On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 19:44:40 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <mqbp7ihii30fftuho74iqhpbd81sd24a27@4ax.com> at Sun, 4 Jun
>2023 08:41:25, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes
>>On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 08:33:46 -0400, "Newyana2"
>><Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Microsoft were the ones who helped to standarde File,
>>>Edit, View, etc. -- but then they break their own rules.
>>>For example, why do I have to accept that some genius
>>>in the GUI dept "discovered" that a ribbon works better?
>>
>>
>>I would have no problem with the ribbon if Microsoft had made it an
>>option. It should never have been a replacement interface.
>
>Or defaulted to one of the sides. I fear it appeared slightly before
>widescreen became the default, and thus remained where it uses too much
>screen estate. (Like web pages that have an irritating sticky top
>[and/or bottom] bit that covers too much of the available space.)
>>
>>If something is thought to be better, fine, make it an option (even
>>make it the default option, if you want), but never take away what
>>people are used to.
>>
>Agreed. Yes, it probably does have to be the default, otherwise most
>people will not use even something that genuinely is better.
>>
>I remember not long after the ribbon came in, we had a talk (voluntary
>attendance IIRR) by someone from (I think) Microsoft to explain and
>evangelise about it. (Office that was.) His enthusiasm was actually
>refreshing, in that I think he genuinely did think it was better - and I
>_did_ accept his point that the old-fashioned menu structure had become
>illogical because as extra features had been added, they had to be put
>in illogical places because the structure was rather full. (Didn't stop
>me having "muscle memory" of how to do things the old way, though!

>And I
>stick with it - I use 2003 [with the docx/xlsx patches],

I assume you mean Microsoft Office. I use Excel rarely, and Word
almost never, although Microsoft Office is installed here. Mine is
also an old version (2016) but not as old as yours.

>and genuinely
>am not aware of any actual added feature in later versions that I
>actually want. But that's a different matter.)

Same here. That's true of many programs. I use WordPerfect, which I
greatly prefer to Word, and I have the latest version (2021) only
because I got it at a very good price. If I were using an old version,
I'd never realize it. New versions of word processors, etc. come out
so the company can make more money, not because they've come up with
significant improvements.

>>> It's not so complicated, but it's like having no standard for
>>>which way faucets turn, or where the toilet flusher arm goes.
>
>Not _quite_ sure where you mean by that last bit: I think UK cisterns
>usually have holes either side so they can be fed from wherever the
>pipes happen to run, with the unused one being blocked by a white
>grommet.
>
>>>An easy, automatic action become a small project.
>>
>>
>>Yes. I once had a lot of pain in a hotel room where the hot and cold
>>faucets were reversed. I burned myself, but fortunately not too badly.
>
>I can't remember - are you UK,

No. I've lived in the US all my life.

>and just using the word "faucet" because
>of the audience? Usually, when the subject comes up with USAnians, they
>remark (I find, anyway) on the oddity of having two taps at all (whereas
>I find single, two-axis-control, ones fiddly to use).

First, I forgot to mention that I was talking about the shower.

Second, I said "faucet," but I really meant the two controls for the
shower head. The cold knob was on the left and the hot knob on the
right.

I prefer those single, two-axis-controls, and that's what I have in my
house. But I know several USAnians who don't like them.

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 20:48:09 +1000, Daniel65
<daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>gfretwell@aol.com wrote on 4/6/23 2:10 am:
>> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 08:31:32 -0400, "Newyana2"
>> <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm struck by how manic our culture has become when
>>> I watch movie previews, action movies, TV commercials, etc.
>>> It's even more notable with the sound off. The frames come
>>> so fast that there's no actual "moment" in the video when
>>> something is occurring. It's more like a manic slideshow of
>>> disparate images meant to evoke assoications.
>>>
>>
>> I have been a "recorder" guy since my SL7200 Betamax in 1975.
>
>I brought a Sony Betamax in about 1982. It had a very hard live .... so
>much so that each Christmas Holidays, whilst on holidays, I'd get the
>heads replaced .... by a guy who used to work for Sony!
>
>> I have
>> noticed most commercials have fast forward in their design. Even going
>> as fast as it can go, their message still gets through and they know
>> you are staring at the screen to see when the commercials end. My TiVo
>> has a 30 second skip option but the Replay TV was best. It skipped
>> commercials automatically. The powers that be sued them out of
>> existence.
>
>I heard, years ago, that in Japan the recorders had an in-bult system to
>skip the ads in recorded programs automatically. I figured it was
>related to the presence or otherwise of 'Sub-titles'. Ads made for the
>Japanese market wouldn't need sub-titles, whereas programs mainly made
>for English-speaking markets would have Japanese sub-titles so .... no
>sub-titles ... skip-it!!

The ReplayTV system was based on analyzing the "fade to black"
intervals and assuming anything less than a minute was a commercial.
It was tricked by really long commercials and really short program
segments. Dick Wolf (Law and Order) was bad about that.
All things considered in regular network programming it worked fairly
well.
My TiVo will actually set up a commercial skip on a lot of popular
shows where you just hit the green button and it skips to the next
program segment. I think this is a manual operation or some kind of
crude AI. It won't be available for a while after the show ends but we
don't watch a lot in real time anyway and I watch TV less than my
wife. It is off most of the time.

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 08:17:19 -0400, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>
>|> And in parts
>|> of the Northeast it's tonic, presumably a carryover
>|> from the days before the AMA kidnapped medicine.
>
>
>
>| My sister has a 'Soda-syphon' machine/thingee which injects carbonate
>| gas into plain water.
>|
>| I hate the end product and have wondered if it's possible to get a
>| 'Tonic-syphon' machine/thingee. That couldn't be any worse, would it??
>
> Ayeh, you can. No, I don't imagine it would. 'Course, they
>don't sell those on Sundays.
>
> I got curious and looked up some of this stuff. Something I
>never knew was that drugstores used to have "soda fountains"
>(same in Australia?) because carbonated water was considered
>medicinal. The Cokes and banana splits came later... It's funny
>how, at least in the US, virtually anything new is regarded as
>a magical, beneficent influence.
>

We had one of those and we gave it to the kids. I do still have an old
time soda bottle that uses the CO2 cartridges but I have only used it
a couple times. I did make "Champaign" once out of cheap white wine
and it tricked my wife.

Newyana2 wrote on 4/6/23 10:25 am:
> "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
>
> | There is one country, where rum is cheaper than Coke,
> | and if you ask for a rum and Coke at the bar, the
> | glass is mostly rum,
>
> You have such unique areas of expertise. I get an image
> of an intense man sitting in the back corner of a Caribean
> beach bar, soldering his motherboard, oblivious to the
> thong-clad ladiers nearby. :)

"thong-clad ladies"?? Good to read the ladies wear footwear inside!! (In
Australia, thongs are something you wear on your feet .... which some
might call "flip-flops"!! ;-P )
--
Daniel

"Ken Blake" <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote

> Microsoft were the ones who helped to standarde File,
>Edit, View, etc. -- but then they break their own rules.
>For example, why do I have to accept that some genius
>in the GUI dept "discovered" that a ribbon works better?

| I would have no problem with the ribbon if Microsoft had made it an
| option. It should never have been a replacement interface.

Yes, that's my view as well. It's good design. Increasingly the
options are being removed. And not only with GUI. Also with
security, privacy, Desktop layout, etc. I have Paint Shop Pro
16 that forces me to choose between black and burnt orange for
the window frame. Huh?! It refuses to have an option to just
comply with my chosen window theme.

Most of the changes are not big problems, but whether it's
a computer, a kitchen, a garden shed, a workshop... people
like to have their systems to optimize efficiency. The software
designer should be accommodating that. I suspect part
of the issue now is the trend toward rental services and away
from privately owned devices. They want us to get the message
that it's not our Desktop, our software, or our Internet connection.

That's why I spend most of my time on XP. I don't need to
think about details. I just do things without hesitation. 7 and
10 are usable, but both introduce new complications, even after
I've XP-ed them as much as possible.

I saw the other day that there's discussion about requiring American
cars to have robobreaks, taking control from the driver when there's
an obstacle in the road... Sometimes I don't mind so much getting old.
I might be splitting this joint just in time. :)

"Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote

| "thong-clad ladies"?? Good to read the ladies wear footwear inside!! (In
| Australia, thongs are something you wear on your feet .... which some
| might call "flip-flops"!! ;-P )

I've heard both usages. But when a young woman is
on the beach with her ass exposed, I'm not looking
at her footwear, so I'm not concerned with ambiguous
terminology. :)

Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote in
news:djup7itr9fmofkdio28bq14f0afnc6uhuc@4ax.com:

>>and genuinely
>>am not aware of any actual added feature in later versions
>>that I actually want. But that's a different matter.)
>
> Same here. That's true of many programs. I use WordPerfect,
> which I greatly prefer to Word, and I have the latest
> version (2021) only because I got it at a very good price.
> If I were using an old version, I'd never realize it. New
> versions of word processors, etc. come out so the company
> can make more money, not because they've come up with
> significant improvements.

That's my belief. Most use 5% of a programs capabilites/features.

At work, we're still on Office 2007, althoug I myself did by an Office 2023 (22?) license
late last year because the last installable non365 version could be had for $30. I don't
use it at home (or work), but I can if I want to. It was more like "the whole she-bang for
$30?!?! I'm in!!"

It's like how many home users feel they need to have Photoshop*, when the free
Paint.NET will do just fine for touching up your home taken/non-professional digital
pictures.

(Not that they'd spend money on it, but instead go through the sometimes unlimited
hassles of using a pirated version.)

In message <XnsB01F50259C91Ethisnthatroadrunnern@69.80.102.23> at Sat,
10 Jun 2023 11:52:45, DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m>
writes
>Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote in
>news:djup7itr9fmofkdio28bq14f0afnc6uhuc@4ax.com:
>
>
>>>and genuinely
>>>am not aware of any actual added feature in later versions
>>>that I actually want. But that's a different matter.)
>>
>> Same here. That's true of many programs. I use WordPerfect,
>> which I greatly prefer to Word, and I have the latest

WP sadly shot themselves in the foot by their first version that was
supposed to work with Windows (3.1 in those days!) wasn't great and/or
was very different to the existing DOS one (5.1 was it, with the
"Windows" one being 6?), whereas the then-current Word offering worked
better with Windows (possibly, especially in those days, by using
undocumented aspects); by the time WP had made a good version (and, like
you, those I know still using WP say the current versions are great),
they'd sadly lost a large percentage of users.

>> version (2021) only because I got it at a very good price.
>> If I were using an old version, I'd never realize it. New
>> versions of word processors, etc. come out so the company
>> can make more money, not because they've come up with
>> significant improvements.
>
>That's my belief. Most use 5% of a programs capabilites/features.
>
>At work, we're still on Office 2007, althoug I myself did by an Office
>2023 (22?) license
>late last year because the last installable non365 version could be had
>for $30. I don't
>use it at home (or work), but I can if I want to. It was more like "the
>whole she-bang for
>$30?!?! I'm in!!"

Beware: I forget whether it was 2003 or 2007 that was the last one you
could install offline; later ones need to go online to validate.
Understandable - I'm sure the earlier ones suffered badly from piracy;
however, such validation relies on MS keeping the relevant
server/software/whatever running. So if you haven't installed it, you
might not be able to do so for ever. (Presumably in theory you'd be
entitled to your $30 back, but inflation might make that worthless by
the time validation doesn't work.) Presumably also it won't work
indefinitely with new versions of the OS.
>
>It's like how many home users feel they need to have Photoshop*, when the free
>Paint.NET will do just fine for touching up your home
>taken/non-professional digital
>pictures.

I haven't used anything but IrfanView to touch up pictures for many
years.
>
>(Not that they'd spend money on it, but instead go through the
>sometimes unlimited
>hassles of using a pirated version.)
>
>
(-:

(I actually paid for IrfanView once, as I thought it was such good
software, even though it is free for home use.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Who is Art, and why does life imitate him?

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in
news:lk0vhf9esHhkFwVx@255soft.uk:

> In message
> <XnsB01F50259C91Ethisnthatroadrunnern@69.80.102.23> at Sat,
> 10 Jun 2023 11:52:45, DanS
> <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> writes
>>Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote in
>>news:djup7itr9fmofkdio28bq14f0afnc6uhuc@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>>and genuinely
>>>>am not aware of any actual added feature in later
>>>>versions that I actually want. But that's a different
>>>>matter.)
>>>
>>> Same here. That's true of many programs. I use
>>> WordPerfect, which I greatly prefer to Word, and I have
>>> the latest
>
> WP sadly shot themselves in the foot by their first version
> that was supposed to work with Windows (3.1 in those days!)
> wasn't great and/or was very different to the existing DOS
> one (5.1 was it, with the "Windows" one being 6?), whereas
> the then-current Word offering worked better with Windows
> (possibly, especially in those days, by using undocumented
> aspects); by the time WP had made a good version (and, like
> you, those I know still using WP say the current versions
> are great), they'd sadly lost a large percentage of users.
>
>>> version (2021) only because I got it at a very good
>>> price. If I were using an old version, I'd never realize
>>> it. New versions of word processors, etc. come out so the
>>> company can make more money, not because they've come up
>>> with significant improvements.
>>
>>That's my belief. Most use 5% of a programs
>>capabilites/features.
>>
>>At work, we're still on Office 2007, althoug I myself did
>>by an Office 2023 (22?) license
>>late last year because the last installable non365 version
>>could be had for $30. I don't
>>use it at home (or work), but I can if I want to. It was
>>more like "the whole she-bang for
>>$30?!?! I'm in!!"
>
> Beware: I forget whether it was 2003 or 2007 that was the
> last one you could install offline; later ones need to go
> online to validate. Understandable - I'm sure the earlier
> ones suffered badly from piracy; however, such validation
> relies on MS keeping the relevant server/software/whatever
> running. So if you haven't installed it, you might not be
> able to do so for ever. (Presumably in theory you'd be
> entitled to your $30 back, but inflation might make that
> worthless by the time validation doesn't work.) Presumably
> also it won't work indefinitely with new versions of the
> OS.

I was able to store a local installpackage and install from there, however...not easily.

On 6/10/2023 7:52, DanS wrote:
>
> At work, we're still on Office 2007, althoug I myself did by an Office 2023 (22?) license
> late last year because the last installable non365 version could be had for $30. I don't
> use it at home (or work), but I can if I want to. It was more like "the whole she-bang for
> $30?!?! I'm in!!"

I think Office 2021 was the last full non-365 version. Either way, $30
is a heck of a deal. I'm still using Office 2003 (On Win 7) at home. I
don't like the format/GUI of 2007+, and frankly, it just keeps working
for what I need it to do.

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 14:31:10 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>Beware: I forget whether it was 2003 or 2007 that was the last one you
>could install offline; later ones need to go online to validate.
>Understandable - I'm sure the earlier ones suffered badly from piracy;
>however, such validation relies on MS keeping the relevant
>server/software/whatever running. So if you haven't installed it, you
>might not be able to do so for ever. (Presumably in theory you'd be
>entitled to your $30 back, but inflation might make that worthless by
>the time validation doesn't work.) Presumably also it won't work
>indefinitely with new versions of the OS.

I just did an Office 2007 and it did go online to verify but it came
back OK. That was one that had been installed before.
Same with a W/7 that I had just installed on another machine that day
so they must not be checking much. I did buy another 7 license but I
probably didn't need to.

In message <u9k98idb8mcqf31m558kp2kcp52ouviktd@4ax.com> at Sat, 10 Jun
2023 15:40:56, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 14:31:10 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>Beware: I forget whether it was 2003 or 2007 that was the last one you
>>could install offline; later ones need to go online to validate.
>>Understandable - I'm sure the earlier ones suffered badly from piracy;
>>however, such validation relies on MS keeping the relevant
>>server/software/whatever running. So if you haven't installed it, you
>>might not be able to do so for ever. (Presumably in theory you'd be
>>entitled to your $30 back, but inflation might make that worthless by
>>the time validation doesn't work.) Presumably also it won't work
>>indefinitely with new versions of the OS.
>
>I just did an Office 2007 and it did go online to verify but it came
>back OK. That was one that had been installed before.
>Same with a W/7 that I had just installed on another machine that day
>so they must not be checking much. I did buy another 7 license but I
>probably didn't need to.

I think for some time, they do indeed stop checking much, but keep the
registration servers running. I'd heard that almost any XP system - and
it may be getting that way with 7s now - _will_ authenticate. They
obviously don't publicise this policy. (Or is it W7 and W8: thinking
about it, I don't _think_ XP needed to authenticate online. Maybe _some_
variants did.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Beatrix Potter was a bunny boiler.
- Patricia Routledge, on "Today" 2016-1-26

Michael Trew <michael.trew@att.net> wrote in
news:u62c0r$2c9r4$1@dont-email.me:

> On 6/10/2023 7:52, DanS wrote:
>>
>> At work, we're still on Office 2007, althoug I myself did
>> by an Office 2023 (22?) license late last year because the
>> last installable non365 version could be had for $30. I
>> don't use it at home (or work), but I can if I want to. It
>> was more like "the whole she-bang for $30?!?! I'm in!!"
>
> I think Office 2021 was the last full non-365 version.
> Either way, $30 is a heck of a deal. I'm still using
> Office 2003 (On Win 7) at home. I don't like the
> format/GUI of 2007+, and frankly, it just keeps working for
> what I need it to do.

Yes, I just checked...it is Office Professional Plus 2021.

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]
> Can anyone say what the three dots (or, earlier, three lines, sometimes
> referred to as "hamburger") is supposed to _represent_? The cogwheel
> some use at least suggests machinery - the spanner (wrench in USA)
> better for something involved with adjusting things. But three
> dots/lines? (It's not even a diaeresis - those are horizontal.)
>
> Most logos/symbols have _some_ origin, though it may be unknown to many.
> (I know what the pause symbol represents, for example, but I suspect
> many younger folk don't.)

Three dots in a vertical row or in a horizontal row? I see both.

The horizontal one makes some sense, like 'more' or something, same as
used in some (real) menus, like 'Import...'.

For example, '...' is used in the top bar of the Windows 11 File
Explorer and if you hover over them, it says "See more".

The (Microsoft) Edge one says "Settings and more" when hovering over
it.

OTOH, (Google) Chrome has three dots in a vertical row. I have no
explanation for the meaning of three dots in a row.

The 'hamburger' mainly seems to be a real menu as we know it and is
mostly in the upper left.

The cogwheel or/and the row-of-dots are mostly in the upper right.

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 01:59:47 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <u9k98idb8mcqf31m558kp2kcp52ouviktd@4ax.com> at Sat, 10 Jun
>2023 15:40:56, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>>On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 14:31:10 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Beware: I forget whether it was 2003 or 2007 that was the last one you
>>>could install offline; later ones need to go online to validate.
>>>Understandable - I'm sure the earlier ones suffered badly from piracy;
>>>however, such validation relies on MS keeping the relevant
>>>server/software/whatever running. So if you haven't installed it, you
>>>might not be able to do so for ever. (Presumably in theory you'd be
>>>entitled to your $30 back, but inflation might make that worthless by
>>>the time validation doesn't work.) Presumably also it won't work
>>>indefinitely with new versions of the OS.
>>
>>I just did an Office 2007 and it did go online to verify but it came
>>back OK. That was one that had been installed before.
>>Same with a W/7 that I had just installed on another machine that day
>>so they must not be checking much. I did buy another 7 license but I
>>probably didn't need to.
>
>I think for some time, they do indeed stop checking much, but keep the
>registration servers running. I'd heard that almost any XP system - and
>it may be getting that way with 7s now - _will_ authenticate. They
>obviously don't publicise this policy. (Or is it W7 and W8: thinking
>about it, I don't _think_ XP needed to authenticate online. Maybe _some_
>variants did.)

XP was the first system that had online verification and it also did
some hardware matching when it was new.
Bill Gates said he worried that there were "one disk countries" using
W/98.
If the code matched the version, it was OK. I have a few W/98 disks
around here with the same code written on them with a Sharpie. They
always worked.
You just needed a different code for SE than the original.
I guess once they stopped supporting them, they didn't care anymore.

<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote

| You just needed a different code for SE than the original.
| I guess once they stopped supporting them, they didn't care anymore.

Originally MS were countering complaints by saying that
once XP went out of support they'd "probably" release a
generic key. That didn't happen, of course, with any version.
They're probably afraid that with no restrictions a cottage
industry of old versions might develop.

In message <u65bbj$evfd$1@paganini.bofh.team> at Sun, 11 Jun 2023
16:38:16, Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote
>
>| You just needed a different code for SE than the original.
>| I guess once they stopped supporting them, they didn't care anymore.
>
> Originally MS were countering complaints by saying that
>once XP went out of support they'd "probably" release a
>generic key. That didn't happen, of course, with any version.
>They're probably afraid that with no restrictions a cottage
>industry of old versions might develop.
>
Or that, if a generic key is possible, the algorithm would be cracked
and applied to current versions.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Knowledge isnt elitist - that's rubbish! Why are we embarrassed by the idea
that people know things? It's not a conspiracy against the ignorant. Knowing
things is good!" - Jeremy Paxman, RT 14-20 August 2010

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 21:55:18 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <u65bbj$evfd$1@paganini.bofh.team> at Sun, 11 Jun 2023
>16:38:16, Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote
>>
>>| You just needed a different code for SE than the original.
>>| I guess once they stopped supporting them, they didn't care anymore.
>>
>> Originally MS were countering complaints by saying that
>>once XP went out of support they'd "probably" release a
>>generic key. That didn't happen, of course, with any version.
>>They're probably afraid that with no restrictions a cottage
>>industry of old versions might develop.
>>
>Or that, if a generic key is possible, the algorithm would be cracked
>and applied to current versions.
>>

It is just a hash thing like a credit card number. Any SE code will
work with any SE disk if they are the same type (like update version
or full).

In message <f9ed8i1blqjmkkl0hbje9if58jmucd1v82@4ax.com> at Mon, 12 Jun
2023 02:22:31, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 21:55:18 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <u65bbj$evfd$1@paganini.bofh.team> at Sun, 11 Jun 2023
>>16:38:16, Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>>><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote
>>>
>>>| You just needed a different code for SE than the original.
>>>| I guess once they stopped supporting them, they didn't care anymore.
>>>
>>> Originally MS were countering complaints by saying that
>>>once XP went out of support they'd "probably" release a
>>>generic key. That didn't happen, of course, with any version.
>>>They're probably afraid that with no restrictions a cottage
>>>industry of old versions might develop.
>>>
>>Or that, if a generic key is possible, the algorithm would be cracked
>>and applied to current versions.
>>>
>
>It is just a hash thing like a credit card number. Any SE code will
>work with any SE disk if they are the same type (like update version
>or full).

I was thinking that a "generic key" would be one that worked without
needing authentication/authorisation/whatever - i. e. didn't need to
call home to install. Though I suppose it could be one that still did
call home, but the server allowed multiple copies of it - but that (a)
sounds somewhat like what they seem to be doing anyway with old product
(b) still requires them to keep the server running.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark
to read." - Groucho Marx

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

|
| I was thinking that a "generic key" would be one that worked without
| needing authentication/authorisation/whatever - i. e. didn't need to
| call home to install.

That was the idea. At the time no one had ever heard
of rental software or software controlled by the seller after
the sale. So people were suspicious that their computer
might stop working when MS took the key servers offline
for XP. So MS said, "Don't worry. We'll probably just give
out a generic key at that point."

I don't imagine they were worried about a hack of a generic
key. Rather, there was a risk that people would avoid upgrades,
or a cottage industry of uncrippled software might develop.
XP stayed popular for a very long time. As Win7 has.

Adobe, arguably even more greedy than MS, once released
an old CS2 (when 5 or 6 was current, I think.) They posted
generic keys and downloads. People went wild. Adobe then
backtracked and claimed the software/key was only meant for
people who had paid for CS2. I suspect that the real situation
was that they were hoping a free taste of CS2 would convert
people from GIMP and PSP. But Adobe's prices are crazy
expensive, and few people really need the extra features that
Adobe puts in, aside from pro graphic artists. So their
plan probably backfired.

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 21:55:18 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <u65bbj$evfd$1@paganini.bofh.team> at Sun, 11 Jun 2023
>16:38:16, Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote

>Or that, if a generic key is possible, the algorithm would be cracked
>and applied to current versions.

Apparently the algorithm HAS been cracked.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/05/a-decade-after-it-mattered-windows-xps-activation-algorithm-is-cracked/

Whether the lessons learned from this hack are applicable to current
versions of Windows is unknown. Then again, I don't think Microsoft is
/that/ worried about people getting their OS for free, since newer
versions of Windows are increasingly just platforms used to push their
online services anyway.

On 6/12/2023 9:33 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
> |
> | I was thinking that a "generic key" would be one that worked without
> | needing authentication/authorisation/whatever - i. e. didn't need to
> | call home to install.
>
> That was the idea. At the time no one had ever heard
> of rental software or software controlled by the seller after
> the sale. So people were suspicious that their computer
> might stop working when MS took the key servers offline
> for XP. So MS said, "Don't worry. We'll probably just give
> out a generic key at that point."
>
> I don't imagine they were worried about a hack of a generic
> key. Rather, there was a risk that people would avoid upgrades,
> or a cottage industry of uncrippled software might develop.
> XP stayed popular for a very long time. As Win7 has.
>
> Adobe, arguably even more greedy than MS, once released
> an old CS2 (when 5 or 6 was current, I think.) They posted
> generic keys and downloads. People went wild. Adobe then
> backtracked and claimed the software/key was only meant for
> people who had paid for CS2. I suspect that the real situation
> was that they were hoping a free taste of CS2 would convert
> people from GIMP and PSP. But Adobe's prices are crazy
> expensive, and few people really need the extra features that
> Adobe puts in, aside from pro graphic artists. So their
> plan probably backfired.

And if you have that software, there are a few use cases for it,
but for the most part, there are lots of other things that
handle most of what you need. It does not exactly come to mind
when I have a job to do :-)

Your Adobe rental today, gets you Generative Fill :-) The original
picture is in the center, and the tool "makes up" stuff to go around it.
Then, I presume you crop most of that garbage out.

https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2023/05/FxSLjawXgAMKbc0-800x800.jpg

Paul

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote

| Your Adobe rental today, gets you Generative Fill :-) The original
| picture is in the center, and the tool "makes up" stuff to go around it.
| Then, I presume you crop most of that garbage out.

Yes. And you can use it to make Tom Brady's ex-wife
look like she has womanly hips... Or you could even make
Kim Kardashian look like she has normal hips and doesn't look
exactly like 100 other famous women with long dark hair,
swollen lips, and cheekbone shadow, looking like they're
androids modelled after Cher... But if you don't get
paid to edit photos for magazine covers...

I actually got one of those fashion editing programs
with PSP16. But it wasn't free. Despite getting the disk,
it was really just an ad for fashion retouching software.

In message <d3de8i54kq62cvh4red2sd8vebspg8lbi3@4ax.com> at Mon, 12 Jun
2023 11:12:01, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes
>On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 21:55:18 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <u65bbj$evfd$1@paganini.bofh.team> at Sun, 11 Jun 2023
>>16:38:16, Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>>><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote
>
>>Or that, if a generic key is possible, the algorithm would be cracked
>>and applied to current versions.
>
>
>Apparently the algorithm HAS been cracked.
>https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/05/a-decade-after-it-mattered-windo
>ws-xps-activation-algorithm-is-cracked/

Thanks for that link; somewhat interesting article.

It says MS have turned off the activation servers; I didn't know that.
Presumably only the ones for XP!
>
>Whether the lessons learned from this hack are applicable to current
>versions of Windows is unknown. Then again, I don't think Microsoft is

I would guess it _doesn't_ work for 7, let alone later, since it's
called xp_activate32.exe (though I have found plenty of other things
that thought they were XP only but work on later!). It says it "takes
the code generated by Windows XP's phone activation option and processes
it into a proper activation key (Confirmation ID), entirely offline." -
I presume has to be run on a computer other than the one you're trying
to activate (and maybe runs on later OS too).

>/that/ worried about people getting their OS for free, since newer
>versions of Windows are increasingly just platforms used to push their
>online services anyway.
>
>
Of course, I can't actually find the .exe anywhere, just countless
copies of the articles _about_ it.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Veni, Vidi, VO5 (I came, I saw, I washed my hair) - Mik from S+AS Limited
(mik@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998