I may yet put
Debian 13 on this thing, instead, but for now, I'm experimenting with
keeping the essentially free Windows Pro OS it came with, probably not
really a true Microsoft OEM partner, but in a way better, not being the
Home edition.
keeping the essentially free Windows Pro OS it came with, probably not
really a true Microsoft OEM partner, but in a way better, not being the
Home edition.
I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have them.
I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have them.
On 8/24/2025 10:35 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have
them.
Which Linux distros have “backdoors”?
I shouldn't have to tell you, if you were aware, paying attention to the clues.
... the national-security agency has eyes on online life ...
GNU/Linux might be a free OS but the distros are going to have
relationships with government/industry.
W dniu 25.08.2025 o 04:27, Joel W. Crump pisze:
I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have
them.
OT: Is this "double negation"? I remember from English language course,
that this is prohibited by its grammar. Isn't it?!?
W dniu 25.08.2025 o 04:27, Joel W. Crump pisze:
I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have them.
OT: Is this "double negation"? I remember from English language course,
that this is prohibited by its grammar. Isn't it?!?
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 23:10:47 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 10:35 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have
them.
Which Linux distros have “backdoors”?
I shouldn't have to tell you, if you were aware, paying attention to the
clues.
It’s all Open Source -- remember, “Many Eyes Make All Bugs Shallow”. What
do you think the people have missed?
Government *is* international - as is the online world. The NSA and big
tech are peers of other countries' related organizations.
Oh really, sir, you have disassembled the distros' binaries, to ensure
they are faithful to the open source?
If it's not a backdoor, it's definitely a "phoning home" thing, code
that monitors the user.
On 8/25/2025 3:11 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Government *is* international - as is the online world. The NSA
and big tech are peers of other countries' related organizations.
Except your current regime is part of the crowd that hates the UN.
My Bluesky profile's headline says I favor overthrowing the Trump administration.
On 8/25/2025 3:13 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
If it's not a backdoor, it's definitely a "phoning home" thing, code
that monitors the user.
Do you have any evidence of this?
Remember, you have extensive monitoring tools for this very purpose,
available in all the common Linux distros.
The first time I installed Debian, many years ago, on an ancient system,
when it booted it instantly hacked into my neighbor's WiFi to phone
home.
On 8/25/2025 3:49 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Government *is* international - as is the online world. The NSA and
big tech are peers of other countries' related organizations.
Except your current regime is part of the crowd that hates the UN.
My Bluesky profile's headline says I favor overthrowing the Trump
administration.
I’m sure you do, and I sympathize. But that doesn’t change the fact
that your claim that “Government is international” is quite at odds
with the way things really are, in the USA, the UK and elsewhere.
It's a fact, though, what do you call the embassies, the U.N.?
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 03:43:54 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/25/2025 3:13 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
If it's not a backdoor, it's definitely a "phoning home" thing, code
that monitors the user.
Do you have any evidence of this?
Remember, you have extensive monitoring tools for this very purpose,
available in all the common Linux distros.
The first time I installed Debian, many years ago, on an ancient
system,
when it booted it instantly hacked into my neighbor's WiFi to phone
home.
That doesn’t make sense. Debian doesn’t do anything you don’t tell it to
do.
It's a fact, though, what do you call the embassies, the U.N.?
On 8/25/2025 12:30 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
... the national-security agency has eyes on online life ...
Didn’t stop them contributing the SELinux source to the Linux kernel,
did it?
GNU/Linux might be a free OS but the distros are going to have
relationships with government/industry.
Remember that most of these distros are maintained by an international
bunch. Which “government/industry” do you think they have
“relationships”
with?
Government *is* international - as is the online world. The NSA and big
tech are peers of other countries' related organizations.
The online world *seems* international because lots of people and organizations realized that it is simply better to adopt the American standards for a change (TCP / IP stack) than create their own one. But
it is nowhere near as *international* as people think. China is
notorious for not allowing non-native tech companies on their shores,
except Apple and Microsoft.
The first time I installed Debian, many years ago, on an ancient
system, when it booted it instantly hacked into my neighbor's WiFi
to phone home.
That doesn’t make sense. Debian doesn’t do anything you don’t tell
it to do.
Of course it doesn't make sense, it was weird. The WiFi in question
had weak security. But it happened.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2025, Joel W. Crump wrote:
Embassies are dominions of *guest* nations gifted by the host nation as
It's a fact, though, what do you call the embassies, the U.N.?
a symbol of co-operation, trust, yada yada yada!
The U.N. is just a bunch of representatives from different countries
sitting under the same roof. They're nowhere near the same thing.
Sheesh, 'Muricans really need to learn geography!
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 23:10:47 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 10:35 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have
them.
Which Linux distros have “backdoors”?
I shouldn't have to tell you, if you were aware, paying attention to the
clues.
It’s all Open Source -- remember, “Many Eyes Make All Bugs Shallow”. What
do you think the people have missed?
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 02:35:12 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/25/2025 12:30 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
... the national-security agency has eyes on online life ...
Didn’t stop them contributing the SELinux source to the Linux kernel,
did it?
GNU/Linux might be a free OS but the distros are going to have
relationships with government/industry.
Remember that most of these distros are maintained by an international
bunch. Which “government/industry” do you think they have
“relationships”
with?
Government *is* international - as is the online world. The NSA and big
tech are peers of other countries' related organizations.
The online world *seems* international because lots of people and organizations realized that it is simply better to adopt the American standards for a change (TCP / IP stack) than create their own one. But it
is nowhere near as *international* as people think. China is notorious for not allowing non-native tech companies on their shores, except Apple and Microsoft.
Either way, it doesn't matter which operating system you use as long as
the Intel Management Engine is part of their line of processors as is
the Platform Security Processor for AMD. With that kind of backdoor in
the machine, you're just as insecure in Linux as you would be in Windows.
China is notorious for
not allowing non-native tech companies on their shores, except Apple and >Microsoft.
Win11 24H2's changes really are a breakthrough,
potentially at least,
CrudeSausage wrote:
Either way, it doesn't matter which operating system you use as long as
the Intel Management Engine is part of their line of processors as is
the Platform Security Processor for AMD. With that kind of backdoor in
the machine, you're just as insecure in Linux as you would be in Windows.
I call BS. AFAIK, the Intel Management Engine is not something that
is running, in most situations. It's for remote administration of
servers and such.
On 8/25/2025 5:29 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
The first time I installed Debian, many years ago, on an ancient
system, when it booted it instantly hacked into my neighbor's WiFi
to phone home.
That doesn’t make sense. Debian doesn’t do anything you don’t tell it
to do.
Of course it doesn't make sense, it was weird. The WiFi in question
had weak security. But it happened.
It asked you to pick a network, and you picked the wrong one?
It did it autonomously.
Just don't update, whatever you do. It will likely destroy your drives,
as discussed here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1mtcgkg/ report_microsofts_latest_windows_11_24h2_update/
The thing is, I could be being fooled by MS, like it's running great on
a new device but it won't last, and I'll end up putting Linux on the
thing, but this time I don't anticipate that. I think they're actually trying to get their act together. I think the under-the-hood
modifications in 24H2 really are meant to break away from the bloatware motif.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 16:31:54 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
The thing is, I could be being fooled by MS, like it's running great on
a new device but it won't last, and I'll end up putting Linux on the
thing, but this time I don't anticipate that. I think they're actually
trying to get their act together. I think the under-the-hood
modifications in 24H2 really are meant to break away from the bloatware
motif.
Just don't update, whatever you do. It will likely destroy your drives,
as discussed here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1mtcgkg/ report_microsofts_latest_windows_11_24h2_update/
I updated before the news came out. Fortunately, I don't have a storage device among the list they provided. However, anyone who decided to take advantage of a sweet deal on Kingston NVMEs is probably pissed right
now.
Needless to say, the mere fact that updates could even do such a thing
should give lots of people reason to move away from Windows. It's unforgivable that people would have to lose all their data because
Microsoft decided that regular users can now replace a proper
beta-testing team.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:39:07 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I updated before the news came out. Fortunately, I don't have a storage
device among the list they provided. However, anyone who decided to take
advantage of a sweet deal on Kingston NVMEs is probably pissed right
now.
Needless to say, the mere fact that updates could even do such a thing
should give lots of people reason to move away from Windows. It's
unforgivable that people would have to lose all their data because
Microsoft decided that regular users can now replace a proper
beta-testing team.
It doesn't seem like Microsoft would really care one way or another what happened to their users.
On 8/25/2025 5:54 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
The first time I installed Debian, many years ago, on an
ancient system, when it booted it instantly hacked into my
neighbor's WiFi to phone home.
That doesn’t make sense. Debian doesn’t do anything you don’t tell >>>>>> it to do.
Of course it doesn't make sense, it was weird. The WiFi in
question had weak security. But it happened.
It asked you to pick a network, and you picked the wrong one?
It did it autonomously.
I think your memory is faulty.
That's because you are delusional.
On 2025-08-24 11:39 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 23:10:47 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 10:35 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have
them.
Which Linux distros have “backdoors”?
I shouldn't have to tell you, if you were aware, paying attention to
the clues.
It’s all Open Source -- remember, “Many Eyes Make All Bugs Shallow”. >> What do you think the people have missed?
There was a backdoor in the xz utils that went undetected for a while.
Also, I recall that the NSA got involved in Linux development for a bit
and provided some utilities which were perceived to be potential
backdoors.
Either way, it doesn't matter which operating system you use as long as
the Intel Management Engine is part of their line of processors as is
the Platform Security Processor for AMD. With that kind of backdoor in
the machine, you're just as insecure in Linux as you would be in
Windows.
In a way, it seems as though they don't see Linux as a threat at all.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 05:46:23 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/25/2025 5:29 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
The first time I installed Debian, many years ago, on an ancient
system, when it booted it instantly hacked into my neighbor's WiFi >>>>>> to phone home.
That doesn’t make sense. Debian doesn’t do anything you don’t tell >>>>> it to do.
Of course it doesn't make sense, it was weird. The WiFi in question
had weak security. But it happened.
It asked you to pick a network, and you picked the wrong one?
It did it autonomously.
I think your memory is faulty.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 20:06:42 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
In a way, it seems as though they don't see Linux as a threat at all.
“First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you; then you win.”
-- Mohandas K Gandhi
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:27:15 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-24 11:39 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 23:10:47 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 10:35 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have >>>>>> them.
Which Linux distros have “backdoors”?
I shouldn't have to tell you, if you were aware, paying attention to
the clues.
It’s all Open Source -- remember, “Many Eyes Make All Bugs Shallow”. >>> What do you think the people have missed?
There was a backdoor in the xz utils that went undetected for a while.
“For a while” being only about a month -- not long enough for it to be included in any production distros, I don’t think <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils_backdoor>.
Also, I recall that the NSA got involved in Linux development for a bit
and provided some utilities which were perceived to be potential
backdoors.
The entire code of SELinux came from them. It’s been checked over and over by independent experts looking for anything resembling a backdoor. It’s been part of the mainline kernel for about a quarter century now.
Either way, it doesn't matter which operating system you use as long as
the Intel Management Engine is part of their line of processors as is
the Platform Security Processor for AMD. With that kind of backdoor in
the machine, you're just as insecure in Linux as you would be in
Windows.
Apparently not. My laptop vendor says they’ve disabled the IME. If they
can do it, others can.
The extended support for 10 will likely be utilized by a lot of people,
but yeah.
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 10:02:08 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
The extended support for 10 will likely be utilized by a lot of people,
but yeah.
https://betanews.com/2025/08/09/extended-windows-10-support-means- ditching-your-local-account-for-a-microsoft-account
The comments are interesting. While I do have a Microsoft account I am a local user on the Windows 11 laptop. otoh, I also have Ubuntu and Fedora accounts for various reasons. The Fedora one is mostly for submitting
results during the Test Days.
Paying for the extended support may be a bigger deal that having to create
an account for most people. I'm not sure how far you'd get with an Android phone without a Google account plus all the other stuff that needs an
account now. The public is well conditioned to sign up and not ask
questions.
I agree with that statement. Nevertheless, there have been many
opportunities for Linux to take a significant portion of the computer
user base from Windows and they have never been fruitful.
On 2025-08-26, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 20:06:42 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
In a way, it seems as though they don't see Linux as a threat at all.
“First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you; then >> you win.”
-- Mohandas K Gandhi
According to a U.S. government site, computers connecting to their servers
in the last 90 days are now at 6.5% Linux. Compare that to Macs at 11.5%. Windows (all versions) at 32.4%. iOS at 32.4%. Android at 16.3%. ChromeOS at 1%.
CrudeSausage wrote:
I agree with that statement. Nevertheless, there have been many
opportunities for Linux to take a significant portion of the computer
user base from Windows and they have never been fruitful.
Windows has rarely been bad enough for people to consider leaving the
safety of the herd. When it was lackluster (ME, Vista) or even really
bad (Win 8) people and businesses had the option of using the old
version until a newer version came out.
The last person who posted these stats conveniently "forgot" to post the
iOS number.
On 2025-08-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:09 p.m., chrisv wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
I agree with that statement. Nevertheless, there have been many
opportunities for Linux to take a significant portion of the computer
user base from Windows and they have never been fruitful.
Windows has rarely been bad enough for people to consider leaving the
safety of the herd. When it was lackluster (ME, Vista) or even really
bad (Win 8) people and businesses had the option of using the old
version until a newer version came out.
I recall having a colleague with an AMD processor who told me that ME
was pretty stable for him. He was definitely the exception, not the
rule. As for Vista, I already mentioned that I was a beta-tester and
that the product was nowhere near good when the company decided to
release it to manufacturers. The final version was okay, but it was
shockingly slow when doing simple things like using the file explorer.
As for 8, it was definitely counter-intuitive. However, once you figured
out that going to the bottom-left corner rather than pressing on Start
got you the same result, it became fairly bearable. Still, I don't blame
anyone for sticking to 7.
To me 8.1 should have been called 9, because it was quit a bit different
than 8.
To me 8.1 should have been called 9, because it was quit a bit different
than 8.
Linux's greatest ally in increasing its market share will be a poor
economy.
On 2025-08-27, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-27 2:35 a.m., RonB wrote:
On 2025-08-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:09 p.m., chrisv wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
I agree with that statement. Nevertheless, there have been many
opportunities for Linux to take a significant portion of the computer >>>>>> user base from Windows and they have never been fruitful.
Windows has rarely been bad enough for people to consider leaving the >>>>> safety of the herd. When it was lackluster (ME, Vista) or even really >>>>> bad (Win 8) people and businesses had the option of using the old
version until a newer version came out.
I recall having a colleague with an AMD processor who told me that ME
was pretty stable for him. He was definitely the exception, not the
rule. As for Vista, I already mentioned that I was a beta-tester and
that the product was nowhere near good when the company decided to
release it to manufacturers. The final version was okay, but it was
shockingly slow when doing simple things like using the file explorer. >>>> As for 8, it was definitely counter-intuitive. However, once you figured >>>> out that going to the bottom-left corner rather than pressing on Start >>>> got you the same result, it became fairly bearable. Still, I don't blame >>>> anyone for sticking to 7.
To me 8.1 should have been called 9, because it was quit a bit different >>> than 8.
Honestly, if you removed the touch stuff, it was no different than 7.
You're talking about 8.1, right? I think 8.1 was uglier than 7, but it basically worked the same. If I remember right, 8.0 (itself) didn't have the bottom panel (or whatever it's called in Windows).
On 2025-08-27, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-27 2:33 a.m., RonB wrote:
On 2025-08-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-25 9:55 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 20:06:42 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
In a way, it seems as though they don't see Linux as a threat at all. >>>>>“First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you; then
you win.”
-- Mohandas K Gandhi
I agree with that statement. Nevertheless, there have been many
opportunities for Linux to take a significant portion of the computer
user base from Windows and they have never been fruitful.
1) Windows 9x instability should have prompted people to migrate to
Linux. Those who did found that Linux was just as unstable at that time, >>>> sometimes worse (the GUI portion).
2) The move to Windows Vista should have prompted people to migrate to >>>> Linux, but people preferred to simply remove Windows Vista and install >>>> XP on those computers.
3) The move to Windows 8 should have prompted people to migrate to
Linux, but people preferred to simply remove 8 or 8.1 and install 7.
4) The move to Windows 10 should have prompted people to migrate to
Linux, but most people found 10 to be "good enough" and installed it.
It remains to be seen what they do with the forced move to 11 in a
little over a month.
I don't see Linux taking over the desktop, but I do see it moving towards >>> 10%, which is not insignificant.
Linux's greatest ally in increasing its market share will be a poor
economy. As much as people like having a new computer, the reality most
people have acknowledged is that there is little difference between a
machine made in 2015 and one made in 2025. If anything, the ten-year-old
computer still runs fast and does whatever you need it to do. As a
result, upgrading simply because Microsoft wants you to is a tough sale.
The dumb or impatient people will simply upgrade; the rest will at least
take a look at Linux.
For Linux users there is going to be a positive result whatever happens. For starters, there will be more newer surplus corporate computers available cheap. Not that newer is always better. I've still got some old laptops and the keyboards are significantly better than modern laptop keyboards. This race for the slimmest laptops has resulted in a lot of crappy keyboards with almost no key travel. And these keyboards break down quicker. I've fixed or replaced several of them.
On 2025-08-28, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 09:07:32 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
Linux's greatest ally in increasing its market share will be a poor
economy.
WHAT “poor economy”? Didn’t Trump sack the last lackey of his who tried to
say the economy was sailing something less than wonderful under his
captaincy?
What Trump says and what actually is are often on polar opposites. Most people I know want Trump to quit messing around in other countries' business and start working on inflation at home.
We had no choice in the last election (which is why I didn't vote). It was the idiot, laughing hyena or the idiot egomaniac. But at least we don't have to guess a person's "preferred pronoun" any more and the tide of illegal immigrants seems to have been stemmed — at least to some extent.
It had the bottom panel, but it didn't have the Start button. That's why
it was a little confusing to use at first. Additionally, when you
figured out that you could do the same thing as Start by traveling to
the bottom left, it opened up a software menu which took over your
screen entirely. People didn't expect that and I don't blame them for
hating it. It felt as though you were being kicked out of your desktop environment every time you wanted to open a program. The modern elements
were always conflicting with the win32 elements as well.
What Trump says and what actually is are often on polar opposites. Most people I know want Trump to quit messing around in other countries'
business and start working on inflation at home.
Either way, it was passable and I find that 8.x itself, when within the >traditional Windows environment, was actually somewhat prettier than 7.
It was barely different, but it just seemed a little prettier. Still,
there was truly no reason to go to 8 if you had 7.
CrudeSausage wrote:
Either way, it was passable and I find that 8.x itself, when within the
traditional Windows environment, was actually somewhat prettier than 7.
It was barely different, but it just seemed a little prettier. Still,
there was truly no reason to go to 8 if you had 7.
My memory of 8 was tring it in a store. I launched an app, it went
full screen, and I could not figure out how to get out of it. I tried alt-tab, I tried clicking-around, and I was stuck. Worst initial
experience ever.
On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 08:53:21 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
It had the bottom panel, but it didn't have the Start button. That's why
it was a little confusing to use at first. Additionally, when you
figured out that you could do the same thing as Start by traveling to
the bottom left, it opened up a software menu which took over your
screen entirely. People didn't expect that and I don't blame them for
hating it. It felt as though you were being kicked out of your desktop
environment every time you wanted to open a program. The modern elements
were always conflicting with the win32 elements as well.
That's what I dislike about Ubuntu GNOME. The 'Show Apps' button on the lower right brings up icons that are so inefficiently displayed I have to cycle through 5 screens worth. Like Windows you're expected to type into a search box rather than selecting an app directly.
I never ran 8 but Windows Server was the same. When I RDP'd into one of
the servers I had to hunt for what should have been on a menu.
It works on a phone but sucks on a desktop.
On 2025-08-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-28 2:14 a.m., RonB wrote:
On 2025-08-27, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-27 2:35 a.m., RonB wrote:
On 2025-08-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:09 p.m., chrisv wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
I agree with that statement. Nevertheless, there have been many >>>>>>>> opportunities for Linux to take a significant portion of the computer >>>>>>>> user base from Windows and they have never been fruitful.
Windows has rarely been bad enough for people to consider leaving the >>>>>>> safety of the herd. When it was lackluster (ME, Vista) or even really >>>>>>> bad (Win 8) people and businesses had the option of using the old >>>>>>> version until a newer version came out.
I recall having a colleague with an AMD processor who told me that ME >>>>>> was pretty stable for him. He was definitely the exception, not the >>>>>> rule. As for Vista, I already mentioned that I was a beta-tester and >>>>>> that the product was nowhere near good when the company decided to >>>>>> release it to manufacturers. The final version was okay, but it was >>>>>> shockingly slow when doing simple things like using the file explorer. >>>>>> As for 8, it was definitely counter-intuitive. However, once you figured >>>>>> out that going to the bottom-left corner rather than pressing on Start >>>>>> got you the same result, it became fairly bearable. Still, I don't blame >>>>>> anyone for sticking to 7.
To me 8.1 should have been called 9, because it was quit a bit different >>>>> than 8.
Honestly, if you removed the touch stuff, it was no different than 7.
You're talking about 8.1, right? I think 8.1 was uglier than 7, but it
basically worked the same. If I remember right, 8.0 (itself) didn't have the
bottom panel (or whatever it's called in Windows).
It had the bottom panel, but it didn't have the Start button. That's why
it was a little confusing to use at first. Additionally, when you
figured out that you could do the same thing as Start by traveling to
the bottom left, it opened up a software menu which took over your
screen entirely. People didn't expect that and I don't blame them for
hating it. It felt as though you were being kicked out of your desktop
environment every time you wanted to open a program. The modern elements
were always conflicting with the win32 elements as well.
Either way, it was passable and I find that 8.x itself, when within the
traditional Windows environment, was actually somewhat prettier than 7.
It was barely different, but it just seemed a little prettier. Still,
there was truly no reason to go to 8 if you had 7.
I basically quit using Windows at XP, so my experience with Widnows Vista/7 through 11 is pretty much nil.
What little I've used of Ubuntu I found that I could make the icons much smaller, which helped. But it required running an application in the CLI
to do it. (I don't think you actually made the icons smaller. I think
you changed the grid's number of columns and rows, which forced the
icons to be smaller.)
On 2025-08-29, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 06:36:23 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
What little I've used of Ubuntu I found that I could make the icons
much smaller, which helped. But it required running an application in
the CLI to do it. (I don't think you actually made the icons smaller.
I think you changed the grid's number of columns and rows, which
forced the icons to be smaller.)
I'll have to look for that. I'm aware there are some GNOME
customizations but I usually don't 'rice' a distro.
I wish I could remember where I found this. I would pass along the link.
On 2025-08-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-29 2:32 a.m., RonB wrote:
On 2025-08-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-28 2:14 a.m., RonB wrote:
On 2025-08-27, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-27 2:35 a.m., RonB wrote:You're talking about 8.1, right? I think 8.1 was uglier than 7, but it >>>>> basically worked the same. If I remember right, 8.0 (itself) didn't have the
On 2025-08-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:09 p.m., chrisv wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
I agree with that statement. Nevertheless, there have been many >>>>>>>>>> opportunities for Linux to take a significant portion of the computer
user base from Windows and they have never been fruitful.
Windows has rarely been bad enough for people to consider leaving the >>>>>>>>> safety of the herd. When it was lackluster (ME, Vista) or even really
bad (Win 8) people and businesses had the option of using the old >>>>>>>>> version until a newer version came out.
I recall having a colleague with an AMD processor who told me that ME >>>>>>>> was pretty stable for him. He was definitely the exception, not the >>>>>>>> rule. As for Vista, I already mentioned that I was a beta-tester and >>>>>>>> that the product was nowhere near good when the company decided to >>>>>>>> release it to manufacturers. The final version was okay, but it was >>>>>>>> shockingly slow when doing simple things like using the file explorer. >>>>>>>> As for 8, it was definitely counter-intuitive. However, once you figured
out that going to the bottom-left corner rather than pressing on Start >>>>>>>> got you the same result, it became fairly bearable. Still, I don't blame
anyone for sticking to 7.
To me 8.1 should have been called 9, because it was quit a bit different
than 8.
Honestly, if you removed the touch stuff, it was no different than 7. >>>>>
bottom panel (or whatever it's called in Windows).
It had the bottom panel, but it didn't have the Start button. That's why >>>> it was a little confusing to use at first. Additionally, when you
figured out that you could do the same thing as Start by traveling to
the bottom left, it opened up a software menu which took over your
screen entirely. People didn't expect that and I don't blame them for
hating it. It felt as though you were being kicked out of your desktop >>>> environment every time you wanted to open a program. The modern elements >>>> were always conflicting with the win32 elements as well.
Either way, it was passable and I find that 8.x itself, when within the >>>> traditional Windows environment, was actually somewhat prettier than 7. >>>> It was barely different, but it just seemed a little prettier. Still,
there was truly no reason to go to 8 if you had 7.
I basically quit using Windows at XP, so my experience with Widnows Vista/7 >>> through 11 is pretty much nil.
I can't tell you that you did the wrong thing in avoiding everything
after XP. When Vista emerged, the Linux alternative was quite strong.
Anybody who installed Ubuntu or other easy-to-use distributions would
not be compromising in any way through using Linux. It would have been a
challenge five years early, but by 2006-2007, the Linux experience was
very strong.
At the very least, you saved a lot of money on hardware and software.
I had to use Windows at work (mostly Excel and dBASE) but it was very basic stuff. Excel for cable records and mailing databases (which were converted
to dBASE for our mailing applications). Two totally different job descriptions but both involved Excel. (Actually they moved me to OpenOffice Calc at the print shop — which worked fine with Excel spreadsheets even back
then. Again, simple "database" spreadsheets provided by customers that
needed a lot of cleaning up.)
On 2025-08-30, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-08-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:My son was a huge Mac fanboi and was constantly trying to get the family to convert to Mac.
On 2025-08-29 2:32 a.m., RonB wrote:
On 2025-08-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-28 2:14 a.m., RonB wrote:
On 2025-08-27, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-27 2:35 a.m., RonB wrote:You're talking about 8.1, right? I think 8.1 was uglier than 7, but it >>>>>> basically worked the same. If I remember right, 8.0 (itself) didn't have the
On 2025-08-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:09 p.m., chrisv wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
I agree with that statement. Nevertheless, there have been many >>>>>>>>>>> opportunities for Linux to take a significant portion of the computerWindows has rarely been bad enough for people to consider leaving the
user base from Windows and they have never been fruitful. >>>>>>>>>>
safety of the herd. When it was lackluster (ME, Vista) or even really
bad (Win 8) people and businesses had the option of using the old >>>>>>>>>> version until a newer version came out.
I recall having a colleague with an AMD processor who told me that ME >>>>>>>>> was pretty stable for him. He was definitely the exception, not the >>>>>>>>> rule. As for Vista, I already mentioned that I was a beta-tester and >>>>>>>>> that the product was nowhere near good when the company decided to >>>>>>>>> release it to manufacturers. The final version was okay, but it was >>>>>>>>> shockingly slow when doing simple things like using the file explorer.
As for 8, it was definitely counter-intuitive. However, once you figured
out that going to the bottom-left corner rather than pressing on Start
got you the same result, it became fairly bearable. Still, I don't blame
anyone for sticking to 7.
To me 8.1 should have been called 9, because it was quit a bit different
than 8.
Honestly, if you removed the touch stuff, it was no different than 7. >>>>>>
bottom panel (or whatever it's called in Windows).
It had the bottom panel, but it didn't have the Start button. That's why >>>>> it was a little confusing to use at first. Additionally, when you
figured out that you could do the same thing as Start by traveling to >>>>> the bottom left, it opened up a software menu which took over your
screen entirely. People didn't expect that and I don't blame them for >>>>> hating it. It felt as though you were being kicked out of your desktop >>>>> environment every time you wanted to open a program. The modern elements >>>>> were always conflicting with the win32 elements as well.
Either way, it was passable and I find that 8.x itself, when within the >>>>> traditional Windows environment, was actually somewhat prettier than 7. >>>>> It was barely different, but it just seemed a little prettier. Still, >>>>> there was truly no reason to go to 8 if you had 7.
I basically quit using Windows at XP, so my experience with Widnows Vista/7
through 11 is pretty much nil.
I can't tell you that you did the wrong thing in avoiding everything
after XP. When Vista emerged, the Linux alternative was quite strong.
Anybody who installed Ubuntu or other easy-to-use distributions would
not be compromising in any way through using Linux. It would have been a >>> challenge five years early, but by 2006-2007, the Linux experience was
very strong.
At the very least, you saved a lot of money on hardware and software.
I had to use Windows at work (mostly Excel and dBASE) but it was very basic >> stuff. Excel for cable records and mailing databases (which were converted >> to dBASE for our mailing applications). Two totally different job
descriptions but both involved Excel. (Actually they moved me to OpenOffice >> Calc at the print shop — which worked fine with Excel spreadsheets even back
then. Again, simple "database" spreadsheets provided by customers that
needed a lot of cleaning up.)
So when he got his first job as a commercial real estate appraiser in NYC he was required to run some seriously complex Excel spreadsheets which simply ran
poorly on the Mac but fine with Windows.
He eventually moved to Windows for his job but remains with Mac for everything else.
On 2025-08-30 8:31 p.m., pothead wrote:
On 2025-08-30, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-08-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:My son was a huge Mac fanboi and was constantly trying to get the family to >> convert to Mac.
On 2025-08-29 2:32 a.m., RonB wrote:
On 2025-08-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-28 2:14 a.m., RonB wrote:
On 2025-08-27, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-27 2:35 a.m., RonB wrote:You're talking about 8.1, right? I think 8.1 was uglier than 7, but it >>>>>>> basically worked the same. If I remember right, 8.0 (itself) didn't have the
On 2025-08-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:09 p.m., chrisv wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
I agree with that statement. Nevertheless, there have been many >>>>>>>>>>>> opportunities for Linux to take a significant portion of the computerWindows has rarely been bad enough for people to consider leaving the
user base from Windows and they have never been fruitful. >>>>>>>>>>>
safety of the herd. When it was lackluster (ME, Vista) or even really
bad (Win 8) people and businesses had the option of using the old >>>>>>>>>>> version until a newer version came out.
I recall having a colleague with an AMD processor who told me that ME
was pretty stable for him. He was definitely the exception, not the >>>>>>>>>> rule. As for Vista, I already mentioned that I was a beta-tester and >>>>>>>>>> that the product was nowhere near good when the company decided to >>>>>>>>>> release it to manufacturers. The final version was okay, but it was >>>>>>>>>> shockingly slow when doing simple things like using the file explorer.
As for 8, it was definitely counter-intuitive. However, once you figured
out that going to the bottom-left corner rather than pressing on Start
got you the same result, it became fairly bearable. Still, I don't blame
anyone for sticking to 7.
To me 8.1 should have been called 9, because it was quit a bit different
than 8.
Honestly, if you removed the touch stuff, it was no different than 7. >>>>>>>
bottom panel (or whatever it's called in Windows).
It had the bottom panel, but it didn't have the Start button. That's why >>>>>> it was a little confusing to use at first. Additionally, when you
figured out that you could do the same thing as Start by traveling to >>>>>> the bottom left, it opened up a software menu which took over your >>>>>> screen entirely. People didn't expect that and I don't blame them for >>>>>> hating it. It felt as though you were being kicked out of your desktop >>>>>> environment every time you wanted to open a program. The modern elements >>>>>> were always conflicting with the win32 elements as well.
Either way, it was passable and I find that 8.x itself, when within the >>>>>> traditional Windows environment, was actually somewhat prettier than 7. >>>>>> It was barely different, but it just seemed a little prettier. Still, >>>>>> there was truly no reason to go to 8 if you had 7.
I basically quit using Windows at XP, so my experience with Widnows Vista/7
through 11 is pretty much nil.
I can't tell you that you did the wrong thing in avoiding everything
after XP. When Vista emerged, the Linux alternative was quite strong.
Anybody who installed Ubuntu or other easy-to-use distributions would
not be compromising in any way through using Linux. It would have been a >>>> challenge five years early, but by 2006-2007, the Linux experience was >>>> very strong.
At the very least, you saved a lot of money on hardware and software.
I had to use Windows at work (mostly Excel and dBASE) but it was very basic >>> stuff. Excel for cable records and mailing databases (which were converted >>> to dBASE for our mailing applications). Two totally different job
descriptions but both involved Excel. (Actually they moved me to OpenOffice >>> Calc at the print shop — which worked fine with Excel spreadsheets even back
then. Again, simple "database" spreadsheets provided by customers that
needed a lot of cleaning up.)
So when he got his first job as a commercial real estate appraiser in NYC he >> was required to run some seriously complex Excel spreadsheets which simply ran
poorly on the Mac but fine with Windows.
He eventually moved to Windows for his job but remains with Mac for everything else.
I have to ask: was the Mac he used an Intel-based one? If so, I can
confirm that they're disgustingly slow. The Mx ones are a lot better and
I would be surprised if any of them struggled with Excel work. Apple
should never have used Intel processors. I understand why they did, but
the architecture is totally incompatible with what they were going for.
Now that they have their own processor and one which completely fulfills
what they're trying to sell, Macs should be able to do anything a Mac
user wants to do but also anything a PC user would like to do.
Apple should never have used Intel processors.
... I can confirm that they're disgustingly slow. The Mx ones are a
lot better and I would be surprised if any of them struggled with
Excel work.
On 2025-08-31, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-30 8:31 p.m., pothead wrote:I just asked him.
On 2025-08-30, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-08-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:My son was a huge Mac fanboi and was constantly trying to get the family to >>> convert to Mac.
On 2025-08-29 2:32 a.m., RonB wrote:I had to use Windows at work (mostly Excel and dBASE) but it was very basic
On 2025-08-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-28 2:14 a.m., RonB wrote:
On 2025-08-27, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-27 2:35 a.m., RonB wrote:You're talking about 8.1, right? I think 8.1 was uglier than 7, but it >>>>>>>> basically worked the same. If I remember right, 8.0 (itself) didn't have the
On 2025-08-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:09 p.m., chrisv wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
I agree with that statement. Nevertheless, there have been many >>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunities for Linux to take a significant portion of the computerWindows has rarely been bad enough for people to consider leaving the
user base from Windows and they have never been fruitful. >>>>>>>>>>>>
safety of the herd. When it was lackluster (ME, Vista) or even really
bad (Win 8) people and businesses had the option of using the old >>>>>>>>>>>> version until a newer version came out.
I recall having a colleague with an AMD processor who told me that ME
was pretty stable for him. He was definitely the exception, not the >>>>>>>>>>> rule. As for Vista, I already mentioned that I was a beta-tester and
that the product was nowhere near good when the company decided to >>>>>>>>>>> release it to manufacturers. The final version was okay, but it was >>>>>>>>>>> shockingly slow when doing simple things like using the file explorer.
As for 8, it was definitely counter-intuitive. However, once you figured
out that going to the bottom-left corner rather than pressing on Start
got you the same result, it became fairly bearable. Still, I don't blame
anyone for sticking to 7.
To me 8.1 should have been called 9, because it was quit a bit different
than 8.
Honestly, if you removed the touch stuff, it was no different than 7. >>>>>>>>
bottom panel (or whatever it's called in Windows).
It had the bottom panel, but it didn't have the Start button. That's why
it was a little confusing to use at first. Additionally, when you >>>>>>> figured out that you could do the same thing as Start by traveling to >>>>>>> the bottom left, it opened up a software menu which took over your >>>>>>> screen entirely. People didn't expect that and I don't blame them for >>>>>>> hating it. It felt as though you were being kicked out of your desktop >>>>>>> environment every time you wanted to open a program. The modern elements
were always conflicting with the win32 elements as well.
Either way, it was passable and I find that 8.x itself, when within the >>>>>>> traditional Windows environment, was actually somewhat prettier than 7. >>>>>>> It was barely different, but it just seemed a little prettier. Still, >>>>>>> there was truly no reason to go to 8 if you had 7.
I basically quit using Windows at XP, so my experience with Widnows Vista/7
through 11 is pretty much nil.
I can't tell you that you did the wrong thing in avoiding everything >>>>> after XP. When Vista emerged, the Linux alternative was quite strong. >>>>> Anybody who installed Ubuntu or other easy-to-use distributions would >>>>> not be compromising in any way through using Linux. It would have been a >>>>> challenge five years early, but by 2006-2007, the Linux experience was >>>>> very strong.
At the very least, you saved a lot of money on hardware and software. >>>>
stuff. Excel for cable records and mailing databases (which were converted >>>> to dBASE for our mailing applications). Two totally different job
descriptions but both involved Excel. (Actually they moved me to OpenOffice
Calc at the print shop — which worked fine with Excel spreadsheets even back
then. Again, simple "database" spreadsheets provided by customers that >>>> needed a lot of cleaning up.)
So when he got his first job as a commercial real estate appraiser in NYC he
was required to run some seriously complex Excel spreadsheets which simply ran
poorly on the Mac but fine with Windows.
He eventually moved to Windows for his job but remains with Mac for everything else.
I have to ask: was the Mac he used an Intel-based one? If so, I can
confirm that they're disgustingly slow. The Mx ones are a lot better and
I would be surprised if any of them struggled with Excel work. Apple
should never have used Intel processors. I understand why they did, but
the architecture is totally incompatible with what they were going for.
Now that they have their own processor and one which completely fulfills
what they're trying to sell, Macs should be able to do anything a Mac
user wants to do but also anything a PC user would like to do.
It was from 2015 so an Intel version.
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 10:06:39 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
Apple should never have used Intel processors.
They were a step up from the PowerPC G5 processor they were using before.
... I can confirm that they're disgustingly slow. The Mx ones are a
lot better and I would be surprised if any of them struggled with
Excel work.
Blame that on Microsoft.
I can remember when Apple first went Intel, the Intel-Mac-native version
of Excel lost the ability to do macros. Why? Because it was not an
adaptation of the Windows version, which already had that capability, but descended from the previous PowerPC version, which was a separate code
base that had diverged from the Intel-Windows version years before.
Somehow the macro implementation had become processor-specific, and so it
had to be scrapped and done again.
On 2025-08-31 10:48 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
I can remember when Apple first went Intel, the Intel-Mac-native
version of Excel lost the ability to do macros. Why? Because it was
not an adaptation of the Windows version, which already had that
capability, but descended from the previous PowerPC version, which
was a separate code base that had diverged from the Intel-Windows
version years before. Somehow the macro implementation had become
processor-specific, and so it had to be scrapped and done again.
Were you expecting Microsoft to run the Windows version of Excel on
the new Intel-based MacOS machines?
On 2025-09-01, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-31 3:29 p.m., pothead wrote:
On 2025-08-31, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-30 8:31 p.m., pothead wrote:I just asked him.
On 2025-08-30, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-08-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:My son was a huge Mac fanboi and was constantly trying to get the family to
On 2025-08-29 2:32 a.m., RonB wrote:I had to use Windows at work (mostly Excel and dBASE) but it was very basic
On 2025-08-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-28 2:14 a.m., RonB wrote:
On 2025-08-27, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-27 2:35 a.m., RonB wrote:
On 2025-08-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:09 p.m., chrisv wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
I agree with that statement. Nevertheless, there have been many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunities for Linux to take a significant portion of the computerWindows has rarely been bad enough for people to consider leaving the
user base from Windows and they have never been fruitful. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
safety of the herd. When it was lackluster (ME, Vista) or even really
bad (Win 8) people and businesses had the option of using the old
version until a newer version came out.
I recall having a colleague with an AMD processor who told me that ME
was pretty stable for him. He was definitely the exception, not the
rule. As for Vista, I already mentioned that I was a beta-tester and
that the product was nowhere near good when the company decided to
release it to manufacturers. The final version was okay, but it was
shockingly slow when doing simple things like using the file explorer.
As for 8, it was definitely counter-intuitive. However, once you figured
out that going to the bottom-left corner rather than pressing on Start
got you the same result, it became fairly bearable. Still, I don't blame
anyone for sticking to 7.
To me 8.1 should have been called 9, because it was quit a bit different
than 8.
Honestly, if you removed the touch stuff, it was no different than 7.
You're talking about 8.1, right? I think 8.1 was uglier than 7, but it
basically worked the same. If I remember right, 8.0 (itself) didn't have the
bottom panel (or whatever it's called in Windows).
It had the bottom panel, but it didn't have the Start button. That's why
it was a little confusing to use at first. Additionally, when you >>>>>>>>> figured out that you could do the same thing as Start by traveling to >>>>>>>>> the bottom left, it opened up a software menu which took over your >>>>>>>>> screen entirely. People didn't expect that and I don't blame them for >>>>>>>>> hating it. It felt as though you were being kicked out of your desktop
environment every time you wanted to open a program. The modern elements
were always conflicting with the win32 elements as well.
Either way, it was passable and I find that 8.x itself, when within the
traditional Windows environment, was actually somewhat prettier than 7.
It was barely different, but it just seemed a little prettier. Still, >>>>>>>>> there was truly no reason to go to 8 if you had 7.
I basically quit using Windows at XP, so my experience with Widnows Vista/7
through 11 is pretty much nil.
I can't tell you that you did the wrong thing in avoiding everything >>>>>>> after XP. When Vista emerged, the Linux alternative was quite strong. >>>>>>> Anybody who installed Ubuntu or other easy-to-use distributions would >>>>>>> not be compromising in any way through using Linux. It would have been a
challenge five years early, but by 2006-2007, the Linux experience was >>>>>>> very strong.
At the very least, you saved a lot of money on hardware and software. >>>>>>
stuff. Excel for cable records and mailing databases (which were converted
to dBASE for our mailing applications). Two totally different job
descriptions but both involved Excel. (Actually they moved me to OpenOffice
Calc at the print shop — which worked fine with Excel spreadsheets even back
then. Again, simple "database" spreadsheets provided by customers that >>>>>> needed a lot of cleaning up.)
convert to Mac.
So when he got his first job as a commercial real estate appraiser in NYC he
was required to run some seriously complex Excel spreadsheets which simply ran
poorly on the Mac but fine with Windows.
He eventually moved to Windows for his job but remains with Mac for everything else.
I have to ask: was the Mac he used an Intel-based one? If so, I can
confirm that they're disgustingly slow. The Mx ones are a lot better and >>>> I would be surprised if any of them struggled with Excel work. Apple
should never have used Intel processors. I understand why they did, but >>>> the architecture is totally incompatible with what they were going for. >>>> Now that they have their own processor and one which completely fulfills >>>> what they're trying to sell, Macs should be able to do anything a Mac
user wants to do but also anything a PC user would like to do.
It was from 2015 so an Intel version.
When I got the 2017 MacBook Air I eventually dropped coffee on, I was
shocked at how slow it was. It used a 5350U or so and came with 8GB of
RAM. MacOS itself was fine, but it somehow wasn't too great on Linux.
That should give an indication of how useful that machine might be for
actual work.
The best thing Apple did was get rid of the Intel processor line. They
went from inefficient and underpowered to powerful and ultra-efficient.
There is no way any kind of office work would be anything but satisfying.
Except you would be chained to Mac OS, which I find completely unsatisfying. (Speaking for myself, I'm happy there is Linux, which I can use instead of using Windows or Mac OS every day. Others may feel different. Choice.)
On Mon, 1 Sep 2025 08:43:39 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-31 10:48 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
I can remember when Apple first went Intel, the Intel-Mac-native
version of Excel lost the ability to do macros. Why? Because it was
not an adaptation of the Windows version, which already had that
capability, but descended from the previous PowerPC version, which
was a separate code base that had diverged from the Intel-Windows
version years before. Somehow the macro implementation had become
processor-specific, and so it had to be scrapped and done again.
Were you expecting Microsoft to run the Windows version of Excel on
the new Intel-based MacOS machines?
I would expect them to have common code for all except the
lowest-level platform-specific functions, and not have divergences
happen for non-essential reasons. That’s how rational software design
is done. That’s how open-source software like LibreOffice and GIMP and Inkscape and all the rest of it is designed. That’s why it is able to
be ported with minimal effort to new processor architectures as they
come along.
On Mon, 1 Sep 2025 08:43:39 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-31 10:48 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
I can remember when Apple first went Intel, the Intel-Mac-native
version of Excel lost the ability to do macros. Why? Because it was
not an adaptation of the Windows version, which already had that
capability, but descended from the previous PowerPC version, which
was a separate code base that had diverged from the Intel-Windows
version years before. Somehow the macro implementation had become
processor-specific, and so it had to be scrapped and done again.
Were you expecting Microsoft to run the Windows version of Excel on
the new Intel-based MacOS machines?
I would expect them to have common code for all except the
lowest-level platform-specific functions, and not have divergences
happen for non-essential reasons. That’s how rational software design
is done.
That’s how open-source software like LibreOffice and GIMP and
Inkscape and all the rest of it is designed. That’s why it is able to
be ported with minimal effort to new processor architectures as they
come along.
I always cringe when people try to squeeze all problems/programming into
a single methodology and/or language. The result is a huge, absurdly complicated language like ADA. Of course, ADA became THE U.S. Defense Department standard.
On Sep 1, 2025 at 11:54:44 PM EDT, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro"
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
I would expect them to have common code for all except the lowest-level
platform-specific functions, and not have divergences happen for
non-essential reasons. That’s how rational software design is done.
But Microsoft has only recently discovered "rational software design". Windows was/is very/somewhat tied to Intel architecture. Look how long
it has taken them to get Windows running well on Arm.
That’s how open-source software like LibreOffice and GIMP and Inkscape
and all the rest of it is designed. That’s why it is able to be ported
with minimal effort to new processor architectures as they come along.
Which is also why Apple was able to easily port ALL of their Mac
software - OS and apps - from PowerPC to Intel to Arm. It is all
Unix-based.
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 23:07:01 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
But Microsoft has only recently discovered "rational software design".
Windows was/is very/somewhat tied to Intel architecture. Look how long
it has taken them to get Windows running well on Arm.
I have a problem. When I see rational software in a sentence that makes me think of Rational Software. In turn that brings Booch and Rumbaugh to
mind, followed by UML. That triggers a gagging reflex.
But Microsoft has only recently discovered "rational software design". Windows was/is very/somewhat tied to Intel architecture. Look how long
it has taken them to get Windows running well on Arm.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:24:43 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,058 |
| Messages: | 6,416,622 |