/tech/ - Technology

>>3444 (OP) 
Fuck xp-chan

I lost my virginity (13 like most well-adjusted kids back then) while using an XP

It was not Windows 10.

It's old, so it's necessarily better than everything that came after.

stallman_at_LAN_party.jpg
[Hide] (32.4KB, 388x379)

It's spyware, but lightweight spyware.

vidya.png
[Hide] (8.9KB, 553x546)

It's old spyware with good fonts. And many classic reaction images were made in xp ms paint.

pics.PNG
[Hide] (426.3KB, 1024x768)

pinball.PNG
[Hide] (178.1KB, 606x468)

spider.PNG
[Hide] (74.3KB, 1024x692)

wmm.PNG
[Hide] (121.1KB, 1024x768)

wmp.PNG
[Hide] (157.1KB, 1024x692)

It made using a computer fun, even if you had nothing to do, by providing interesting games and multimedia programs out of the box. And it was also very stable despite the "cartoonish" (at the time) look, since it was built on the rock solid Windows 2000.

>>3506
Space Cadet Pinball is to this day the best pinball I've ever played.

>>3573
You better hope I never find your address, you fucking shitbag.

It sucks less than GNOME, KDE, or XFCE.

>>3509
>Space Cadet Pinball is to this day the best pinball I've ever played.
Play it some more then: https://github.com/k4zmu2a/SpaceCadetPinball

I can run in VMware Workstation Player the entirety of Windows XP using 1/4th the memory and CPU usage of a couple Firefox tabs. 

Why does it have to be this way.

>>6258
Most people are retarded. Retarded people should not be able to survive. But retard NPCs can be controlled. Everything was done to keep the mass retarded and breed more retards. When the market is 90% retards, most products are made for retards, by retards.
Any improvement in hardware is put into running more shit such as animated emojis, desktop effects and shit programs written by one of them.

>>6259
I know. But when will it end. I am so tired of the nigger cattle and their nonsense.

>>6260
It will get way worst, there is no stopping it. The only end is ((( they ))) or any people who is capable to ever work against them. A result that would last a long time.

>>6261
How about you shove your paranoia up your ass and fucking choke on it. Faggots like you have been fucking crying wolf for fifty fucking years and focusing only on the negative.

>>6260
That feeling of inefficiency is something that techfags have been complaining about since the days of win98. Idiocy in software is only uphelp because it's mandated by companies, or because the higher-ups are part of the problem.

Badwolf is an inherently-more efficient browser than firefox is.

>>6269
>paranoia
>cock in all major open source projects
>rust creep up everywhere
>mandatory vaccine for a fake virus
>crying wolf
Do you only believe anything if it happens within 5 minutes?

>>6270
>Do you only believe anything if it happens within 5 minutes?
Ask that question to yourself.

>>6271
>no u
What is your angle? You seem mad for such a positive-focusing person.

>>6269
You are genuinely autistic, my post had nothing to do with the Firefox browser but the state of technology and the state of society as a whole. Not efficiency but rather just how bloated and centralized everything has become, not to mention the guberment nanny surveillance state that has been pushed into overdrive. Are you an actual person or just GPT-3?

>>6272
>>6273
I've just been fucking bashed over the head with the "EVERYTHING IS HORRIBLE, NEWS AT 11, YOU SHOULD BE AFRAID," bullshit by the news, conspirafags, and so much other shit since I was a fucking teenager. I'm fucking done with it, I'm fucking done with people saying everything's gonna suck AND THEY DO FUCKING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO ACTUALLY FUCKING FIX THEIR PROBLEMS!

>>6273
>You are genuinely autistic
So fucking what? Takes one to know one.

I knew you were talking about software as a whole, it doesn't change the fact that telling people "THINGS WILL NEVER GET BETTER," is fucking defeatist and paranoid.

Faggots like you saying nothing will get better IS HALF THE FUCKING REASON TECH IS SO SHIT IN THE FIRST PLACE! 
YOU FUCKING WONDER WHY PEOPLE ARE FUCKING NUMB TO EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ORGANIZATION SHITTING UP SOFTWARE AND STEALING THEIR PERSONAL INFO?!

FAGGOTS LIKE YOU WHO FUCKING SIT THERE, SHIT UP THE AIRSPACE WITH YOUR FUCKING USEFUL-IDIOT NOISE, AND THEN ACT LIKE YOU'RE DOING THE WORLD A FAVOR BY "giving them tough love," YOU'RE BEING A CUNT AND  YOU FUCKING SHAME PEOPLE INTO NOT ACTUALLY FIXING THEIR FUCKING PROBLEMS!

You fucking wonder why people are numb? Just because things have gotten shittier right now doesn't mean they'll stay that way.

>Are you an actual person or just GPT-3?
I would've sarcastically said yes complete with a serial number, but I'm too fucking fucked to care anymore. 

Go fucking find yourself and unfuck it for me, because there's no way I personally can convince you things never have as bad as the fucking conspirafags and news make it out to be.

I'm just fucking tired of people screaming hopelessness when they still have a fighting chance. It's Baby-elephant bullshit is what it is.

>>6274
Great, I am talking to a human.
>screaming hopelessness when they still have a fighting chance
You are wrong. Make no mistake, in no way in >>6261 am I describing it as hopeless. Rather, I recognize this as the only hope we have. You are right about doing something. But frontal assault against a more resourceful enemy is not the solution.
If you have time to get tired about people not doing anything, join the effort in doing something with actual effect in the ultimate future. Not immediate relief of having done something.

>>6258
It's in Google, Microsoft, and Apple's interest to bloat web standards so that they're the only ones capable of implementing the browsers. Firefox just follows along and implements everything for plaudits. Getting rid of JavaScript or pinning it to a very minimum set would fix a lot of the problems. We don't need this much advanced CSS either. Even the markup has grown beyond its need. The question is what do you want from your browser? Right now the goal is to tack on every feature that a full operating system has, and then some. There needs to be some alternative well-defined standard that keeps a small subset of what we have today. That will probably require someone with vision and initiative to lead the project and see it through. Standards bodies almost always lead to bloat because adding shit justifies their existence. So you need someone to keep everything in check.

open_source_car.jpg
[Hide] (51.3KB, 576x382)

>>6275
>If you have time to get tired about people not doing anything, join the effort in doing something with actual effect in the ultimate future
Not that anon, but something tangible we could do is build alternate browsers. I don't agree with every line of this essay but I do agree with most of it https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/every-web-browser-absolutely-sucks/

I've been evaluating Java, or possibly Python with the performance-critical parts ported to Cython, as a platform to build a browser upon. You get memory safety to eliminate a large class of vulns. And the JVM is quite fast, in fact JIT could even be better in some cases for a long-running program like a browser. And there's a great ecosysystem for libraries. C++ is also an option, or even C for those who are in it for the long haul.

>>6274
>AND THEY DO FUCKING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO ACTUALLY FUCKING FIX THEIR PROBLEMS!

perhaps someone is working on something

I.png
[Hide] (715.3KB, 1019x768)

>>6277
>but something tangible we could do is build alternate browsers.
Or build an entirely new Network from the ground up that can provide both secure end-to-end connectivity and infrastructure independence using a type of alternative technology that's both practical to implement and readily accessible but currently  in an archaic state and long forgotten. A new carrier that uses no existing ISP, third-party infrastructure or "blockchain" nonsense that you would have full autonomy over on the individual node level with both download and upload speeds of up to 96 kilobits per second over a single channel.

that would be funny

>>6277
>>6279
In face of a great danger, the only options are fight or flight. I am not foolish enough to fight them head on, but I am not going to escape either. Excuse my vague explanation, "let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt".
>>6278
I hope I can make it in time, and I am not alone.

>>6269
I don't blame them for their negativity. To the "average" person the world does indeed look hopeless. A place ran by people you will never see and never learn about that can kill you from a thousand miles away with absolutely zero accountability. Everything is not hopeless of course...

>>6279
You talking about packet radio? I looked into ham a little but I don't want to get triangulated and narced on to the feds by some boomer who hates me more for using the radio without saying my callsign every 10 min than he hates the mulatto dating his daughter

matroyshka_limit.jpeg
[Hide] (93.6KB, 669x438)

>>3506
>And it was also very stable despite the "cartoonish" (at the time) look, since it was built on the rock solid Windows 2000
This. Much as with OSuX, XP switching end-users to a buzzword-compliant modern kernel from NT and introducing new GUI architectures to eliminate desktop tearing/flicker/stutter/priority in ways loonicks is still struggling to with Wayland is laudable, even if there were some sacrifices made and superior alternatives ignored.

>>6269
>Badwolf is
Yet another KHTML-knockoff frontend alongside Chrome & Safari, further cementing the standards-destroying browser engine monoculture that only Firefox/Palememe now fights against

>>6276
>The question is what do you want from your browser?
QFT
>Right now the goal is to tack on every feature that a full operating system has, and then some.
I think the really scary flaw is slightly different: Right now the goal isn't just to tack on an OS, but to keep piling complete OSs inside complete OSs forever in concentric layers.

>>6277
>I've been evaluating Java, or possibly Python with the performance-critical parts ported to Cython, as a platform to build a browser upon.
LOL case in point

Serious talk: While it's easy to rag on browsers themselves, because they totally DO SUCK (and always have,) and could trivially be MUCH better if brought to the standard of quality for practically any other type of software, are they really the source of that much badness in practice, by themselves?

Take a modern ChromeFariFox browser, and load up a svelte sane XHTML+CSS page, semantically marked up for alternate or fallback CSS, and no or minimal JS as appropriate to its purpose. It's not perfect, but it's reasonably fast, stable, pretty, and usable.

FAR AND AWAY the biggest problem with the modern web isn't modern bloated browsers, nor modern bloated WHATWG "living standards", nor as >>6279 suggests the centralized brittle topology of TCP/IP, nor even the consoomerized walled garden botnet bloat phones/tablets normalfags use to access it. Those are all problems, and fixing them would be good, but the misery of using the modern web would not noticably improve.

The web's problem is quite simply THE WEB ITSELF

I'm not sure how that could ever be fixed, aside from encouraging people to write webpages less app-like, and code apps less web-like, sadly the fact so many nudevs are unfamiliar with any toolchain other than webshit means exactly the opposite is happening.

That said, if I were to spitball a tentative solution, I think about 90% of the problem could be solved by the creation of a protocol for Db CRUD GUIs amenable to native clients, which encompasses all or nearly all the functionality of the most noisome "webpages that shouldn't be webpages"/"apps that shouldn't be apps".

>>6335
>Wayland is laudable
See >>6157
Wayland is a joke. I'd rather they spend all the resources on improving X.
>The web's problem is quite simply THE WEB ITSELF
You are right, but the analysis is hollow.
A useful identification of problem is one that correspond to solutions that can fix the issue effectively. The problem with the web is the web is bad. Why and how is the web bad?
Start with how. The web is bad because most content are inefficient programs for inefficient virtual machines.
1/? (Got work to do, come back tomorrow)

>>6335
>I think the really scary flaw is slightly different: Right now the goal isn't just to tack on an OS, but to keep piling complete OSs inside complete OSs forever in concentric layers.
Unfortunately, that is not bad enough: WebAssembly.
Why compile your program to your machine's assembly when you can create a theoretical machine, implement an emulator for it, and add that emulator to the browser? Now you have more freedom to add even more layers. Run Godot in your browser! Why the fuck not?

protocols.png
[Hide] (66.6KB, 512x384)

>>6336
>Wayland is a joke
True
>I'd rather they spend all the resources on improving X
False

X irreparably has always been and will always be a recursive fractal of horseshit on every level, each successful attempt at "improving X" has had "throw X in the dustbin of history where it belongs" as step #0. As long as Wayland is less of a joke than X, which it is, it's still a massive improvement.

>The web is bad because most content are inefficient programs for inefficient virtual machines
I submit that including a VM inside your hypertext document renderer isn't necessarily a kiss of death. Hypercard, M$ Office, Acrobat (heck, PostScript itself!), etc., never succumbed to reimplementing themselves inside themselves as the dominant (or even a common) use case. I think the actual cause of this is a failure of network software authors to write new crossplatform protocols/formats for things that are not documents since browsers took over.

There are a bunch of things that could've fixed that, like plugins, HTML/HTTP being extended with non-web features, browsers adding non-web protocols (e.g.: RSS, WebDAV, WebM, WebRTC), and dedicated (especially mobile) apps theoretically independent of browsers, but none of them seem to break free from every prominent implementation being written in JS and presented via HTML/CSS.

A depressingly typical case study is Skype since the M$ sellout. It used to be something very much like Matrix, a publicly documented decentralized P2P protocol with official native clients which themselves offered a publicly documented plugin API. It was gradually transformed into something like Discord, a completely centralized and opaque service that only the single official bloated web/Electron client can connect to.

>>6339
Can you pinpoint where is X more of a joke than Wayland, an empty shell of a display server?
>I think the actual cause of this is a failure of network software authors to write new crossplatform protocols/formats for things that are not documents since browsers took over
Good observation. Allow me to amend my previous line.
<The web is bad because most content are inefficient programs for inefficient virtual machines; and too many programs are on the web.
Continuing with how the web is bad, there are three parts.
>most contents are inefficient programs
Most javashit and webapps are shit code. Javashit and the web programming environment makes it very easy for novices to produce something quickly, for example the one-line-dependency phenomenon, the web-based build system. But writing fast doesn't mean writing good, it is too easy for beginners to pile up shit that are impressive looking and those shit just stay there forever.
The web programming environment also tries very hard to hide the bare metal. This encourage the programmer to be ignorant about machine limits and efficiency.
>inefficient virtual machines
Despite hardware acceleration and million optimization layers in V8, html/css/js is slow. The browser on its own takes up tons of resources. Rendering html/css is pretty slow compared to a real display server. In any case, a VM is going to take much more resource than a native purpose-built binary.
>too many programs are on the web
...
2/?

>>6343
>too many programs are on the web
>>6339 is right about the above not being a problem. There are always bad programs and platforms. They are not going away even if the web is gone or redesigned. The problem is there are too many of them. The average program is a web program, an inefficient program running on an inefficient VM. It doesn't even have to be the web, imagine webtorrent but in MS word macros or online banking but in pdf or your printer. I don't want to begin thinking about the horror.
With how bad the web is defined, let's move on to why.
The major problem is why the web is so popular. As technologies and techniques improve, the average product should be superior than any previous average products. How is the opposite true? Notice the web and computer programs are not the only field following this pattern. Cars, education, phones, books, everything seems to follow this pattern. Why is that?

0edc18899f42a36a027c6c3f461058268f997ec055752120c3203e016080d1d3.jpg
[Hide] (3.3KB, 126x125)

>>6255

>>6347
>How is the opposite true? Notice the web and computer programs are not the only field following this pattern. Cars, education, phones, books, everything seems to follow this pattern. Why is that?

From what I've seen and heard, I can speculate that these following things contribute to quality decline:

1. The sphere of proprietary teaching and design is focusing more on certification, and factory-churn-learning than it is actually teaching a trade or practice.
2. The thrill of looking for costs to cut has them cutting so many corners that they've boiling-frogged themselves out of product quality.
3. The people that used to be in charge and kept shit in order are gone, the companies have replaced them with people who are out of touch with making a good product.
4. The higher ups have it in their head that they know better, and act like anyone who says otherwise is a complete moron.
5. Social politicking is more-valued in business environments than actual business or design competence.
6. The pencil pushers and social-politickers are completely-oblivious to actions and policies that boil down to "greed, plain and simple.".
7. At the end of the day, they just don't care about software design.

>>6347
>Why is that?
Because normalfags are fucking stupid. >>6395 is right on the business end, but products don't make money without consumers. 
The "people" who pay for those products are ultimately the ones at fault for not caring about the quality and supporting those products, which is why modern products are shit and most deserve it that way.

>>6397
The other part of that problem, is when the app marketplace/platform pushes those products, and --only-- those products.

When every single container of shampoo in the aisle is just the same shitty formula with different scents, sizes and prices, how the fuck can someone who just needs shampoo find the good stuff?

>>6395
success breeds failure
with each successor more of the knowledge and experience that lead to success is lost, its just a matter of time before you end up with leadership that has no clue about anything that lead to the success they ignorantly inherited from predecessors and so are doomed to destroy it

989dc0bc137e573373c66dcc76f5d6e2e2a4ae9c4fac1e011f75b687.png
[Hide] (455.6KB, 960x540)

>>6395
>>6397
>>6402
You guys nailed it, I witness all of that daily.

>>6398
You don't need to buy a new shampoo when you've got 5 unopened containers left. Consumerism is still the problem.

>>6395
>>6397
>>6398
>>6402
Very good responses. There are many possible explanations for such pattern. Which one is it? Let's go from the opposite perspective.
Why do superior theories, technologies and inventions take over the previous ones?
Here I am assuming human are the ones making choices, because eventually something has to be the end of the analysis, and all environmental factors can be part of the choice.
Each adopter is either an existing user of the previous product or not. The cost-benefit analysis is as follow:
new product value - (new product cost - switch over cost) > previous product value - previous product cost
Where previous product cost can be zero the previous product is still working; and value can be taken for a time period.
For a new product to overcome existing product:
>it must look like a good deal
>the deal must look better than the old stuff
When there are enough users of the new product, the old product is used less and less. With less profit and incentive, eventually the previous product is not produced any more.
Adopters of superior products paid less for more, due decisions like this, over a long period of time, they amass more resources than the rest. They should have more decision power than those making worse decisions, either by having more children or by supporting organizations related to better products.
Competition is the force behind such improvement, whether it is by making better products or buying better products.

Imagine a new product superior than the previous, each unit is cheaper to make, and it is more reliable, faster, easily extensible and last long. What could be stopping it to take over?
The replies linked answerers the question. But the reason for those answers to be happening, why is that?
Why can companies afford to focus on fake certifications?
Why can education providers afford to apply factory-churn-learning?
Why can companies afford to cut corners?
Why can normalfags afford to be stupid (and why are they normal)?
How come normalfags aren't all dead already?
Why didn't anyone make their own brand of shampoo and made it big?
Success doesn't necessary breeds failure, why can the successors afford to doom their legacy?

PS: IQ is following the same pattern. The bell curve should be moving higher and higher, but why are most normalfags stupid?
4/?

>>6408
>Why can companies afford to focus on fake certifications?
Because getting a job isn't about what you know, it's about 'who' you know. Also, people attach themselves to award and achievement, because people perceive those as success more than experience or knowhow. 

>Why can education providers afford to apply factory-churn-learning?
They do it because they slap their teachers with feel-good-pep-talks to justify not fucking paying them, all while raising costs to line their pockets. AKA, greed.

>Why can companies afford to cut corners?
Because it's "easier" to make a pajeet code a program and send the real developers in to untangle the spaghetti code.

>Why can normalfags afford to be stupid (and why are they normal)?
>How come normalfags aren't all dead already?
Normalfags are people who are mostly or completely tech-unsavvy. The biggest lie about normalfags is that anon buys into the belief that they're emotionally or mentally-sound when they're actually not.

"Normal" is relative to specific cultures, as one man's normal is another man's degeneracy. That's why they're not dead, "normal" as anon thinks it is, doesn't actually exist. It's the same reason perfectionists chase after "perfect" things and freak out when they never get it.

>Why didn't anyone make their own brand of shampoo and made it big?
Various factors - 1. Getting big takes time. 2. everyone who already made it big could try and want to sabotage your efforts. 3. You could fuck it up. 4. there are just as many people trying to make it big too, and they could have a vested interest in seeing you fail.

>Success doesn't necessary breeds failure, why can the successors afford to doom their legacy?
Apathy and the egoish attitude of thinking "you know better," is a hell of a drug. 

>PS: IQ is following the same pattern. The bell curve should be moving higher and higher, but why are most normalfags stupid?
IQ at this point, is a meme. Just a way to add another certification/award/achievement that means little in the grand scheme of things.

>TL;DR
Human ego and abuser-personality-tendencies are the reason tech progress hits a wall at times.

>XP
>webshit built into the OS
>gaping security holes, epic CVEs
>explorer.exe phoning home
>new genius """genuine advantage""" means you can get locked out for changing your hardware
>dogshit web browser built in which will somehow freeze up your entire system just after viewing a few empty web pages
>same story for built in video player
>DRM HDCP etc
i mean current_year is just this but 100x worse but XP still sucked corporate monkey nigger dick

>>6416
Forrest and the trees. Human ego and abuser-personality-tendencies has been there forever.
The world is a complex, the only way to understand it is through simple ideas. That is to say, a common answer and reason to questions.
Every question I asked can be summarized into why can companies cut corners without getting bankrupt?
The answer is monopoly.
Monopoly implies little to no competition. Microsoft can cut corners however they want and every nigger women will still be using it.
Companies can afford to focus not on merit, but on anything else because they don't have enough competition. Monopoly can be limited to a small group of people and entities.
Education providers can afford to apply shit learning because there are only so many universities, and companies are hiring shit learners.
Eventually this is due to the attempt to monopolize freedom and power.

The final question, what is the final solution to this?

>>6488
Unironically? Memes.

This shit actually does work in the armed forces- the biggest bureaucratic hellscape where all of the most asinine and draconic attitudes and policies of corporations look like a fucking unionized library.

Spill your knowledge onto the the normies looking in. Name and shame the people running the monopoly to hell. Point out how their management styles are no different than domestic abusers. Call out how cooking the books is a lifestyle instead of being illegal as fuck. Call out how they are in bed with epstein. Call out how nobody in big tech has made any successful products in years. Call out how bad programming standards have gotten and how stupid programmers are. Call out how ESG investing has been nothing but using bullying or even terrorist tactics to force investors to become woke.

Call them the fuck out. Violence may get you in trouble, but making noise gets you far more listeners.

any /prog/fags here? what is it like handling programs made by trannies? is it true that gays code software better than the rest of us?

>>6508
I am afraid the only fag here is you. Gays are not necessary better programmers. kys

>>6508
I don't think gays or trannies make better software than anyone else. They are certainly better at annoying the fuck out of people and making themselves known, though.
Preferably you'd avoid tranny software whenever possible. If they really care about FOSS, then they should tolerate someone that doesn't like them making use of their software, but of course we all know how tolerant trannies are, so I wouldn't bet on them staying neutral in regards to Chuck the Chud  using xer software to run a neo-nazi forum.

>>3444 (OP) 
Everything downhill ever since. I'd buy a windows xp handheld if they made one for retro gaming and such, just non-Internet things. It'd be neat if it had no wifi nor bluetooth. I wonder if an atompi can do it? Too big though. Win7 works they say but then mini-itx would be better for that.. when win7 works.  I still have a dell inspiron b130 and it runs an older project64 pretty good for common n64 titles. Older/weaker consoles even better of course. 
>>3451
>>3453
And yet systemd took Linux over and Linux comes with Chromium installed also now days I'm sure. The way you install things is dick with Linux. Javascript, cookies... why even complain? Post 2007 CPU's got backdoors in them to where they can hack from afar as I understand it rather than crack up close. Why move on past 2007 devices? Are you using Debian 5 on a 2005 cpu? 

It's okay I like Lakka and Slacoware version Puppy Linux and dual booting them using Pinn. 

>but slackware HATES Wifi!
Good.

>>3444 (OP) 
>Say something nice about it.
Most comfy OS I have ever used. Privacy and security concerns were limited and easy to deal with back in the day. Easy to modify to hell and back. Great useful programs out of the box for people to make their first baby steps with a PC. Great for video games old and new at the time. The definition of the home computer in the early 2000s.

Two years ago I build an offline XP machine from the best eary 2000s hardware I could find to play with some old games that don't run correctly on modern systems. Was fun to fiddle with the old hardware again. But oh man was it slow. Once the games were running it's fine, just like today. But everything else took it's minutes and seconds longer than you expect it.