There will be no Windows 11
-
No, you ran the 'ver' command. That is properly manifested.
If you write an exe and don't add the proper manifest magic
<supportedOS Id="{8e0f7a12-bfb3-4fe8-b9a5-48fd50a15a9a}"/>
GetVersion will lie.Huh. TIL
-
But we may be seeing a day coming where you pretty much have to distribute through the Windows store in order to get your software installed.
They make a rather large deal about sideloading, because they know what would happen if they didn't. I have a feeling it will be easier in 10, but it may not be.
99.999% of those break because they rely on assumptions about the underlying OS instead of being written properly
Microsoft is pretty fed up with being backwards compatible for these people, but they still bother to do it. They're pushing hard with their 'bridges' to get things on the platform quickly, while encouraging people to add some of the features of the platform. It's interesting to see what they're doing lately.
-
They make a rather large deal about sideloading,
Can anyone explain to me what sideloading is? I mean, it is just a conventional install, right? What does the new term differentiate that I am missing?
-
Loading a program from a source outside of the first-party store
-
Can anyone explain to me what sideloading is? I mean, it is just a conventional install, right? What does the new term differentiate that I am missing?
Installing an app which uses windows store features, like push notifications and inter-app communication (a normal app) without the store.
Partial
-
So, stupid tile interface? No wonder I don't know what it is.
-
-
The thing I want to learn more about is Project Centennial and APPX. That's a way for classic windows apps to be (converted) distributed via the store.
-
The thing I want to learn more about is Project Centennial and APPX. That's a way for classic windows apps to be (converted) distributed via the store.
This. And they can still be side-loaded after the conversion, which ends up making deployment less messy. All the registry and user data stays in the package.
-
Windows 10 will be the last version of the operating system to be numbered, says Microsoft executive.
Of course, what they're doing here is copying Apple several years later, by stopping at version 10
They're missing a bet by just matching Apple. Instead they should bump another version and then stop:
-
Apple is still trying to figure out just how much they want iOS and OS X to converge. Microsoft was like 'Well, we can finally do it, and no one else has... but we can't just call it 9, 9 isn't a cool enough number: 10 will do!' - in the end, the idea that you can write an application that has a mobile UI and a desktop UI, and have whichever device uses it adjust based on it's current display size... is pretty nice. Especially since the desktop versions are directly usable in Windows Holographic.
-
The real reason is because they can already anticipate the deluge of "Windows 11.11 for workgroups!!!!" jokes, and are performing a preemptive mercy kill on the product line.
-
-
This is already a possibility; even with a lot of testing, you can never be 100% sure a Windows Update won't break anything
Yeah, I've had server updates break web apps because MS rolled a new security setting in IIS that doesn't play nice with the software I manage.
-
Not sure if whoosh or trolling for counter-whoosh...
-
Are you sure you didn't whoosh, by not realizing @asdf was making a joke about @mott555 not saying "brillant" ?
Am I sure I didn't whoosh by not realizing you were not actually whooshing?
Is it whooshing all the way down?
-
-
-
If they were really copying Apple, they would have called it 'WindX'.
Filed under: except that name is already taken
-
http://media.qcsupply.com/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/3/4/340228_1.jpg
Because everyone needs to clean up their Windows now and then.
-
-
X-Windows?
-
'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This Windows is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!
'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig!
'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN X-WINDOWS!!
-
Not my reference but have a like regardless.
-
Don't forget, we have the binary used to "encourage" you to upgrade being GWX.exe, as in Get Windows X...
-
-
@loopback0 to quote myself from the past:
@Gąska said in There will be no Windows 11:
Wow! I would never think MS would do such a thing! No one saw it coming! Totally, nobody at all!
-
@Maciejasjmj said in There will be no Windows 11:
Anyway, it seems like a silly move and something they'll be backing out of soon.
Soon is measured in half decades...
-
Reading that article now, years later, it is funny how all of Microsoft's excuses are actually the opposite of reality.
... a Microsoft development executive said in a conference speech this week that Windows 10 would be the "last version" of the dominant desktop software and reflected a change in the way that it made its software.
8 years later, the way Microsoft does things hasn't changed.
Microsoft also had to spend a huge amount of money and marketing muscle to convince people that they needed this new version
Almost nobody goes out and buys a retail copy of Windows. People buy a new computer and use whatever version of Windows comes with it. Or let Windows Update automagically update whatever they are currently using.
Microsoft's marketing is irrelevant. But they still spend lots of money on it.
Most of the revenue generated by Windows for Microsoft comes from sales of new PCs and this is unlikely to be affected by the change
So ... why are you doing this?
Moving to a situation in which Windows is a constantly updated service will ... let Microsoft tinker more with the software to test new features and see how customers like them
No. Just fucking no.
-
@Gern_Blaanston I wouldn't even mind if they did that. I wouldn't even mind all the fucking telemetry if they actually did that.
The problem is that we have all this shit rammed down our throats and every, single, fucking time we get the opposite of what we want out of it.
-
@Arantor said in There will be no Windows 11:
every, single, fucking time we get the opposite of what we want out of it.
I'm still waiting on literally any advertisement provider proclaiming benefits to me to actually provide a hint of those benefits.
I have literally never had a single useful advertisement served to me, personalization or no.
I will continue to be bitter until they manage to subvert the results of capitalism and fulfil their empty promises.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in There will be no Windows 11:
I have literally never had a single useful advertisement served to me
That's because "advertisement" and "useful" are mutually exclusive.
-
@Zerosquare well, I have on occasion seen an ad for a thing that was like 'oh hey that would actually solve a problem I have' or even 'that would be a neat thing to have' but I swear in almost all cases this was accidentally correct on the part of the ad provider.
-
@Arantor Occasionally, I've seen ads that would have been very relevant a couple of weeks prior... because I've just bought the thing that is being advertised.
No bonuses for swinging at the ball after the receiver has caught it.
-
@dkf that’s the worst aspect of behavioural advertising, and by far the dumbest.
Like, yes, I did just buy a $500 frobnicator, so obviously I want to buy another one because I love me some frobnicators?
It’s most egregious when it’s something not only expensive but that you don’t expect to buy again for years if ever.
-
@Zerosquare said in There will be no Windows 11:
That's because "advertisement" and "useful" are mutually exclusive.
Advertising has always been mostly stupid.
I've been reading about this subject lately and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that most advertising is ineffective and most money spent on advertsing is wasted. But nobody has been able to do a really serious study of the subject because they can't get any help or cooperation from businesses.
The truth is, businesses don't want to know if advertising actually works. Seriously, they REALLY don't want to know. On the surface, that seems ... wrong. Advertsing is a huge business, $250 Billion a year just in the U.S. alone, so you would think companies spending that much money would want to make sure they are getting the most benefit from the money they spend.
But here's the problem:
What if you reduce or eliminate advertising and sales go down? Do you want to take that chance? Do you want to be the guy who has to explain to the boss that it was your idea to cut advertising? No, of course not. Nobody wants to be that guy.
On the other hand, what if you cut advertising and sales DON'T go down? Now you have to explain why you've been spending millions of dollars on advertsing that obviously wasn't doing anything. Nobody wants to be that guy, either.
More than a hundred years ago, the founder of a large department store said "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted. The problem is, I don't know which half."
And so, businesses keep spending/wasting money on advertising.
-
@Gern_Blaanston Anecdotally speaking, all of the advertising on movies is wasted. Dial of Destiny supposedly had a $100M+ advertising budget. I saw one commercial. I don't remember the last movie advertisement I saw before that. Maybe Justice League? I watch a couple of hours of TV a couple of nights per week and I swear all I see anymore are insurance or cell phone service ads.
-
@Zenith said in There will be no Windows 11:
@Gern_Blaanston Anecdotally speaking, all of the advertising on movies is wasted.
Well you know how it is. Can't possibly spend a few million on good writing, acting or directing, so blow hundreds of millions on ads to try to trick people into paying to see it anyway.
-
@Zenith said in There will be no Windows 11:
I swear all I see anymore are insurance or cell phone service ads.
You forgot the lawyer and pharmaceutical ads.
-
@dcon said in There will be no Windows 11:
@Zenith said in There will be no Windows 11:
I swear all I see anymore are insurance or cell phone service ads.
You forgot the lawyer and pharmaceutical ads.
I think the order of those ads is backwards. The lawyers are there to fix the issue when the pills don't
-
@izzion said in There will be no Windows 11:
@dcon said in There will be no Windows 11:
@Zenith said in There will be no Windows 11:
I swear all I see anymore are insurance or cell phone service ads.
You forgot the lawyer and pharmaceutical ads.
I think the order of those ads is backwards. The lawyers are there to fix the issue
whenthe pillsdon'tcaused
-
@dcon said in There will be no Windows 11:
@izzion said in There will be no Windows 11:
@dcon said in There will be no Windows 11:
@Zenith said in There will be no Windows 11:
I swear all I see anymore are insurance or cell phone service ads.
You forgot the lawyer and pharmaceutical ads.
I think the order of those ads is backwards. The lawyers are there to fix the issue
whenthe pillsdon'tcausedThat's merely a subset of what I said
-
10 years later, Targeted Advertising Considered Harmful remains as relevant as ever.
-
@Mason_Wheeler I don't believe it is. It's a sciency-sounding paper alright. How convenient then that it's formatted to be printed on a toilet roll, too. But regarding the causes of ad-blocking today looking at targeted advertising is missing the larger point.
It's the obnoxiousness and insistence on delaying, obscuring and interrupting (sometimes even preventing) the actual content.
As for targeted advertising, we have enough loons on this planet. You bet some of them would be open to targeted advertising if it actually were to, you know, target. From what I keep hearing, it plainly doesn't fucking work. My guess is because accurately tagging goods, services and content is really hard, and so rarely anyone bothers. Bought a refrigerator? How about another one! Something AI could actually help with, since its entire idea is to work on relations of concepts; dog help us all.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity it works on three levels:
- the extremely specific cases (e.g. you’ve changed what food you’re buying therefore one of you is pregnant, better start stocking up on diapers)
- extremely stupid (you just bought a refrigerator, now you’re going to see ads for them for months in case you want to buy more)
- the extremely creepy (the crowd of “I said a brand name and now all I see are ads for that brand, I didn’t Google it or anything”)
None of these are particularly useful and once you do factor in the other shit like masquerading as content, or articles being divided into half a dozen pages with approximately two paragraphs per page to maximise ad exposure, you can see why people would block the ads.
But that doesn’t explain the increases in ad blocking in the likes of YouTube which is part driven by the increasing amount of them, and part by the entitlement of “but it’s online therefore it’s free”.
One can hope this whole fucking circus will collapse in on itself along with the “everything’s a side hustle” grift shit going around. But that’s all the products of late-state capitalism and the rise of infinite growth mythology.
-
@Arantor said in There will be no Windows 11:
extremely stupid (you just bought a refrigerator, now you’re going to see ads for them for months in case you want to buy more)
But you also see them when you look or search for them but don't buy. I notice that happening a lot but people only talk about this phenomenon when they actually buy the product. Maybe because it sticks out in their mind at that point.
I have definitely looked at other places I would not have otherwise considered due to ads in situations like this. If only because I like to check out places other than, e.g., Amazon or Walmart to shop around and make sure I'm only getting average ripped off instead of exceptionally ripped off. But I'm not always aware of "specialty" sites for whatever sort of product I'm looking for.
-
@boomzilla to a point, but that’s only because it has no way of knowing that you bought or didn’t buy said product.
The fact you have not continued to search for said product (because you’re not generating signals that imply to behavioural advertisers that you’re looking) should indicate the desire to purchase is gone, either because you found what you were looking for, or because you gave up.
The problem is that the behavioural tracking still doesn’t work - and chances are it didn’t direct you to these specialty sites because they don’t spend as much on ads as the bigger vendors anyway.
-
@Arantor right, right, right, but my point is that you're complaining about the wrong thing and that while, sure, the stuff everyone whines about is wasted doesn't mean that what's going on is a complete waste.
To address stuff mentioned before in the thread...In general, I think it's rare for ads to directly lead to sales in most cases. It's more about building brand recognition, where you're more likely to trust something you've heard of. Like everyone else, I have no idea how well all that works, but I'm highly skeptical that there's no effect.
-
@boomzilla we’re then back to where we were before, and that everyone was broadly in agreement on that “advertising sorta works but noone’s really sure how much money makes any kind of sense”
The only tangent was behavioural advertising which has always been a shitshow and used to justify advertisers bilking their clients on thr promise of “but we’re showing your ad to people who are more likely to want your product in the first place and thus more likely to buy it” which isn’t true, probably hasn’t ever been true, but funds Google and others in far larger part than any of them deserve.
-
@Arantor said in There will be no Windows 11:
The only tangent was behavioural advertising which has always been a shitshow and used to justify advertisers bilking their clients on thr promise of “but we’re showing your ad to people who are more likely to want your product in the first place and thus more likely to buy it” which isn’t true, probably hasn’t ever been true, but funds Google and others in far larger part than any of them deserve.
Yes, that's correct if you want to ignore the case I gave where it's true. But if you don't ignore that then it's wrong, like I said when I first posted about it.