Google To Drop Chrome Support For 32-bit Linux 175
prisoninmate writes: Google announces that its Google Chrome web browser will no longer be available for 32-bit hardware platforms. Additionally, Google Chrome will no longer be supported on the Ubuntu 12.04 LTS (Precise Pangolin) and Debian GNU/Linux 7 (Wheezy) operating systems. Users are urged to update to the Ubuntu 14.04 LTS (Trusty Tahr) release and Debian GNU/Linux 8 (Jessie) respectively. Google will continue to support the 32-bit build configurations for those who want to build the open-source Chromium web browser on various Linux kernel-based operating systems. Reader SmartAboutThings writes, on a similar note, that: Microsoft is tolling the death knell for Internet Explorer with an announcement that it will end support for all older versions next year. Microsoft says that all versions older than the latest one will no longer be supported starting Jan. 12, 2016. After this date, Microsoft will no longer provide security updates or technical support for older Internet Explorer versions. Furthermore, Internet Explorer 11 will be the last version of Internet Explorer as Microsoft shifts its focus on its next web browser, Microsoft Edge.
Google drops ${product} (Score:5, Funny)
Yesterday, Google Announced that they will drop support for their product ${product}. Google will continue to support the product for the next few months[, offering users the opportunity to download a tar file of their data]. Google said they chose this step because they wanted to "do the right thing", and "continue to enhance our products for all of our users".
The users of ${product} weren't happy at all about the announcement. Twitter user &{name} writes, ${random_user_quote here}. On other internet platforms, the responses were similar.
Advertising advertising advertising (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course. A company is in the business where they get their revenues. Airlines get their revenues from flying people around. Airlines do in fact have excellent tech for figuring out demand, routes, and other things. As a matter of fact, American Airlines and its SABRE system made data processing (IT to you kids) history in the 70s.
See, Google is an advertising company. People are under the erroneous impression that they are a tech company. Any and all tech they develop is to enhance their business - advert
Amazon Web Services (Score:3)
I'm not sure one of the examples you chose is the best:
A company is in the business where they get their revenues.
And Amazon Web Services gets its revenues from leasing resources to customers willing to run their software on someone else's computer.
calling Google a tech company is just as ridiculous as calling Amazon a tech company
I don't follow. Is AWS not "tech"? Or does revenue from Marketplace commissions and FBA services outweigh AWS revenue?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon most accurately defined as a logistics company and as such handling digital services is an extension of that logistics ability. Google is not a marketing company as they do not market products, they provide services for the marketing of those products. So they are a publishing agency and they basically privately publish your private information, to various government and private organisation (making it easy for governments to peep means they get free ride to invade your privacy) and like any other p
Re: (Score:2)
As everyone knows, all actual programming work at Google is done by interns. Now that Facebook has better snacks, Google's intern supply is drying up and that explains why some products must be thrown out.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, indeed. But we liked it, didn't we? :)
So no more 32-bit Android either? (Score:2)
That's too bad since most Android phones are 32-bit right now.
Re:So no more 32-bit Android either? (Score:5, Funny)
They're talking about platforms that get updates.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah! :)
or Raspberry Pi (Score:2)
This is also a blow to the low-cost computing push (RaspberryPi, etc). Virtually all the ARM SBCs are 32-bit today, and their claim-to-fame is having a real browser (Chrome). If they stop 32-bit compatibility, that will greatly harm lightweight browser consumers from smart TVs to 3rd-world computing.
Oh well, there's always Firefox.
Update my Vista machines (Score:2)
What about IE9 on Vista/Win2008? (Score:3)
Windows Server 2008 is still widely used as it's the last Windows Server OS available as x86... (And Windows Server 2008 R2 is not a free update...)
Most current IE version for a supported OS (Score:3)
From Internet Explorer Support Lifecycle Policy FAQ [microsoft.com], linked in the featured article:
So yes, IE 9 security updates will continue. So will IE 8 updates for those Windows XP
Businesses finally upgrading IE (Score:2)
Microsoft says that all versions older than the latest one will no longer be supported starting Jan. 12, 2016.
In January my company will upgrade to IE 11, because of this, and probably stay on a current version from then on. It feels so weird. I'm used to having to code for a version of IE that is several years old. It's a good time to be a web developer!
Re:The Source? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Source? (Score:5, Informative)
The chromium open source tar ball will continue to be updated and support 32-bit x86 and ARM for at least the next 5 years.
The proprietary Chrome binaries which include features listed below will not longer be updated after March 2016:
- AAC, H.264, and MP3 Support
- Adobe Flash (PPAPI)
- Google Update
https://groups.google.com/a/ch... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The most important feature of the closed-source Chrome is it's the way to stream Netflix on Linux.
That's the only reason I've ever used Chrome on any desktop computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. I had no idea.
Netflix has had many years to remove their dependency on proprietary player software so that it would no longer require closed players. As some of the stuff transitions from not-user-maintainable to completely-unmaintained, that'll just be another reason for people to remember that media requires standards. It's ridiculous that in 2015 someone is selling a video service where you can't just use whatever player you want to.
"Cord cutting" right now is something Netflix can cheer, but as
Studios probably push it (Score:3)
It's ridiculous that in 2015 someone is selling a video service where you can't just use whatever player you want to.
Then what non-ridiculous method of conditional access to video would be acceptable to the companies that fund production of feature films?
Re: (Score:3)
It's ridiculous that in 2015 someone is selling a video service where you can't just use whatever player you want to.
Then what non-ridiculous method of conditional access to video would be acceptable to the companies that fund production of feature films?
The site could require authentication, and use SSL pretty easily. If you're referring to some pipe dream of preventing users from recording the video you're fooling yourself. With a modern video card you can record anything displayed on the screen. For example if you've got an nvidia card, you hit F9, and viola. I just tested - works fine with netflix. nVidia calls it shadowplay, AMD calls it raptr (I think). I guess intel is a player in the gpu world now as well.. You can also use fraps or probably a
Re: (Score:3)
If you're referring to some pipe dream of preventing users from recording the video you're fooling yourself.
Companies that are fooling themselves still control the exclusive rights to feature films that end users demand. They contractually require Netflix and other licensees to play along with the fooling.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that it's *impossible* (Score:3)
While they would *love* for it to be outright impossible to copy, their goal is to make it as much a pain in the ass to copy as possible.
Let's say they didn't do any of these DRM shenanigans. You could 'wget http://netflix.com/popular_mov... [netflix.com]' and have it run in the background at whatever speed the internet provides. You might have a 90 minute film in less than 10 minutes.
If you screen record, then that means your computer is now watching this video and unable to do anything else for the full duration of t
Re: (Score:2)
While they would *love* for it to be outright impossible to copy, their goal is to make it as much a pain in the ass to copy as possible.
They succeed in making it a pain in the ass, period. There is a lot of competition for scarce free time these days, and if the modern audience needs any more encouragement that they should spend their scant entertainment hours consuming big media content, these boneheads will be happy to provide it. Ranks right up there with FBI warnings on video disks, which surely never stopped any illegal copying but certainly did make home theatre a less comfortable experience. I mean, invite friends over to watch FBI w
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to Handbrake and Plex, I don't think I've seen that FBI warning in years. The first and only destination that any optical media-based movie I purchased goes to is the BD drive on my desktop, where it gets ripped, stored, and cataloged. Then the disc goes back into it's box, and that goes into another box in storage.
Re: (Score:2)
By making it a pain in the ass to copy, they also make it more of a pain in the ass to use at all... And it only requires one person to copy it and make it available in an unrestricted format.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with the sentiment that it's made a pain in the ass for even normal use, however the part about the one person being enough to make the whole thing moot is not true. They can (and do) track down folks doing the unrestricted distribution and cause them difficulty. They would be otherwise unable to do so if netflix was DRM free and people just farmed it off of netflix, leaving them unable to discern the nature of the consumption.
This is the awkwardness of an economic reality trying to accom
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At that point, however, they have a shot at detecting and acting on the infringement. Without their draconian DRM BS, people would just hammer a legitimate source in a way that is actually very hard to discern whether the behavior is 'legitimate' or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is rational, but depends on the content owners (MPAA) to understand the current state of technology, and then write contracts with distribution (Netflix) that are also rational.
Do you see the flaw yet? The MPAA, in no way, could be described as rational, or understanding of the current state of technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Then what non-ridiculous method of conditional access to video would be acceptable to the companies that fund production of feature films?
What makes flash acceptable now? The DRM as a supposed protector of their content?
Challenge: find an example of a show/movie on Netflix that is also not available as a torrent or on usenet DRM free. Anyone willing to "record" Netflix is not going to be terribly bothered by running Popcorn Time.
Re: (Score:3)
People keep blaming Netflix for decisions enforced upon them by production studios.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, no. I blame everyone involved.
from the complacent masses to the corporate shills and everyone in between, including the actors, the writers, the media manufacturers, the game console and television makers, the people who designed HDCP, the people who make sure that I get to suffer through the threats before every film i PAID for, while the actual people who are copying the stuff quite happily remove same... the list is quite well populated.
I benefit directly from media sales, as I own a very successful
Alternative (Score:2)
The most important feature of the closed-source Chrome is it's the way to stream Netflix on Linux.
Indeed, Widevine CDN is currently the only supported DRM for Linux users.
And currently, there are howtos floating on the web explaining how to enable support for Widevine CDN plugin in Chromium.
Mozilla has announced that they'll eventually support Adobe's CDN under Linux which should give other alternative to support Netflix here.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's not really a standard, just a way to say "insert proprietary module here, which may or may not actually be compatible with the content".
It is certainly a standard: it's a standard that defines the interface for the DRM plugin. It contains the proprietary module needed to only the plugin, instead of all of Silverlight or all of Flash, and so is a huge win.
You don't ever want to specify the crypto used in a standard anyhow, because crypto changes faster than standards. I worked on the standard for encrypted tape drives. You don't specify stuff like "use AES", you specify stuff like "describing supported encryption methods" and "process to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's useless since you can't write a module that supports any and all possible encryption mechanisms, selectable dynamically. So you don't do that, and end up with a non-standard standardisation.
It's an imperfect world. That's just how it is, when it takes 5 years for a draft standard to become official (by which time everything using it is obsolete), but crypto changes frequently. The thing it" it still helps a lot. It tremendously reduces the amount of vendor-specific code needed to get the job done.
Alternative (Score:4, Informative)
For the record...
Chrome binaries which include features listed below will not longer be updated after March 2016:
- AAC, H.264, and MP3 Support
It's possible to leverage ffmpeg to give additional codecs support to chromium.
AFAIK Packman's and OpenSUSE's build of chromium use this.
- Adobe Flash (PPAPI)
To be more precise, it's the *bundling of flash* which is unavailable with chormium.
Support for PPAPI can be compiled in Chromium, and if a suitable separate binary is provided, you get working flash version 19.
(Again, Packman's and OpenSUSE's build is done so)
For that matters, it's the same situation with Firefox: there's a plugin called "freshplayer" that enables support for PPAPI plugins in Firefox (it's basically a NSAPI to PPAPI wrapper).
Again with a a suitable binary provided, you get working flash verison 19 (instead of version 11 which was the last version that flash provided for NSAPI).
Though you don't get all the advantage of Google's sandboxing model.
It's povided in OpenSUSE and Packman.
(I don't have experience with Ubuntu, but I strongly suspect that they do the same. Or in any other way, it should definitely be available in some PPA)
Re: (Score:2)
Support for PPAPI can be compiled in Chromium, and if a suitable separate binary is provided, you get working flash version 19.
I take this announcement to mean that Google and Adobe will no longer produce "a suitable separate binary" of Flash Player for 32-bit Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so it's just a security update. Why don't they say so?
Re: (Score:2)
Clear demonstration of why Community > Proprietary.
Re: The Source? (Score:2)
Re: The Source? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dropping support doesn't mean it won't work. It just means if it doesn't Google will not help you to try to get it to work.
If you want to compile it, and adjust the dependencies so it works with 32bit. More power to you. Google just won't bend over backwards to make sure all the plugins work with you or crash after you fill up a bit too much ram.
Re: The Source? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Counter-intuitively, most actual programs run slower in 64-bit, because the advantage from all the new registers doesn't overcome the penalty for the object code and many objects in memory being 2x the size, so only half as much fits in CPU cache. Depends on the program, of course, but stuff running faster in 64-bit is surprisingly rare outside of number-crunching.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not really true.
Only addresses/pointers [and longs] double in size. Most generated code uses the lower 8 regs were possible, so no prefix byte. Also, offsets can be smaller due to RIP relative addressing. Because the ABI specifies the first six function arguments are in registers, no wasteful pushes on calls. Also, because of the extra registers, this reduces "register pressure". That is, you don't have to store the value in a register to the stack frame just to make room for another value because you
Re: (Score:2)
And, given all of the above, overall, 64 bit is about 30% faster. Based on what I've read, and what I've benchmarked
But are you looking at number crunching, or at "card walloping code": iterating though a large array of large objects, applying some simple transformation to each. Most business code, after all, does nothing interesting to a lot of bloated objects. (of course, such code is almost always I/O bound anyhow, so maybe it doesn't matter.)
Re: (Score:2)
You said it. 64 bit address space is handy, but it's the extra registers. And, the 64 bit x86 ABI allows the first six arguments of a function to be passed in registers instead of stack pushes. The code is more compact and about 30% faster in execution, just by rebuilding for 64 bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Firefox even 64 bit now? They still don't support multi process or threading very well.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox is 64 bit on Linux and OS X to my understanding. The Windows and Solaris builds are still 32 bit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just offer this fully-supported, Windows 64-bit build here:
https://download.mozilla.org/?... [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah totally doable for non comp.sci majors.
Re: (Score:2)
> Oh yeah totally doable for non comp.sci majors.
It depends on the quality of the build scripts really.
It's like the software quality of ANYTHING. Either the developers decided to put in the time to make the software robust and reasonably easy to use or they didn't.
The fact that you might have to type some bog standard commands that haven't changed in 20 years is really not the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never done Firefox in particular but I suspect it's not much more difficult than reading the readme (catchy title, I know) and following the directions. It's probably something akin to:
sudo configure
sudo make
sudo make install
And maybe, just maybe, tracking down a dependency but chances are good someone will have already compiled and packaged it for you or you can just grab a package from a repo that someone's willing to maintain.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally speaking, a 64 bit build of a browser is actually pretty silly in and of itself. If your browser session needs more than 4GB of ram, there's a problem.
It's not like you would opt out of the WoW64 layer needed to run 32 bit applications in a Windows 64 environment.
In the Linux ecosystem, however, the 32 bit layer is often skipped in new installs, since the proprietary ecosystem is smaller and less demanding of very long support cycle without rebuild.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope not. There are quite a few places that I'm running 32 bit operating systems (my MacBook Pro, running OS X 10.6, for example) that will not be migrated to 64 bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, Chrome for Mac has been 64-bit only for a year now. http://www.computerworld.com/a... [computerworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
will not = can not?
Apple orphaned a large swatch of macbook pros; 10.6.8 is the last build that will install on them.
I own one.
.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't this be the other way around? The default should be x86-64 unless there is a specific software/driver/whatever that doesn't work properly in that configuration (in which case, hopefully you don't have to browse the web for it).
I mean, the last time anyone sold processors that didn't support was the Pentium 4, sometime a decade ago. Given Moore's law (and the rising price of electricity), you could replace that with a RaspberryPI of equivalent horsepower that will probably pay itself back in power
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that while the chip may support 64-bit, the drivers don't. I have two laptops running Windows 7 32-bit because one of them has a Core Duo, which doesn't support 64-bit, and the other doesn't have 64-bit drivers for audio and never will because SigmaTel was bought by Apple.
I really feel that Google is not resource-limited on these things and there is some other motivation. The way it is working for me is that I am migrating away from Google completely for everything because I can't rely on the
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I did notice you conveniently ignored the problem of not having 64-bit drivers.
I have a work computer that has such pathetic computing requirements that spending even one penny on something new is one penny too much, and you have not only have no sense of humor, you don't understand relative positions and probably consider the phrase "let them eat cake" as a legitimate position of generosity.
I cannot know for sure why Google creates and manages the Chrome browser, but if their intent is to encourage me
Re: (Score:2)
I have a work computer that has such pathetic computing requirements that spending even one penny on something new is one penny too much
Except that you are paying lots of pennies to power that old inefficient Pentium IV. And if you counted the difference in pennies from powering that versus buying a new efficient one every 5-10 years, you'd come up with lots of extra pennies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The default should be x86-64 unless there is a specific software/driver/whatever that doesn't work properly in that configuration
A 64-bit ABI makes pointers twice as big, which can increase memory consumption on devices with less than 4 GB of RAM and increase data cache capacity misses on any machine. The impact of this depends on the extent to which a program uses pointer-heavy data structures.
I mean, the last time anyone sold processors that didn't support was the Pentium 4, sometime a decade ago. Given Moore's law (and the rising price of electricity), you could replace that with a RaspberryPI of equivalent horsepower that will probably pay itself back in power in under a year
Not after you include the power cost of emulating x86 on ARM for applications to which you lack source code, such as applications running in Wine.
Re: (Score:2)
One of these little fellows [kickstarter.com] would probably do the job.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you do have some custom setup that doesn't run on 64bit, I'm really sorry. Legacy support sucks (I know firsthand), but don't expect the rest of the world to keep updating their shit just because you have to.
It's not good for the environment that people keep binning stuff that is more than adequate for their current needs. If people's main use of computers is browsing the internet and watching cat videos, a ten-year-old computer is more than adequate for the task. Legacy support in browsers is a matter of security, and IT security requires a lot of "herd immunity" -- people running unsecured browsers become an attack vector for DDoS attacks etc. Supporting a legacy browser environment is therefore a very sensib
Re: (Score:2)
It's not good for the environment that people keep binning stuff that is more than adequate for their current needs. If people's main use of computers is browsing the internet and watching cat videos, a ten-year-old computer is more than adequate for the task.
A ten year old computer probably uses about 10x the power of a modern machine, even a cheap one. So it might be adequate for the task, but if a newer one can do for 10W what it does for 300W, then that's a savings of more than a nickel an hour or ~$100/year.
Re: (Score:2)
If so, it will only be relevant for compiled binaries from the vendor. The source is still available for Chromium (and a lot of other browsers, so third parties are still welcome to compile for 32-bit targets. If there is some breakage due to developers assuming a 64-bit target, people can still patch the source. I suspect that the programs will simply become too heavy for 32-bit systems before all support (first or third party) is dropped for 32-bit systems.
Also keep in mind that there are 32-bit platfo
Re: (Score:2)
The source is still available for Chromium
But not for Flash Player, which vector animation sites such as Newgrounds still require. And not for the digital restrictions management components, which streaming sites that lawfully carry major studio films still require. And not for the patented audiovisual decoders (H.264, AAC, and MP3), which Safari-compatible sites hosting audio or video still require because Apple, as a member of the MPEG-LA carte^W patent pool, has made a business decision not to offer hooks for third parties to support WebM in its
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess if you are a software shop that doesn't develop a single application that can benefit from 64-bit, it may make sense to stick to 32, but is that really eve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a software developer who has worked for companies supporting multiple active platforms both 32-bit and 64-bit, 64 bit isn't the point. It's the massive burden of maintaining multiple build streams, tool-chains, test servers, release images, etc. for a dying platform (32-bit). 32-bit needs to die so this waste is eliminated.
This is why many build for 32-bit and ignore 64-bit unless they have a good reason because everyone can run 32. For example a "hello world" application does not benefit anyone from 64-bit version while a 64-bit version of Google earth would be amazing if it ever existed.
64-bit CPU modes often bring along larger register files and advanced instructions, which alone is a good reason many applications may want to become 64-bit vs 32.
No it is just memory people will blab about more registers and this and that but no tangible difference exists in real world use.
Re:Politically incorrect fact (Score:5, Informative)
And? Is Chrome supported on Win10 for 32 bit? Ah nope, as the summary states, Google stops delivering 32bit versions of Chrome for all OS. On a side note: Linuxes come with Firefox which works perfectly on 32bit hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure MS would have loved to drop 32 bit support. After all it's double the trouble (more or less). The fact is that MS isn't in a position to be picky about what end user H/W they want to support.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Windows 10 supports video drivers from Windows 7, then why does the Get Windows 10 app on my Acer Aspire X1 PC running Windows 7 say the integrated GPU in the PC's nForce chipset is incompatible with Windows 10?
Re: (Score:2)
Video drivers are a bit of a special case since Windows uses graphics for the desktop so much more now. Windows 10 wants WDDM 2.0 graphics drivers where possible. I suspect it'd work fine, but you might lose some of the animations and eye candy. I've installed Windows 10 on a number of old computers and haven't had too much trouble with drivers, but I rarely try to use them for things like gaming or other graphically-intensive things. It's supposed to work with WDDM 1.3 as well, but all that gets complicate
Re: (Score:2)
But the Get Windows 10 app will not let me proceed, instead telling me that NVIDIA has not made the GPU compatible and giving a link to shop for a new PC. Should I take a screenshot? Is there a recommended half-height discrete GPU to use instead of the integrated one? (Because the case is compact, a full-height GPU will not fit.) Should I follow the instructions in this thread [geforce.com] to create USB install media? Or should I just leave that PC at Windows 7 and then attempt to Linux it once Windows 7 reaches end of
Re: (Score:2)
That's mostly up to you. I didn't upgrade to Windows 7 until I needed DirectX 10. The main advantages of Windows 10 is going to be DirectX 12 and things like Windows Store apps, which may not interest you. I suspect your box probably wouldn't be running much DirectX 12 anyway. It's not impossible to roll back if you don't like it, but might be kind of a pain. As far as a video card upgrade, just about anything discrete is going to be a big upgrade. I'm partial to nvidia myself. Mostly comes down to whether
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know that this is hard to digest for a Linux neckbeard, but Windows 10 is actually a great way to breathe life to an old computer. Even 32-bit is fully supported. There, I said it.
As the above title stated, Microsoft is dropping support for all IE before 11. So if one was on XP, the last version of IE that would have worked for them would have been 8, and they'd be SOL if IE was all they used. It's never made sense to me why Microsoft would bother supporting 32-bit beyond 8, since 10 practically requires at least 4GB of memory, which 32-bit Windows can't handle - no matter what the version.
As far as 32-bit Linux goes, they can remain w/ Firefox or Opera. Actually, if you toss in
Re: (Score:2)
which 32-bit Windows can't handle
Look I count myself among the windows haters but there is plenty wrong and deficient in Windows to complain about without making false statements. There are several variants of 32-bit Windows that do PAE
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they have an Atom chipset more than 3 years old, which lacks the amd64 instruction set.
Re: (Score:2)
If you put aside the spyware - which I fixed w/ ShutUp10, Windows 10 is just fine. The desktop mode is as usable as Windows 7, and the tablet mode is fine as well.
Only issue is that the apps sometimes crash a lot - like News. Also, in News, I can no longer configure what sources exactly I want, which sucks! Windows 10 could use a wider variety of apps.
Re: (Score:2)
I recently picked up an old Thinkpad Z61t at a thrift store for a fiver. Perfect condition. Original Core Duo, 2gb of RAM. Tossed another Gig of RAM at it, and had no trouble getting the Windows 7 it came with upgraded to 10. No driver problems except for a little fiddliness with the bluetooth. But then I've had nightmares with bluetooth on Windows all the way back to XP. It's only marginally useful for video (SD Youtube works ok) but general use it's more than adequate*. Granted multimedia is sort of a req
Re: Politically incorrect fact (Score:2)
I love that someone thinks I'm trolling when I'm stating what many people (not just me) have seen. Windows 10 is a lot heavier then 7 or 8 on equivalent hardware
Re: Politically incorrect fact (Score:2)
Honest question - how am I trolling when I'm stating things that many people have seen and reported back to Microsoft? Windows 10 is slower then its predecessors on 32 bit hardware, and I've stated what was eating CPU time (desktop effects and Windows Defender, neither of which can be disabled)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they should have said "GNU + Linux" instead of "Linux".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Debian project and Canonical build Chromium. The only features that would disappear are Flash, patented codecs, and DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
Which computer, and which operating system? As I wrote above [slashdot.org], Microsoft is still supporting IE 9 on Windows Vista.