The question for intelligent people is...
*How does M$ plan on making money off of forced Win11 mothership logins?*

In a recent Windows 11 thread, it appears Microsoft is going the way of
Apple by forcibly requiring users to maintain a login to the mothership.

That means only Android, of all the major common consumer operating systems,
does _not_ require periodic logging into the mothership moving forward.

The question here is only _how_ does Microsoft plan on making money by
the user of that data which Microsoft (& Apple) forcibly collect from users?

Let's hope Microsoft doesn't take it to the level of the Apple
"walled garden", where, if you refuse to log in to the iOS mothership
periodically, Apple will literally lock up your device
(unilaterally making your own device completely unusable to you).
<https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>

Given Microsoft is planning to follow Apple, the potential of Microsoft
of permanently disabling your device simply for not _re_ validating yourself,
is distinctly possible. (Clearly Apple already requires _re_ validation!)
<https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>

Microsoft, like Apple, has the power to deny access to your own devices!
<https://i.postimg.cc/g008YhxP/appleid02.jpg>

If you try to log in using VPN, M$ can even disable your Internet account!
<https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/8zSvshQf/appleid04.jpg>

Notice, in addition to collecting billions of bits of data on you,
that's a lot of power you're handing to the likes of Microsoft
(& Apple), is it not?

We _know_ Apple does it (if you don't stay completely inside the
walled garden); so lockout capability isn't going to be unknown
to Microsoft.

Will Microsoft do it?
I don't know...

Still... the question is valid from an adult perspective, is it not?
*How can M$ make money off of _requiring_ a forced mothership login?*
--
REFERENCES:
The iKooks will deny Apple does what Apple does; but that's only because
they _hate_ what Apple does (so they brazenly deny even what Apple admits).
<https://www.payetteforward.com/does-apple-track-you-on-iphone-heres-truth/>
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-data-collection-stored-request/>
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/06/01/here-is-all-of-the-data-apple-has-about-you>
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/05/04/asked-apple-everything-had-me-heres-what-got/558362002/>
How is Microsoft planning on making money from the future forced mothership login requirement?

On 2/19/22 14:37, this is what Andy Burnelli wrote:
> That means only Android, of all the major common consumer operating systems,
> does _not_ require periodic logging into the mothership moving forward.

Linux has no mothership either. You pick a name and password and it can be most anything.

On 2/19/2022 2:37 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> The question for intelligent people is... *How does M$ plan on making
> money off of forced Win11 mothership logins?*
>
> In a recent Windows 11 thread, it appears Microsoft is going the way of
> Apple by forcibly requiring users to maintain a login to the mothership.
> That means only Android, of all the major common consumer operating
> systems,
> does _not_ require periodic logging into the mothership moving forward.
>
> The question here is only _how_ does Microsoft plan on making money by
> the user of that data which Microsoft (& Apple) forcibly collect from
> users?
>
> Let's hope Microsoft doesn't take it to the level of the Apple "walled
> garden", where, if you refuse to log in to the iOS mothership
> periodically, Apple will literally lock up your device (unilaterally
> making your own device completely unusable to you).
> <https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>
>
> Given Microsoft is planning to follow Apple, the potential of Microsoft
> of permanently disabling your device simply for not _re_ validating
> yourself,
> is distinctly possible. (Clearly Apple already requires _re_ validation!)
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>
> Microsoft, like Apple, has the power to deny access to your own devices!
> <https://i.postimg.cc/g008YhxP/appleid02.jpg>
>
> If you try to log in using VPN, M$ can even disable your Internet account!
> <https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/8zSvshQf/appleid04.jpg>
> Notice, in addition to collecting billions of bits of data on you,
> that's a lot of power you're handing to the likes of Microsoft (&
> Apple), is it not?
>
> We _know_ Apple does it (if you don't stay completely inside the walled
> garden); so lockout capability isn't going to be unknown to Microsoft.
>
> Will Microsoft do it?
> I don't know...
> Still... the question is valid from an adult perspective, is it not?
> *How can M$ make money off of _requiring_ a forced mothership login?*

Here is a link to their annual report:
https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar21/index.html

On 2022-02-19 2:37 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> The question for intelligent people is... *How does M$ plan on making
> money off of forced Win11 mothership logins?*
>
> In a recent Windows 11 thread, it appears Microsoft is going the way of
> Apple by forcibly requiring users to maintain a login to the mothership.
> That means only Android, of all the major common consumer operating
> systems,
> does _not_ require periodic logging into the mothership moving forward.
>
> The question here is only _how_ does Microsoft plan on making money by
> the user of that data which Microsoft (& Apple) forcibly collect from
> users?

It's pretty clear how and Microsoft is generally very honest about it.
An advertising ID is beneficial to the user because they only get the
ads which might actually interest them, beneficial to the advertiser
because they target the right users with the right ads and beneficial to
the developer because they can get paid for their labour all the while
seemingly giving something away for free to the user. People resist it,
but it's clear that it's not as bad as they think all things considered.

> Let's hope Microsoft doesn't take it to the level of the Apple "walled
> garden", where, if you refuse to log in to the iOS mothership
> periodically, Apple will literally lock up your device (unilaterally
> making your own device completely unusable to you).
> <https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>

They don't want a person other than the person who purchased the
hardware to use it. It's understandable as a security precaution. If I'm
not mistaken, they also encrypt by default and won't let an outsider get
into the user data of an account locked in such a way. Is that something
you're against as well?

> Given Microsoft is planning to follow Apple, the potential of Microsoft
> of permanently disabling your device simply for not _re_ validating
> yourself,
> is distinctly possible. (Clearly Apple already requires _re_ validation!)
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>
> Microsoft, like Apple, has the power to deny access to your own devices!
> <https://i.postimg.cc/g008YhxP/appleid02.jpg>
>
> If you try to log in using VPN, M$ can even disable your Internet account!
> <https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/8zSvshQf/appleid04.jpg>
> Notice, in addition to collecting billions of bits of data on you,
> that's a lot of power you're handing to the likes of Microsoft (&
> Apple), is it not?

Apple has a tendency to lock your account if someone has been trying to
log into it with your password. When they detect fraudulent activity,
they take precautions to make sure that your data and potentially your
identity isn's stolen. They're great with this, to be honest.

For example, the password to my banking account was found on the dark
web recently. Nobody alerted me to it until I decided to log into the
account using my iPhone. Apple was the only one to alert me that I
should change, not McAfee, Microsoft or Bitwarden.

> We _know_ Apple does it (if you don't stay completely inside the walled
> garden); so lockout capability isn't going to be unknown to Microsoft.
>
> Will Microsoft do it?
> I don't know...
> Still... the question is valid from an adult perspective, is it not?
> *How can M$ make money off of _requiring_ a forced mothership login?*

I used to get upset by a lot of this stuff, mostly because the default
conservative position on such thing is "surveillance bad." However,
getting things at no charge unlike how it used to be where even
upgrading from a small version increment was likely to cost money
(Windows 3.0 to 3.1, for example and I believe that the Second Edition
of Windows 98 was also a paid upgrade from the original), I don't mind a
little bit of anonymous surveillance to pay for a product with would
otherwise set me back a few hundred. There should, however, be a way to
pay Microsoft in exchange for removing some of this functionality though.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2/19/2022 2:37 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> The question for intelligent people is...
> *How does M$ plan on making money off of forced Win11 mothership logins?*

Two sources.

1) Click an icon in the W11 main menu, and it "asks for a credit card".
That's a Microsoft Store purchase. Perhaps you'll be silly enough
to click a Disney logo.

2) Correlation of your current OS installation, with even a single
previous Microsoft purchase, gives a street address to go with
that installation. Now, the Dominos knows my street address,
and how close I am to one of their pizza stores. Advertisers
pay good money for geolocation info.

Paul

Andy Burnelli wrote:
> The question for intelligent people is... *How does M$ plan on making
> money off of forced Win11 mothership logins?*

Many companies plan ahead... 5 year plan, 10 year plan, etc.
IMO, MS is gravitating toward dumb terminals with everything done in and
stored in the Cloud.
Think about Office 365 and MS gradually doing away with gigabyte
installs. It used to be that that you had to buy Office for a lot of
money and install on one comp but now you can cloud compute for a
monthly or yearly rental fee.

Why not have the O/S be a rental, too?

Star date 2350:
Captain Kurt: "Computer, set a course for the nearest Federation star
base."
Computer: "Sorry Captain, but the Federation's subscription to the MS
Nebula O/S expired yesterday."

On 2022-02-19, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> wrote:
> An advertising ID is beneficial to the user because they only get the
> ads which might actually interest them, beneficial to the advertiser
> because they target the right users with the right ads and beneficial to
> the developer because they can get paid for their labour all the while
> seemingly giving something away for free to the user. People resist it,
> but it's clear that it's not as bad as they think all things considered.

Not as bad? It's worse than that. Why the hell would I want me computer
operating system to even have advertising built into it as a concept
in the first place, let alone an "advertising ID".

> They don't want a person other than the person who purchased the
> hardware to use it. It's understandable as a security precaution. If I'm
> not mistaken, they also encrypt by default and won't let an outsider get
> into the user data of an account locked in such a way. Is that something
> you're against as well?

It is not understandable. People lend out and borrow computers. They sell
them or give them away when done with them.

I am against encrypting data automatically. It should be the choice of
the end user whether they want that or not.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2022-02-19 7:55 p.m., Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2022-02-19, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> wrote:
>> An advertising ID is beneficial to the user because they only get the
>> ads which might actually interest them, beneficial to the advertiser
>> because they target the right users with the right ads and beneficial to
>> the developer because they can get paid for their labour all the while
>> seemingly giving something away for free to the user. People resist it,
>> but it's clear that it's not as bad as they think all things considered.
>
> Not as bad? It's worse than that. Why the hell would I want me computer
> operating system to even have advertising built into it as a concept
> in the first place, let alone an "advertising ID".

Would a football fan who likes to try out new beers find the commercials
during a match more tolerable if they were for all sorts of new beers?
That's sort of the thinking behind an advertising ID: they know that you
don't like ads so they are ensuring that the ones you are forced to see
are at least tolerable because they're related to your desires.

>> They don't want a person other than the person who purchased the
>> hardware to use it. It's understandable as a security precaution. If I'm
>> not mistaken, they also encrypt by default and won't let an outsider get
>> into the user data of an account locked in such a way. Is that something
>> you're against as well?
>
> It is not understandable. People lend out and borrow computers. They sell
> them or give them away when done with them.
>
> I am against encrypting data automatically. It should be the choice of
> the end user whether they want that or not.

Considering how most people use laptops and those kinds of computers are
not hard to steal, it makes sense to turn encryption on by default to
protect your data and prevent something like identity theft. They're
securing by default because they know that some users would not enable
encryption because it might take an extra second or two to boot. Yes,
people are generally that stupid.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-20, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> wrote:
> Would a football fan who likes to try out new beers find the commercials
> during a match more tolerable if they were for all sorts of new beers?

It is not the job of an operating system to facilitate advertising. If
that's something the user desires that should be on an opt-in basis and
an addition run in userspace rather than part of the core OS.

I see hardly any ads on my PCs and the few that I do see have nothing to
do with my interests or anything I might have been doing on the internet.
I certainly don't see any advertising following me around that so many
people seem to experience.

> Considering how most people use laptops and those kinds of computers are
> not hard to steal, it makes sense to turn encryption on by default to
> protect your data and prevent something like identity theft. They're

This should be an opt-in, not a default. Say goodbye to ease of data recovery.

Sorry, I don't agree with Microsoft making these kinds of decisions for
end users. I'm very happy to have stopped using their products decades
ago myself, though for the moment I still support Windows for others.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rabidR04CH wrote:
> On 2022-02-19 2:37 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote: (..snipped)
> I used to get upset by a lot of this stuff, mostly because the default
> conservative position on such thing is "surveillance bad." However,
> getting things at no charge unlike how it used to be where even
> upgrading from a small version increment was likely to cost money
> (Windows 3.0 to 3.1, for example and I believe that the Second Edition
> of Windows 98 was also a paid upgrade from the original), I don't mind a
> little bit of anonymous surveillance to pay for a product with would
> otherwise set me back a few hundred. There should, however, be a way to
> pay Microsoft in exchange for removing some of this functionality though.
>

Win98SE was initially OEM only(new pcs).
Shortly thereafter IE5 was available to the business and consume
community as an upgrade to IE4 - 98SE 'rebranded' as an interim release
was made available for W98 systems with/included in IE5 - the three
biggest features were better USB support, DVD support and Internet
Connection Sharing(two 98SE devices sharing the same internet connection)

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

Paul wrote:
> On 2/19/2022 2:37 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> The question for intelligent people is... *How does M$ plan on making
>> money off of forced Win11 mothership logins?*
>
> Two sources.
>
> 1) Click an icon in the W11 main menu, and it "asks for a credit card".
>    That's a Microsoft Store purchase. Perhaps you'll be silly enough
>    to click a Disney logo.
>
> 2) Correlation of your current OS installation, with even a single
>    previous Microsoft purchase, gives a street address to go with
>    that installation. Now, the Dominos knows my street address,
>    and how close I am to one of their pizza stores. Advertisers
>    pay good money for geolocation info.
>
>   Paul
:)
Since you've a gmail account, more than Domino's knows your general
location.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

On 2022-02-19 10:43 p.m., Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2022-02-20, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> wrote:
>> Would a football fan who likes to try out new beers find the commercials
>> during a match more tolerable if they were for all sorts of new beers?
>
> It is not the job of an operating system to facilitate advertising. If
> that's something the user desires that should be on an opt-in basis and
> an addition run in userspace rather than part of the core OS.

For someone to want to opt-in, the company would have to offer something
at seemingly no charge. In this case, the operating system itself is
what's offered without fee. By accepting to use Windows, you opted in
and in exchange, you get free updates for as long as the company chooses
to support it.

> I see hardly any ads on my PCs and the few that I do see have nothing to
> do with my interests or anything I might have been doing on the internet.
> I certainly don't see any advertising following me around that so many
> people seem to experience.

Probably because you actively decided not to contribute to the
advertising ID the operating system wanted to configure for you when you
first installed Windows. Microsoft DOES allow you to say no, but you
still get ads which basically don't take your interests into
consideration. I hate ads as well and would generally prefer to block
them out by using a browser like Brave, but I also realize that by doing
so, even if I activate the ads, I'm not necessarily contributing to my
favourite sites. As such, I think it would suck for them to be robbed of
compensation for their labour. I'm trying not to be selfish by opting to
use Edge and by opting to have an advertising ID which helps everyone.

>> Considering how most people use laptops and those kinds of computers are
>> not hard to steal, it makes sense to turn encryption on by default to
>> protect your data and prevent something like identity theft. They're
>
> This should be an opt-in, not a default. Say goodbye to ease of data recovery.

Yes, but saying goodbye to the ease of data recovery is also saying
goodbye to the ease of stealing a person's identity. I'm all for that.

> Sorry, I don't agree with Microsoft making these kinds of decisions for
> end users. I'm very happy to have stopped using their products decades
> ago myself, though for the moment I still support Windows for others.

If you use Linux and are opting out of it, that's your prerogative. I
have no issue with that decision.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-19 11:57 p.m., ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ wrote:
> rabidR04CH wrote:
>> On 2022-02-19 2:37 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote: (..snipped)
>> I used to get upset by a lot of this stuff, mostly because the default
>> conservative position on such thing is "surveillance bad." However,
>> getting things at no charge unlike how it used to be where even
>> upgrading from a small version increment was likely to cost money
>> (Windows 3.0 to 3.1, for example and I believe that the Second Edition
>> of Windows 98 was also a paid upgrade from the original), I don't mind
>> a little bit of anonymous surveillance to pay for a product with would
>> otherwise set me back a few hundred. There should, however, be a way
>> to pay Microsoft in exchange for removing some of this functionality
>> though.
>>
>
> Win98SE was initially OEM only(new pcs).
> Shortly thereafter IE5 was available to the business and consume
> community as an upgrade to IE4 - 98SE 'rebranded' as an interim release
> was made available for W98 systems with/included in IE5 - the three
> biggest features were better USB support, DVD support and Internet
> Connection Sharing(two 98SE devices sharing the same internet connection)

So the upgrade to IE5 turned a regular Windows 98 to SE? I don't recall
that being the case but that might be accurate.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2/19/22 19:15, rabidR04CH wrote:

[snip]
> Would a football fan who likes to try out new beers find the commercials
> during a match more tolerable if they were for all sorts of new beers?
> That's sort of the thinking behind an advertising ID: they know that you
> don't like ads so they are ensuring that the ones you are forced to see
> are at least tolerable because they're related to your desires.

Something there reminds me of a story about an escaped slave who was
recaptured and then given a choice of what body part he wants mangled as
punishment.

[snip]

Here is a link to a sort of interesting YouTube video I saw today,
"Windows 11 - 3 Months Later & Removing Microsoft's Spyware":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMQYyBvTJrM

It told me enough about Windows 11 to not like it (as I don't care for
"spyware"). YMMV.

On 2/19/2022 4:19 PM, rabidR04CH wrote:
> On 2022-02-19 2:37 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> The question for intelligent people is... *How does M$ plan on making
>> money off of forced Win11 mothership logins?*

"NotX" <not.email@all.invalid> wrote
| On 2/19/22 19:15, rabidR04CH wrote:
| | [snip]
| > Would a football fan who likes to try out new beers find the commercials
| > during a match more tolerable if they were for all sorts of new beers?
| > That's sort of the thinking behind an advertising ID: they know that you
| > don't like ads so they are ensuring that the ones you are forced to see
| > are at least tolerable because they're related to your desires.
| | Something there reminds me of a story about an escaped slave who was
| recaptured and then given a choice of what body part he wants mangled as
| punishment.
|

:) I'm surprised at how many people I see using that logic.
They can't be bothered to deal with privacy and security, so
they say they're glad the spying is being used to show them
relevant ads. I've hardly ever seen an ad for 20+ years. And
I don't even block ads from websites I visit. I just block a
handful of spyware/adware servers like Google/Doubleclick.

RabidRoach is unusually irrational and twisting facts. I know
I've seen him around before, but he really seems to be a
Microsoft shill. Or maybe he just likes to argue. He did say he's
rabid, after all.

On 2022-02-20, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> wrote:
> Probably because you actively decided not to contribute to the
> advertising ID the operating system wanted to configure for you when you
> first installed Windows.

I didn't install Windows (have not used it myself for over 20 years)
and the operating system I use does not have an advertisting ID. I find
the very concept to be unacceptable.

> Yes, but saying goodbye to the ease of data recovery is also saying
> goodbye to the ease of stealing a person's identity. I'm all for that.

It should be up to the end user to judge the risks for themselves
and make that choice. Whose computer is it, anyway?

If an unencrypted Windows system stops booting or has a dying drive that
is still somewhat accessible it is trivial to rescue the user's data. This
is something I have done many times over the years.

In the case of encrypted Windows systems I would tell people to take it
to someone else if they need data recovered. I can't be bothered to jump
through whatever hoops (if any) Microsoft has provided for recovery in
such situations.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote

| > RabidRoach is unusually irrational and twisting facts. I know
| >I've seen him around before, but he really seems to be a
| >Microsoft shill. Or maybe he just likes to argue. He did say he's
| >rabid, after all.
| |
| He's actually pretty knowledgeable with computers. I've disagreed
| with him on non-computer things, but I enjoy talking to him about
| operating systems and software.
|

I could imagine that. But most of what he says
is not true. He wants to fit his intended message.
Which really seems to be the message of a Microsoft
shill.

For instance, claiming that Netscape was a failure;
that spying is anonymous; that you control your
computer. It's all nonsense or partial truth. For someone
to say they don't mind spyware is one thing. To pretend
it's not really spying is either naive or lying.

On 2022-02-20 3:46 p.m., Mayayana wrote:
> "NotX" <not.email@all.invalid> wrote
> | On 2/19/22 19:15, rabidR04CH wrote:
> |
> | [snip]
> | > Would a football fan who likes to try out new beers find the commercials
> | > during a match more tolerable if they were for all sorts of new beers?
> | > That's sort of the thinking behind an advertising ID: they know that you
> | > don't like ads so they are ensuring that the ones you are forced to see
> | > are at least tolerable because they're related to your desires.
> |
> | Something there reminds me of a story about an escaped slave who was
> | recaptured and then given a choice of what body part he wants mangled as
> | punishment.
> |
>
> :) I'm surprised at how many people I see using that logic.
> They can't be bothered to deal with privacy and security, so
> they say they're glad the spying is being used to show them
> relevant ads. I've hardly ever seen an ad for 20+ years. And
> I don't even block ads from websites I visit. I just block a
> handful of spyware/adware servers like Google/Doubleclick.
>
> RabidRoach is unusually irrational and twisting facts. I know
> I've seen him around before, but he really seems to be a
> Microsoft shill. Or maybe he just likes to argue. He did say he's
> rabid, after all.

I'm not a shill for anything.

As for "twisting facts," feel free to tell me what I've twisted instead
of just attacking without any kind of reference.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2/20/2022 9:12 PM, Joel wrote:
> "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> | > RabidRoach is unusually irrational and twisting facts. I know
>> | >I've seen him around before, but he really seems to be a
>> | >Microsoft shill. Or maybe he just likes to argue. He did say he's
>> | >rabid, after all.
>> |
>> | He's actually pretty knowledgeable with computers. I've disagreed
>> | with him on non-computer things, but I enjoy talking to him about
>> | operating systems and software.
>>
>> I could imagine that. But most of what he says
>> is not true. He wants to fit his intended message.
>> Which really seems to be the message of a Microsoft
>> shill.
>>
>> For instance, claiming that Netscape was a failure;
>> that spying is anonymous; that you control your
>> computer. It's all nonsense or partial truth. For someone
>> to say they don't mind spyware is one thing. To pretend
>> it's not really spying is either naive or lying.
>
>
> Paranoid.
>

That is short sided to say that.

On 2022-02-20 6:00 p.m., Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2022-02-20, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> wrote:
>> Probably because you actively decided not to contribute to the
>> advertising ID the operating system wanted to configure for you when you
>> first installed Windows.
>
> I didn't install Windows (have not used it myself for over 20 years)
> and the operating system I use does not have an advertisting ID. I find
> the very concept to be unacceptable.

It's not ideal, but it's acceptable in a realm where everyone agrees
that advertisements are inevitable.

>> Yes, but saying goodbye to the ease of data recovery is also saying
>> goodbye to the ease of stealing a person's identity. I'm all for that.
>
> It should be up to the end user to judge the risks for themselves
> and make that choice. Whose computer is it, anyway?
>
> If an unencrypted Windows system stops booting or has a dying drive that
> is still somewhat accessible it is trivial to rescue the user's data. This
> is something I have done many times over the years.
>
> In the case of encrypted Windows systems I would tell people to take it
> to someone else if they need data recovered. I can't be bothered to jump
> through whatever hoops (if any) Microsoft has provided for recovery in
> such situations.

Admittedly, encryption is going to be a serious issue if the hardware
becomes faulty. Anyone who trusts that Windows will warn them before
disasters occurs is quickly going to learn how poor Microsoft's tools
are at detecting that. If I weren't using Linux at the time that one of
my hard disks was about to die, I would have lost a crapload of
important data.

Still, if that data is retrievable by you, it is retrievable by just
about anyone else. If that's fine by you, you might as well disable the
encryption (and you CAN do so). Otherwise, leave it untouched for
obvious reasons.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-20 8:33 p.m., Mayayana wrote:
> "Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote
>
> | > RabidRoach is unusually irrational and twisting facts. I know
> | >I've seen him around before, but he really seems to be a
> | >Microsoft shill. Or maybe he just likes to argue. He did say he's
> | >rabid, after all.
> |
> |
> | He's actually pretty knowledgeable with computers. I've disagreed
> | with him on non-computer things, but I enjoy talking to him about
> | operating systems and software.
> |
>
> I could imagine that. But most of what he says
> is not true. He wants to fit his intended message.
> Which really seems to be the message of a Microsoft
> shill.
>
> For instance, claiming that Netscape was a failure;
> that spying is anonymous; that you control your
> computer. It's all nonsense or partial truth. For someone
> to say they don't mind spyware is one thing. To pretend
> it's not really spying is either naive or lying.

You're stupidly adding content I never referred to. No wonder I'm
"irrational" to you.

Clearly, Netscape was successful at first. However, we were referring to
the time when Netscape was competing against Internet Explorer in
Windows 95. By then, IE was stable and generally worked well with all
sites whereas Netscape was only good _initially_ and quickly stopped
loading sites right because FAT.DB grew exponentially and nobody knew
that you could fix most issues by deleting it. Netscape users basically
lost the ability to browse the web UNLESS they switched to IE. This was
release 4.7x which is also where it became clear that they were going to
lose the war to Microsoft.

They were soon gobbled up by AOL and released Netscape 6 which _no one_
used because it was slow, even on the best hardware of the time, and did
nothing to block Internet ads. It became completely irrelevant as a
company soon thereafter.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

In alt.comp.microsoft.windows rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> wrote:
> On 2022-02-19 11:57 p.m., ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ wrote:
> > rabidR04CH wrote:
> >> On 2022-02-19 2:37 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote: (..snipped)
> >> I used to get upset by a lot of this stuff, mostly because the default
> >> conservative position on such thing is "surveillance bad." However,
> >> getting things at no charge unlike how it used to be where even
> >> upgrading from a small version increment was likely to cost money
> >> (Windows 3.0 to 3.1, for example and I believe that the Second Edition
> >> of Windows 98 was also a paid upgrade from the original), I don't mind
> >> a little bit of anonymous surveillance to pay for a product with would
> >> otherwise set me back a few hundred. There should, however, be a way
> >> to pay Microsoft in exchange for removing some of this functionality
> >> though.
> >>
> >
> > Win98SE was initially OEM only(new pcs).
> > Shortly thereafter IE5 was available to the business and consume
> > community as an upgrade to IE4 - 98SE 'rebranded' as an interim release
> > was made available for W98 systems with/included in IE5 - the three
> > biggest features were better USB support, DVD support and Internet
> > Connection Sharing(two 98SE devices sharing the same internet connection)

> So the upgrade to IE5 turned a regular Windows 98 to SE? I don't recall
> that being the case but that might be accurate.

Yeah, that didn't happen.
--
GG, Beijing! :D Incoming winter and slammy times again. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

What about W10? :P

In alt.comp.microsoft.windows Bill <nonegiven@att.net> wrote:
> Here is a link to a sort of interesting YouTube video I saw today,
> "Windows 11 - 3 Months Later & Removing Microsoft's Spyware":

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMQYyBvTJrM

> It told me enough about Windows 11 to not like it (as I don't care for
> "spyware"). YMMV.

> On 2/19/2022 4:19 PM, rabidR04CH wrote:
> > On 2022-02-19 2:37 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> >> The question for intelligent people is... *How does M$ plan on making
> >> money off of forced Win11 mothership logins?*

--
GG, Beijing! :D Incoming winter and slammy times again. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On 2022-02-21 00:39, Ant wrote:
> In alt.comp.microsoft.windows rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> wrote:
>> On 2022-02-19 11:57 p.m., ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ wrote:
>>> rabidR04CH wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-19 2:37 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote: (..snipped)
>>>> I used to get upset by a lot of this stuff, mostly because the default
>>>> conservative position on such thing is "surveillance bad." However,
>>>> getting things at no charge unlike how it used to be where even
>>>> upgrading from a small version increment was likely to cost money
>>>> (Windows 3.0 to 3.1, for example and I believe that the Second Edition
>>>> of Windows 98 was also a paid upgrade from the original), I don't mind
>>>> a little bit of anonymous surveillance to pay for a product with would
>>>> otherwise set me back a few hundred. There should, however, be a way
>>>> to pay Microsoft in exchange for removing some of this functionality
>>>> though.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Win98SE was initially OEM only(new pcs).
>>> Shortly thereafter IE5 was available to the business and consume
>>> community as an upgrade to IE4 - 98SE 'rebranded' as an interim release
>>> was made available for W98 systems with/included in IE5 - the three
>>> biggest features were better USB support, DVD support and Internet
>>> Connection Sharing(two 98SE devices sharing the same internet connection)
>
>> So the upgrade to IE5 turned a regular Windows 98 to SE? I don't recall
>> that being the case but that might be accurate.
>
> Yeah, that didn't happen.

Thanks for the clarification. That didn't sound plausible to me either.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH