Monday 14 December 2015

Do not upgrade to Windows 10

I finally cracked and tried the 'free upgrade' to Windows 10. My friend Irene said (before I upgraded) 'why upgrade when everything is working now?'. Should have listened!


Here are some good reasons for you not to upgrade:
  1. No DVD playback support (there is supposed to be a Windows DVD Player, it doesn't work)
  2. No Windows Aero (Applications look shabby and old, Progress bars are monochrome, Windows don't have borders)
  3. Windows App Store (if I wanted an Apple device, I would BUY an Apple device. If Windows persists with its copy-cat store bullshit, I may even just ditch Microsoft and buy a Mac. People buy Microsoft because it is MICROSOFT. Which is a 'feel' and a 'style' or at least used to be. The most important aspect was choice. Which MS are rapidly replacing with lock in and lock out style software).
  4. Everything new is Windows Live tracked (sure, put your browser in privacy mode, just let the OS report on you. You won't find a single app that doesn't insist on you being online, which is Windows 10. Although, somewhat mitigating, at least old apps still work the same).
  5. Microsoft Edge (the new replacement for IE) doesn't allow you to disable Java (that is sites basically raping you for all the information your worth, and anyone who knows me knows I will never, ever use that word lightly. Since rape is THE most serious evil one can perpetrate against another human).
  6. Window 10 is Malware
  7. Just try to disable the service "Tile Data model server". You cannot. The service manager is a joke now, with Microsoft deciding what you can and cannot do with their OS. What you certainly aren't supported doing is stopping them receiving and selling all your information.
ED: I did exaggerate when I said I might buy a Mac though, but the point was sound. I like PC's because they are were a very open platform which allows allowed for lots of different software and was very supportive of indie development.




The "Microsoft App Store" is a stick in the eye for independent developers. It is pure greed (incase anyone can't see why. It forces people to buy only what Microsoft want to offer, Microsoft will define what people see, it also allows Microsoft to monitor what is popular and make sure Microsoft is the one receiving the money. If they can't or don't wish to copy / steal the idea for themselves (which they have always done), they still gain revenue from the store transactions and insight into why the software is popular so they can steal that income too). I am seriously considering moving to Linux!


Microsoft have fucked over its entire user base for their own ends. Whilst it is not unusual for greedy corporates to do this, what is a 'newer trend' is greedy corporates getting to be that by masquerading as decent corporates (like Googles beginnings, and possibly I suspect a number of others).


Whilst, possibly, it is just some good decent people starting with ideals and becoming a success via those ideals, what is certain is they all sell out to the greedy manipulative types who proceed to wipe out all that is good/decent to replace it with what is invasive and profitable (they just hope to keep it 'under wraps' for long enough or well enough to prevent people leaving until they depend on the service and then can't. Cloud services are the ultimate expression of greed, "use my service.... FOREVER once your invested their IS no escape / alternative. 'We own all your servers.' ").


We need a law, a law not just for nations but for all of humanity. A law which encourages activity for betterment of all life and makes greed onerous and, where possible, impossible (or at least infeasible).


I propose, we base life around the supply of food, water and owned land. When it comes down to it, if people have these three things, the rest of life is about other people (broadly speaking). Each person should directly be responsible for their lifetimes worth of food and water. People shouldn't be allowed children till they can prove they have already feed themselves, via work efforts, for the equivalent of 100 year (an above average lifespan). Once someone has achieved this, they will only be responsible for accommodation and raising their children (who will also be responsible for their food). For accommodation, they should simply need to show they have built others at least 2 homes (this is important, no one should gain credit for doing things for themselves! Only for doing things for others). So, once a person has reached this heady state, they need then to justify their right for owning land. A person should have land if they work hard to look after land. Land is the most complex. We all need somewhere to live, sometimes there isn't enough space (or, there is enough, but its a bad idea to use it ALL). I would estimate though, once a person proves their worth through the above mentioned activities. They should receive some land and they should be 'judged' by peers as to whether they are earning its keep. Earning keep should be about allowing others to work off their 'food debt' and 'accommodation debt' as well as personal care for the area.


I wish people would not compromise on being decent. It is so easy, to just say 'ok, well, I can't do anything about this so will make the best of it'. I'm certain everyone has done this with something in life. I'm no exception. I just wish I was and write this to remind me to keep trying to be more and take less easy roads (like accepting the 'free' Windows 10).