# Why People Stick With Outdated Technology



## J-Sun (Nov 25, 2015)

Why People Stick With Outdated Technology @ Scientific American

On the death of betamax. If you want a bigger version of the 1978 ad there's this. Silver and brown and knobs and switches and buttons that actually but. Awesome.


----------



## Droflet (Nov 25, 2015)

Maybe I, ah that is they, feel a certain comfort with the familiar. Hey, I'm still on windows 7.


----------



## Alex The G and T (Nov 25, 2015)

I detest wading through menus within menus within menus; hunting for basic fine-tuning.  Especially in audio equipment.
I want sliders and pan-pots, faders and rheostats; for real time adjustments that I can hear, instantly.

Same with my camera.  I long for the instantaneous finger-tip exposure and focus controls from my old, trusty K-1000.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 25, 2015)

There is no such thing as outdated tech. There is Tech that is a commercial failure, or never worked well and never will, or isn't economically viable, or newer tech really is much better. There is plenty of really old tech still good to go.

Ergonomics on most modern products is GARBAGE due to a combination of bad UI / UX design, bad programming and cost reduction.


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 26, 2015)

I still possess working 16mm, 8mm and 9.5mm projectors. I don't use them much now but I would never part with them. The 9.5mm (my particular favourite) dates back to the 1920s. I rescued it from an attic, did a bit of restoration on it and it works wonderfully. I had to replace the metal drive belt with a modified 'O' ring and it  might be 'outdated' but I suspect it will outlast many millions of mobile phones around today.


----------



## SilentRoamer (Nov 26, 2015)

One of the reasons a lot of companies still use outdated Operating Systems is that 3rd party hardware vendors never built machines with upgrades in mind. 

I see Windows XP machines in production environments all the time because its CnC for some huge piece of machinery - generally easier/cheaper to virtualise XP than it would be to replace the machines.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 26, 2015)

And whats wrong with MS DOS?  It's still one of the most venerable reliable dependable operating systems around.  Besides, Graphical User Interfaces are so overrated .


----------



## Kylara (Nov 26, 2015)

I like old tech. Often build quality is better, and UIs are better. We have a really old hifi set with sliders and stuff in the summer house, along with a vinyl deck that still works better than my radio cd player thing.

My computer had a meltdown recently and I had to reformat it. Stayed with win7 as 8 and 10 are awful, but lost my office2010 to 2013 and it is the worst thing ever. If I could rollback I would!

Just becasue they have upgraded, doesn't mean it is better.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 26, 2015)

Kylara said:


> I like old tech. Often build quality is better, and UIs are better. We have a really old hifi set with sliders and stuff in the summer house, along with a vinyl deck that still works better than my radio cd player thing.
> 
> My computer had a meltdown recently and I had to reformat it. Stayed with win7 as 8 and 10 are awful, but lost my office2010 to 2013 and it is the worst thing ever. If I could rollback I would!
> 
> Just becasue they have upgraded, doesn't mean it is better.




There's lot to be said for abacuses , they don't need upgrading and they don't get viruses.  One drawback, poor internet connectivity.


----------



## Dave (Nov 26, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> There is* no *such thing as outdated tech. There is Tech that is a commercial failure, or never worked well and never will, or isn't economically viable, or newer tech really is much better. There is plenty of really old tech still good to go.


_Slide Rules, Napier's Bones_: These are inaccurate, they only give an approximate value unless you are very skilled. My point: is only that I think "*No*" is quite a huge statement. If you had said "very little" or "almost no"...


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 26, 2015)

I did say:


> or newer tech really is much better.


I have an Abacus and Slide Rule. (The Abacus is "digital" just slow, but 100% exact. It can do fixed point numbers). The Slide rule is analogue and less accurate than a calculator*, which is only exact for integers within a certain range, otherwise much more accurate (not perfect), though not a lot faster!

I think I wrote that badly. 
"There is almost no tech that's truly outdated in the popular sense" 


But my real point is that the Betamax was practically dead by 1985, not because of being outdated but for quite complex reasons. Lots of tech that people think of as outdated is actually not at all.  1977 to 1983 I serviced VTRs and VCRs when there wasn't enough other work in. EIAJ Reel to Reel, Panasonic Cartridges, VHS, Betamax, U-matic, N1500, N1700 etc. No Video 2000 machines. They were delayed for years because Philips couldn't mass produce them. Tech that was too advanced to make.

A 14" Mono CRT can actually use less power and do higher resolution than a same size LCD. CRTS are also variable resolution and refresh rate. Nearly impossible for LCD / Plasma / LED. But CRTs are not suited to widescreen (the Widescreen CRTs had high fail rate) nor more than 56" (yes there were CRTs that big!) and are bulky. I think the last factory might have closed in 2012. A Victorian invention! 

[* Come the apocalypse, a solar powered calculator will be be useful, though most of those are not scientific.]


----------



## J Riff (Nov 26, 2015)

As far as music goes, record players, tape decks, dat... all still work fine. The only good thing about modren digital stuff is - the record/tape collection no longer fills a small room. And, I found all 350 rare records online, all the stuff that was very hard to track down, let alone afford. So thank you, internet. *)


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 27, 2015)

J Riff said:


> The only good thing about modren digital stuff is - the record/tape collection no longer fills a small room.


And backups are easy. So two good things!

My music collection (mix of 78s, 45s, 33s, cassettes and CDs) fits on a fingernail micro SD card. I convert at 256Kbps. I don't have much music digital downloads, just some genuinely free samples and out of copyright 78s from 1920s and 1930s. I prefer to buy a CD as that is then an archive backup.


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Nov 29, 2015)

SilentRoamer said:


> I see Windows XP machines in production environments all the time because its CnC for some huge piece of machinery - generally easier/cheaper to virtualise XP than it would be to replace the machines.



Geez... we only recently retired a Windows 95 machine with special testing hardware for which there are no XP drivers.

As for the original question, people switch to new tech when it's a) better and b) cost-effective. For example, when I feel the urge to buy a movie rather than stream it, I mostly buy DVDs, because you never know when a Blu-Ray won't work in any random Blu-Ray player. The small improvement in picture quality isn't worth the risk of bot being able to see a picture at all.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 29, 2015)

Edward M. Grant said:


> I mostly buy DVDs, because you never know when a Blu-Ray won't work in any random Blu-Ray player.


We can buy and play any region on any of our DVD players. But the Blu-Ray players are region locked even for DVDs. Even the Australian "PAL" releases won't play on it.
Region Locking is an evil as is DRM at all.
Some Blu-Ray players only work for BD content if connected to the Internet! Madness.
My Eldest son buys Blu-Ray. We don't.


----------



## mosaix (Nov 29, 2015)

On the subject of outdated technology...

I have a perfectly good Pioneer amplifier and turntable from the 70's (Pioneer analogue radio tuner and cassette player to go with them as well). The speakers work perfectly but I now want other speakers around the house but don't want to go to the bother of running wires under the floorboards etc. It occurs to me that there might be something on the market that attaches to the speaker outlet from from an old amp and converts that into a radio / bluetooth signal for reception by radio / bluetooth speakers. There must be millions of people who have old amps that they are refusing to part with that would welcome such a device. Anyone heard of such a thing?

If such a thing doesn't exist I think I might have spotted a gap in the market and will get it patented immediately.


----------



## The Judge (Nov 29, 2015)

The Judicial Helpmeet is sure there is something of the kind, as he remembers reading about it in the last few months, possibly online.  Unfortunately, he can't recall what it is, nor where he read it.  I shall feed him fish to improve the old grey matter (the Vit D tablets having had no discernible effect over the last month) to see if he can come up with anything.

Meanwhile, not quite what you want, but perhaps as an alternative, he says have a look at Sonos which does something or other (he's warbling on at length here in the background but I'm understanding only about one word in twenty so I've no idea what it might or might not do).


----------



## mosaix (Nov 29, 2015)

The Judge said:


> The Judicial Helpmeet is sure there is something of the kind, as he remembers reading about it in the last few months, possibly online.  Unfortunately, he can't recall what it is, nor where he read it.  I shall feed him fish to improve the old grey matter (the Vit D tablets having had no discernible effect over the last month) to see if he can come up with anything.
> 
> Meanwhile, not quite what you want, but perhaps as an alternative, he says have a look at Sonos which does something or other (he's warbling on at length here in the background but I'm understanding only about one word in twenty so I've no idea what it might or might not do).



Thanks very much TJ. I've tried searching but can't find anything. I'm sure it's just a question of getting the write word combinations to search with. Anything extra he remembers would be gratefully received.


----------



## Kylara (Nov 29, 2015)

I'll ask my OH, currently specialising in Bluetooth modules, so theoretically, being the type of person he is, knows everything bluetooth


----------



## mosaix (Nov 29, 2015)

Kylara said:


> I'll ask my OH, currently specialising in Bluetooth modules, so theoretically, being the type of person he is, knows everything bluetooth



Much appreciated!


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Nov 29, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> We can buy and play any region on any of our DVD players. But the Blu-Ray players are region locked even for DVDs. Even the Australian "PAL" releases won't play on it.



Our Blu-Ray players have a magic code on the remote to switch DVD and Blu-Ray region. But, yes, that's extremely rare with Blu-Ray players compared to DVD players, and means that, one day when the players break, I won't be able to watch my UK disks any more. Hence there's very little reason to buy them.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 29, 2015)

From about £8 on ebay. (Bluetooth gadgets)


----------



## The Judge (Nov 29, 2015)

The other half's little grey cells haven't kicked in yet, mosaix, but he has said it might be worth contacting Sevenoaks Sound and Vision who are experts in hi fi generally.  I don't think they've got a store anywhere near you, but I dare say they'd be happy to help over the telephone if you can't make a special trip over to where they're located.


----------



## mosaix (Nov 29, 2015)

Thanks TJ. Will do this week. Yet another idea for my Christmas list - I'm being bullied!


----------



## Kylara (Nov 30, 2015)

Right, according to the OH, you appreciate sound quality if you have a Pioneer stack  there are things out there but you will never ever get that sound quality from RF / bluetooth speakers. The sound quality will decrease - something to do with throughput and interference I believe.

You can stream over your network, wifi/ethernet with a soundsystem like a gigajuke where you have a base station and satellite speakers around the house.

Somewhere like richer sounds will help with modern tech and the RF/bluetooth adapter thingies though I should think.

(I bet you can tell which bits I wrote under dictation and which bits I was left to my own devices for hah!)


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 30, 2015)

Kylara said:


> bluetooth speakers


Small speaker drivers in rubbish plastic boxes can't compare with even budget bookshelf speakers.


----------



## Kylara (Nov 30, 2015)

I know, but a bluetooth module would be the way to remotely connect multiple speakers. They are terrible yes, mainly because bluetooth has only so much data volume throughput, let alone poor build quality.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 30, 2015)

The module is a lesser problem than the garbage plastic or tin box speakers.
I've used €10 modules with a real amp and speakers --> Sounds OK, not as good as a 3.5mm jack cable.
ANY BT speakers on market are like a 1960s pocket radio in quality, the quality is appalling due to the tiny speakers in the box (the drivers) and the really stupid materials / box size / box design.  I have four BT systems here. While the BT itself isn't perfect the small speakers are TOTAL JUNK.

BT is cheap way to remote the sound. Then you need REAL HiFi amp and speakers at the remote location. Otherwise you've just got distorted noise.


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 1, 2015)

I still have my beloved Mission 773e floor-standing speakers and use gold connections with really thick cable. I'm wondering how much quality loss there is by going wireless and I'm guessing it would be a ****load. 

I'm a caveman and I'll stick to thick cables.                        

Sony BDPS4200 Blu Ray can be bought multi-region unlocked for DVD. I've yet to find a disc it won't play.


----------



## mosaix (Dec 1, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> The module is a lesser problem than the garbage plastic or tin box speakers.
> I've used €10 modules with a real amp and speakers --> Sounds OK, not as good as a 3.5mm jack cable.
> ANY BT speakers on market are like a 1960s pocket radio in quality, the quality is appalling due to the tiny speakers in the box (the drivers) and the really stupid materials / box size / box design.  I have four BT systems here. While the BT itself isn't perfect the small speakers are TOTAL JUNK.
> 
> BT is cheap way to remote the sound. Then you need REAL HiFi amp and speakers at the remote location. Otherwise you've just got distorted noise.



Haven't investigated this in any depth yet, but in the same way as there may be an analogue to bluetooth adapter for the amp output surely there must be a bluetooth to analogue adapter for speaker input allowing all-round analogue kit but connecting it together with digital comms. If there isn't then it's the patent office for me....


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 1, 2015)

mosaix said:


> but in the same way as there may be an analogue to bluetooth adapter for the amp output surely there must be a bluetooth to analogue adapter for speaker input allowing all-round analogue kit but connecting it together with digital comms.


Yes there is. A Bluetooth INPUT to an amp is the easiest, cheapest bit. The Analogue Stereo out to Bluetooth from line out of a HiFi is a little harder to find, many are only for speaker phone quality, not stereo.

But you need a decent amp (one I've seen does have 2 x 2.5W Class D drivers, but that's pretty miserable, though FAR better than ANY all in one Bluetooth Speaker I've seen as they are garbage little speakers in plastic boxes) and decent speakers for the Bluetooth client (which is under £9 inc postage). The Stereo bluetooth client will also play back any bluetooth enabled phone/mp3 player. I have one that's rechargeable(or powered) via micro usb (say a phone charger) and one that is like a mini-USB stick. Both have 3.5mm stereo jack for audio out. The "usb" style one only uses USB for power. It with a 3.5mm stereo cable to 2 x phono/RCA is powered off TV USB socket and feeds a spare input on the HiFi amp.

There are also pairs of WiFi devices.
*You can also use a pair of video senders*, they work fine with no video, better range than bluetooth. Unlike Bluetooth or WiFi they are purely analogue (even the Digisender  brands) using 2.4GHz or 5.8GHz. There is no latency. The digital conversion of Bluetooth or WiFi adds codec artefacts (distortion) and delay up to a second (coding / decoding buffer latency) which causes echos. The delay will even be different!
The video senders have a choice of four channels. Usually ones on same band but different makes are compatible, you can have one sender and *any* number of receivers. Bluetooth is one to one. WiFi can feed many clients, but has no true broadcast mode, ten receivers use up x10 WiFi capacity! WiFi clients connect with individual encrypted connections. Any multicast or broadcast connections are emulated with unicast IP/UDP by the WiFi airpoint/base station. Ad hoc is no better.


----------



## Kylara (Dec 1, 2015)

Even with a bluetooth to analogue you'll have poorer quality sound as the bluetooth throughput is limited and it will decrease the quality whilst sending it. Even if you had the best speakers in the world they quality wouldn't be as good as if you had a wired connection unfortunately. Biggest problem with bluetooth is the limited data throughput.

As my quality obsessed OH says, the best connections are always wired, and the best picture and sound quality are wired. He has a plasma tv because the LED ones have poor "true black" depth. He's love a new OLED but the one he would have to get to be of an acceptable quality is 2k! Then he has it all hooked up to brilliant speakers so that it doesn't use the bad tv ones. Every screen in the house and that he uses outside of the house have been made colour perfect by the use of an expensive yet clever corrections device that ensures the colours are true and correct (none of that red or yellow heavy tinge). If he could he'd go and do it to all of the "for sale" tvs we sometimes see in places like JL where their colours are so out of whack it hurts!

He said: you're probably best off wiring them, or getting wifi ones, but you need a semi decent wifi bandwidth to support it plus normal stuff.

I'm still on 4mbps on a good day here! So most wifi stuff is out. Also the stupid Sky box now requires use of my internet  If 2 people are using it, we turn into the 90s


----------



## WaylanderToo (Dec 1, 2015)

mosaix said:


> On the subject of outdated technology...
> 
> I have a perfectly good Pioneer amplifier and turntable from the 70's (Pioneer analogue radio tuner and cassette player to go with them as well). The speakers work perfectly but I now want other speakers around the house but don't want to go to the bother of running wires under the floorboards etc. It occurs to me that there might be something on the market that attaches to the speaker outlet from from an old amp and converts that into a radio / bluetooth signal for reception by radio / bluetooth speakers. There must be millions of people who have old amps that they are refusing to part with that would welcome such a device. Anyone heard of such a thing?
> 
> If such a thing doesn't exist I think I might have spotted a gap in the market and will get it patented immediately.




were you perchance thinking of this?

The Vamp - buy at Firebox.com


----------



## mosaix (Dec 1, 2015)

WaylanderToo said:


> were you perchance thinking of this?
> 
> The Vamp - buy at Firebox.com



That seems to answer the speaker end, Waylander. Thanks.


----------



## Cli-Fi (Jan 2, 2016)

There is *a lot* of fear associated with new technologies and it doesn't help matters when the tech blogs go all bonkers with false claims about Game Consoles, Operating Systems, or Data. In fact, you can trace modern day widely held beliefs of some conspiracy theories from that very same fear! The belief of Alien Abductions could be traced to fear of new advancements in medical science and surgeries. UFOs themselves could be a subconscious fear of military technological advancements. The NSA spying on you could be a fear of the increase of devices that have potential to spy on us. The fear of hackers despite most people being on Facebook. And a new offering into the mix: Windows 10 alarmists could be the result of the unconscious fear of the internet of things!


----------



## hardsciencefanagain (Jan 2, 2016)

Maybe some of us like the imperfections we have grown accustomed to...
Maybe some of us actually like some form of design,I dunno.
D.Adams:
“We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works.”


----------



## Dave (Jan 7, 2016)

hardsciencefanagain said:


> Maybe some of us like the imperfections we have grown accustomed to...
> Maybe some of us actually like some form of design,I dunno.
> D.Adams:
> “We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works.”


This is very true. Items can be more technologically advanced, smarter and have more uses, but sometimes the design of a item is so good that it cannot be bettered, either ergonomically or just for its "cool" look. Otherwise, why would anyone ever buy a classic car?


----------



## hardsciencefanagain (Jan 7, 2016)

Besides everyone's plate is a knife ,a fork and a spoon,and NOT a Swiss army knife with GPS.
Particularly in the field of transportation and consumer electronics, there's often little improvement.What apparently *does* advance is marketing techniques("social enginëering").


----------



## J Riff (Jan 7, 2016)

I just take a line output from the PC and send it thru a little preamp, then as many speakers as one can plug in. It's good to have a ghettoblaster on the floor, set to lots bass. 4 or 5 sound sources make for nice separation. To get loud, just adapt into the guitar amp, I have a Roland Cube and much loudness is achieved. I woont ever play any bass-enhanced, sub-bass stuff cos' it's stupid and unnatural! But this old junk sounds better than most modren plastic blueteeth, anyday. )


----------



## Anne Spackman (Jan 25, 2016)

J Riff said:


> As far as music goes, record players, tape decks, dat... all still work fine. The only good thing about modren digital stuff is - the record/tape collection no longer fills a small room. And, I found all 350 rare records online, all the stuff that was very hard to track down, let alone afford. So thank you, internet. *)



The internet has opened up a world of opportunities for many people worldwide, and it is a tremendous learning tool, despite the potential dangers online.

I also still use tape cassettes all the time, especially in my portable walkman.  I have a CD player walkman I use as well, and lots of CD's that I listen to in my old boombox.  I still have a semi-ancient VCR that I use as well as my trusty DVD recorder.  I do not see the point in investing in Blu-ray when my DVD player works just fine for most of the films I want to watch, and I have a small DVD collection.  I don't know that anything will change my mind about going to blu-ray or digital download. I like owning DVD's, much as I enjoy owing real paper books. I do not own a kindle or nook.

I have never owned an iphone, ipad, or any of the new phones except for a basic flip cell phone, mostly because I don't need anything else, and I actually don't want to always be on my phone, which I think would happen if I got an Iphone, much as I am always on my computer.  Until a few years ago, I never had any phone except a land line without any special features.  I find new technology fascinating, and I am glad we have so many new kinds of things to improve our lives, yet at home, I tend to be somewhat of a minimalist.  I used to not take many pictures, either, but I finally did get a digital camera about six years ago, and I confess I have taken far more photos ever since.  Digital cameras are great for holidays with memorable scenery where you can take photo after photo.

Anyway, I am quite happy with my life even though I am sticking with the outdated technology.  Everything I own is in working order, and much easier to use than some of the newest technological devices.  And oh, I have an old 37 inch T.V. that isn't a flat screen.  It has a simple operating system and remote that I well know how to use.


----------



## J Riff (Feb 6, 2016)

The stuff people throw away. Just found a ProTools micro USB unit - 260$ new. Allows ProToolers to take their mixes to the beach, anywhere. The size of a large thumbDrive, it has 24-track capability and hi-kwality sampling rate etc. etc.
 I have left behind a hundred, at least - discarded DVD players. Anyone need a DVD player, recorder? Five bucks. Three.
Another swell find is a dentist camera? I think it is... it has a little cam on a flexi-cable that can be put inside anywhere, just like the ones they use to look for survivors in rubble or other places the eye can't normally go. But what to do with it?
 Really though, what we are seeking here... in disposed-of tech.... is,_ Gold!_ Shhhhhh. Now to acquire the dangerous alchemicals required to extract it.
Anyone ever done it, with the Nitric and Hydrochloric?


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 7, 2016)

Because change is hard?


----------



## J Riff (Feb 7, 2016)

Yeah. Well I put this up for 80, have an offer for sixty, so this ancient outmoded hi-tech rubbish from 2007 is goin' fast.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 7, 2016)

There are  strange rumors of people  out there who  still use windows 95 and 98  and in some forgotten corners of the globe , the rumors get even seven more bizarre ,  that there are computers , that still use, windows for work groups and MS Dos. Worse still are the reports Zombie 486 computers still in operation, slowing down the Web.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 27, 2016)

I thought this story was pretty relevant to this thread:
US nuclear force still uses floppy disks - BBC News

"
The report said that the Department of Defence systems that co-ordinated intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear bombers and tanker support aircraft "runs on an IBM Series-1 Computer - a 1970s computing system - and uses eight-inch floppy disks".

"This system remains in use because, in short, it still works," Pentagon spokeswoman Lt Col Valerie Henderson told the AFP news agency.
"


----------



## Ray McCarthy (May 27, 2016)

If it works, why break or replace it.
New for the sake of new can create problems where there are none.
Floppy disks last longer than consumer USB sticks and harder to steal.

It was only about 3 years ago I gave away my 8" floppy drive to a CP/M enthusiast. I'd not used them since 1998.


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor (May 27, 2016)

I'm not quite _that_ bad, but I do tend to be a trailing-edge adopter. I'm still on Windows 7, I still own a desktop, I just recently bought a Samsung Galaxy 4 even though they were selling 6's at the time...

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be bleeding edge, as long as you're willing to put up with the hassles. I'm not. I have better things to do than try to figure out why the new drivers don't work with my frammistan.


----------



## The Big Peat (May 27, 2016)

I have Windows 7 on one machine and Windows 10 on another and if I wasn't so lazy, I'd find a way to install Windows 7 onto the second too. A far, far superior product in my experience.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (May 27, 2016)

Windows 7 is a kludge compared to XP and Server 2003 (NT versions 5.x along with Win2K), yes it superior to Win 8.x and Win 10. It's only a service pack version of Vista. MS was just too mean to let Vista users have it for free. (Versions are both NT6.x) Most of the good features promised 2003 to 2005 have not yet made it to Windows. Instead that they have messed in trying to make that Windows Phone and Desktop are the same, totally messing up windows 8.x instead of it fixing the sludge in Vista/Win7 and adding features and killing bugs STILL in Windows since NT4.0.
Yet Windows CE phone in early years of achieved 20% in USA. Current Windows phone is DEAD. Yet they totally messed up the desktop for it. Win10 is a privacy disaster and adds NOTHING of value and STILL doesn't remove long term flaws. They have lost the plot.
No wonder Win 10 is failure despite being free and PC sales are falling while Android tablet sales  soar.  More companies and people than ever using Linux (OS X is slight increase only because it is ONLY for expensive Apple Hardware).
Still 11% of online is XP, very many non-Internet computers using XP.
Linux has long ago "won" for servers, routers, set-boxes, TVs (not just smart ones) and Android is Linux with an custom GUI and Google version of Java for Apps.
Chrome book is Linux based.
Last Apple OS was OS9, the OS X is based on Next Step's version of BSD, a cousin to Linux. iOS is a cut down OSX with bought in Fingerworks GUI.

MS with fixation on Cloud and Phones have made themselves irrelevant.

[Win2K was released before ready / finished, XP is finished version. Win2K users should have had XP free]


----------



## Ray McCarthy (May 27, 2016)

Coincidentally just published


			
				El Reg said:
			
		

> This week Redmond confirmed that even after an $8bn purchase that brought in 32,000 dedicated staff, it was not only exiting the consumer phone business, but abandoning mobile in entire geographical regions including India, China and Latin America, while leaving the door ajar for showcase devices such as a Surface Phone in the future.


The Windows Phone story: From hope to dusty abandonware

[This doesn't cover the Dreamcast using WinCE, Win CE PDAs and how Win CE, with a totally stupid GUI (a shrunk version of Win 95) became #2 Smartphone GUI (Symbian was #1). That ended with version 6.0.]

Win Phone 6.5 was a horrible franken-step.
Win phone 7 used the GUI from Zune which failed because MS didn't understand iTunes and only Apple can be Apple. (iPod was a late comer to MP3 players, River and Creative years earlier) Zune was 10 years too late.
Zune GUI was a good idea for a phone. But Win7 phone was five years too late! Even Trolltech had a similar touch GUI before the iPhone came out. I made "proof of concept" 4G phone in 2006 using it and Debian linux with Firefox browser.

Win Phone 8 was stupid replacement of WinCE kernel with Win NT as used in Windows desktop. The only thing that had been wrong with WinCE was the stupid Win95 style GUI (not suitable, ZUNE GUI good) and lack of development.

Sadly after over 10 years of inflicting a shrunk version of Windows Deskop on PDAs and Phone they decided to inflict the phone GUI on desktop (win 8.x)!



> "UWP apps aren't designed for desktop, tablet or phone, but can adapt to each display size. Predictably, this lowest common denominator approach has been an aesthetic disaster,"


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 27, 2016)

IMO it's bizarre that Microsoft have released Windows 10 - which is in effect Windows 8 but with extra integrated functionality for mobile devices - while at the same time killing mobile devices running Windows for general consumers.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (May 27, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> Windows 10 - which is in effect Windows 8 but with extra integrated functionality for mobile devices - while at the same time killing mobile devices


*Inertia.*  The ill-conceived Win10 Desktop program started before Win 8.1 desktop release.
No ALL mobile MS is dead and gone. Only the Surface Pro, really an ultra x86 laptop with detachable keyboard, survives.
Intel in a double blow to MS plans, has axed completely their mobile Atom development. The ONLY value to business of  Windows Mobile was the x86 Atom based versions, not the ARM (more ordinary Windows Consumer phones and the previously axed tablet), that's gone.

So MS had toasted the Desktop functionality for a market that had dropped to under 2% for them (now < 1%) and is now scrapped.


----------



## Lew Rockwell Fan (May 27, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> And whats wrong with MS DOS?  It's still one of the most venerable reliable dependable operating systems around.  Besides, Graphical User Interfaces are so overrated .


If I had known there were disk based spread sheets for DOS that got around the 640 k problem way back when, I might still be using it. So I'm glad I didn't. I didn't care too much for any of the Ws I used for a while. But I'm much happier with 'nixes.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (May 27, 2016)

Lew Rockwell Fan said:


> disk based spread sheets for DOS that got around the 640 k


Even CP/M (64K!) wasn't limited on Wordprocessor or Spreadsheet size. MS didn't write DOS, it was bought from a company that reverse engineered it from CP/M 86, which was just ported from CP/M. Almost all the first popular used programs existed on CP/M first!  Wordstar, Supercalc (Lotus 123 and Visicalc similar). Wordperfect was a much later alternative to Wordstar. I used Wordstar on CP/M and MS-DOS, also Wordperfect and MS Word for DOS.
I still have copies of Word 2.0a, the first decent MS Windows WP, version 1.0 was only on the Mac 
Later I had DTP, Spice Modelling, Prolog, Modula-2, Forth, C etc on CP/M.

The limit for your spreadsheet was the disk storage, not the 640K RAM. Apple II only had 100K disks, original PC with DOS, only 360K. I had 1M byte 8" drives and 5M Byte hard drive. The ACT Sirius 1 had 2M byte 5.25" floppies and 800x400 graphics when IBM PC was only Text screen and 360K floppy.



Lew Rockwell Fan said:


> I didn't care too much for any of the Ws I used for a while. But I'm much happier with 'nixes.


Vi, Vim, Emacs or nano for editing


----------



## Jo Zebedee (May 27, 2016)

I like my keyboard size. I like the feel of the laptop. It lasts about 10 minutes not plugged in, it is 15 years old and if it hasn't been started for a few days it's slow. Oh, and I daren't run it without a cooling stand. But I've written 7 books on it and more reports than I can count and I like it. So there.


----------



## Lew Rockwell Fan (May 27, 2016)

Ray McCarthy said:


> MS didn't write DOS, it was bought from a company that reverse engineered it from CP/M 86, which was just ported from CP/M.


And an interesting story, that. From mem, without looking it up, so check details before quoting me:
IBM came to Gates 'cause he had done a good job with a compiler. When requested to do an OS, he told 'em what they wanted already existed, more or less, no need to start from scratch, and sent them to the CP/M fellow, trying to do him a good turn. But the CP/M guy (who was pretty strange, and later was killed in a biker bar brawl) stood up the IBM guys, who were NOT impressed with his - ahem - business like behaviour. So they went back to MS. Gates bought the code as you say - then MS turned it into DOS. I don't recall the name of the book I read about this in, but the early days of MS make quite a story.


Ray McCarthy said:


> The limit for your spreadsheet was the disk storage, not the 640K RAM.


Nope. I used Zencalc, version 2.something I think, part of a suite. It kept the whole sheet in RAM. But I had used MS's Windows spreadsheet on another machine, and knew it had no such limit. It never occured to me at the time, that there might be spread sheets for DOS that worked differently from the one I had. I had plenty of drive space, since I had a HUGE hard drive - 10 mB. Yes, megabytes. But that was plenty. The Zen suite was pretty nice. It used a file manager a little like Commander. I actually feel it was better. All the aps used a consistent integrated command and menu interface that was the best thing of its kind I've seen. But the people who did it, had problems with version 3 and then abandoned it to work on games instead.


----------



## Lew Rockwell Fan (May 28, 2016)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Lew Rockwell Fan said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't care too much for any of the Ws I used for a while. But I'm much happier with 'nixes.
> ...


I just caught on. You must have thought I meant "Wordstar". I meant "Windows". That's why I contrasted it with 'nixes. In other words, MS-DOS was pretty stable for me. 95, 98, and ME sucked. 2000 did too, but not as badly. Then I discovered 'nixes and I'm much happier with them. I have the Win that came on this machine only because I haven't needed the space on the drive. I've only booted into it a couple of times. I don't even remember which flavor it is. I ran XP for a little while on an HP that came with it. Which was a fsckin nightmare for which I purely blame HP, not  MS. I'll never buy another HP. I ran a demo of W7 for a few months. Looked like it could be tweaked enough to be decent but why bother? On this machine, in addition to the Win I never use, I have several different 'nixes. Mostly I boot a Ubuntu LTS I built up from the mini.iso. Very lean. I'm not an MS-basher or a Gates-hater, but, personally, I can't imagine ever going back.

As for editors, as long as I used Win, Zenword remained my fav. I've used Vim a bit. Heck, I've even used edlin and ed. But now I like Gedit.


----------



## Aetius (May 28, 2016)

You decide to upgrade, do all the research, read all the reviews, settle on the item you want and make sure it works with everything else. Get it up and running, personalized just as you want.

And six months later a new version (if you're lucky, a paradigm shift if you're not) will be released. It gets tired after a while.


----------



## Lew Rockwell Fan (May 28, 2016)

Aetius said:


> You decide to upgrade, do all the research, read all the reviews, settle on the item you want and make sure it works with everything else. Get it up and running, personalized just as you want.
> 
> And six months later a new version (if you're lucky, a paradigm shift if you're not) will be released. It gets tired after a while.


If having to buy a new version, or worse yet, a new version of your OS cause the old one doesn't support your new hardware is the issue, think about a linux or other unix-like OS. That isn't an issue in the 'nix world.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (May 28, 2016)

Lew Rockwell Fan said:


> Gates 'cause he had done a good job with a compiler.


Interpreter. MS BASIC. Ironically ported from the "free" Dartmouth BASIC, a cut down version of ForTran, for teaching at Dartmouth. Most of the porting done by Bill Gate's friend (I forget which one! Wiki says Paul Allen and Monte Davidoff) initially to 8080 cpu than later 6502. Most 8 bit home computers before PC shipped with it. The Apple II didn't use the MS 6502 BASIC, but Applesoft Basic was certainly later and similar.


Lew Rockwell Fan said:


> When requested to do an OS, he told 'em what they wanted already existed, more or less, no need to start from scratch, and sent them to the CP/M fellow, trying to do him a good turn. But the CP/M guy (who was pretty strange, and later was killed in a biker bar brawl) stood up the IBM guys, who were NOT impressed with his - ahem - business like behaviour.


I think it was more complicated than that. Bizarrely IBM already had suitable HW and OS, but the PC wasn't meant to compete with existing IBM products, it was an unimportant thing originally, hence stock hardware and software design thrown together very quickly.
I don't think anyone exactly knows what happened between Digital Research's Gary Kiddal and IBM. 
DRI did eventually sue MS, but there was some sort of secret settlement.
There was more trouble later, first with marketing then with Windows:


> The competition between MS-DOS and DR-DOS is one of the more controversial chapters of microcomputer history. Microsoft offered the best licensing terms to any computer manufacturer that committed to selling MS-DOS with every system they shipped, making it uneconomical for them to offer systems with another OS, since the manufacturer would still be required to pay a license fee to Microsoft for that system. This practice led to a US Department of Justice investigation, resulting in a decision in 1994 that barred Microsoft from "per-processor" licensing.[8]


MS purchased 86-DOS and repackaged it as MS-DOS and PC-DOS.
MS Word and Excel for Mac were MS's first two genuine own products!
The DRI story really ends in 1991 when Novell bought them.
There was once a company called Santa Cruz Operation and they sold Xenix, which curiously once belonged to MS.
Caldera bought the Digital Research stuff from Novell and also the remains of the original SCO. They then renamed themselves SCO Group and became trolls. They tried to sue IBM  and others for using UNIX and Linux without a licence from them. A sort of Dickensian law suit that went on for ever (2002 to 2016)!

From Wikipedia:
*List of recent SCO Group* lawsuits*

_SCO v. IBM_ (_The SCO Group, Inc. vs. International Business Machines, Inc._, case number 2:03cv0294, United States District Court for the District of Utah)
_Red Hat v. SCO_
_SCO v. Novell_
_SCO v. AutoZone_
_SCO v. DaimlerChrysler_
[* no connection with original SCO]



Lew Rockwell Fan said:


> ran XP for a little while on an HP that came with it. Which was a fsckin nightmare for which I purely blame HP, not MS.


I'd blame MS, they ALWAYS shipped every Windows with *STUPID* defaults. All eye candy on, desktop indexing, all server type services running, etc, default user account as Admin. We used to spend a few hours fixing the settings, which might double speed of operation and reduce boot time from 1 minute to 14 seconds on a 2012 computer.
On big rollouts we used SMS on a server to automatically fix it all on maybe 30 to 500 PCs at once.
All the junk OEMs add doesn't help.


----------



## Mirannan (Jun 1, 2016)

Where Windows 10 scores, IMHO, is in data-sharing. I have had a slight problem, for quite a while, with saving appointments on both my desktop and my Android phone - up to now, I've had to enter the data twice which a) is a pain and b) might lead to missed appointments.

It takes a bit of fiddling, but I've just managed to sort it out. One needs a Google account for it. How? Well...

Use W10 native calendar app. Enter new appointment, save it as a Google calendar entry. (Of course, a Google account on Windows for this purpose has to have been set up.) Follow the procedure for sharing the calendar - use the private version. Subscribe to said calendar in Outlook. Voila, appointment is now in three places; native W10 app, phone, Outlook.

One merely has to remember to use the native app to do any such work; for some reason, Outlook appointments are not updated in the other places.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jun 1, 2016)

Mirannan said:


> Where Windows 10 scores, IMHO, is in data-sharing. I have had a slight problem, for quite a while, with saving appointments on both my desktop and my Android phone - up to now, I've had to enter the data twice which a) is a pain and b) might lead to missed appointments.


a) A problem solved in 1980s. It's a matter of using the right applications. I've never had a problem.
b) Yes, it really scores in data sharing ... to Microsoft. I expect them to be fined and told to stop.

Outlook is horrible and only reason to EVER use it if the corporate business and Exchange server demands it. It's always been the most vulnerable and incompatible email. It's only ever intended to share appointments/calendar via Exchange Server. 

Google, huh? I'd not want to share any data with them either.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jun 1, 2016)

Despite being free and people being "tricked" in to upgrading, nearly a year after release MS Win 10 is under 16% of Internet using computers* and much lower if all are considered. (Some countries a 1/3rd of people don't use internet, also labs, offices, POS, ATMs may use XP or Win7 without internet connection. Some still on Win 3.11, Win2K, NT3.51, NT 4 etc)
Now MS are "forcing" Win 10 "upgrades", even when the PC isn't compatible!
Windows 10 nagware: You can't click X. Make a date OR ELSE

[*Not counting servers, phones, tablets, smart TVs, media boxes, consoles etc that connect to Internet and have a browser]


----------



## Mirannan (Jun 1, 2016)

Ray McCarthy said:


> a) A problem solved in 1980s. It's a matter of using the right applications. I've never had a problem.
> b) Yes, it really scores in data sharing ... to Microsoft. I expect them to be fined and told to stop.
> 
> Outlook is horrible and only reason to EVER use it if the corporate business and Exchange server demands it. It's always been the most vulnerable and incompatible email. It's only ever intended to share appointments/calendar via Exchange Server.
> ...



Sure. But you presuppose that the data is worth stealing. Personally, I don't think anyone would be very interested in precisely when I'm seeing my doctor - for example.

If I was using the internet for commercially sensitive data, I'd probably use different software. Or encrypt it, of course.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jun 1, 2016)

Mirannan said:


> But you presuppose that the data is worth stealing. Personally, I don't think anyone would be very interested in precisely when I'm seeing my doctor - for example.


*Apart from the morality, personal information is all very valuable actually*. Facebook makes about £600 per person mining their data. Most of Google's activities are geared to capture personal information. It's so valuable to them.
MS is trying to re-invent themselves as a combination of Google, Apple, Oracle and Adobe.


----------



## J Riff (Jun 1, 2016)

It all feeds into demographics, and that is bad. Bad! Not intrinsically bad, but when misused for profit - very bad indeed. Dint know about the 600 spondulix, but no surprise.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jun 1, 2016)

J Riff said:


> 600 spondulix


It might be US $600, not £


----------



## David M. Kelly (Jun 22, 2016)

I seem to be in a minority who still believes privacy is important (even if I don't really have anything much to hide). I do what I can to limit data sharing . As for Windows10 malware? errr... no thanks


----------



## AstroZon (Jun 22, 2016)

I can do things with Windows XP that I can't do with Windows 7.  One is record while listening to Pandora.  I guess it doesn't take a genious to figure out why this feature was quietly nixed.


----------

