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 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-15 23:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <luqu6fFijddU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #684062 |
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:51:08 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > Hum. That is not completely true, either. Some distributions stopped > supporting 32 bit machines. The only one I came across was Debian. The machine itself was 64-bit but our legacy code was 32-bit, as was Esri's ArcObjects. I think Ubuntu 18.04 was the last release where you had a prayer of finding 32-bit Motif libraries and others. It's all fine to pass the 32-bit flag to gcc but if you can't link the libs you're done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-16 15:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j4in5lxkp3.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #684112 |
On 2025-01-16 00:20, rbowman wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:51:08 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> Hum. That is not completely true, either. Some distributions stopped >> supporting 32 bit machines. > > The only one I came across was Debian. The machine itself was 64-bit but > our legacy code was 32-bit, as was Esri's ArcObjects. I think Ubuntu 18.04 > was the last release where you had a prayer of finding 32-bit Motif > libraries and others. It's all fine to pass the 32-bit flag to gcc but if > you can't link the libs you're done. openSUSE Tumbleweed still has a 32 bit version, I believe. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-17 00:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lutlirF1tatU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #684130 |
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 15:36:35 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-01-16 00:20, rbowman wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:51:08 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >>> Hum. That is not completely true, either. Some distributions stopped >>> supporting 32 bit machines. >> >> The only one I came across was Debian. The machine itself was 64-bit >> but our legacy code was 32-bit, as was Esri's ArcObjects. I think >> Ubuntu 18.04 was the last release where you had a prayer of finding >> 32-bit Motif libraries and others. It's all fine to pass the 32-bit >> flag to gcc but if you can't link the libs you're done. > > openSUSE Tumbleweed still has a 32 bit version, I believe. So it does. I don't know if I'd found it or if Debian was the first to turn up and I used it. I probably still would have went with Debian. For a production machine old, slow, stick-in-the-mud is good versus a rolling distribution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-15 18:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vm8tln$326m7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #683948 |
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> 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. Only if you're prepared to handroll backports etc. Realistically, linux is also 5-7 years. Most LTS is 5 years. The hardest thing is trying to keep gcc up to date. At some point too many glibc dependencies break and you can't compile any new kernel updates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-16 15:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7pin5lxif5.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #684092 |
On 2025-01-15 19:09, Chris wrote: > CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> 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. > > Only if you're prepared to handroll backports etc. Realistically, linux is > also 5-7 years. Most LTS is 5 years. > > The hardest thing is trying to keep gcc up to date. At some point too many > glibc dependencies break and you can't compile any new kernel updates. No, the idea is that you upgrade the system. Thus you continue using Linux for many years on the same machine. For example, on openSUSE Leap the 15.x series started with 15.0 on 2018-05, and 15.6 was released on 2024-06. Users are expected to update to each minor version as they are released. Major version 16.0 is expected by next November. There are no hard hardware requirements to upgrade, like having TPM, but a 32 bit CPU is not supported, and possibly some low end CPUs. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-14 05:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vm4ts0$29sf3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #683945 |
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 17:44:54 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: > There's not much to pursue in MacOS. It works as it should and it is a > fairly pleasant experience. It works the way the platform owner wants it to work. And they have a particularly slick brainw^H^H^H^H^H^Hmarketing organization to “persuade” customers to accept that they want it to work that way as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-13 16:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vm4574$22ghg$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #683942 |
Joel wrote: > MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote: >> On 12/01/2025 23:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 12:37:00 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: >>> >>>> To remove the new Outlook app package after it's force installed on your >>>> Windows device, you can use the Remove-AppxProvisionedPackage cmdlet >>>> with the PackageName parameter value Microsoft.OutlookForWindows. >>>> >>>> This can be done by running the following command from a Windows >>>> PowerShell prompt and adding a new reg value: >>>> >>>> [Blah blah hoyvin-glayvin blah blah] >>> >>> This is why they say, 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. > I agree. Plus it also counts as a religion, so you don't have to waste time going to church anymore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-13 23:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lulnd2Flv1jU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #683946 |
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 16:48:03 -0600, Hank Rogers wrote: > Joel wrote: >> MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote: >>> On 12/01/2025 23:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 12:37:00 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>> >>>>> To remove the new Outlook app package after it's force installed on >>>>> your Windows device, you can use the Remove-AppxProvisionedPackage >>>>> cmdlet with the PackageName parameter value >>>>> Microsoft.OutlookForWindows. >>>>> >>>>> This can be done by running the following command from a Windows >>>>> PowerShell prompt and adding a new reg value: >>>>> >>>>> [Blah blah hoyvin-glayvin blah blah] >>>> >>>> This is why they say, 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. >> >> > I agree. Plus it also counts as a religion, so you don't have to waste > time going to church anymore. https://www.whycatholic.com/even-in-the-beginning-their-were-heretics/ saint-linus/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-15 11:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vm86er$2u8jo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #683942 |
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote: > MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote: >> On 12/01/2025 23:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 12:37:00 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: >>> >>>> To remove the new Outlook app package after it's force installed on your >>>> Windows device, you can use the Remove-AppxProvisionedPackage cmdlet >>>> with the PackageName parameter value Microsoft.OutlookForWindows. >>>> >>>> This can be done by running the following command from a Windows >>>> PowerShell prompt and adding a new reg value: >>>> >>>> [Blah blah hoyvin-glayvin blah blah] >>> >>> This is why they say, 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. macOS is free. Just needs a $600 mac to run it on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-15 10:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <cqlfoj93e6jvua3is08kbm6f9p32h8cl4a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #684059 |
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: >> Linux is the only option worth pursuing. macOS is weird and >> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief. > >macOS is free. Just needs a $600 mac to run it on. Windows Home preinstalled on volume-produced gear is virtually free, self-installed Linux completely free, but yes that "$600" you cite isn't cheap for the device it buys. That OS upgrades are free is just to incentivize buying/using an Apple device. -- 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 | 2025-01-15 11:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vm8o1d$313ov$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684079 |
On 1/15/25 10:46 AM, Joel wrote: > Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Linux is the only option worth pursuing. macOS is weird and >>> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief. >> >> macOS is free. Just needs a $600 mac to run it on. > > Windows Home preinstalled on volume-produced gear is virtually free, > self-installed Linux completely free, but yes that "$600" you cite > isn't cheap for the device it buys. That OS upgrades are free is just > to incentivize buying/using an Apple device. > Where said "isn't cheap" $600 is ~half what Joel's already spent... ...or for when the Lady protests too much, after deducting off his alleged $200 mistake of a second Windows OS license, roughly 50% less ($600 vs ($1150 - $200 = $950). But don't let actual math get in one's way of a good narrative! /s -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-15 17:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <luq81qFfc8fU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #684081 |
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:33:48 -0500, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in <vm8o1d$313ov$1@dont-email.me>: > On 1/15/25 10:46 AM, Joel wrote: >> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> Linux is the only option worth pursuing. macOS is weird and >>>> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief. >>> >>> macOS is free. Just needs a $600 mac to run it on. >> >> Windows Home preinstalled on volume-produced gear is virtually free, >> self-installed Linux completely free, but yes that "$600" you cite >> isn't cheap for the device it buys. That OS upgrades are free is just >> to incentivize buying/using an Apple device. >> >> > Where said "isn't cheap" $600 is ~half what Joel's already spent... > > ...or for when the Lady protests too much, after deducting off his > alleged $200 mistake of a second Windows OS license, roughly 50% less > ($600 vs ($1150 - $200 = $950). Having played the "buy a mac mini to get MacOS" game, I can tell you that I was very disappointed. The Mac Studio we have now is a few steps up, but it's not worth what we paid for it. It's clunky, and the security policies on it are one-offs. It's a UNIX system, but they've bolted on extras that are downright unfriendly. Meanwhile Mrs. vallor's new workstation is still waiting in the wings; turns out, she expanded the scope of "make a space on her desk" into "re-organize her office". ;) fu2: cola -- -v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti OS: Linux 6.12.9 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G "Linux is obsolete" -Andrew Tanenbaum
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-15 12:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vm8rh6$31mgm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684084 |
On 1/15/25 12:02 PM, vallor wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:33:48 -0500, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> > wrote in <vm8o1d$313ov$1@dont-email.me>: > >> On 1/15/25 10:46 AM, Joel wrote: >>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> Linux is the only option worth pursuing. macOS is weird and >>>>> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief. >>>> >>>> macOS is free. Just needs a $600 mac to run it on. >>> >>> Windows Home preinstalled on volume-produced gear is virtually free, >>> self-installed Linux completely free, but yes that "$600" you cite >>> isn't cheap for the device it buys. That OS upgrades are free is just >>> to incentivize buying/using an Apple device. >>> >>> >> Where said "isn't cheap" $600 is ~half what Joel's already spent... >> >> ...or for when the Lady protests too much, after deducting off his >> alleged $200 mistake of a second Windows OS license, roughly 50% less >> ($600 vs ($1150 - $200 = $950). > > Having played the "buy a mac mini to get MacOS" game, I can tell > you that I was very disappointed. IMO the mini had historically been Apple's product to promote desktop customers to migrate from Windows, but its shortcomings have centered around how 90% of the market ignored it because it wasn't a laptop, and the other 10% are tower fetish geeks who were offended because it couldn't easily address every possible niche/corner use case. > The Mac Studio we have now is a few steps up, but it's not worth > what we paid for it. The Studio's now two months from being 3 years old, and pretty much all its gotten to date has been a CPU bump. It was envisioned as the being a midpoint between the mini & Mac Pro, effectively a replacement for the iMac Pro, whose MSRP started at $5K. > It's clunky, and the security policies on > it are one-offs. It's a UNIX system, but they've bolted on extras > that are downright unfriendly. Just which security policies are so constraining? Likewise, are these so-called 'unfriendly' elements something which affects the Pareto Principle 80% use case, or is it more akin to a niche/corner use case? > Meanwhile Mrs. vallor's new workstation is still waiting in the wings; > turns out, she expanded the scope of "make a space on her desk" > into "re-organize her office". ;) > > fu2: cola Good for her. Let me know if you're going to then be selling the Studio, as I'd not mind picking up another one at the right specs/price. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-16 05:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vma658$3cm4n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684090 |
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:33:26 -0500, -hh wrote: > IMO the mini had historically been Apple's product to promote desktop > customers to migrate from Windows, but its shortcomings have centered > around how 90% of the market ignored it because it wasn't a laptop, and > the other 10% are tower fetish geeks who were offended because it > couldn't easily address every possible niche/corner use case. Everything Apple sells in its “Macintosh” range is effectively a laptop now, just packaged differently. In its move to ARM chips, it has completely sacrificed all the traditional expandability that came with desktop/workstation machines.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-16 06:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vmaqfu$3fd0d$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684119 |
On 1/16/25 12:40 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:33:26 -0500, -hh wrote: > >> IMO the mini had historically been Apple's product to promote desktop >> customers to migrate from Windows, but its shortcomings have centered >> around how 90% of the market ignored it because it wasn't a laptop, and >> the other 10% are tower fetish geeks who were offended because it >> couldn't easily address every possible niche/corner use case. > > Everything Apple sells in its “Macintosh” range is effectively a laptop > now, just packaged differently. In its move to ARM chips, it has > completely sacrificed all the traditional expandability that came with > desktop/workstation machines. Yeah, so? Over 80% of the total PC market today are laptops. The old school paradigm of getting elbows-deep into component upgrades is a niche that's going to continue to be considered irrelevant by the mainstream: I've already seen some components whose prices are far higher than what they _should_ be, as state-of-the-shelf commodities. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-27 22:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vn92h1$19o0q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684122 |
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 06:27:58 -0500, -hh wrote: > On 1/16/25 12:40 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> Everything Apple sells in its “Macintosh” range is effectively a laptop >> now, just packaged differently. In its move to ARM chips, it has >> completely sacrificed all the traditional expandability that came with >> desktop/workstation machines. > > Yeah, so? > > Over 80% of the total PC market today are laptops. > > The old school paradigm of getting elbows-deep into component upgrades > is a niche that's going to continue to be considered irrelevant by the > mainstream ... Maybe not. Found this article <https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/intel-proposes-easily-repairable-and-sustainable-modular-pc-design-for-laptops-and-mini-pcs> indicating a trend in the opposite direction, where Intel wants to break a laptop motherboard into three separate main pieces, to allow easier replacement/repair/upgrading. Note also that the Framework company has been doing this sort of thing with its laptops for years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-15 14:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d63goj9qcpdk1q2o6ah4r1sq5r776dfdb7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #684081 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >On 1/15/25 10:46 AM, Joel wrote: >> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> Linux is the only option worth pursuing. macOS is weird and >>>> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief. >>> >>> macOS is free. Just needs a $600 mac to run it on. >> >> Windows Home preinstalled on volume-produced gear is virtually free, >> self-installed Linux completely free, but yes that "$600" you cite >> isn't cheap for the device it buys. That OS upgrades are free is just >> to incentivize buying/using an Apple device. > >Where said "isn't cheap" $600 is ~half what Joel's already spent... > >...or for when the Lady protests too much, after deducting off his >alleged $200 mistake of a second Windows OS license, roughly 50% less >($600 vs ($1150 - $200 = $950). > >But don't let actual math get in one's way of a good narrative! /s You keep including my monitor or video card or something, those were choice add-ons that I could've trivially avoided with another HD monitor. -- 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 | 2025-01-15 15:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vm976v$33jmh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684096 |
On 1/15/25 2:32 PM, Joel wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >> On 1/15/25 10:46 AM, Joel wrote: >>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> Linux is the only option worth pursuing. macOS is weird and >>>>> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief. >>>> >>>> macOS is free. Just needs a $600 mac to run it on. >>> >>> Windows Home preinstalled on volume-produced gear is virtually free, >>> self-installed Linux completely free, but yes that "$600" you cite >>> isn't cheap for the device it buys. That OS upgrades are free is just >>> to incentivize buying/using an Apple device. >> >> Where said "isn't cheap" $600 is ~half what Joel's already spent... >> >> ...or for when the Lady protests too much, after deducting off his >> alleged $200 mistake of a second Windows OS license, roughly 50% less >> ($600 vs ($1150 - $200 = $950). >> >> But don't let actual math get in one's way of a good narrative! /s > > > You keep including my monitor or video card or something, those were > choice add-ons that I could've trivially avoided with another HD > monitor. > Monitor? Nope. Video Card? Yup: because you said that even though you'd researched your gear, you quickly realized that you screwed up as the i5's included one was inadequate for your desires. But even if we subtract off the $100 you spent here, its still $600 vs your $850 spent But do feel free to provide a detailed cost list. Because even the $100 you spent on the video card is subtracted off too, your $850 spent is still higher than $600, but now its only by +30%. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-15 20:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vm9nn9$36us4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684101 |
On Wed, 1/15/2025 3:52 PM, -hh wrote: > On 1/15/25 2:32 PM, Joel wrote: >> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>> On 1/15/25 10:46 AM, Joel wrote: >>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Linux is the only option worth pursuing. macOS is weird and >>>>>> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief. >>>>> >>>>> macOS is free. Just needs a $600 mac to run it on. >>>> >>>> Windows Home preinstalled on volume-produced gear is virtually free, >>>> self-installed Linux completely free, but yes that "$600" you cite >>>> isn't cheap for the device it buys. That OS upgrades are free is just >>>> to incentivize buying/using an Apple device. >>> >>> Where said "isn't cheap" $600 is ~half what Joel's already spent... >>> >>> ...or for when the Lady protests too much, after deducting off his >>> alleged $200 mistake of a second Windows OS license, roughly 50% less >>> ($600 vs ($1150 - $200 = $950). >>> >>> But don't let actual math get in one's way of a good narrative! /s >> >> >> You keep including my monitor or video card or something, those were >> choice add-ons that I could've trivially avoided with another HD >> monitor. >> > > Monitor? Nope. > > Video Card? Yup: because you said that even though you'd researched your gear, you quickly realized that you screwed up as the i5's included one was inadequate for your desires. But even if we subtract off the $100 you spent here, its still $600 vs your $850 spent > > But do feel free to provide a detailed cost list. > > Because even the $100 you spent on the video card is subtracted off too, your $850 spent is still higher than $600, but now its only by +30%. > > > -hh But you have control of your expenses. It all depends on your objectives and budget. An upgrade could be $500 or it could be $2000. If you build your own computers, you can reuse PSU, computer case (my daily driver case is 25 years old), keyboard, mouse, and so on. My daily driver case, I think that's about the fourth motherboard. An upgrade can be mobo, CPU, RAM. Maybe $200 for mobo, $100 for some RAM, $150 for CPU. It wouldn't be much of an upgrade, but it would depend on what you were driving previously. The trick to hitting points like this, is to look at trailing-edge parts. When the kids are buying DDR5 systems, you buy a DDR4 system. As long as the market has some legs, a few reduced-cost motherboards will be issued in a second wave (intended to "mop up" the old processors), offering a small savings. The RAM can be cheaper to quite a lot cheaper, than the current generation RAM (DDR5). The CPUs start off strong on price, but if you wait long enough, the price of the lower end ones comes down. The apex processor, the price does not usually drop enough to make that an option for a budget consumer. As long as the CPU has an iGPU, that "reduces the video card tax on building a system". I have a 5600G and a 5700G, and those have an iGPU. Can I play Crysis at 30FPS. No. I can only play solitaire on those. They have movie decoders, so movie playback does not load the machine at all. To get the top CPU clock speed, you usually end up buying a lot of cores you might not have wanted or needed. They don't usually make 2 core CPUS that run at 6GHz. If they did, we would buy those... because they would be very useful and offer a "kick" the normal spread of CPUs does not offer. You can use the Windows OS with the infinite grace period if you want, or you can get one of those $20 licenses off the Internet instead. Some people in the newsgroup here, have partaken of the bargain items. No particular drama to mention. Sometimes one of those keys does not work, but the merchant doesn't usually make a fuss and another key will be sent. ******* The enthusiast sites have more info, if you need it. https://www.tomshardware.com/best-picks/best-pc-builds-gaming Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-16 00:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vma9mg$3d5vi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684115 |
On 1/15/25 7:34 PM, Paul wrote: > The enthusiast sites have more info, if you need it. > > https://www.tomshardware.com/best-picks/best-pc-builds-gaming $500 computer is a "budget" computer these days? Hehe :) What do you guys do with your computers? I bet you grab it tight and it takes you with it to a Jupiter flyby. Hahhahhahh :-) Well, nothing wrong with enthusiasm, but enthusiasm is different from fooling yourselves. Be mindful of the trap that the _less_ you might need a computer to begin with, the more your brains may want to trick you into paying high prices for it to somehow fill that void, making it look like something worthwhile is getting done. I've seen such mind tricks among gun lovers also. Even in those Shoe freaks. $1500 for a pair of sneakers..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web