OT Has w7 slowed down recently

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:

Yes, I know how to do all that as well, but 99% of PC buyers just
want to plug it in and use Windows.

It's a bit more than that. Windows is only a small part of it from the
user's point of view. They want to use the standard, common,
applications that run on a Windows PC.

They also want telephone technical support when they can't understand
how to do something. They want to know how to run programs, how to load
and save files, how to connect to a wireless network etc, all explained
click by click in words of no more than two syllables. How many
companies provide this for Linux?

Can't give you any numbers. But Red Hat, for example, seem to make a decent
turnover out of providing support.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Martin
wrote:
On Sun, 13 May 2012 12:24:10 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Martin
wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2012 17:34:40 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:


Yes, this is a consequence of people being trained/habituated into
"Computer = Windows" with no awaress of though of any alternatives.
Although it is interesting that many seem happy to adopt android (or
ithingies) for non-desktop uses. Perhaps because it falls outside the
'home/office' mental compartment.

No it isn't. The majority of PC users aren't interested in ****ing about
trying to find applications and drivers that will run on Linux, when
they are all there already on Windows and in general better than the
equivalents on offer to Linux users. There are many experienced computer
users, including myself who switched to Linux and then switched back to
Windows.


When did you try "Linux" and "switch back"? What distro(s) and what
release dates? I can see your claims would have stood up a decade or more
ago. I tried Red Hat about a decade ago and rapidly gave up on it.

But nowdays distros like *buntu tend to come with a set of apps that seem
to me would cover most home/office tasks, and I've not had to install a
'driver' for anything. My printers, scanners, etc, just work.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Although I would be happier with one where the code was all
open source and to save the millions of pounds per year we export to the
USA for commercial OSs.

Yeah, but let's be fair about this: it's Americans who wrote all our
most popular operating systems (Windows, Linux, OS X, Android). Also
many of the others that are now in decline: Palm OS, WebOS, etc.

(I should have written "Linux" in quotation marks, because a Linux
distro is vastly more than just the kernel, obviously.)

--
SteveT

Jim Lesurf wrote:

I had thought that MS had said they will be porting Windows to ARM
systems...

Well, they've already done that with Windows 8. They've also produced
ARM variants of some of their big apps, such as MS Office.

But none of the vast number of other Windows applications in the world
will run on the ARM unless they are recompiled.

In fact, ARM-based Windows 8 machines only support WinRT programs, so
in fact just recompiling won't work, either - they will need a
substantial rewrite to use the new runtime (as opposed to using
Win32/64 or .NET).

--
SteveT

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Which is fine *if* the *user* can *choose* to modify this as and when
they
may choose. Not fine if only the hardware maker can do this, and refuses
to
permit it, or makes hardware where it is essentially impossible after
manufacture.

Hmmmm..... that kind of thing is important to only a few people though,
so I don't think you can argue that it is important *in principle*.

For instance, I've no idea how to install a new OS into my TV, my NAS
box, my WD media player, and so on. It may well be that the maker has
made it effectively impossible. But I don't care because I don't want
to change them, and I certainly don't support the argument that I
should be able to *in principle*.

Why should I? I bought it for what it is. If I'd wanted something
else I'd have bought something else. Are you *honestly* annoyed that
you can't install a different OS into your television? Should Sony be
forced to allow it?

The only thing that matters to me is that I *can* buy something else (a
computer not locked to Windows, in this case) if I want to. And,
although we may differ on this, I am absolutely satisfied that I will
always be able to do so (not least because I always build my PCs from
individual components).

--
SteveT

Peter Duncanson wrote:

I'm sorry - people don't "adopt" Android. They buy a device which does
what they want.

I absolutely agree, at least when we are talking about 99% of the
buying public. Most of them have only a vague idea of what an OS is,
what it does, and what OSs are available on mobile phones and tablets.

Remember: to virtually everyone apart from we geeks, these products are
just gadgets that do clever tricks.

--
SteveT

Martin wrote:

No it isn't. The majority of PC users aren't interested in ****ing
about trying to find applications and drivers that will run on Linux,
when they are all there already on Windows and in general better than
the equivalents on offer to Linux users. There are many experienced
computer users, including myself who switched to Linux and then
switched back to Windows.

That describes me, exactly. I've been trying Linux distros ever since
Linux first appeared. My current favourite is Mint.

But I'll tell you what: even Mint feels like a raggedy box of bits
compared with Windows 7 (because that's what it is).

--
SteveT

On Monday, May 14th, 2012, at 18:27:06h +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

that kind of thing is important to only a few people though,
so I don't think you can argue that it is important *in principle*.

Your logic is totally flawed.

It is irrelevant how important to how few people something is,
whether ot not it is important in principle.

Now the principle may be wrong and you may have a very good
argument against it, but trying to argue that something is
not important in principle based on numbers is a utilitarian
mindset just not interested in the principles.

On Monday, May 14th, 2012, at 18:27:06h +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Are you *honestly* annoyed that you can't install a different OS
into your television?

Because it is Linux based?

Actually people are working on replacement firmware for models of Samsung TVs.

http://www.samygo.TV/

Should Sony be forced to allow it?

Should Samsung stop distributing firmware upgrades to prevent
people from changing firmware and even going so far as to
prevent downgrading back to older firmware to make changing
firmware possible?

The only thing that matters to me is that I *can* buy something else (a
computer not locked to Windows, in this case) if I want to. And,
although we may differ on this,

I am absolutely satisfied that I will always be able to do so

Not if Micro$oft Corporation forces BIOS manufacturers to only
allow Windoze to be booted.

J G Miller wrote:

Should Samsung stop distributing firmware upgrades to prevent
people from changing firmware and even going so far as to
prevent downgrading back to older firmware to make changing
firmware possible?

See also: Tivoization