On 9/21/21 1:37 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 21/09/2021 01.36, T wrote:
>> On 9/20/21 4:11 PM, RabidHussar wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-20 5:33 p.m., T wrote:
>>>> On 9/20/21 5:19 AM, RabidHussar wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> M$'s (alpha) releases of W11 are missing the bloat.
>>>> Bet the bloat will General (beta) release.
>>>
>>> That's quite possible. Either way, when the warranty expires and the
>>> machine is no longer supported, I'm back to Linux on it.
>>>
>>
>> Technically, Linux leaves Windows in the dust.
>>
>> But most folks are forced onto Windows as they can not
>> get the apps they need.  Sucks, but the developers
>> don't want to spend the money on porting their stuff.
>
>
> That's an egg and chicken problem. If the people migrate, the developers
> will follow. However, most Linux users don't pay a cent, and maybe
> windows devs are not interested in that.
>

M$ has always come up with a solution eventually, keeping
the dev's from having to put too much work in they don't
want to. Also, their manager think of the dev's as
rags to use and thrown away. Mangers despise paying
the one red cent to nerds.

On 21/09/2021 11.13, T wrote:
> On 9/21/21 1:37 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 21/09/2021 01.36, T wrote:
>>> On 9/20/21 4:11 PM, RabidHussar wrote:
>>>> On 2021-09-20 5:33 p.m., T wrote:
>>>>> On 9/20/21 5:19 AM, RabidHussar wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>> M$'s (alpha) releases of W11 are missing the bloat.
>>>>> Bet the bloat will General (beta) release.
>>>>
>>>> That's quite possible. Either way, when the warranty expires and the
>>>> machine is no longer supported, I'm back to Linux on it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Technically, Linux leaves Windows in the dust.
>>>
>>> But most folks are forced onto Windows as they can not
>>> get the apps they need.  Sucks, but the developers
>>> don't want to spend the money on porting their stuff.
>>
>>
>> That's an egg and chicken problem. If the people migrate, the developers
>> will follow. However, most Linux users don't pay a cent, and maybe
>> windows devs are not interested in that.
>>
>
> M$ has always come up with a solution eventually, keeping
> the dev's from having to put too much work in they don't
> want to.  Also, their manager think of the dev's as
> rags to use and thrown away.  Mangers despise paying
> the one red cent to nerds.

On the other hand, in Linux there are other types of devs.

- Some simply want to create something for the pleasure of creating
something. Nobody pays them, unless they later get some funding.

- Some create a software to scratch an itch they have. It is similar to
the above entry.

- Some work for a company that pays their time to create or maintain
some Linux software. A lot of the kernel is made that way.

- Some simply need/use some software and are not happy with what they
have, so they form a group (across many countries, connected via
internet) and create the software they want for their own use. Notable
example: the Apache web server. They may get funding, and they stop
buying commercial software (think M$ web server). Apache is the most
used web server out there.

All of them being technical people, it may well happen that their
software doesn't have beautiful graphical interfaces. They don't need
them, and they are very costly in dev time.

- Sometimes, the devs that work for a company making Windows software,
create the Linux counterpart in their free time, unpaid. Case in point:
HP printing drivers, which thus are not "official", but are mentioned on
the generic HP support pages.

There may be more types I have forgotten. What I have not seen, but may
exist, are devs working for a software they sell. Thus, migrating
Windows software doesn't happen as much.

Blatant example: Acrobat. There is no current version of acrobat reader,
they ceased to produce it.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 9/21/21 2:43 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> Blatant example: Acrobat. There is no current version of acrobat reader,
> they ceased to produce it.

Use Master PDF Creator.

Other missing software the user MUST have (sarcasm)
Turbo Tax, Quickbooks, W$ Office, virtually every
point of sale software, yada, yada, yada

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 11:43:57, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
>There may be more types I have forgotten. What I have not seen, but may
>exist, are devs working for a software they sell. Thus, migrating
>Windows software doesn't happen as much.
>
>Blatant example: Acrobat. There is no current version of acrobat reader,
>they ceased to produce it.
>
>
I didn't know that; interesting.

Was there, therefore, a final version of Acrobat which did _not_ "'phone
home" from time to time to see if there is a more up-to-date version -
if so, what is its version number, so I can go look for it?

The version I have - which seems to be "Continuous Release | Version
2019.010.20064" [though says "Copyright (C) 1984-2018", not 2019] -
_does_ seem to do so; I've (I think) stopped it actually doing so, by
playing with settings in it, stopping services (which seem to have been
restarted when I look and so on, and (I think) finally putting something
in my hosts file, but when I open a .pdf file, after a few seconds it
still becomes unresponsive for a while (few tens of seconds at a guess),
so I assume it's doing so (or trying to).

(Or does anyone know what's causing that pause and how to stop it, if
checking for updates _isn't_ what it's doing?)

I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
feature might _invisibly_ not work.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Anybody can garble quotations like that -- even with the Bible... Er... "And he
went and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5). Go, and do thou likewise (Luke 10:37)."

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 10:40:39, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
>There are significant differences for me, as none of my hardware will
>run W11.

(Won't _run_ it, or just it won't _install_ because the installer's
checking for hardware W11 doesn't actually need?)
>
>Maybe my desktop using vmware player if it can emulate a TPM.
>
>So the point for me is for how long W10 will receives updates, specially
>security updates, and whether the software I use that demands Windows
>will run on 10.
>
Will there be a position for some sort of intermediary, so W10 can
continue to be used, but go via the intermediary when it wants to access
the internet? Presumably it is only via the internet that any insecurity
you mention can "get in".

The intermediary could be hardware - an old or tiny PC, possibly running
a Linux; or, could it be something running under 10? The latter would of
course rely on no malware author being able to get around it.

(The same question must of course have arisen at the cessation of
security updates for all previous versions.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never be led astray onto the path of virtue.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 20/09/2021 14.19, RabidHussar wrote:
> > On 2021-09-20 1:05 a.m., T wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> I have seen some chatter about creating a new W11
> >> news group.
> >>
> >> I personally would rather it just be merged with
> >> this group.
> >
> > Agreed, there aren't enough significant differences for it to be treated
> > as a separate release. It's clearly a continuation of the previous
> > release in the same way that MacOS 10.11 is a continuation of 10.10.
>
> There are significant differences for me, as none of my hardware will
> run W11.

Same for us. Our systems (laptops) seem to have 'too old' CPUs and
maybe also 'too old' graphics 'cards'.

> Maybe my desktop using vmware player if it can emulate a TPM.

Maybe my laptop has TPM, but I can't be bothered to check.

> So the point for me is for how long W10 will receives updates, specially
> security updates, and whether the software I use that demands Windows
> will run on 10.

Our laptops still run Windows 8.1, so should be good till January 10,
2023 and then probably can be 'upgraded' to Windows 10 and be good till
October 14, 2025. Probably by then they will (have to?) be replaced
anyway.

FWIW, I don't worry about (new(er)) software 'needing' Windows 11.
That may be the case for 'state of the art' expensive software, but not
likely for the software I use/need/want. It's probably the contrary,
will my existing software - including device dependent software
(scanner, printer, etc.) - run on Windows 10/11?

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 11:43:57, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>> There may be more types I have forgotten. What I have not seen, but may
>> exist, are devs working for a software they sell. Thus, migrating
>> Windows software doesn't happen as much.
>>
>> Blatant example: Acrobat. There is no current version of acrobat reader,
>> they ceased to produce it.
>>
>>
> I didn't know that; interesting.
>
> Was there, therefore, a final version of Acrobat which did _not_ "'phone
> home" from time to time to see if there is a more up-to-date version -
> if so, what is its version number, so I can go look for it?
>
> The version I have - which seems to be "Continuous Release | Version
> 2019.010.20064" [though says "Copyright (C) 1984-2018", not 2019] -
> _does_ seem to do so; I've (I think) stopped it actually doing so, by
> playing with settings in it, stopping services (which seem to have been
> restarted when I look and so on, and (I think) finally putting something
> in my hosts file, but when I open a .pdf file, after a few seconds it
> still becomes unresponsive for a while (few tens of seconds at a guess),
> so I assume it's doing so (or trying to).
>
> (Or does anyone know what's causing that pause and how to stop it, if
> checking for updates _isn't_ what it's doing?)
>
> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
> always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
> When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
> of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
> feature might _invisibly_ not work.

Carlos is referring to Linux Acrobat, which stopped some time ago.

You can still install the .deb if you have a copy (I seem to have
one around here somewhere because I have been installing it).

Linux Acrobat is required, for form filling. Not all of the
native Linux PDF readers have full feature sets. They only
implement what is in the PDF spec, versus Acrobat which
includes Jetform stuff. There might not have been public
standards for that separate material.

Linux has plenty of "plain PDF reading capability".
That's not the problem. If you get a job application
form to fill out, the automation in it might not work
right. And that's because Adobe has so much superfluous
shit in there, it's hard for the third parties to keep up,
which is the whole idea in the first place.

If every last speck of material Adobe stuck in Acrobat
Reader was in a public specification document, the
Linux developers would have this covered by now.
Reverse engineering isn't going to get this
job done fast, if it is the only source of info
on the topic.

Paul

On 9/21/2021 7:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 11:43:57, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>> There may be more types I have forgotten. What I have not seen, but may
>> exist, are devs working for a software they sell. Thus, migrating
>> Windows software doesn't happen as much.
>>
>> Blatant example: Acrobat. There is no current version of acrobat reader,
>> they ceased to produce it.
>>
>>
> I didn't know that; interesting.
>
> Was there, therefore, a final version of Acrobat which did _not_ "'phone
> home" from time to time to see if there is a more up-to-date version -
> if so, what is its version number, so I can go look for it?
>
> The version I have - which seems to be "Continuous Release | Version
> 2019.010.20064" [though says "Copyright (C) 1984-2018", not 2019] -
> _does_ seem to do so; I've (I think) stopped it actually doing so, by
> playing with settings in it, stopping services (which seem to have been
> restarted when I look and so on, and (I think) finally putting something
> in my hosts file, but when I open a .pdf file, after a few seconds it
> still becomes unresponsive for a while (few tens of seconds at a guess),
> so I assume it's doing so (or trying to).
>
> (Or does anyone know what's causing that pause and how to stop it, if
> checking for updates _isn't_ what it's doing?)
>
> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
> always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
> When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
> of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
> feature might _invisibly_ not work.

If you are talking about the Free version of Acrobat Reader (Adobe
Reader DC), it is still being developed.

I have the current 64 bit version 2021.007.2009 of Acrobat Reader,
Copyright 1984-2021

The latest update was 09/16/2021

https://get.adobe.com/reader/

Per the website it is available for bout 64 and 32 bit systems.

On 9/21/2021 7:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 11:43:57, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>> There may be more types I have forgotten. What I have not seen, but may
>> exist, are devs working for a software they sell. Thus, migrating
>> Windows software doesn't happen as much.
>>
>> Blatant example: Acrobat. There is no current version of acrobat reader,
>> they ceased to produce it.
>>
>>
> I didn't know that; interesting.
>
> Was there, therefore, a final version of Acrobat which did _not_ "'phone
> home" from time to time to see if there is a more up-to-date version -
> if so, what is its version number, so I can go look for it?
>
> The version I have - which seems to be "Continuous Release | Version
> 2019.010.20064" [though says "Copyright (C) 1984-2018", not 2019] -
> _does_ seem to do so; I've (I think) stopped it actually doing so, by
> playing with settings in it, stopping services (which seem to have been
> restarted when I look and so on, and (I think) finally putting something
> in my hosts file, but when I open a .pdf file, after a few seconds it
> still becomes unresponsive for a while (few tens of seconds at a guess),
> so I assume it's doing so (or trying to).
>
> (Or does anyone know what's causing that pause and how to stop it, if
> checking for updates _isn't_ what it's doing?)
>
> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
> always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
> When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
> of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
> feature might _invisibly_ not work.
As I remember there was a complete rewrite of the Reader. I don't
remember the date, but Adobe reader is still available, as I said in my
previous post

On 9/21/2021 8:43 AM, Paul wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 11:43:57, Carlos E. R.
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow points
>> raised):
>> []
>>> There may be more types I have forgotten. What I have not seen, but may
>>> exist, are devs working for a software they sell. Thus, migrating
>>> Windows software doesn't happen as much.
>>>
>>> Blatant example: Acrobat. There is no current version of acrobat reader,
>>> they ceased to produce it.
>>>
>>>
>> I didn't know that; interesting.
>>
>> Was there, therefore, a final version of Acrobat which did _not_
>> "'phone home" from time to time to see if there is a more up-to-date
>> version - if so, what is its version number, so I can go look for it?
>>
>> The version I have - which seems to be "Continuous Release | Version
>> 2019.010.20064" [though says "Copyright (C) 1984-2018", not 2019] -
>> _does_ seem to do so; I've (I think) stopped it actually doing so, by
>> playing with settings in it, stopping services (which seem to have
>> been restarted when I look and so on, and (I think) finally putting
>> something in my hosts file, but when I open a .pdf file, after a few
>> seconds it still becomes unresponsive for a while (few tens of seconds
>> at a guess), so I assume it's doing so (or trying to).
>>
>> (Or does anyone know what's causing that pause and how to stop it, if
>> checking for updates _isn't_ what it's doing?)
>>
>> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
>> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating
>> pause described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I
>> could use an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose
>> - there's always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render
>> properly, though. When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think),
>> I never _was_ aware of that happening, though there's always the
>> concern that some recent feature might _invisibly_ not work.
>
> Carlos is referring to Linux Acrobat, which stopped some time ago.
>
> You can still install the .deb if you have a copy (I seem to have
> one around here somewhere because I have been installing it).
>
> Linux Acrobat is required, for form filling. Not all of the
> native Linux PDF readers have full feature sets. They only
> implement what is in the PDF spec, versus Acrobat which
> includes Jetform stuff. There might not have been public
> standards for that separate material.
>
> Linux has plenty of "plain PDF reading capability".
> That's not the problem. If you get a job application
> form to fill out, the automation in it might not work
> right. And that's because Adobe has so much superfluous
> shit in there, it's hard for the third parties to keep up,
> which is the whole idea in the first place.
>
> If every last speck of material Adobe stuck in Acrobat
> Reader was in a public specification document, the
> Linux developers would have this covered by now.
> Reverse engineering isn't going to get this
> job done fast, if it is the only source of info
> on the topic.
>
>    Paul
A Trick in filling out forms.

As I remember Adobe has had the ability to add comments to PDF documents
for many years. You can use the function to fill out forms.

The way I use it is to open the document, and the Comments for the
documents. Using the Text function place the cursor where the form
requires data and type the answer to the form question.

You have to set Adobe fonts to match the font in the documents.

Using this function, any PDF document you can open become a form that
can be filled in. There is one caveat and that is the securities of the
document must allow commenting.

On 21/09/2021 12.46, T wrote:
> On 9/21/21 2:43 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> Blatant example: Acrobat. There is no current version of acrobat reader,
>> they ceased to produce it.
>
> Use Master PDF Creator.

I use Foxit, when I must use certain features (certificates or forms
with javascript). Otherwise, for most PDF there are more than a dozen
native readers that run much faster.

>
> Other missing software the user MUST have (sarcasm)
> Turbo Tax, Quickbooks, W$ Office, virtually every
> point of sale software, yada, yada, yada

I don't need Turbotax: our government generates valid software that runs
in a web browser in almost any type of computer. Possibly also tablets,
I haven't tried. Previously we had a Java app, also developed and
maintained by the government.

W$ office I don't need, Libre Office has covered my needs for two
decades. I don't care if it has less features, being free and gratis is
compensation enough, and anyway, my needs are fully covered.

Accounting software exists, but I don't need any.

The basic idea remains: instead of paying Foo Software, use that money
to collectively fund a few devs to generate appropriate software for
your needs. It will be yours and will do exactly what you want and need,
and not having to be a paying slave. Of course, it doesn't need to be on
Linux.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 21/09/2021 14.43, Paul wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 11:43:57, Carlos E. R.
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow points
>> raised):
>> []
>>> There may be more types I have forgotten. What I have not seen, but may
>>> exist, are devs working for a software they sell. Thus, migrating
>>> Windows software doesn't happen as much.
>>>
>>> Blatant example: Acrobat. There is no current version of acrobat reader,
>>> they ceased to produce it.
>>>
>>>
>> I didn't know that; interesting.
>>
>> Was there, therefore, a final version of Acrobat which did _not_
>> "'phone home" from time to time to see if there is a more up-to-date
>> version - if so, what is its version number, so I can go look for it?
>>
>> The version I have - which seems to be "Continuous Release | Version
>> 2019.010.20064" [though says "Copyright (C) 1984-2018", not 2019] -
>> _does_ seem to do so; I've (I think) stopped it actually doing so, by
>> playing with settings in it, stopping services (which seem to have
>> been restarted when I look and so on, and (I think) finally putting
>> something in my hosts file, but when I open a .pdf file, after a few
>> seconds it still becomes unresponsive for a while (few tens of seconds
>> at a guess), so I assume it's doing so (or trying to).
>>
>> (Or does anyone know what's causing that pause and how to stop it, if
>> checking for updates _isn't_ what it's doing?)
>>
>> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
>> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating
>> pause described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I
>> could use an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose
>> - there's always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render
>> properly, though. When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think),
>> I never _was_ aware of that happening, though there's always the
>> concern that some recent feature might _invisibly_ not work.
>
> Carlos is referring to Linux Acrobat, which stopped some time ago.

Correct.
Version 9, IIRC.

> You can still install the .deb if you have a copy (I seem to have
> one around here somewhere because I have been installing it).

I do, but it also requires old libs so it fails to run on current
openSUSE. There are tricks to get it to run, but they fail for me, so I
abandoned it. If needed, I run it in a virtual machine.

>
> Linux Acrobat is required, for form filling.

Actually, it is the javascript code in those files that doesn't run,
because no native Linux PDF reader supports javascript - which of
course, it is a security hole. Forms without code are supported fine.

The other missing feature is certificate checking (crypto-signatures).

Interestingly, Libre Office can generate PDF forms and signed PDFs.

> Not all of the
> native Linux PDF readers have full feature sets. They only
> implement what is in the PDF spec, versus Acrobat which
> includes Jetform stuff. There might not have been public
> standards for that separate material.
>
> Linux has plenty of "plain PDF reading capability".
> That's not the problem. If you get a job application
> form to fill out, the automation in it might not work
> right. And that's because Adobe has so much superfluous
> shit in there, it's hard for the third parties to keep up,
> which is the whole idea in the first place.

Right.

> If every last speck of material Adobe stuck in Acrobat
> Reader was in a public specification document, the
> Linux developers would have this covered by now.
> Reverse engineering isn't going to get this
> job done fast, if it is the only source of info
> on the topic.

And apparently there is no much interest in doing it.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 21/09/2021 13.50, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 10:40:39, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>> There are significant differences for me, as none of my hardware will
>> run W11.
>
> (Won't _run_ it, or just it won't _install_ because the installer's
> checking for hardware W11 doesn't actually need?)

I haven't tried. I don't have a TPM module in any of my machines.

>> Maybe my desktop using vmware player if it can emulate a TPM.
>>
>> So the point for me is for how long W10 will receives updates, specially
>> security updates, and whether the software I use that demands Windows
>> will run on 10.
>>
> Will there be a position for some sort of intermediary, so W10 can
> continue to be used, but go via the intermediary when it wants to access
> the internet? Presumably it is only via the internet that any insecurity
> you mention can "get in".
>
> The intermediary could be hardware - an old or tiny PC, possibly running
> a Linux; or, could it be something running under 10? The latter would of
> course rely on no malware author being able to get around it.
>
> (The same question must of course have arisen at the cessation of
> security updates for all previous versions.)

In my case, the tools I use in Windows must have Internet access. And
some tools fail if Windows is not updated, or their own tool is not
updated (TomTom car navigator).

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:44:05 +0100, in alt.windows7.general, "J. P. Gilliver
(John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>, wrote
,,,
>I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
>those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
>described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
>an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another),
....

I could not agree with you MORE.
I started using FOXIT when it was a 2mb total installation file(circa 2008).
Now, it is more bloated than Acrobat was then.

On 2021-09-21 12:07 a.m., Char Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 12:42:19 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 at 08:18:15, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote (my
>>> responses usually follow points raised):
>>> []
>>>> Windows 11 is absolutely the last OS they're doing.
>>>>
>>>> There won't be sufficient userbase left, to do another.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Interesting assertion (and I'm not saying you're wrong). How do you see
>>> the company surviving - revenue from Office365 etc.? (Surely that mostly
>>> runs on Windows machines - OK, there might be Mac etc. versions, but
>>> probably not a significant number.) Or are you suggesting it won't survive?
>>
>> They're doing quite well on Azure.
>>
>> *******
>>
>> Once you commit to a stupid idea, there's no backing out.
>
> Microsoft? OK, you could be right. Let me think about it while I fiddle
> with my Zune. I'm trying to connect it to my Windows phone.

We laugh at the Windows Phone now but I still loved it and miss it
tremendously today. Had the in-call mic on my unit (Lumia 830) not died
with the Windows 10 upgrade as it did for countless other Lumia 830
users (but it's definitely not the software!), I'd probably still be
using it today despite the lack of support.

--
@RabidHussar

On 2021-09-21 4:40 a.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 20/09/2021 14.19, RabidHussar wrote:
>> On 2021-09-20 1:05 a.m., T wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I have seen some chatter about creating a new W11
>>> news group.
>>>
>>> I personally would rather it just be merged with
>>> this group.
>>
>> Agreed, there aren't enough significant differences for it to be treated
>> as a separate release. It's clearly a continuation of the previous
>> release in the same way that MacOS 10.11 is a continuation of 10.10.
>
> There are significant differences for me, as none of my hardware will
> run W11.
>
> Maybe my desktop using vmware player if it can emulate a TPM.
>
> So the point for me is for how long W10 will receives updates, specially
> security updates, and whether the software I use that demands Windows
> will run on 10.

You're good at least until 2025, either way. After that - and let's be
honest here - your hardware will probably be very outdated anyway. From
what I can gather, Windows 11 will be available to any machine released
after 2018 and yours will likely be at least eight years-old at that
point if it doesn't support what Windows 11 requires.

--
@RabidHussar

On 2021-09-21 6:46 a.m., T wrote:
> On 9/21/21 2:43 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> Blatant example: Acrobat. There is no current version of acrobat reader,
>> they ceased to produce it.
>
> Use Master PDF Creator.
>
> Other missing software the user MUST have (sarcasm)
> Turbo Tax, Quickbooks, W$ Office, virtually every
> point of sale software, yada, yada, yada

I always enjoyed how Windows users told Linux enthusiasts that using
Linux will prevent them from enjoying Microsoft Office or Photoshop, as
if every person on Earth required that software. The tax software is
probably useful considering how complicated it can be to sort things out
at that level but few realized that these things were eventually going
to become web applications which rendered the operating system choice
irrelevant.

--
@RabidHussar

On 9/21/2021 4:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
> always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
> When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
> of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
> feature might _invisibly_ not work.

Foxit is bloated? Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm not aware of bloating
or any other problems with it. I prefer it to Acrobat, and that's what I
always use.

--
Ken

On 21/09/2021 14.31, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 20/09/2021 14.19, RabidHussar wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-20 1:05 a.m., T wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I have seen some chatter about creating a new W11
>>>> news group.
>>>>
>>>> I personally would rather it just be merged with
>>>> this group.
>>>
>>> Agreed, there aren't enough significant differences for it to be treated
>>> as a separate release. It's clearly a continuation of the previous
>>> release in the same way that MacOS 10.11 is a continuation of 10.10.
>>
>> There are significant differences for me, as none of my hardware will
>> run W11.
>
> Same for us. Our systems (laptops) seem to have 'too old' CPUs and
> maybe also 'too old' graphics 'cards'.
>
>> Maybe my desktop using vmware player if it can emulate a TPM.
>
> Maybe my laptop has TPM, but I can't be bothered to check.
>
>> So the point for me is for how long W10 will receives updates, specially
>> security updates, and whether the software I use that demands Windows
>> will run on 10.
>
> Our laptops still run Windows 8.1, so should be good till January 10,
> 2023 and then probably can be 'upgraded' to Windows 10 and be good till
> October 14, 2025. Probably by then they will (have to?) be replaced
> anyway.
>
> FWIW, I don't worry about (new(er)) software 'needing' Windows 11.
> That may be the case for 'state of the art' expensive software, but not
> likely for the software I use/need/want. It's probably the contrary,
> will my existing software - including device dependent software
> (scanner, printer, etc.) - run on Windows 10/11?

The TomTom navigator couples with a Windows tool, and this one when it
connects to the server at the manufacturer wants to update. Will not run
without doing that, AFAIR. And, last time I needed it, it failed till I
updated Windows 10 (but the error message was cryptic and did not say this).

The other piece of software I use is Adobe Digital Editions (ADE) for
managing ebooks with DRM. Fortunately, I have been using the same
version for several years, maybe minor updates.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In article <si9u66$fud$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> In article <cmegkgteg5f95vbl5u2pg901lna5r00r6j@4ax.com>,
>> Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid> wrote:
>> ...
>>> The cat is already out of the bag.
>>>
>>>
><https://news.aioe.org/tools/groupslist/index.php?id=groupslist&group=alt.comp.os.windows-11&exclude=3>
>>
>> While we're at it...
>>
>> Let's get ahead of the curve. Let's create a Windows 12 group right now.
>>
>> And Windows 13. And Windows 14. And...
>>
>> BTW, saw a TV add for Windows 11 a day or so ago. The virus is spreading...
>>
>
>Windows 11 is absolutely the last OS they're doing.
>
>There won't be sufficient userbase left, to do another.
>
> Paul

I get what you are saying. That, outside of corporate, the userbase for
these new versions of Windows is almost entirely new users - people who've
are new to Windows. People who are already using Windows will stick with
what works.

I've noticed this a lot - the biggest backers of Windows 10 are people
who've never used Windows before. They (and only they) think it is just
peachy.

--
The key difference between faith and science is that in science, evidence that
doesn't fit the theory tends to weaken the theory (that is, make it less likely to
be believed), whereas in faith, contrary evidence just makes faith stronger (on
the assumption that Satan is testing you - trying to make you abandon your faith).

On 2021-09-21 9:56 a.m., Ken Blake wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 4:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
>> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
>> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
>> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
>> always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
>> When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
>> of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
>> feature might _invisibly_ not work.
>
>
>
> Foxit is bloated? Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm not aware of bloating
> or any other problems with it. I prefer it to Acrobat, and that's what I
> always use.
>
>

Foxit is OK, but I now prefer Sumatra, But to each his own for his/her
own purpose. :-)

Rene

On 9/21/2021 8:58 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
> On 2021-09-21 9:56 a.m., Ken Blake wrote:
>> On 9/21/2021 4:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>>> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
>>> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
>>> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
>>> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
>>> always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
>>> When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
>>> of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
>>> feature might _invisibly_ not work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Foxit is bloated? Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm not aware of bloating
>> or any other problems with it. I prefer it to Acrobat, and that's what I
>> always use.
>>
>>
>
> Foxit is OK, but I now prefer Sumatra, But to each his own for his/her
> own purpose. :-)

I've also used Sumatra, and I liked it, but I still still prefer Foxit.

Don't ask me why I prefer Foxit to Sumatra. It's been too long and I
don't remember.

--
Ken

On 2021-09-21 11:06 a.m., Ken Blake wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 8:58 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>> On 2021-09-21 9:56 a.m., Ken Blake wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2021 4:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
>>>> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
>>>> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
>>>> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
>>>> always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
>>>> When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
>>>> of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
>>>> feature might _invisibly_ not work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Foxit is bloated? Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm not aware of
>>> bloating or any other problems with it. I prefer it to Acrobat, and
>>> that's what I always use.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Foxit is OK, but I now prefer Sumatra, But to each his own for his/her
>> own purpose.  :-)
>
>
> I've also used Sumatra, and I liked it, but I still still prefer Foxit.
>
> Don't ask me why I prefer Foxit to Sumatra. It's been too long and I
> don't remember.
>

Yeah, same here with Sumatra, I don't remember why, But they are both A1
programs.

Rene

On 21/09/2021 17.42, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <si9u66$fud$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>> Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>> In article <cmegkgteg5f95vbl5u2pg901lna5r00r6j@4ax.com>,
>>> Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> The cat is already out of the bag.
>>>>
>>>>
>> <https://news.aioe.org/tools/groupslist/index.php?id=groupslist&group=alt.comp.os.windows-11&exclude=3>
>>>
>>> While we're at it...
>>>
>>> Let's get ahead of the curve. Let's create a Windows 12 group right now.
>>>
>>> And Windows 13. And Windows 14. And...
>>>
>>> BTW, saw a TV add for Windows 11 a day or so ago. The virus is spreading...
>>>
>>
>> Windows 11 is absolutely the last OS they're doing.
>>
>> There won't be sufficient userbase left, to do another.
>>
>> Paul
>
> I get what you are saying. That, outside of corporate, the userbase for
> these new versions of Windows is almost entirely new users - people who've
> are new to Windows. People who are already using Windows will stick with
> what works.
>
> I've noticed this a lot - the biggest backers of Windows 10 are people
> who've never used Windows before. They (and only they) think it is just
> peachy.

If M$ caters to the enterprise, and they lose the large "home" user
base, that could be the death of them.

It is an hypothesis. Windows gets used a lot in the enterprise world
because the employees are already trained (for free, from the point of
view of the entrepreneur) in using Windows at home, school, college,
university.

It makes sense for M$ that all those people get the software easily
(included when they buy a computer), even without paying for the
software, even if using pirated copies, because where it matters, in the
job, in the enterprise, they will demand Windows machines and raise hell
if told to use anything else. And then, the enterprise has to buy both
software and support.

If they kill the home market, that could be their end.

(some countries, like mine, have a culture of using pirated software and
almost never paying for it, at home/school at least)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In article <6ifp1ixa24.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>,
Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
....
>If M$ caters to the enterprise, and they lose the large "home" user
>base, that could be the death of them.

+2

>It is an hypothesis. Windows gets used a lot in the enterprise world
>because the employees are already trained (for free, from the point of
>view of the entrepreneur) in using Windows at home, school, college,
>university.
>
>It makes sense for M$ that all those people get the software easily
>(included when they buy a computer), even without paying for the
>software, even if using pirated copies, because where it matters, in the
>job, in the enterprise, they will demand Windows machines and raise hell
>if told to use anything else. And then, the enterprise has to buy both
>software and support.
>
>
>If they kill the home market, that could be their end.
>
>
>(some countries, like mine, have a culture of using pirated software and
>almost never paying for it, at home/school at least)

Very well written. Totally agree.

--
He continues to assert that 2 plus 2 equals 4, despite being repeatedly
told otherwise.