I use them for now. > > Perhaps, but I wouldn't even trust them for that. The WD laptop hard > disk I got to replace the one that came with my Sony laptop died within > eight months. The one it replaced lasted a year. I bought an external > 2TB Seagate hard disk from Walmart and I just found out that it died > too, about two years after purchase. The only hard disk I can think of > that lasted a while is the one in my parents' Mac Mini which is still > kicking after more than a decade. The technology is just not as sturdy > as it once was. I guess I'm still using technology that "once was," as I haven't any major hard drive problems since the mid 90s. -- “Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 19:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lv52hmF7e8lU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #684325 |
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 07:22:39 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote: > And considerably faster if you replace the hard drive with an SSD. My > old computers are "living" proof of that. I had to go SATA on the old Dell since the one PCIe slot was in use. While the SSD allows SATA to reach its theoretical speeds the a HDD couldn't the difference to NMVe is noticeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-20 03:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vmkhgs$2riia$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684342 |
On 2025-01-19, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 07:22:39 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote: > >> And considerably faster if you replace the hard drive with an SSD. My >> old computers are "living" proof of that. > > I had to go SATA on the old Dell since the one PCIe slot was in use. While > the SSD allows SATA to reach its theoretical speeds the a HDD couldn't the > difference to NMVe is noticeable. It's mostly the boot process where I notice the difference in speed. My computers are pretty old, but with an SSD they'll boot in less than 30 seconds. It took about two minutes on my old hard drives. -- “Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 08:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <678cbd94$0$29742$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #684309 |
Le 18-01-2025, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> a écrit : > On 1/18/25 4:08 PM, DFS wrote: >> On 1/18/2025 1:07 PM, Joel wrote: >>> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote: >>> >>>>> I reject the Win platform as a dead end. >>>> >>>> Windows will long outlive you and all the other doomsday cola advocates. >>> >>> >>> Explain how to keep up with demands on hardware without replacing >>> motherboard every three years. "Don't upgrade to Win12" only supports >>> my point. >> >> >> Total absurd bullshit. >> >> You have NEVER needed to upgrade/replace your mobo every 3 years for a >> new version of Windows. >> >> As I've requested several times, make sure to keep your current hardware >> around so I can rub your Linuxy face in it when Win13 installs and runs >> just fine on it. > > I have to agree with you here. There was pressure to buy new hardware > every two or three years back in the 90s, but hardware nowadays easily > goes a decade with the original operating system on it. Except now Microsoft request people to update to the last available version of Windows. Which is not always possible due to hardware requirements. > However, Windows > in that time will become unbearably slow for most users since they > usually have no idea how to maintain it. Linux, for its part, will be > just as fast ten years down the line as it was on day one. That's another subject, but yes. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 06:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <O35jP.935899$Uup4.887183@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #684326 |
On 1/19/25 3:53 AM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Le 18-01-2025, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> a écrit : >> On 1/18/25 4:08 PM, DFS wrote: >>> On 1/18/2025 1:07 PM, Joel wrote: >>>> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I reject the Win platform as a dead end. >>>>> >>>>> Windows will long outlive you and all the other doomsday cola advocates. >>>> >>>> >>>> Explain how to keep up with demands on hardware without replacing >>>> motherboard every three years. "Don't upgrade to Win12" only supports >>>> my point. >>> >>> >>> Total absurd bullshit. >>> >>> You have NEVER needed to upgrade/replace your mobo every 3 years for a >>> new version of Windows. >>> >>> As I've requested several times, make sure to keep your current hardware >>> around so I can rub your Linuxy face in it when Win13 installs and runs >>> just fine on it. >> >> I have to agree with you here. There was pressure to buy new hardware >> every two or three years back in the 90s, but hardware nowadays easily >> goes a decade with the original operating system on it. > > Except now Microsoft request people to update to the last available > version of Windows. Which is not always possible due to hardware > requirements. There was an article yesterday or the day before about Microsoft forcing people using 23H2 and 22H2 to update 24H2. I imagine that their excuse will be security, but it should serve as an example of how the company doesn't care if you think your system runs fine as it is. You have to use the latest whether you want it or not. >> However, Windows >> in that time will become unbearably slow for most users since they >> usually have no idea how to maintain it. Linux, for its part, will be >> just as fast ten years down the line as it was on day one. > > That's another subject, but yes. I've had to re-encode songs lost to bit rot and lost photos of my kid over the last four years for the same reason. Additionally, I can't go a month in Windows without needing to correct the fact that some of the system files got corrupted. I know how to do it and am aware that this problem exists, but most people can't imagine that things saved on the storage could suddenly break for no reason. -- CrudeSausage Gab: @CrudeSausage Telegram: @CrudeSausage Unapologetic paleoconservative KDE supporting member ASUS Zephyrus GA401QM on Manjaro
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-14 12:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vm67t6$2gq6u$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #683948 |
On 1/13/25 6:10 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: > On 2025-01-13 17:54, Joel wrote: >> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>> On 2025-01-13 16:32, Joel wrote: >>>> MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote: >>>>> On 12/01/2025 23:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Windows is a great OS -- if your time is worth >>>>>> nothing. >>>>>> >>>>> So which OS do you choose to expend your valuable time on? >>>> >>>> Linux is the only option worth pursuing. macOS is weird and >>>> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief. >>> >>> There's not much to pursue in MacOS. It works as it should and it is a >>> fairly pleasant experience. However, I would agree that it's expensive. >>> After a while, you'll need tools to do additional things and on MacOS, >>> you're going to be paying money in most cases. Open-source is available >>> for it too, mind you. >> >> >> I just dislike Windows and macOS, it might be my own opinion but it's >> right for me. > > MacOS machines have a shelf life of about seven years before Apple > decides that your machine is no longer worth supporting with updates. As > we've seen, Windows machines get about seven, so it's a fair amount of > time. However, Linux has them both beat with unlimited support no matter > how pathetic the machine you're running it on is. Fair points ... although it can also be worth mentioning that it typically takes Linux awhile to get around to supporting the newest gear, so its more along the lines of instead of support for Year 0 through Year 7, its more akin to support for Year ~3 to Year 15. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-15 13:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sink5lx0bu.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #683948 |
On 2025-01-14 00:10, CrudeSausage wrote: > On 2025-01-13 17:54, Joel wrote: >> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>> On 2025-01-13 16:32, Joel wrote: >>>> MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote: >>>>> On 12/01/2025 23:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Windows is a great OS -- if your time is worth >>>>>> nothing. >>>>>> >>>>> So which OS do you choose to expend your valuable time on? >>>> >>>> Linux is the only option worth pursuing. macOS is weird and >>>> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief. >>> >>> There's not much to pursue in MacOS. It works as it should and it is a >>> fairly pleasant experience. However, I would agree that it's expensive. >>> After a while, you'll need tools to do additional things and on MacOS, >>> you're going to be paying money in most cases. Open-source is available >>> for it too, mind you. >> >> >> I just dislike Windows and macOS, it might be my own opinion but it's >> right for me. > > MacOS machines have a shelf life of about seven years before Apple > decides that your machine is no longer worth supporting with updates. As > we've seen, Windows machines get about seven, so it's a fair amount of > time. However, Linux has them both beat with unlimited support no matter > how pathetic the machine you're running it on is. Hum. That is not completely true, either. Some distributions stopped supporting 32 bit machines. Each year you need more ram to run the same apps. Proprietary drivers like NVidia stop publishing drivers for what they think is old hardware, and the open source version doesn't have the full feature set. Modern videos use codecs that can not keep running fast enough on pathetic machines. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-15 09:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vm8if5$30666$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684062 |
On Wed, 1/15/2025 7:51 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-01-14 00:10, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> MacOS machines have a shelf life of about seven years before Apple decides that your machine is no longer worth supporting with updates. As we've seen, Windows machines get about seven, so it's a fair amount of time. However, Linux has them both beat with unlimited support no matter how pathetic the machine you're running it on is.
>
> Hum. That is not completely true, either. Some distributions stopped supporting 32 bit machines.
>
> Each year you need more ram to run the same apps.
>
> Proprietary drivers like NVidia stop publishing drivers for what they think is old hardware, and the open source version doesn't have the full feature set.
>
> Modern videos use codecs that can not keep running fast enough on pathetic machines.
As long as the videos are coded in something that VAAPI or NVENC/NVDEC has,
the movie can be decoded for "almost free". For example, Intel Quicksync
has sufficient horsepower, to decode five video streams at the same time,
on the early instances of that hardware block.
Old machines and their older video cards without NVidia driver support, might no
longer have access to the built-in encoder/decoder hardware on the video card,
in which case the fallback software method would be used instead.
Another contributor to "pathetic", is the video decoding process can use a
"scaler" which changes a 720x576 decoded video, to whatever box size the
browser presents at the time (the wrapper frame). Doing a pixmap scaler
in software, used at least 30% of a P4 core. Whereas the hardware scaler
(driver support), could do a scaling operation "for free".
And finally, insisting on compositing as a system-wide way of doing things,
if the video card compositing is not working and the OS has to use fallback
code for that, that could take buckets of horsepower to do.
An old machine really needs the support. It isn't so much "pathetic" as it is
everything working against it. "All the items are leaning the wrong way."
The code path has had IDCT removed, so when an old machine has been
stripped of all its goodness, the code doesn't even use the IDCT
(Inverse Discrete Cosine transform for macroblocks). That is a method of
providing a slight acceleration, when forced to do video decode in software.
The older software used to use that, as it helped a bit with the decoding
process.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-15 16:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2b0l5lxdo.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #684076 |
On 2025-01-15 15:58, Paul wrote:
> On Wed, 1/15/2025 7:51 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-01-14 00:10, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>> MacOS machines have a shelf life of about seven years before Apple decides that your machine is no longer worth supporting with updates. As we've seen, Windows machines get about seven, so it's a fair amount of time. However, Linux has them both beat with unlimited support no matter how pathetic the machine you're running it on is.
>>
>> Hum. That is not completely true, either. Some distributions stopped supporting 32 bit machines.
>>
>> Each year you need more ram to run the same apps.
>>
>> Proprietary drivers like NVidia stop publishing drivers for what they think is old hardware, and the open source version doesn't have the full feature set.
>>
>> Modern videos use codecs that can not keep running fast enough on pathetic machines.
>
> As long as the videos are coded in something that VAAPI or NVENC/NVDEC has,
> the movie can be decoded for "almost free". For example, Intel Quicksync
> has sufficient horsepower, to decode five video streams at the same time,
> on the early instances of that hardware block.
>
> Old machines and their older video cards without NVidia driver support, might no
> longer have access to the built-in encoder/decoder hardware on the video card,
> in which case the fallback software method would be used instead.
>
> Another contributor to "pathetic", is the video decoding process can use a
> "scaler" which changes a 720x576 decoded video, to whatever box size the
> browser presents at the time (the wrapper frame). Doing a pixmap scaler
> in software, used at least 30% of a P4 core. Whereas the hardware scaler
> (driver support), could do a scaling operation "for free".
>
> And finally, insisting on compositing as a system-wide way of doing things,
> if the video card compositing is not working and the OS has to use fallback
> code for that, that could take buckets of horsepower to do.
>
> An old machine really needs the support. It isn't so much "pathetic" as it is
> everything working against it. "All the items are leaning the wrong way."
>
> The code path has had IDCT removed, so when an old machine has been
> stripped of all its goodness, the code doesn't even use the IDCT
> (Inverse Discrete Cosine transform for macroblocks). That is a method of
> providing a slight acceleration, when forced to do video decode in software.
> The older software used to use that, as it helped a bit with the decoding
> process.
Right.
I have a mini PC that I use as server and to display movies in my computer room.
Isengard:~ # inxi -GSaz --vs
inxi 3.3.23-00 (2022-10-31)
System:
Kernel: 5.14.21-150500.55.88-default arch: x86_64 bits: 64 compiler: gcc
v: 7.5.0 parameters: BOOT_IMAGE=/boot/vmlinuz-5.14.21-150500.55.88-default
root=UUID=0d457df1-b43d-4587-aa5a-6c919bcbedb8 showopts splash=verbose
resume=/dev/disk/by-label/Swap verbose mitigations=auto
Desktop: Xfce v: 4.18.1 tk: Gtk v: 3.24.34 info: xfce4-panel wm: xfwm
v: 4.18.0 dm: SDDM Distro: openSUSE Leap 15.5
Graphics:
Device-1: Intel Atom/Celeron/Pentium Processor x5-E8000/J3xxx/N3xxx
Integrated Graphics vendor: Micro-Star MSI driver: i915 v: kernel
arch: Gen-8 process: Intel 14nm built: 2014-15 ports: active: HDMI-A-3
empty: DP-1, DP-2, DP-3, HDMI-A-1, HDMI-A-2 bus-ID: 00:02.0
chip-ID: 8086:22b1 class-ID: 0300
Display: x11 server: X.Org v: 1.21.1.4 with: Xwayland v: 22.1.5
compositor: xfwm v: 4.18.0 driver: X: loaded: intel dri: iris gpu: i915
display-ID: localhost:11.0 screens: 1
Screen-1: 0 s-res: 1920x1080 s-dpi: 96 s-size: 508x285mm (20.00x11.22")
s-diag: 582mm (22.93")
Monitor-1: HDMI-A-3 mapped: DVI-D-0 model: Samsung T22C350 built: 2012
res: 1920x1080 hz: 60 dpi: 92 gamma: 1.2 size: 531x298mm (20.91x11.73")
diag: 547mm (21.5") ratio: 16:9 modes: max: 1920x1080 min: 720x400
API: OpenGL v: 4.5 Mesa 22.3.5 renderer: llvmpipe (LLVM 15.0.7 128 bits)
direct render: Yes
Isengard:~ #
Well, there are movies that simply block, display one photo then get stuck. Maybe the audio keeps playing. I had to recode with ffmpeg on another machine in order to view them here.
YouTube, I can no longer display in full screen, because the image stutters. I can see the CPU load at about 90%.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web