Windows 10 - free upgrade to those with PC using Windows 7 or 8 - Page 38

HarryT · 05-15-2015, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschwartz

In this context, they would presumably have to know enough about using it for your metric to kick in -- that it matters to them what OS they are using, because knowing so grants them the ability to use it more effectively.

i.e. a lot of people only know how to run a program from a desktop icon, in fact I am reminded vividly of some of Hitch's rants about incompetent clients who didn't know what a file was nor how to download one from an email.

No, the primary reason I said they need to know what o/s they're using is so they know which o/s to buy programs for. It's no use buying a Mac program if you have a Windows PC, or vice versa. This is certainly alleviated by the introduction of "App Stores" within the o/s, however.

wodin · 05-15-2015, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wodin

MacOS was built on a Unix kernel, but no one including Apple would suggest that Macs ran Unix, at least out of the box.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcentros

Actually, a friend of mine builds "turnkey," open-source business systems, using PostgreSQL running on Mac Minis. The Desktop is incidental to these machines. He says he'll may eventually go to Linux but the Mac Minis fill the bill and he's used to them. I don't think he's alone in using Macs this way.

Uhh... How is that "out of the box"?

j.p.s · 05-15-2015, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by murg

There are many operating systems out there.

Windows and Linux are but two of them.

Linux is very similar to Unix, but it is a different operating system. There are many flavours of Unix. And even more flavours of Linux.

Maybe the problem is labeling OS distributions for desktops and laptops that use the linux kernel as linux. Stallman is nearly universally lambasted for requesting that they be called GNU/linux.

Should a distribution built on a BSD kernel with all the same configuarations, utilities, and applications as a GNU/linux distribution be called linux? The situation is a bit muddy because it is no longer theoretical because it is being done. But just because it has come full circle does not change the fact that the utilities and applications that were present in the first systems using the linux kernel were written by people using UNIX and its cousins.

j.p.s · 05-15-2015, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wodin

MacOS was built on a Unix kernel, but no one including Apple would suggest that Macs ran Unix, at least out of the box.

I think of it as almost close enough when I am logged in remotely. Fortunately, I almost never have to use the directly attached keyboard and mouse on those that have them.

eschwartz · 05-15-2015, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, the primary reason I said they need to know what o/s they're using is so they know which o/s to buy programs for. It's no use buying a Mac program if you have a Windows PC, or vice versa. This is certainly alleviated by the introduction of "App Stores" within the o/s, however.

I suppose that is a useful metric. For recognizing a Windows computer, since most other OSes/systems have had builtin app stores for quite a long time.

But I have to wonder how many people ever install things on their computers... on purpose, that is.

eschwartz · 05-15-2015, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Maybe the problem is labeling OS distributions for desktops and laptops that use the linux kernel as linux. Stallman is nearly universally lambasted for requesting that they be called GNU/linux.

Should a distribution built on a BSD kernel with all the same configuarations, utilities, and applications as a GNU/linux distribution be called linux? The situation is a bit muddy because it is no longer theoretical because it is being done. But just because it has come full circle does not change the fact that the utilities and applications that were present in the first systems using the linux kernel were written by people using UNIX and its cousins.

I agree that is probably the problem.

I believe the original challenge was for linux to ever be useful to end users in a general context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizwor

Linux has been brimming with potential since my grown children were in diapers. There's a reason why they don't charge for it.

Oddly enough, the majority of people on this forum are active Linux users and have paid for the privilege.

Since linux is just a kernel, I feel justified saying Android has done that.

If anyone (wizwor?) wants to argue that twm will never fulfill its potential -- I have no intention of arguing the opposition.

LadyKate · 05-15-2015, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rbneader

Let me put it this way:

Say you bought a car in 2001. At first you got regular oil checkups, etc. Then you thought "Why bother? It runs fine and is rock-solid".

Now it's years later. That car might still run fine, but there are serious problems developing that you won't know about until too late. It needs more than regular maintenance now. It needs brake replacement, etc. Same thing with your PC - eventually, it needs an OS upgrade.

Or let me try another way - you put on a coat when you go into freezing cold, and flush the toilet when you're done right? Upgrading the OS is the same kind of health-and-safety issue.

Yes, upgrades can suck as much as flossing regularly. And yes, it's tempting to skip it just like people skip flossing. But it's not just your PC that's the issue. It's that your old, out-dated PC is very probably part of a botnet that is being used to commit crimes and harm others. Unless it's not connected to the internet in any way - no WiFi, no land line - this is a very real possibility. There were hundreds of data breaches this year. Millions of people lost money and had to deal with identity theft. Major companies got taken offline repeatedly. Botnets and hijacked computers are significant part of the problem, and the vast majority are of them are made of old computers with old OSes like XP.

Old OSes like XP aren't safe anymore. They are fundamentally incapable of being safe now. I will be happy to discuss technical details if you want, but the inescapable point is this: Internet-connected computers that run XP are dangerous to their owners and make the internet less safe for everyone else.

There are free alternatives to Windows if money is the issue. There are many different options with different interfaces or designs if workflow is the issue. But whatever the issue is, it needs to stop outweighing basic health and safety.

What about all those programs which will no longer work?

When my last XP machine died I lost the use of several programs which will not install on the newer operating systems.

shalym · 05-15-2015, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyKate

What about all those programs which will no longer work?

When my last XP machine died I lost the use of several programs which will not install on the newer operating systems.

Hmmm...I didn't realize that was an actual issue. I know that I was able to install some games that were made for Windows 95 onto my Windows 8 PC (one of them works better on Windows 8 than it did on XP, actually) Can you give me an example of some programs that won't work on Windows 8 but did work on XP?

Shari

BWinmill · 05-15-2015, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shalym

Hmmm...I didn't realize that was an actual issue. I know that I was able to install some games that were made for Windows 95 onto my Windows 8 PC (one of them works better on Windows 8 than it did on XP, actually) Can you give me an example of some programs that won't work on Windows 8 but did work on XP?

I can't think of any particular titles off of the top of my head, but a lot of Windows 95 era software developed for the education market had trouble with Windows Vista. Those issues would carry into Windows 7 and 8. Microsoft also removed support for Windows 3.x era software in 64 bit versions of Windows, which turns out to be an issue with a few Windows 95 applications as well (which periodically shipped with Windows 3.x era components).

Difflugia · 05-16-2015, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shalym

Hmmm...I didn't realize that was an actual issue. I know that I was able to install some games that were made for Windows 95 onto my Windows 8 PC (one of them works better on Windows 8 than it did on XP, actually) Can you give me an example of some programs that won't work on Windows 8 but did work on XP?

Shari

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWinmill

I can't think of any particular titles off of the top of my head, but a lot of Windows 95 era software developed for the education market had trouble with Windows Vista. Those issues would carry into Windows 7 and 8. Microsoft also removed support for Windows 3.x era software in 64 bit versions of Windows, which turns out to be an issue with a few Windows 95 applications as well (which periodically shipped with Windows 3.x era components).

Anything built with a 16-bit compiler, which includes any software that would run in Windows 3.1, won't run on 64-bit Vista or later. I've got an ancient copy of Civilization that won't run in recent versions of Windows.

There's enough business software that fits the bill that Microsoft offers downloads of "XP Mode", which is an XP hard drive image that runs in a virtual machine.

murg · 05-16-2015, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWinmill

I can't think of any particular titles off of the top of my head, but a lot of Windows 95 era software developed for the education market had trouble with Windows Vista. Those issues would carry into Windows 7 and 8. Microsoft also removed support for Windows 3.x era software in 64 bit versions of Windows, which turns out to be an issue with a few Windows 95 applications as well (which periodically shipped with Windows 3.x era components).

You can spin up at Windows XP virtual machine under Windows 8.1.

HarryT · 05-16-2015, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shalym

Hmmm...I didn't realize that was an actual issue. I know that I was able to install some games that were made for Windows 95 onto my Windows 8 PC (one of them works better on Windows 8 than it did on XP, actually) Can you give me an example of some programs that won't work on Windows 8 but did work on XP?

Shari

The specific issue is that 64-bit Windows has removed support for 16-bit software. A lot of older software used 16-bit installation programs, and hence will not install on 64-bit Windows.

GERGE · 05-16-2015, 05:07 AM

If your OS is using Linux kernel, then you are using Linux. What else there is to discuss?

HarryT · 05-16-2015, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GERGE

If your OS is using Linux kernel, then you are using Linux. What else there is to discuss?

So if my washing machine uses Linux in its embedded controller, you reckon that makes me a Linux user?

GERGE · 05-16-2015, 06:16 AM

Yes, then you are using Linux. Just because you don't know how to use it, even know that you are actually using it, doesn't mean that you do not use it. You are clearly using something with a Linux kernel after all. You make use of Linux.

If you determine using something as knowing how to use internals well, then you could even claim those using Ubuntu or Arch as their OS doesn't use Linux. My aunt uses Xubuntu but only opens Chrome and LibreOffice. That is all. I don't think she even knows how to use the file manager. Is she a Chrome user, or Linux user? Again, you could build same analogy for Chrome and OS X too.

Using something and knowing how to use something are quite different.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Windows 7 upgrade to 2.16 issue	Phssthpok	Devices	6	01-29-2015 03:55 PM
Moving Calibre Library from Windows 7 to Windows 8 - json code issue	DramaQueenLucy	Devices	14	11-12-2013 11:47 AM
Did your Upgrade work ? Windows Versions	PeterT	Kobo Reader	18	07-03-2010 08:19 PM

05-16-2015, 05:07 AM	#568
GERGE Guru Posts: 733 Karma: 5797160 Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Istanbul Device: Kobo Libra	If your OS is using Linux kernel, then you are using Linux. What else there is to discuss?

05-16-2015, 06:16 AM	#570
GERGE Guru Posts: 733 Karma: 5797160 Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Istanbul Device: Kobo Libra	Yes, then you are using Linux. Just because you don't know how to use it, even know that you are actually using it, doesn't mean that you do not use it. You are clearly using something with a Linux kernel after all. You make use of Linux. If you determine using something as knowing how to use internals well, then you could even claim those using Ubuntu or Arch as their OS doesn't use Linux. My aunt uses Xubuntu but only opens Chrome and LibreOffice. That is all. I don't think she even knows how to use the file manager. Is she a Chrome user, or Linux user? Again, you could build same analogy for Chrome and OS X too. Using something and knowing how to use something are quite different.