this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
300 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
59446 readers
4138 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Good job being so smart, mama's little smart man! You still have to eat your veggies before you can have any dessert though!
More seriously, the overwhelming majority of businesses use Windows as their end user facing desktop OSes. You're legitimately just being a myopic asshat if you think that Windows can't be trusted for anything important. (Inb4 you bring up Crowdstrike, which wasn't a Windows specific issue, but a "we have code running at kernel level" issue, and hit Linux roughly three months prior to the big clusterfuck)
Also, your bit about $150 cost for the OS is dumb too. The average user is buying a prebuilt with the OS preinstalled. Technically they are paying for it, but it's a wacky discounted OEM license fee baked into the full cost. Anyone not buying a rig with Windows preinstalled can use it unlicensed, can transfer license from pretty much any older Windows OS install from the last 20 years, can just use massgrave to activate it for free, or could go buy a discounted OEM license that they can only install to one machine. The full price license allows for install on multiple machines, which you don't really need.
My point is, very few people are paying full price for a Windows license.
Full disclosure, I agree that Microsoft is a shit company. But this elitist shit is just stupid. Especially when it's almost pure posturing.
Oh no the poor companies making money off a product might have to update a product made in 1992😱😱😱how will they ever recuperate an investment that is free every 32 years.
Also a Monopoly is able to use monopolistic behavior to force companies to use their product and mask it as “FREE”*** then still charge the user with ads is not a good thing just look at the price delta between equivalent windows and chrome books if you don’t believe me.
IM not saying you have to get the L word I would literally get a MacBook at this point.
What? Huh? The fuck are you even trying to say with that first paragraph and what connection does it have with my comment?
My point was that for someone calling people still willing to use Windows stupid, your lack of knowledge about the actual cost (and how almost no user is paying the full cost) makes you look incompetent at best.
There was precisely zero there lamenting Microsoft missing out on money. Check my host lemmy instance, it's the piracy one. There's a reason I name dropped the best open source tool for tricking Windows into thinking you have a valid license. Steal your OS, I don't give a fuck. The only "validly" licensed personal machine I have is my main desktop, and only because it was my first time doing a manual customized Win 10 install so I didn't want to fuck around with faking the license to save myself $20 for an OEM license.
...
Which brings me to my next point. For someone being so bull headedly elitist about how bad Windows is, and how smart they are, you're completely unaware of how easy it is to make Windows work for you and disable all the user hostile shit like ads.
It's called install the Pro version of the OS and use Group Policy manager. 90% of the settings are clearly labeled in there too, like "Disable Cortana Internet Search", "Disable OneDrive integration".
Made in 1992?
Niw you're really showing your ignorance.
Yes, NT 3.5 was released in about 1992. But it was actually a ported DEC Alpha OS from a few years before...so perhaps 1988.
And the OS today is very different from NT 3.5. So it's not software that was "made in 1992".
Not that when it was first released has any relevance anyway. Hell, I'm more partial to software that's been around for ages. It's demonstrated itself over time.
But I guess someone who's still wet behind the ears doesn't get that.