Random News not worthy of own thread

[mr.WHO]

Win 10 losing support in 2025. Win 11 coming.
https://www.laptopmag.com/news/windows- ... w-imminent

I wonder if they will offer free upgrade, like they did from Win7/8 to Win10.

[pjknibbs]

So much for Windows 10 being the last version of Windows ever, I guess...

[mr.WHO]

So much for Windows 10 being the last version of Windows ever, I guess...

Unless it will be just an upgraded Win10 with fancy new name and option for free upgrade from Win10 for all users.

In last 2 years I saw plenty of articles about next new Windows and more or less they always say it's just a upgraded Win10 core with some more features (e.g. WIn for phones with two touch screens).

This would actually be somehow consistent.

[greypanther]

So much for Windows 10 being the last version of Windows ever, I guess...

This would actually be somehow consistent.

Surely though, it is still a lie? Another example of repairing something, even though it is not broken, just for profitsssss my precious?

[Mightysword]

Surely though, it is still a lie? Another example of repairing something, even though it is not broken, just for profitsssss my precious?

What profit though? They gave everyone 2 (or 3 years) of free upgrade, and I heard you can push for it after that. In fact I just upgrade to win 10 this years and I paid ... $20? It maybe a hip thing to crap on evil cooperations but you know ... sometime it's just necessary. It's not like technology both good and bad (hackers) gonna just stands still because MS stop putting out new Windows.

Free to peanut cost for a critical product that comes with a decade of free upgrade, I don't think it's worth to complain ... unless you're working as an IT for a large company and have to deal with upgrade/migration, but that's your job and it's hardly exclusive with Windows but any operating system, include non-profit opensource.

[felter]

@ felter: I'm just curious, so would you rather that Boris did not take a stance on inequality at the G7 Summit?

I don't think they (the G7) understands what inequality actually is, especially Boris, I'm sure if you asked him what inequality is he would come out with something along the lines of:

the unfair situation in society when some people have more opportunities, money, etc. than other people:

But if you were to ask him to clarify it with an example, I'm sure he would struggle to give a coherent answer. His own life has been about inequality and he doesn't even see it, he even practices it all the time as he treats certain people with not a thought or care and I can give a prime example: Today Katherine Rowley a deaf campaigner started legal action against Johnson's government over the lack of a sign language interpreter at his nationwide covid briefings. Both the Scottish Government a Welsh Government never had that issue with interpreters on hand at all briefings but not at any of Johnsons. And to top it all off, rather than admitting they made a mistake, they are trying to defend what they did, with some lame excuses and ignorance. Now that's a prime example of inequality and it is only one there are a lot more surrounding Boris.

[Alan Phipps]

You didn't really answer my question. Whatever Boris personally is or isn't (and I leave that as probably subject to entrenched individual opinion and therefore not really up for debate here), surely it is better that a powerful body such as the G7 at least consider and discuss some equality measures, rather than ignore it all and carry on as before?

[BaronVerde]

Plug it into the browser's search bar, various articels name the G7 summit 'a total fail' to address inequality, climate change, or in short, what is intended for. Those guys don't do their work. Insofar, I think it is safe to classify them as "a waste of carbon" (after one probably well known NPC ) and their words as meaningless and distracting.

Random news item, from the moderate side:
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/11/uk/c ... index.html

Hey, I am not trying to be divisive, just love to debate

[burger1]

It looks like windows 11 might have some different hardware requirements than 10? Haven't really looked into it yet just reposting. Looks like you can bypass some of the requirements maybe through various means.

CPU: a 1 GHz or faster dual-core or higher 64-bit processor or System on a Chip
Memory: 4 GB RAM
Storage: 64 GB
TPM: Trusted Platform Module (TPM) version 2.0
Graphics card: DirectX 12 compatible graphics / WDDM 2.x
Display: A greater than 9-inch display of 720p or higher

[Vertigo 7]

Yeah, they're dropping legacy bios and 32 bit platforms completely. Secure Boot and TPM 2.0 seem to be the gate keepers for moving to 11. Free upgrade if you meet the requirements, at least.

I do like what I saw, though. Seems like they've done much to maximize the desktop experience. I'm interested to play around with the new snapping feature... 3 monitors on my desk and still seem to run out of space for stuff.

[pjknibbs]

I do like what I saw, though. Seems like they've done much to maximize the desktop experience. I'm interested to play around with the new snapping feature... 3 monitors on my desk and still seem to run out of space for stuff.

As the late, great Terry Pratchett once said, "People ask me why I have six monitors on my PC, and I tell them it's because I couldn't fit eight."

[CBJ]

I was starting to get vaguely interested in Windows 11 until I read the specifications page, particularly the parts where it says it requires a Microsoft account to install, and where it lists all the things that have been removed from the Start menu and the Taskbar. I can't imagine the first of those changing, and I'll be avoiding it for as long as is practical on that basis, but I'd hope that in the meantime, customer feedback might at least get them to reconsider this latest in their long line of attempts to prevent users from setting up their desktop for productivity instead of just aesthetics.

[Redvers Ganderpoke]

Looks like some of my perfectly usable pcs won't upgrade, so might have to switch them to Linux eventually.

[Vertigo 7]

I was starting to get vaguely interested in Windows 11 until I read the specifications page, particularly the parts where it says it requires a Microsoft account to install, and where it lists all the things that have been removed from the Start menu and the Taskbar. I can't imagine the first of those changing, and I'll be avoiding it for as long as is practical on that basis, but I'd hope that in the meantime, customer feedback might at least get them to reconsider this latest in their long line of attempts to prevent users from setting up their desktop for productivity instead of just aesthetics.

Betcha anything that's so activations are tied to an account you own so you don't have to deal with reactivation issues. That's something they added to Windows 10 and has made moving to a new machine or making hardware changes to a current one a non-issue as far as Windows licensing is concerned. I've gone through hardware upgrades and new builds myself and all it took was for me to sign in with my MS account and the license transferred right away.

[BaronVerde]

I really see no reason (except for the hardcore gamers) not to switch to Linux at least on a private PC. With all the documentation, different desktops, free development environment, all of a sudden, the machine is much more transparent, responsive, controllable and will make fun again

May I suggest to newcomers to try out Debian stable and the XFCE desktop. With a bit of reason during partitioning (separate home and root, and keep your work in separate directory structures so you can easily backup without having to care for specific configuration files), installing another flavour or desktop is just a lunch brake.

[Vertigo 7]

I really see no reason (except for the hardcore gamers) not to switch to Linux at least on a private PC. With all the documentation, different desktops, free development environment, all of a sudden, the machine is much more transparent, responsive, controllable and will make fun again

May I suggest to newcomers to try out Debian stable and the XFCE desktop. With a bit of reason during partitioning (separate home and root, and keep your work in separate directory structures so you can easily backup without having to care for specific configuration files), installing another flavour or desktop is just a lunch brake.

Maybe try linux in a VM before you blow away your desktop. Most end users moving from Windows to Linux will face a steep learning curve with limited support that makes the complaints of something moving from the taskbar a minor gripe by comparison. Not to mention the majority of the software they'll be used to won't likely be available for Linux without some whackydo work around that they'll not likely be able to just make work.

[BaronVerde]

Na, don't bother with VMs. You can do later if you wish and your work makes necessary, e.g. development in a safe environment.

To start over with Linux just grab a used PC and install it with a simple desktop, no dual boot or such nonsense (though it works technically), no flashy KDE or Gnome and there won't be much of a learning curve except from the usual 'does my software run or is there an equivalent'. Of course, depends a bit on the personal attitude, but the curve is much flatter than what I read happens between windows versions.

A bit of learning would be necessary for the command line, if one wishes to go there (which can happen sooner or later), but not initially. (A dummy introduction to the CL: https://www.amazon.com/Linux-Command-Li ... 463&sr=8-1)

I mean, I am not talking about mere gaming and mouse shifting. That's not where Linux shines. Well, it does performance wise, but depending on the desktop it doesn't hide as much as windows does. The Linux family of OSes are not per se graphical, a server runs perfectly without or with just a simple window manager. The desktops can be seen as wrappers around the underlying functionality, which is well documented including the source code. Windows users tend to judge an OS by its graphical appearance because they were so told, but it is probably best to resist the urge of learning a specific desktop, after a few tries here and there, which may include the one or other curse or ink stain upon the wall , one chooses the desktop that fits best the personal preferences.

Edit: I just realized that I shamelessly hijacked the news item to lure people away from windows

[Vertigo 7]

Na, don't bother with VMs. You can do later if you wish and your work makes necessary, e.g. development in a safe environment.

To start over with Linux just grab a used PC and install it with a simple desktop, no dual boot or such nonsense (though it works technically), no flashy KDE or Gnome and there won't be much of a learning curve except from the usual 'runs my software or is there an equivalent'. Of course, depends a bit on the personal attitude, but the curve is much flatter than what I read happens between windows versions.

Yeah, cause everyone just has old computers laying around Windows 10 pro/enterprise/education all have the ability to install hyper-v for free and anyone can spin up VMs to install whatever flavor of linux they like to see if they even wanna use it without having to make space for another computer or risk the data on their primary machine. There's also 3rd party hypervisors available on the web. Or, even simpler, live linux discs can give them a hands on opportunity with little effort.

And what makes you think the shifting of things around in the start menu is a steeper learning curve than going to a completely different OS that can emulate the windows desktop, at best?

A bit of learning would be necessary for the command line, if one wishes to go there (which will happen sonner or later), but not initially. (A dummy introduction to the CL: https://www.amazon.com/Linux-Command-Li ... 463&sr=8-1)

I mean, I am not talking about mere gaming and mouse shifting. That's not where Linux shines. Well, it does performance wise, but depending on the desktop it doesn't hide as much as windows does. The Linux family of OSes are not per se graphical, a server runs perfectly without or with just a simple window manager. The desktops can be seen as wrappers around the underlying functionality, which is well documented including the source code. Windows users tend to judge an OS by its graphical appearance because they were so told, but it is probably best to resist the urge of learning a specific desktop, after a few tries here and there, which may include the one or other curse or ink stain at the wall , one chooses the one that fits best the personal preferences.

Edit: I just realized that I shamelessly hijacked the news item to lure people away from windows

Cosmetic improvements were never the point of new versions of windows, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

Lemme ask you this... if learning where things have been moved to in the newer version of Windows is sooooooo hard for folks, how do you think they're going to cope with a Linux desktop that isn't even remotely close to the way Windows is currently laid out? What makes you believe that's going to be easier for them to deal with?

[pjknibbs]

I'm afraid I'm on Vertigo 7's side here. I have no particular axe to grind--I've been experimenting with Linux, on and off, since I first bought a Debian CD via mail order in 1995. And what it always comes back to is, no matter how much friendlier or nicer or prettier the particular variant of Linux I'm using might be, there will come a point where I want to do something that I know would be simple in Windows and it proves to be an absolute nightmare in Linux. What I want from my OS is to run the programs I want to run and stay out of the way at all other times, and even now, Linux isn't quite there on that front.

[BaronVerde]

No fears or worries !

Yeah, Linux follows a different philosophy than Windows. I switched with the advent of Windows 7. Funny thing is, in my opinion Linux is much less in the way than windows. And let me stress that again, Linux, other than windows, is not defined or even characterized by the graphical desktop. I know this is hard to understand for someone used to windows. Linux is a family of OSs from all kinds of small and embedded devices over PCs up to mainframes and supercomputers (which all run Linux). The desktop surface (if one is needed or wanted) can be chosen from a huge variety of flavours, a computer can even run different window- or desktop managers and environments over different protocols to different users (the big computers do that ofc), or the same user on different monitors, or by switching workspaces on the same monitor, or no graphical inteface at all, or any permutation of these. This may sound somewhat theoretical and not of much use for daily work just on a PC, but for those who like some fun, there they go I think that points out the differences between the two approaches quite well.

Besides the already mentioned differences (source code open to anyone, fully documented, quick, responsive, doesn't block when doing background stuff like updates, doesn't lure or require users into registering anywhere or into a cloud or social network, etc.), there's another thing that motivated me using it: getting into programming. There is everything and much more one needs to get going with any reasonable programming language and API one has never heard of before. On debian it's a 'sudo apt-get install build-essential' to install the base for a variety of languages, C and C++ included.

Wouldn't that be a nice distraction ?