Upgrade or Switch to a different OS, but don't hold on to an older Windows.

Do you just hate the changes made with Windows 10? Do you dislike the default software, advertising, or UI changes? Well you should probably get over it. Technology changes and computer operating systems are no exception. Holding onto Windows 7 for these reasons are silly.

Holding out for the reasons above won't work very well. It may not be much of an issue yet, but over time you will come to regret it. Especially since the clock is ticking on the free upgrade. I know somebody that held out with Windows 3.11 for Workgroups well into the first decade of this century. Nothing ever worked the way she wanted it to, She was constantly wasting time looking for a work around or compatible 16 bit software to get anything done. She had stuff installed to to give her a Windows 95 type look along and she tried and often failed to run more modern stuff with Win32s. She could have spent that wasted time doing stuff she wanted to do if she had just upgraded. I ended up force upgrading her to Windows XP at some point. I installed third party apps to make it look and feel more like what she liked. She was pissed at first, but when she started using it she was happy with it because everything just worked. I of course made a full backup in case she dug her heels in and wanted it put back the way it was. Fortunately that didn't happen.

I understand this is an extreme example. I realize that Windows 7 is still useful and able to function fine for most people and will for some time still. But with ending support, yes I know you can still get security patches but that is not the same as being a supported product, and the fact that Windows 7 will eventually lose it's usefulness as well as be much less secure, nostalgia isn't a good reason to hold out. It isn't hard to get Windows 10 to look more like what you are used to. Default software and games can be removed or replaced. Advertising can and should be turned off. It's easy. A monkey could do it.

Legitimate reasons to hold out may include hardware compatibility, specialized setups based on Windows 7 that would break with an upgrade (industrial machines controlled by a Windows 7 box, etc...), Privacy issues (even though most but not all are easy to mitigate if you just look at your settings), and specialized software development needs. Even I have had use for old or unsupported operating systems in a few rare instances. I have really a couple old computers that I still have a use for which can not run newer stuff at all or without extreme modification.

I am a strong advocate for Linux, and am in know way a supporter of Windows 10 mind you. I just think that a decision of whether to upgrade should be based on sound facts, not on FUD, not on nostalgia, and certainly not because somebody is to lazy to make a few easy changes to protect privacy and make the UI more suitable.

I think however, that when it comes to Windows 7 you should either upgrade or jump ship to a different OS entirely. Old Microsoft operating systems are not secure and not any better with your privacy than Windows 10. Microsoft has been an expert at mining your data for a couple decades, they just got more aggressive about it recently. If you think you are safer using an older version of Windows, guess again. Also, if you do choose to go to a Linux distribution you will still have to make UI changes and worry about privacy settings in most cases. Ubuntu is a prime example of a Linux distribution that is easy to use but has some privacy issues and some UI issues.

Stallman vs. Reality

The trouble with Richard Stallman's arguments they are based on ideals without accounting for the reality of how people need or even want to use software and information. Stallman has been at the same tired old argument of what he views to be freedom in regards to software for decades and still doesn't seem to understand that his ideals for free software do a lot to restrict the freedoms of users and developers.

The reason why Windows, OS X, and proprietary software titles are so popular because they enable most people to do the things they want to do. That's the end of the debate really, and that is why Stallman frequently finds himself tilting at windmills. Most people don't and wouldn't benefit from the kind of freedom he is defending.

Most people would be at a severe disadvantage if they migrated to a completely free operating system and completely free software for that system. They wouldn't be able to do much of what they want to do without learning to develop software themselves. At the very least they would be facing a substantial learning curve in using their computer in a different way then they are accustomed to.

This kind of freedom is Stallman preaches is meaningless when it's freedom people either don't need or are unlikely to take advantage of. Sure, to a hacker or developer that wants the right to alter and redistribute any part of a system they see fit it is great, but how many people really fall into that category?

The truth is that many developers don't even take advantage of that kind of freedom. Most people wont ever need or want access to alter almost all of an operating system or program. Most people just want it to work. How many computer users actually want or need the abiltiy to hack the entire system?

Stallman's complete freedom argument is  almost completely pointless when faced with the reality of people users that don't need or benefit from it.  People have had years and years to migrate to completely free GNU/Linux systems and overwhelmingly, they choose Winows, OS X, Android, Ubuntu, etc...

Stallman is an extremist defending principles which for most users are completely useless. They don't need to hack their systems and they don't want to and they shouldn't have to.  There is nothing wrong if people want to buy software and let professionals handle the details when need be. There is nothing wrong with free software and people that want to do it themselves either, but expecting all software to fall in the latter category is silly. Especially since all users don't.

You name it! Pick an operating system for me to review!

I'm considering setting aside a partition on my drive for testing other operating systems and then reviewing them here. I would also test and compare the operating systems in a virtual machine.

I am still deciding on what parameters and format both the testing and review will take.

Here is what I would love to hear from you in comments here or in messages on my google+ or Facebook wall:

1. What operating system would you like me to review? Anything that can be installed legally for free on my laptop or anything I have a valid software license for is okay. I can review every released copy of Microsoft Windows for example (American releases). FreeDOS, virtually any Linux, ReactOS, Haiku, you name it!
2. What are make or break features for you? What can you absolutely not live without in an OS?
3. What is your comfort level? Do you like a challenge, or would you like less of a learning curve?

Let me know what you think. I'm looking forward to hearing your opinions! Let's have some fun with this! I plan to do several reviews so there are plenty of chances for your pick to get reviewed.

You don't have an Android phone.

I think most people are aware of this but I feel the need to get it out there because of the misinformation and bad comparisons I keep reading. You don't have an Android phone. Android is an operating system that can be installed on any device with compatible hardware, not a type of phone. I don't see people with iPhones calling their phones iOS phones. That would be kind of silly.

The reason I mention this is because there are so many phones that utilize Android that questions about hardware and comparisons to Apple products done in this matter are all useless and result in junk data. People try to categorize them all as Android phones vs iPhones. People that categorically compare their iPhone to every make and model of phone that uses Android are being ridiculous and don't even realize it.

It is the same as the people that said they had a "Microsoft Computer" in the 1980's and 1990's because they were using MS-DOS or Windows on it. They didn't have one, there was no such thing on the market at the time. Microsoft with very few exceptions was strictly a software company. It was difficult to answer questions because there were so many existing chip-sets and configurations on the market, but these folks couldn't even tell you the brand name. They just said "Microsoft". Flash forward to present day when Microsoft actually does sell hardware like the Surface and the Lumia I don't ever hear the annoying phrase "Microsoft Computer" anymore.

REACTOS. TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE?

19 JULY, 2015 BY JOHN BEAULIEU - ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED TO SETUIX.COM 

What is ReactOS you ask? The people behind ReactOS present it as an open-source operating system that aims to be binary-compatible with computer software and drivers made for Microsoft Windows. Development started in 1998, but the software is still in an alpha state. Yes, you read that correctly. It has been developed almost 17 years and has not even made it to a beta state. In reality ReactOS is little more than a heavily promoted hobby.

ReactOS is mostly written in C, with some parts like explorer.exe written in C++. Thus far it only partially implements Windows API functions. Some of this is provided by parts from the WINE project that provides a method for running Windows applications on a Linux environment and the rest is implemented by the work of ReactOS developers. Progress has been very slow. Though the project is quite active it suffers from a lack of developers with the time and skills needed to produce a beta release.

It should be noted that ReactOS itself was spawned from a failed 1996 project by the name of FreeWin95. FreeWin95, as the name indicates, was a project to create a free replacement for Microsoft Windows 95. FreeWin95 had not released anything by 1997. ReactOS was started in 1998 as an attempt to revive the project but focus instead on a free implementation of Windows NT instead of Windows 95. Windows versions like Windows XP, Windows 7,  Windows 8, Windows Server are all built on the Windows NT architecture.

The people responsible for the ReactOS  project seem to be more interested in attention wherever they can get it than building any real partnerships to help them develop a stable release. Publicized and or promoted demonstrations of the operating system have been given to Russian politicians. In 2012 Vladimir Putin was also given a demonstration. Dmitry Medvedev given a demonstration during a visit to a high school 2011. Viktor Alksnis met with project coordinator and was given a demonstration of the project 2007.  There is a ReactOS YouTube channel with mostly testing videos and a couple debugging videos. ReactOS has a slick and maintained web-site, it’s own foundation and runs frequent fundraisers. All this work yet when it comes down to getting a beta release very little is happening. The people leading the project point to all the daily incremental activity in development that is not producing quantitative results as proof of the projects vitality and relevance.

In January 2006 there was bit of controversy started. A claim was made that ReactOS contained code from Microsoft Windows. The developers responsible for maintaining the ReactOS code repository disabled access pending an internal audit. The relationship between ReactOS and Wine became strained. Wine barred several developers from providing contributions to their project presumably to avoid the stigma of the controversy and to keep Wine from getting sucked into a mess. There is still some low level cooperation for bug fixes between the projects but that is about it.

ReactOS sought to clarify what they defined as clean-room reverse engineering. They claimed to be using a strict definition under US Law. They conducted an internal source audit. Access to the code repository was restored shortly after. They never made any details public and there was never any actual proof that the code in question was not stolen. It seems fishy to me that all they did was an internal audit without presenting any tangible evidence afterward. I have to seriously wonder about the potential of a project that remains in alpha even after reverse engineering the software they aim to replace or compete with.

ReactOS is going nowhere fast. It was started as a project in 1998 and has had 27 releases since 2004. All of them alpha releases and in micro-version increments. The current release is is 0.3.17 and it is not suitable for any real use. At best it is toy for playing around with in a virtual machine. It can be used for testing purposes but does not have any real value for anyone other than developers.

They cite issues of being a volunteer project and having members with other things in life to focus on. That is all fine and well but I can think of several other volunteer supported projects that at least have usable products available for download. Maybe they should spend less time on PR shots with Russian politicians and failed fundraisers. ReactOS is maintained by small groups of developers working in their spare time. They don’t have the financial support or enough substantial development to be taken seriously. The ReactOS Project needs to quit resting on their potential and actually do something because they are turning into the longest running joke in the history of operating system development.

While I have a strongly negative opinion of the project and the direction it is heading I would absolutely love to see ReactOS become a legitimate viable alternative to Microsoft Windows. The premise has so much potential, but it is being wasted. They need corporate sponsors and partners. I hope at some point they have some strong corporate partnerships and the funding to bring in some full time developers with the right skill-sets. Unless these things happen I do not see ReactOS ever amounting to more than a well publicized hobby.

You can read more about ReactOS at their web-site:

https://www.reactos.org

You can also get involved with the project there. If you are an idealistic developer with a lot of time to devote they could certainly use the help. If you have money to invest tech projects they could certainly use a financial partner devoted to getting a working stable release finished.