Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #686037 > unrolled thread

Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 06:04 -0500
    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-16 08:53 -0500
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Johnny LaRue <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.zzz> - 2025-02-16 19:18 +0000
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-16 16:23 -0500
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> - 2025-02-16 21:31 +0000
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-16 18:49 -0500
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:27 -0500
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-16 21:38 +0000
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-16 18:49 -0500
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-17 05:08 +0000
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-17 06:56 -0500
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-17 19:34 +0300
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-17 18:38 +0000
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 15:16 +0300
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-20 12:56 +0000
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-20 19:58 +0000
                    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-20 15:14 -0500
                    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-20 20:42 +0000
                      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-21 21:24 +1100
                        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-21 08:26 -0500
                          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-24 22:37 +1100
                        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-21 16:45 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-17 19:06 +0000
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 15:11 +0300
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-20 12:51 +0000
                    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 17:18 +0300
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 15:13 +0300
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-18 21:40 +1100
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 08:23 +0000
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-17 07:15 -0500
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 17:50 +0000
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-17 14:35 -0500
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 00:19 +0000
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-20 19:32 -0500
                    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 01:29 +0000
                      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-21 08:35 -0500
                      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 13:11 -0500
                        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-21 18:46 +0000
                          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 17:32 -0500
                        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 21:33 +0000
                          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-22 05:49 -0500
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 08:10 -0500
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-20 21:56 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-02-21 18:15 +0000
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-02-21 14:42 -0500
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-10 18:20 +0000
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:23 -0500
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-17 19:40 +0300
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-17 18:59 +0000
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 14:59 +0300
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-02-20 07:18 -0500
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-20 21:25 +0000
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-21 02:11 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-21 07:48 +0000
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 21:35 +0000
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-22 10:26 -0500
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-20 21:23 +0000
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-20 17:04 -0500
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:13 -0500
    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-02-16 08:02 -0600
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:15 -0500
    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-16 12:40 -0500
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-17 05:28 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:22 -0500
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-17 15:11 -0500
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 15:19 +0300
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-20 09:00 -0500
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 17:29 +0300
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-20 12:27 -0500
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-20 19:50 +0000
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-20 21:22 +0000
                    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 10:53 -0500
                      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-21 18:10 +0000
                        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 19:24 -0500
                          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-26 20:29 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-21 18:31 +1100
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2025-02-20 15:38 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-20 11:23 -0500
    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-16 20:10 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:24 -0500
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-17 18:52 +0000
    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-02-21 08:13 +0000

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#686037 — Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms

https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-removes-windows-11-24h2-official-support-on-8th-9th-10th-gen-intel-cpus/


So, I can still boot Win11 on my box, because it's grandfathered in,
from 2021.  OK.  Great.  Nah, I'll stick with Linux, thanks.

-- 
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] | [next] | [standalone]

#686069

On 2025-02-16 6:04 a.m., Joel wrote:
> https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-removes-windows-11-24h2-official-support-on-8th-9th-10th-gen-intel-cpus/
> 
> 
> So, I can still boot Win11 on my box, because it's grandfathered in,
> from 2021.  OK.  Great.  Nah, I'll stick with Linux, thanks.

That is honestly very interesting. It's looking like Microsoft is 
borrowing Apple's approach to support. I suppose that I should be 
expecting my own processor to be unsupported with a future release.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage/
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686098

On Feb 16, 2025 at 8:53:44 AM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

> On 2025-02-16 6:04 a.m., Joel wrote:
>> https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-removes-windows-11-24h2-official-support-on-8th-9th-10th-gen-intel-cpus/
>> 
>> 
>> So, I can still boot Win11 on my box, because it's grandfathered in,
>> from 2021.  OK.  Great.  Nah, I'll stick with Linux, thanks.
> 
> That is honestly very interesting. It's looking like Microsoft is
> borrowing Apple's approach to support.

Good. It's about damn time.  Very hard to move forward when you are still
supporting ancient hardware (and software). 

And let's face it.  To have any future at all, Windows desperately needs to
move forward. 

> I suppose that I should be
> expecting my own processor to be unsupported with a future release.

See above.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686114

On 2025-02-16 2:18 p.m., Johnny LaRue wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2025 at 8:53:44 AM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-02-16 6:04 a.m., Joel wrote:
>>> https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-removes-windows-11-24h2-official-support-on-8th-9th-10th-gen-intel-cpus/
>>>
>>>
>>> So, I can still boot Win11 on my box, because it's grandfathered in,
>>> from 2021.  OK.  Great.  Nah, I'll stick with Linux, thanks.
>>
>> That is honestly very interesting. It's looking like Microsoft is
>> borrowing Apple's approach to support.
> 
> Good. It's about damn time.  Very hard to move forward when you are still
> supporting ancient hardware (and software).
> 
> And let's face it.  To have any future at all, Windows desperately needs to
> move forward.

Have you ever considered that an operating system could offer layers of 
functionality? For example, a 286 could run Windows 3.0, but if you 
wanted the enhanced features, you needed a 386. Why can't it be that way 
with Windows again?

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage/
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686116

On 2025-02-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2025-02-16 2:18 p.m., Johnny LaRue wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 2025 at 8:53:44 AM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2025-02-16 6:04 a.m., Joel wrote:
>>>> https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-removes-windows-11-24h2-official-support-on-8th-9th-10th-gen-intel-cpus/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, I can still boot Win11 on my box, because it's grandfathered in,
>>>> from 2021.  OK.  Great.  Nah, I'll stick with Linux, thanks.
>>>
>>> That is honestly very interesting. It's looking like Microsoft is
>>> borrowing Apple's approach to support.
>> 
>> Good. It's about damn time.  Very hard to move forward when you are still
>> supporting ancient hardware (and software).
>> 
>> And let's face it.  To have any future at all, Windows desperately needs to
>> move forward.
>
> Have you ever considered that an operating system could offer layers of 
> functionality? For example, a 286 could run Windows 3.0, but if you 
> wanted the enhanced features, you needed a 386. Why can't it be that way 
> with Windows again?

It's likely by design - planned obsolescence.

-- 
End Transmission

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686120

On 2025-02-16 4:31 p.m., Adison Vohn Caterson wrote:
> On 2025-02-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2025-02-16 2:18 p.m., Johnny LaRue wrote:
>>> On Feb 16, 2025 at 8:53:44 AM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-02-16 6:04 a.m., Joel wrote:
>>>>> https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-removes-windows-11-24h2-official-support-on-8th-9th-10th-gen-intel-cpus/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I can still boot Win11 on my box, because it's grandfathered in,
>>>>> from 2021.  OK.  Great.  Nah, I'll stick with Linux, thanks.
>>>>
>>>> That is honestly very interesting. It's looking like Microsoft is
>>>> borrowing Apple's approach to support.
>>>
>>> Good. It's about damn time.  Very hard to move forward when you are still
>>> supporting ancient hardware (and software).
>>>
>>> And let's face it.  To have any future at all, Windows desperately needs to
>>> move forward.
>>
>> Have you ever considered that an operating system could offer layers of
>> functionality? For example, a 286 could run Windows 3.0, but if you
>> wanted the enhanced features, you needed a 386. Why can't it be that way
>> with Windows again?
> 
> It's likely by design - planned obsolescence.

I agree, but I don't see why someone who could run Windows 11 when it 
was first released could not be allowed to update to the latest version 
of Windows 11 because their hardware doesn't have some new functionality.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage/
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686155

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>On 2025-02-16 4:31 p.m., Adison Vohn Caterson wrote:
>> On 2025-02-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-16 2:18 p.m., Johnny LaRue wrote:
>>>> On Feb 16, 2025 at 8:53:44?AM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-02-16 6:04 a.m., Joel wrote:

>>>>>> https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-removes-windows-11-24h2-official-support-on-8th-9th-10th-gen-intel-cpus/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I can still boot Win11 on my box, because it's grandfathered in,
>>>>>> from 2021.  OK.  Great.  Nah, I'll stick with Linux, thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is honestly very interesting. It's looking like Microsoft is
>>>>> borrowing Apple's approach to support.
>>>>
>>>> Good. It's about damn time.  Very hard to move forward when you are still
>>>> supporting ancient hardware (and software).
>>>>
>>>> And let's face it.  To have any future at all, Windows desperately needs to
>>>> move forward.
>>>
>>> Have you ever considered that an operating system could offer layers of
>>> functionality? For example, a 286 could run Windows 3.0, but if you
>>> wanted the enhanced features, you needed a 386. Why can't it be that way
>>> with Windows again?
>> 
>> It's likely by design - planned obsolescence.
>
>I agree, but I don't see why someone who could run Windows 11 when it 
>was first released could not be allowed to update to the latest version 
>of Windows 11 because their hardware doesn't have some new functionality.


I can still run 11 because I had it before, but you read between the
lines and see that it'd suck balls, they aren't *genuinely* supporting
older CPUs, not to have the fresh experience.  Linux is the refuge.

-- 
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]

#686117

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:23:49 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Have you ever considered that an operating system could offer layers of
> functionality? For example, a 286 could run Windows 3.0, but if you
> wanted the enhanced features, you needed a 386. Why can't it be that way
> with Windows again?

So a software company would have to maintain, build, and test several 
branches, some of which would have minimal sales? No thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686121

On 2025-02-16 4:38 p.m., rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:23:49 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> Have you ever considered that an operating system could offer layers of
>> functionality? For example, a 286 could run Windows 3.0, but if you
>> wanted the enhanced features, you needed a 386. Why can't it be that way
>> with Windows again?
> 
> So a software company would have to maintain, build, and test several
> branches, some of which would have minimal sales? No thanks.

Point made. I guess those unwilling to upgrade could always fall back to 
Linux.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage/
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686126

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:49:43 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2025-02-16 4:38 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:23:49 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> 
>>> Have you ever considered that an operating system could offer layers
>>> of functionality? For example, a 286 could run Windows 3.0, but if you
>>> wanted the enhanced features, you needed a 386. Why can't it be that
>>> way with Windows again?
>> 
>> So a software company would have to maintain, build, and test several
>> branches, some of which would have minimal sales? No thanks.
> 
> Point made. I guess those unwilling to upgrade could always fall back to
> Linux.

Precisely. My 4th gen i5 is not a candidate for Windows 11 but it does 
fine with Fedora 41.  It started life as Windows 7; I don't know how far 
it would have made it as a Windows box. 10?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686138

On 2025-02-17 12:08 a.m., rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:49:43 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-02-16 4:38 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:23:49 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you ever considered that an operating system could offer layers
>>>> of functionality? For example, a 286 could run Windows 3.0, but if you
>>>> wanted the enhanced features, you needed a 386. Why can't it be that
>>>> way with Windows again?
>>>
>>> So a software company would have to maintain, build, and test several
>>> branches, some of which would have minimal sales? No thanks.
>>
>> Point made. I guess those unwilling to upgrade could always fall back to
>> Linux.
> 
> Precisely. My 4th gen i5 is not a candidate for Windows 11 but it does
> fine with Fedora 41.  It started life as Windows 7; I don't know how far
> it would have made it as a Windows box. 10?

Well, I gave away my 4th generation i7 laptop to a guy at work. It still 
ran Linux fine (minus waking from sleep), but the guy was so pitiful 
(his shoes had a hole going from the front to the middle) that I figured 
he'd benefit from getting something for nothing.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage/
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686160

rbowman:

> CrudeSausage:
>
> > Have you ever considered that an operating system could
> > offer layers of functionality? For example, a 286 could
> > run Windows 3.0, but if you wanted the enhanced
> > features, you needed a 386. Why can't it be that way
> > with Windows again?
>
> So a software company would have to maintain, build, and
> test several branches, some of which would have minimal
> sales? No thanks.

Not at all.  This kind of compatibility is not maintained in
branches, but rather in a common code base with perhaps (but
not necessarily) some platform-specific fragments govenred
by conditinal compilation.  Modern technology offers many
open, stable, and well-supported standards and protocols to
make software that lasts.

A reponsible developer uses the oldest technology that suits
the task, to save the users from the upgrade treadmill.  For
example, a terminal text editor may support 132x60 true-
color terminals, but it will always support the standard ISO
screen of 80x25 characters as the common denominator.  It
may support Unicode, but will always support 7- and 8-bit
codepages, and so on.  That way, computer can have their
natural usable lifespan of 20-25 years for the majority of
everyday tasks.

Many requirements are the result of a collusion between
hardware, OS, and software makers to  force usees (as
xwidnows calls them) continuosly to pay for newer hardware,
OSes, and software -- merely too keep the PC usable.
Hackers have demonstrated that many games and some browsers
do not work on Windows XP simply because of an explicit
version test in the code, removing which lets the program
run.

This article is made in Windows XP: written in RPad32,
formatted with GNU Troff, and posted via Sylpheed.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686171

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:34:14 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> Hackers have demonstrated that many games and some browsers do not work
> on Windows XP simply because of an explicit version test in the code,
> removing which lets the program run.

When we started developing an Android app, Android 4.0 was the latest 
version. As time went on 4.0 lost market share and the app did a version 
test for a minimum version to support the newer features.

My personal tablet didn't receive updates past 4.1 and would not run the 
production app. However I could build my own apk with the version test 
removed and it would run -- mostly. 'Mostly' isn't good enough.

I hit the same sort of problem with Esri applications. It used some of the 
extended instructions that were not supported by earlier AMD Athlon 
processors and would ultimately crash on those machines. Esri did not test 
for the instructions so I created a small utility to do the test so our 
support people wouldn't install on those machines and then have to deal 
with support calls about crashing apps. Trust me, when you install third 
party software on a client's system it's your fault if it doesn't work.

Sure, hackers can figure out what does or doesn't work. Commercial 
software creators don't want to deal with 'maybe it will work most of the 
time'. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686287

rbowman:

> Sure, hackers can figure out what does or doesn't work.
> Commercial software creators don't want to deal with
> 'maybe it will work most of the time'.

Then add a disclamer instead of crippling the software
because it /might not/ work on older OSes or hardware.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686292

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:16:06 +0300
Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:

> rbowman:
> 
> > Sure, hackers can figure out what does or doesn't work.
> > Commercial software creators don't want to deal with
> > 'maybe it will work most of the time'.
> 
> Then add a disclamer instead of crippling the software
> because it /might not/ work on older OSes or hardware.
> 

This is particulary bad with some "latest trendy" websites and some
Android apps, if your browser/device is not bang up-to-date, fail to
load/install.

New Version: "needs x"
Old Version: "must upgrade"

Old Version was working fine 'til then.
-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686306

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:16:06 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> rbowman:
> 
>> Sure, hackers can figure out what does or doesn't work.
>> Commercial software creators don't want to deal with 'maybe it will
>> work most of the time'.
> 
> Then add a disclamer instead of crippling the software because it /might
> not/ work on older OSes or hardware.

Yeah, that works so well. You can add a 30 point disclaimer that 
FireAardvark may not work on Windows 8 and the users will still bitch long 
and loud when it doesn't. In the rare case they submit a bug report bamboo 
slivers under the fingernails will be required before they'll admit they 
tried to use it on Windows 8.

I've been on both sides of the fence. When current software wouldn't 
install/run on my Windows 7 box it became a Linux box. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686307

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

>When current software wouldn't 
>install/run on my Windows 7 box it became a Linux box. 


That's what I'm talking about, my old computer could have still been
going with Linux, today, but it was just a disaster with Win10 20H2.

-- 
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]

#686309

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:16:06 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> 
> > rbowman:
> > 
> >> Sure, hackers can figure out what does or doesn't work.
> >> Commercial software creators don't want to deal with 'maybe it will
> >> work most of the time'.
> > 
> > Then add a disclamer instead of crippling the software because it /might
> > not/ work on older OSes or hardware.
> 
> Yeah, that works so well. You can add a 30 point disclaimer that 
> FireAardvark may not work on Windows 8 and the users will still bitch long 
> and loud when it doesn't. In the rare case they submit a bug report bamboo 
> slivers under the fingernails will be required before they'll admit they 
> tried to use it on Windows 8.
> 
> I've been on both sides of the fence. When current software wouldn't 
> install/run on my Windows 7 box it became a Linux box. 

  I think this calls for a famous quote from a newsgroup, a long, long
time ago:

Supported, known to work                -> warm fuzzies all around
Supported, known to not work            -> an <redacted>ite is in trouble
Unsupported, known to work              -> lucky today, unlucky tomorrow?
Unsupported, not known to not work      -> there but for the grace of Turing
Unsupported, known to not work          -> no, it was not deliberate ;-)

[Hi Rick!]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686328

On 21/02/2025 7:42 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

<Snip>

>> I've been on both sides of the fence. When current software wouldn't
>> install/run on my Windows 7 box it became a Linux box.
> 
>    I think this calls for a famous quote from a newsgroup, a long, long
> time ago:
> 
> Supported, known to work                -> warm fuzzies all around
> Supported, known to not work            -> an <redacted>ite is in trouble
> Unsupported, known to work              -> lucky today, unlucky tomorrow?
> Unsupported, not known to not work      -> there but for the grace of Turing
> Unsupported, known to not work          -> no, it was not deliberate ;-)
> 
> [Hi Rick!]
> 
Hmmm! Is that, sort of, like Iraq War??

There are Known Knowns.
There are Known Unknowns.
There are Unknown Knows, and,
There are Unknown Unknows!!
c. Early 1990, so GW Bush Snr or his Defence Boss. ;-P
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686333

Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>On 21/02/2025 7:42 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>>> I've been on both sides of the fence. When current software wouldn't
>>> install/run on my Windows 7 box it became a Linux box.
>> 
>>    I think this calls for a famous quote from a newsgroup, a long, long
>> time ago:
>> 
>> Supported, known to work                -> warm fuzzies all around
>> Supported, known to not work            -> an <redacted>ite is in trouble
>> Unsupported, known to work              -> lucky today, unlucky tomorrow?
>> Unsupported, not known to not work      -> there but for the grace of Turing
>> Unsupported, known to not work          -> no, it was not deliberate ;-)
>> 
>> [Hi Rick!]
>> 
>Hmmm! Is that, sort of, like Iraq War??
>
>There are Known Knowns.
>There are Known Unknowns.
>There are Unknown Knows, and,
>There are Unknown Unknows!!
>c. Early 1990, so GW Bush Snr or his Defence Boss. ;-P


That was in 2003 or later, Sec. Rumsfeld regarding the invasion of
Iraq under GWB, not the elder Pres. Bush in the '90s.

-- 
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]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web