Incremental cloning for XP?

[Terry Russell]

I wanted to try NTFS. I've heard that starting out with FAT32 in XP and
then later converting to NTFS causes problems. Forget where I read that. I
think it was a Microsoft site.

FAT32 doesn't support the extra security attributes NTFS has
for seperate user/admin level access. Under NTFS non-admin accounts cannot
manipulate many files or directories not owned by that account,
an extra level of protection for an 'internetuser' account lost when
cloned to fat.

On the other hand account administration is one more thing to confuse
new users who usually end up with one admin account and the
initial account for all uses, so no noticeable loss.

 

[John Corliss]

I don't have XP, but the following link is carried by

http://www.synergymx.com/foss.asp

Microsoft Sync Toy.

Unfortunately, requires .NET 1.1

If the link's program description seems helpful, and if your willing
to put up with the DRM bullshit (you must validate your OS), look at

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...54-c975-4814-9649-cce41af06eb7&DisplayLang=en

Thanks anyway, Dewey. I'll give it a try if I ever bite the bullet and
install .NET.

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls and other such idiots. No adware, cdware,
commercial software, crippleware, demoware, nagware, PROmotionware,
shareware, spyware, time-limited software, trialware, viruses or warez
please.

 

[John Corliss]

And by this I meant as opposed to making the partition or drive NTFS
from the start.

FAT32 doesn't support the extra security attributes NTFS has
for seperate user/admin level access. Under NTFS non-admin accounts cannot
manipulate many files or directories not owned by that account,
an extra level of protection for an 'internetuser' account lost when
cloned to fat.

On the other hand account administration is one more thing to confuse
new users who usually end up with one admin account and the
initial account for all uses, so no noticeable loss.

Right. And since I'm the only one using this computer, it's kind of
pointless. Yes, I log on with administrator rights and am comfortable
doing so.

By the way, another reason I wanted my backup drive to be FAT32 is
because I had a spare drive that I'd installed SuSE Linux on. Since
then, I lost yet another drive (well, bad sectors on it anyway) and had
to turn the Linux drive into the backup Windows drive. I had wanted the
Linux drive to be able to access my data files. If I'd set up the backup
drive as NTFS, I wouldn't have been able to do that.

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls and other such idiots. No adware, cdware,
commercial software, crippleware, demoware, nagware, PROmotionware,
shareware, spyware, time-limited software, trialware, viruses or warez
please.

 

[Helen]

Query: John, what is the "problem" with NET 1.1 ? Without this tidbit of info,
the other doesn't make a lot of sense. TIA

Helen
--
It has always been the policy of the
advocates of error, when unable to
sustain themselves by sophistry, specious
reasoning and false logic, to stigmatize
the advocates of truth.

news:[email protected]...

 

[younggod]

I don't have XP, but the following link is carried by

http://www.synergymx.com/foss.asp

Microsoft Sync Toy.

If the link's program description seems helpful, and if your willing
to put up with the DRM bullshit (you must validate your OS), look at

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...54-c975-4814-9649-cce41af06eb7&DisplayLang=en

You can download it directly from the MS website at the following
link:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/e/0/5/e05a8797-eceb-46f6-ad38-a81609e209a0/Setup.msi


younggod

 

[Doc]

Query: John, what is the "problem" with NET 1.1 ? Without this
tidbit of info, the other doesn't make a lot of sense. TIA

John, even though he has just migrated to XP, really wants to stay in the
20th century where computing was a lot simpler .... a WHOLE lot simpler.

Like, its 2006 now, and NET is just ... oooohhh ... just ... oooohhh ..
too much to take in. Maybe when he migrates to Vista (next decade, next
century ?), maybe he will be ready to bite the bullet and try NET.

Remember, he has been 'computing' for 29 years, and still took a thousand
posts to figure out how to do 'incremental' backups in XP.

(Why anyone would want to do daily incremental backups from one HD to
another HD - excepting for the remote* possibility of HD failure - defies
logic. Surely it would be better to be able to restore a known "good"
backup, even a few days old, than to rely solely on the previous days
image which may, or may NOT, be good.)

*remote as compared to the daily risks of screwing a sound install,
especially in a "freeware tester's" environment .. malware, crashes etc..

JC could easily (as I have often done) tested a freeware (or even
commercialware) program, and found out a few days later that it has made
a mess of the registry, or replaced a 'needed' file ... or whatever -
what good is YESTERDAYS incremental backup then ?

 

[Doc]

Yes, I log on with administrator rights and am comfortable
doing so.

John knows BEST.

He is entitled to do it HIS way.

He won't chance .NET, but surfing with admin rights is A'OK

 

[FirstName LastName]

By the way, another reason I wanted my backup drive to be FAT32 is
because I had a spare drive that I'd installed SuSE Linux on. Since
then, I lost yet another drive (well, bad sectors on it anyway) and had
to turn the Linux drive into the backup Windows drive. I had wanted the
Linux drive to be able to access my data files. If I'd set up the backup
drive as NTFS, I wouldn't have been able to do that.

http://www.jankratochvil.net/project/captive/
Jan Kratochvil: Captive: The first free NTFS read/write filesystem for
GNU/Linux

"Project implements the first full read/write free access to NTFS disk
drives. You can mount your Microsoft Windows NT, 200x or XP partition as
a transparently accessible volume for your GNU/Linux.

This compatibility was achieved in the Wine way by using the original
Microsoft Windows ntfs.sys driver. It emulates the required subsystems
of the Microsoft Windows kernel by reusing one of the original
ntoskrnl.exe, ReactOS parts, or this project's own reimplementations, on
a case by case basis. Project includes the first open source MS-Windows
kernel API for Free operating systems. Involvement of the original
driver files was chosen to achieve the best and unprecedented filesystem
compatibility and safety.

As opposed to other projects this is currently the only software
supporting the full read/write access including the possibility to
create/delete files, modify directories
etc."

 

[John Corliss]

John Corliss wrote:
(apparently clipped)
Query: John, what is the "problem" with NET 1.1 ? Without this tidbit of info,
the other doesn't make a lot of sense. TIA

I don't have .NET (either version) installed and don't plan on doing
it any time soon. I've tried it a couple of times just to find out what
it's all about, but I don't like it based on a gut feeling, and have not
installed it on this fresh installation (at least I THINK none of it is
installed; who knows what changes to a system Microsoft's Updates really
make?)
As far as I can tell, .NET is a step in the direction of Microsoft's
goal of renting software that is only available if a person has an
internet connection. A step towards converting your computer into a
"workstation" and destroying its stand alone capabilities. It enables
use of software living on a server somewhere, that temporarily installs
a portion of itself on your system only long enough for you to
accomplish the task at hand.
Microsoft has been obfuscatory for a long time about what .NET really
is. In fact, I even contacted them directly and asked for a better
definition of what it is. All I got from them was that it allows
programming in several languages. That's what I call a "non-answer" and
whenever you can't get straight information from Microsoft about
anything, it's always something that you're not going to like and which
will make you more of a Microserf.
Now, as time goes by, they're starting to make it more clear what
it's all about. If you don't believe me, go to this site:

http://www.microsoft.com/net/basics.mspx

and read between the lines of their euphemistic blather.

They want to rent you software, not sell you licenses to use it
indefinitely or to allow you to have a copy of it on your hard drive.

To this end, for instance, they do a couple of things to users of MS Office:

1. Certain non-vital portions of the suite (for instance, clipart) are
only available if you go online and get it. This is to get you used to
the idea of having to be online in order to use software.

2. it's often necessary for you to reinsert the installation CDs in
order to install a component of the suite (for instance, document format
converters) that should have been included in the installation from the
start.

The reason they probably do the second is to:

a. get the public used to having to request components that they need
b. make it as much a pain in the ass as possible (finding those darned
CDs!) so that when they finally drop the bomb about the next version of
MSO being rented, people will be relieved to a certain degree that
obtaining needed components will be "easier".

Not only that, but the distinct *possibility* (notice that I use the
word POSSIBILITY) exists that eventually Microsoft will start using
processing cycles from your system in some large "mega-computer network"
scheme, and then selling the collective processing cycles to various
large businesses. It may explain why Gates wants everybody online, all
the time. That is to say, if they're not already doing this covertly.
How would anybody know? Just to go the list of XP services, there are
already things like DCOM, DLTC, Network DDE, NLA, Network Provisioning,
QoS RSVP, Remote Access Auto Connection, RPC, Routing and Remote Access,
System Event Notification, TCP/IP NetBIOS Helper, TERMINAL SERVICES for
God's sake! WebClient, WMI, etc. etc. Not to mention that Netmeeting and
Messenger are being shoved down everybody's throat. All of this crap is
totally unneeded on a single user computer like mine, so why is it
installed by default?

Doc accuses me of wanting to go back in time. It looks to me like
Microsoft and Bill Gates are the ones who are going that direction.

And that's what's wrong with the at-first-glance "benign" .NET. All I
can say is, keep your eye on the MS EULAs.

I do not intend to get in a flame war about this issue. These are my
opinions on the matter and nothing... NOTHING, is going to change them.

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls and other such idiots. No adware, cdware,
commercial software, crippleware, demoware, nagware, PROmotionware,
shareware, spyware, time-limited software, trialware, viruses or warez
please.

 

[John Corliss]

Read my reply to Helen if you're curious to know the real reason why I
don't like .NET. Or are you only interested in putting words in my mouth?

(snipped all the trolling)

Gee, I seem to have heard a sound.... I think it sounded like... Oh
yeah... like THIS:

*PLONK*

 

[burris]

I don't have .NET (either version) installed and don't plan on doing
it any time soon. I've tried it a couple of times just to find out what
it's all about, but I don't like it based on a gut feeling, and have not
installed it on this fresh installation (at least I THINK none of it is
installed; who knows what changes to a system Microsoft's Updates really
make?)
As far as I can tell, .NET is a step in the direction of Microsoft's
goal of renting software that is only available if a person has an
internet connection. A step towards converting your computer into a
"workstation" and destroying its stand alone capabilities. It enables
use of software living on a server somewhere, that temporarily installs
a portion of itself on your system only long enough for you to
accomplish the task at hand.
Microsoft has been obfuscatory for a long time about what .NET really
is. In fact, I even contacted them directly and asked for a better
definition of what it is. All I got from them was that it allows
programming in several languages. That's what I call a "non-answer" and
whenever you can't get straight information from Microsoft about
anything, it's always something that you're not going to like and which
will make you more of a Microserf.
Now, as time goes by, they're starting to make it more clear what
it's all about. If you don't believe me, go to this site:

http://www.microsoft.com/net/basics.mspx

and read between the lines of their euphemistic blather.

They want to rent you software, not sell you licenses to use it
indefinitely or to allow you to have a copy of it on your hard drive.

To this end, for instance, they do a couple of things to users of MS Office:

1. Certain non-vital portions of the suite (for instance, clipart) are
only available if you go online and get it. This is to get you used to
the idea of having to be online in order to use software.

2. it's often necessary for you to reinsert the installation CDs in
order to install a component of the suite (for instance, document format
converters) that should have been included in the installation from the
start.

The reason they probably do the second is to:

a. get the public used to having to request components that they need
b. make it as much a pain in the ass as possible (finding those darned
CDs!) so that when they finally drop the bomb about the next version of
MSO being rented, people will be relieved to a certain degree that
obtaining needed components will be "easier".

Not only that, but the distinct *possibility* (notice that I use the
word POSSIBILITY) exists that eventually Microsoft will start using
processing cycles from your system in some large "mega-computer network"
scheme, and then selling the collective processing cycles to various
large businesses. It may explain why Gates wants everybody online, all
the time. That is to say, if they're not already doing this covertly.
How would anybody know? Just to go the list of XP services, there are
already things like DCOM, DLTC, Network DDE, NLA, Network Provisioning,
QoS RSVP, Remote Access Auto Connection, RPC, Routing and Remote Access,
System Event Notification, TCP/IP NetBIOS Helper, TERMINAL SERVICES for
God's sake! WebClient, WMI, etc. etc. Not to mention that Netmeeting and
Messenger are being shoved down everybody's throat. All of this crap is
totally unneeded on a single user computer like mine, so why is it
installed by default?

Doc accuses me of wanting to go back in time. It looks to me like
Microsoft and Bill Gates are the ones who are going that direction.

And that's what's wrong with the at-first-glance "benign" .NET. All I
can say is, keep your eye on the MS EULAs.

I do not intend to get in a flame war about this issue. These are my
opinions on the matter and nothing... NOTHING, is going to change them.

John....

After reading your reply, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

You are the newly crowned King of paranoia. Part of it is that you
actually think people are trying to change the way you think. If you
really analyze this NG, you might see that for the most part, people are
here to learn and contribute their ideas for anyone else who wants to
try them.

I am certainly not a great fan of MS and I only use them for my
operating system. I don't use any of their other add-on products. I also
think they operate way beyond what is reasonable, but perhaps that's why
Bill Gates might still be the richest guy in the world.

That aside, I think you might be paranoid about the laundry list of
distinct possibilities that MS might be foisting upon you. I even wonder
if you truly understand what most of these are or do.

I think you should maybe lighten up and immerse yourself in the world of
today's computing. It's not all so great but it's a bunch of fun and in
the process you get to experience what the brilliant minds in the world
are doing .

Remember, you do have that uninstall and delete key, and from the way
you do your moment to moment back-ups, you can always restore or
re-install if you or MS has made a mistake. That too, can sometimes be a
learning process....

Come out, come out, wherever you are..

burris

 

[Helen]

John....

Thanks John. I don't consider your reply "paranoid". I'm not paranoid
and from I've read and from conversations with IT's et al at work, it
seems to me that paying for the use of programs via subscriptions
is the wave of the future.

Thank you for your considered response. I had the same 'gut' feeling
about it but could never get a straight answer either.

Helen

 

[John Corliss]

John....

After reading your reply, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

You are the newly crowned King of paranoia.

If you think I'm going to let you get away with trivializing my concerns
with such an offensive and flippant remark, your very, very wrong.

Perhaps you didn't notice that I said (I even emphasized that I did so!):

The difference between paranoia and caution is that in the former, a
person distinctly believes that something is really for real *happening*.

In the latter, a person anticipates a possibility from the available
data at hand. My *speculation* that Microsoft might eventually force
people to provide computing cycles to them (which they will then sell to
businesses) in exchange for the privilege of using their bloated OS, is
based upon MS's history of bottom-lining. Just remember where you heard
it first (assuming, of course, that I'm the first to speculate that this
might happen.)

Part of it is that you
actually think people are trying to change the way you think.

You have GOT to be kidding me! That's about *all that goes on* in this
group!

If you
really analyze this NG, you might see that for the most part, people are
here to learn and contribute their ideas for anyone else who wants to
try them.

That's about half of it maybe.

I am certainly not a great fan of MS and I only use them for my
operating system. I don't use any of their other add-on products. I also
think they operate way beyond what is reasonable, but perhaps that's why
Bill Gates might still be the richest guy in the world.

That aside, I think you might be paranoid

Again, you should be more cautious about using that offensive
terminology. As a debate technique, attempting to offend the other party
in this fashion is reprehensible.

about the laundry list of
distinct possibilities that MS might be foisting upon you. I even wonder
if you truly understand what most of these are or do.

What are you referring to? The services I listed? If so, well then does
*anybody* really know what they do? All I have to go on is the
descriptions provided in the Services Administrative module by Microsoft
and what I find on the internet as sites such as this one:

http://majorgeeks.com/page.php?id=12

(NOTE! *Only* an example of the sites that are available. There are others)

What more can I possibly do to understand them? Decompile them and
examine the code? I that what you do?

Frankly, that neither I nor anybody else except Microsoft totally
understands what all the services do lends support to my "paranoiac"
suggestions. And again, I question why all this networking bloat needs
to be on my computer when (hopefully) I'm not using any of it EVER!

I think you should maybe lighten up and immerse yourself in the world of
today's computing.

In essence, it seems that you're recommending that I stop doubting
Microsoft's veracity and give them my undivided trust. That I not
question their motives and follow all of their recommendations.

Are you really serious?

"'Then the time has come for you to take the last step. You must love
Microsoft. It is not enough to obey him: you must love him.'
He released Winston with a little push towards the guards."

It's not all so great but it's a bunch of fun and in
the process you get to experience what the brilliant minds in the world
are doing .

Remember, you do have that uninstall and delete key, and from the way
you do your moment to moment back-ups, you can always restore or
re-install if you or MS has made a mistake. That too, can sometimes be a
learning process....

All of that's kind of patronizing, don't you think?

Come out, come out, wherever you are..

I'm right here. And further, I'm not planning on leaving any time soon.

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls like Doc, for instance. No adware, cdware,
commercial software, crippleware, demoware, nagware, PROmotionware,
shareware, spyware, time-limited software, trialware, viruses or warez
please.

 

[Craig]

John Corliss wrote:


John....

...<snip>...

You are the newly crowned King of paranoia.
...<snip>...
You actually think people are trying to change the way you think.
...<snip>...
I think you might be paranoid about the laundry list...
...<snip>...
I even wonder if you truly understand...
...<snip>...
I think you should maybe lighten up...
...<snip>...
Remember, you do have that uninstall and delete key
...<snip>...
Come out, come out, wherever you are..
...<snip>...
burris

Burris, where's the beef?

When Helen asked John to spell out his concerns wrt MS' .net
marchitecture, I was hopeful he'd give a thoughtful response. He did.
He furthered the convo. Your response, Burris? Questioning John's
mental stability, intelligence and priorities while failing to
articulate (or even *ape*) a counterpoint to his thesis:

"...NET is a step in the direction of Microsoft's goal of renting
software that is only available if a person has an internet connection."

Burris, your post was simply a smear; a grammatically sound,
stylistically coherent smear.

------

To those of you who've bothered to read this far: Sun, IBM as well as
Microsoft have been discussing *how* (not if) to move from sales to
rental of technology for at least the last five years. Sun and IBM
already do it in with certain product lines. One of MS' first concrete
steps in this direction was the reorganization of their support services
two years ago.

Personally, I'm not as concerned about this trend as John but I agree
this is the way that MS wants to take its user base. Part of this is
simply from my bias. I'm used to the idea. When I worked at Sun, I was
privy to Sun's, IBM's and MS' medium-term development plans. We all had
this in the works.

Other reasons for my relative lack of concern are:
- *nix continues to get better & better (eventual switch from MS)
- alternatives to .net tech are freely available
- some alternatives to .net are standards-driven & grow in popularity
- sentiment against .net tech is pretty well-seated

A good example of the impact of the last point is the case of CDBURNER
XP. I think we can agree they're a pretty decent operation. Read their
announcement from July, 2005. http://www.cdburnerxp.se/. They now
offer a non .net install of their product *precisely* because people
(like John?) said 'no thanks.' Earlier, they'd been caught off-guard by
the vocal opposition. Up until then they had been touting the fact that
their product was going to be developed w/.net. Then they took a step back.

anywho, back to work.

Craig

 

[Mandy Abbett]

I'm right here. And further, I'm not planning on leaving any time
soon.

Leaving ACF 14 times already is enough ?

 

[H-Man]

I don't have .NET (either version) installed and don't plan on doing
it any time soon. I've tried it a couple of times just to find out what

//snipped dialog regarding the exact nature of .NET

John, I haven't yet seen a definative answer to your questions, so I
thought I might pipe in and see if I can maybe shed some light.

..NET is a set of programming API's. Windows was developed, since WIN3.0
with an underlying set of API's. API stands for aplication program
interface, or application programmer's interface, depending on perspective.
Either way, when I program in VB or some other language, I can call a
Windows API, and have Windows do something for me, like maybe retrieve
drive information, or open a network connection, or maybe even something as
simple as color a text box differently. In addition to this, VB for one,
requires an additional runtime file to be present for any VB written
program to run. It's a bit convoluted and a lot messy. Enter .NET. The .NET
API and runtime files are all packaged and use same runtime for any of the
..NET programming languages. Different runtimes are not required, and as far
as I know, Microsoft wants to eventually abandon the use of current API's
and runtimes and use just .NET for Windows.

AFAIK, and I'm not the authority on this by any means, there is nothing
really dubious going on, it's just a set of functions a program can call to
get things done. It is more complete as a network interface than the
Windows API, and it wouldn't at all surprise me if somewhere along the line
MS were to make .NET the backbone of some software rental scheme, but it is
also my belief that they could build this in regardless of what they called
it. They could ultimately make it an OS update, call it a security update
and away they go. They've done similar before, right?

Anyway, I currently do not write for .NET simply because .NET is a huge
download, and all of the users of my programs do not already have it. None
of the projects I've done so far need it, so I'm waiting. There are .NET
alternatives for other operating systems, MONO for Linux and BSD comes to
mind. In this case it'll act kinda like JAVA where you can write a program
for one machine and run it on any system that has the framework in place,
the difference being that it is not language specific.

I hope this helps to clear the air a bit, and I hope everything I've shared
here is accurate, it is to the best of my knowledge anyway.

 

[John Corliss]

Leaving ACF 14 times already is enough ?

Using sock puppets now are you "Doc"? Yes, I'm replying to a troll just
to point out what you are.

 

[John Corliss]

//snipped dialog regarding the exact nature of .NET

John, I haven't yet seen a definative answer to your questions, so I
thought I might pipe in and see if I can maybe shed some light.

.NET is a set of programming API's. Windows was developed, since WIN3.0
with an underlying set of API's. API stands for aplication program
interface, or application programmer's interface, depending on perspective.
Either way, when I program in VB or some other language, I can call a
Windows API, and have Windows do something for me, like maybe retrieve
drive information, or open a network connection, or maybe even something as
simple as color a text box differently. In addition to this, VB for one,
requires an additional runtime file to be present for any VB written
program to run. It's a bit convoluted and a lot messy. Enter .NET. The .NET
API and runtime files are all packaged and use same runtime for any of the
.NET programming languages. Different runtimes are not required, and as far
as I know, Microsoft wants to eventually abandon the use of current API's
and runtimes and use just .NET for Windows.

AFAIK, and I'm not the authority on this by any means, there is nothing
really dubious going on, it's just a set of functions a program can call to
get things done. It is more complete as a network interface than the
Windows API, and it wouldn't at all surprise me if somewhere along the line
MS were to make .NET the backbone of some software rental scheme, but it is
also my belief that they could build this in regardless of what they called
it. They could ultimately make it an OS update, call it a security update
and away they go. They've done similar before, right?

Anyway, I currently do not write for .NET simply because .NET is a huge
download, and all of the users of my programs do not already have it. None
of the projects I've done so far need it, so I'm waiting. There are .NET
alternatives for other operating systems, MONO for Linux and BSD comes to
mind. In this case it'll act kinda like JAVA where you can write a program
for one machine and run it on any system that has the framework in place,
the difference being that it is not language specific.

I hope this helps to clear the air a bit, and I hope everything I've shared
here is accurate, it is to the best of my knowledge anyway.

Many thanks for this, H-Man. And if what you say about them eventually
abandoning the use of current API's and runtimes comes to pass, then I
suppose that means that older programs (freeware or otherwise) wouldn't
work anymore. My guess is they'd never do this all at once, but rather
would phase out such things.

Regardless, that link I provided in my reply to Helen:

http://www.microsoft.com/net/basics.mspx

says the following:

".NET is the Microsoft Web services strategy to connect information,
people, systems, and devices through software. Integrated across the
Microsoft platform, .NET technology provides the ability to quickly
build, deploy, manage, and use connected, security-enhanced solutions
with Web services."

and Web services (from that same page) are:

"self-describing software modules, semantically encapsulating discrete
functionality, wrapped in and accessible via standard Internet
communication protocols like XML and SOAP."

I don't think that Microsoft's goal of using webservices to allow
programs to talk to one another is not in and of itself a bad thing.
However, the idea of using web services as the *software itself* can
only lead to renting of online software. Admittedly, I don't think that
too many people (individuals OR businesses) are going to buy into such a
scheme, regardless of how Microsoft or other companies try to foist it
on the public.

As I've said in the past, Microsoft's continual use of the word
"strategy", is a kind of Freudian slippage to the effect that they see
the consumer market as an adversary... to be bullied, deceived and
otherwise manipulated into doing whatever MS wants.

If Microsoft ever drops that attitude and starts treating consumers as
allies (for instance, by more openly soliciting feedback and actually
listening to it, or releasing bug fixes instead of just mainly
"security" patches), the world of computing might start heading towards
it's true potential. Not only that, but Microsoft's profits would
actually increase.

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls like Doc, for instance. No adware, cdware,
commercial software, crippleware, demoware, nagware, PROmotionware,
shareware, spyware, time-limited software, trialware, viruses or warez
please.

 

[H-Man]

If Microsoft ever drops that attitude and starts treating consumers as
allies (for instance, by more openly soliciting feedback and actually
listening to it, or releasing bug fixes instead of just mainly
"security" patches), the world of computing might start heading towards
it's true potential. Not only that, but Microsoft's profits would
actually increase.

Good info John.
I think you are largely right in the tac MS is taking with this. I think
much of this will be market driven, and once they move towards the
"strategy" you've indicated, consumers will eventually abandon them. It
wouldn't be the first time MS tried something only to be met with public
outrage. It'll be just one more reason to jump ship and use an alternative
like linux, (which BTW I use reguarily). By that time it should be an
alternative most anyone will find friendly enough.

Let's hope anyway.