Re: OT

On 2026/8/19 19:30:4, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <[email protected]> wrote:
>> (Should we take this to e-s.talk?)
> 
>   And pollute *that* group!? :-)
> 
>> On 2026/8/17 20:16:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> The price I paid for Win11 Pro is for a license to use it, the
>>>>> price I paid for 365 is for a year of MS letting me use what
>>>>> I want from their apps and OneDrive, it's a equitable way of
>>>>> always having the latest software.  Buying a boxed copy of
>>>>> MS Office, OTOH, would lock me in to one arbitrary release.
>>
>> Depends whether you _want_ what the later releases give you. Granted, I
>> haven't really _looked_ into what the later ones give me, but I've yet
>> to find anything I want to do that my Office 2003 (with the patches for
>> the x versions so I can exchange with those who use them) can't do. (And
>> I certainly have no desire for OneDrive.) Each to his or her own, though!
> 
>   Exactly! My software ages quite nicely with time. Some important parts
> are already well over two decades 'old' and still going strong. Example:
> The software bringing you this post.

I would still be using Turnpike if I hadn't been forced to move to both
64 bit and Windows 10 by another requirement (TP6 operates as a shell
extension to the 32-bit shell; I used it through XP to 7-32, and I think
before XP).>
>>>> Given that software has started deteriorating with each successive
>>>> release, constant upgrades are looking less and less attractive.
>>
>> That certainly is the impression I get. Plus needing constant
>> replacement of OS in order to use them - OK, "constant" is overstating,
>> but they only support so far back in OSs.
> 
>   The software I mention above started on XP and moved to Vista, 8.1 and
> now 11 without a hitch.

I know from other users that TP works on 10-32 (unfortunately I gather
there isn't an 11-32).>
>   And to stay on topic, the most important part, this newsreader, could
> run on all the OSs in the Newsgroups:' header! :-)
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>>> What do you do if you need a computer when you're driving?
>>>>> Do you even realize that you can get a map app on the smartphone?
>>>>
>>>> Most of my driving is in areas I've driven for 60 years.
>>>> If I need to find details of one of the few areas I'm not
>>>> familiar with, I have a map book in the car (and road maps
>>>> for longer trips).  Or I can look it up on my computer
>>>> before I leave home.  (That's called planning, doncha know.)
>>>
>> Plus, a lot of map "apps" - like a lot of other apps - are actually only
>> a gateway to an online database, i. e. won't work where there's no
>> signal. (OK, if you know you're going to use them in advance, you can in
>> many "apps" pre-download the maps for the areas you're going to be in.)>
> 
>   There are quite a lot of navigation apps which use offline maps and
> hence do not need a 'signal' (mobile data connection). I used them in

As I say, even Google maps _can_ download quite a large area in advance.

> Australia's rural/Outback/remote areas where there often just *is* no
> signal (except very expensive satellite Internet). A smartphone can
> easily hold the offline maps for whole countries (like the UK, AU, etc.)
> and more. One of these days, I'll add the NZ maps! :-)
> 
> [...]

I still think a dedicated device is _slightly_ better, though obviously
single-use, so not as versatile as a smartphone. Yes, the XGODY SatNav I
had came with maps of most of the world in its (IIRR) 8G of memory;
since I was actually unlikely to leave the UK or at most Europe, I
actually removed some regions (I think Russia, might have been Aus and
NZ as well) to make room for more music, since (as, like you, most of my
driving was in areas I could drive while asleep) it spent most of its
time as an mp3 player (and in theory BlueTooth gateway for a mobile)
through the car's FM radio.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Capital flows toward lower costs like a river to lowest ground.
"MJ", 2015-12-05