After Windows10, consumers won't pay for updates or upgra

Jody Thornton · 14 Oct 2014

lehnerus2000 said:

The trouble is that updates often break stuff.

I updated Pale Moon to version 25 (a couple of days ago) and it broke some add-ons and Google Image Search!

But you realize why Moonchild had to go there right? The new Pale Moon is a first step in breaking away from Mozilla Firefox, so in the long run, it's a good thing.

I admit that I am not a fan of subscription models, only because I like control over when I update and why I update. But the truth is, Microsoft NEVER has given us the right to "own" our copy of Windows. We are granted a license to use Windows in a fashion that Microsoft sees fit. It's their property.

lehnerus2000 · 14 Oct 2014

Jody Thornton said:

But you realize why Moonchild had to go there right? The new Pale Moon is a first step in breaking away from Mozilla Firefox, so in the long run, it's a good thing.

Indeed it is inevitable given that Firefox seems to be turning into Chrome, whereas Pale Moon is keeping a (IMO) sensible customisable GUI.

Given that fact, they should should have created a tool, which could read the add-on config files and replaced the GUID numbers.

Jody Thornton said:

But the truth is, Microsoft NEVER has given us the right to "own" our copy of Windows. We are granted a license to use Windows in a fashion that Microsoft sees fit. It's their property.

True, but it should never have been allowed.

Software companies are a law unto themselves.
The MPAA members & RIAA members can't "come around to your house" and take your legally purchased items (without some sort of court order).
What is the difference between "their" IP and a software company's IP?

BlueGuy · 17 Oct 2014

lehnerus2000 said:

Indeed it is inevitable given that Firefox seems to be turning into Chrome, whereas Pale Moon is keeping a (IMO) sensible customisable GUI.

I haven't noticed that, except Chrome doesn't conform to my desktop theme, it stays with its' own colours.
Whereas with Firefox, not only do I port over the profile folders to each new installation, I port over the .ini files, hence my Firefox still looks a lot like it did in FF2 and in 2000Pro.

jimbo45 · 17 Oct 2014

Hi there

3rd party software can do what it likes - It's 3rd party and not Ms after all. If you don't like what it's doing then use something else. Firefox / Mozilla lost me a long time ago with so many "add on possibilities" and configuration methods that required a Doctorate in computer science to understand.

I think the point is that using Windows we are actually rather lucky that almost anybody can write applications for it and it's not locked down like the APPLE IOS (and - correct me if I'm wrong - but I think in the Apple EULA the agreement is that you are only ALLOWED to run apple approved software on it anyway). Whether that's Court enforceable is a moot point but I believe Ms takes a different view and rather ENCOURAGES 3rd parties to write as much as they want for Windows and helps them too.

I really haven't found anything wrong with IE on Windows and KONQUEROR on a Linux KDE desktop.

As for speed of browsers etc - usually these are effected far more by EXTERNAL factors - like Network speed, load on the remote server / website, code efficiency of the web site itself, load on your own local machine etc that a few microseconds off here or there in loading / rendering pages is an irrelevance -- what does it matter if in loading a 10 minute You tube video if one browser starts in 15 secs and another in 14.

As I said - if a 3rd party app doesn't do what you want - just dump it and find another one.

I'm not an advocate of the subscription model myself which is why I'm keeping all bets open -- I have the last Non subscription Photoshop (CS6 - my expensive PRO level DSLR's aren't changed very often so CS6 is likely to work until I retire - or even longer), I have things like OFFICE 2010 which will work for the things I do indefinitely, XP / W7 VM's and can run all these on a Linux Host so if Windows does go subscription only then as the saying goes "I'm Outta Here !!!".

Cheers
jimbo

lehnerus2000 · 17 Oct 2014

BlueGuy said:

Whereas with Firefox, not only do I port over the profile folders to each new installation, I port over the .ini files, hence my Firefox still looks a lot like it did in FF2 and in 2000Pro.

Nice trick. :)

jimbo45 said:

3rd party software can do what it likes - It's 3rd party and not Ms after all. If you don't like what it's doing then use something else. Firefox / Mozilla lost me a long time ago with so many "add on possibilities" and configuration methods that required a Doctorate in computer science to understand.

Two of the main reasons to use Firefox are:

The huge number of add-on
The number of ways you could customise the GUI

The new Firefox (29+) is still the most customisable browser of the top 3 (just not as good as the earlier versions).

IMO, if you don't like add-ons, or you don't care that you have limited ability to customise the GUI, then you may as well use Chrome or IE. :)

jimbo45 · 17 Oct 2014

lehnerus2000 said:

Nice trick. :)

Two of the main reasons to use Firefox are:

The huge number of add-on
The number of ways you could customise the GUI

The new Firefox (29+) is still the most customisable browser of the top 3 (just not as good as the earlier versions).

IMO, if you don't like add-ons, or you don't care that you have limited ability to customise the GUI, then you may as well use Chrome or IE. :)

Hi there

thanks for your reply -- also a valid one if you like doing that sort of stuff.

There's probably two main sorts of users though - those who just want stuff to work straight "As Is" - or what's called these days an "OOBE" (Out of the box experience - almost miraculous these days some "American Consultant-ese" speak actually means what it says in Plain English !!) or those who want to tinker around and see what they can change etc.

On the whole I subscribe to the former - apart from a few basics like Text size (I'm not getting any younger - and I don't want to end up needing glasses with the thickness of Milk Bottles to read the screen !! or a few backgrounds and local settings). I might even get adventurous and create a custom toolbar or my own desktop icons but I'm not on the whole a tinkerer - but I'll bet most that when I test a system I can break it quicker than anyone if it's "breakable" !!.

So I suppose as they say "You pays your money and takes your choice" - at least unlike the "Fruit Company" we do get a choice with Windows.

Cheers
jimbo

unifex · 17 Oct 2014

I recall that in the old days when I had an Alpha workstation at work, we had to pay for DEC Unix every year - there was no possibility to "buy" the OS. Instead you had to pay for your yearly license (i.e. subscription). It was something around $300 a year on the campus license deal, I have no idea what would you have to pay otherwise. I really hated that approach and I will certainly not subscribe to something like that at home. After all, there is nothing wrong with my Windows 7 - I have all the programs I need, I don't care for the latest games, so it's unlikely I will actually need to upgrade the software any time soon. Sure, if 10 ends up looking nice and being fast and cost reasonably (maybe not free, but not too much money), I might actually buy a license, keeping in mind that eventually I will have to upgrade/replace the hardware. But a subscription - thanks, but no, thanks.

caperjack · 17 Oct 2014

I think the subscription idea will hurt computer [the little guys]retailers too ,they will take the brunt of the complaints of the regular computer user, and it could hurt there sales

phillipduran · 17 Oct 2014

Mystere said:

Since when has OSX been a free, no cost upgrade?

If you're referring to iOS, they actually did charge for new versions back in the early days.. but they found people got really mad that they had spent a premium on the hardware and then got nickeled and dimed over the OS.

Right now. https://www.apple.com/osx/ Mavericks was also free but had some conditions as to what systems or store accounts were eligible. You had to have purchased the 2009 OS or later to be eligible.

The only iOS update charge that I am aware of was for the iPod Touch. iPhones and iPads haven't ever had a fee for OS upgrades. I hear it had to do with laws or accounting for upgrades to items without subscription fees.

I'll pay Microsoft for major new releases every few years. I wont pay for regular updates or pay a subscription. Sometimes I don't need the latest OS or even updates on some of my machines.

alphanumeric · 17 Oct 2014

caperjack said:

I think the subscription idea will hurt computer [the little guys]retailers too ,they will take the brunt of the complaints of the regular computer user, and it could hurt there sales

I can just see the consumers face when the sales person tells them that to actually use the device they will have to sign up for a subscription service, will that be Visa or Mastercard?. Or they get it home and OOBE prompts for a payment method.