No need, modern distros run just fine on ancient hardware.
Your beef with MS (at least as stated in this thread) is their short support period, so the existence of other OSes with longer support is paramount to your argument; that's why I asked for a reference.
No way that ancient clunker would run W8 (which I wouldn't use unless I was well paid to but W7 is OK).
And both are still supported and have nearly identical system requirements (1GHz CPU, 1GB RAM, 16GB HDD [20GB for 64bit], and a DX9-capable video card). The only difference is that Win8 requires a CPU with support for PAE, NX, and SSE2; which Win7-capable CPU do you have that doesn't support those?
The kind soul who pointed you to the HOWTO for Audacity was me, BTW; and the software you're running that hasn't received updates in years is EAC (last update was over 2 years ago). I don't want to harp on that point too much, though, since it seems as though you may not have been aware.
I'm really interested to know how you've got IE7 running on Win7 when it ships with IE8 and Win7 doesn't support IE7, according to the 2nd post (from an MS employee) on that page. XP mode? IE7 mode in IE8 (more likely 9 or 10, since the upgrade to IE9 was a critical update)? I'm not saying it's not possible, but Microsoft is; if you've done it (or, rather, someone where you work has) I'd really genuinely be interested to learn how it was done.
The track marking is what Audacity lacks (AFAIK, maybe it can but I haven't found it).
Just a heads-up, in case you've found EAC's 44.1kHz limitation less than ideal: You can totally split a recording into tracks with Audacity. You might enjoy the ability to record at the highest rate your audio hardware supports, process out pops, clicks, and hiss, and fade in/out any remaining noise from the silence between tracks before downsampling to 44.1/16/2 and burning to CD.
Plus, I don't have those "Which patch broke my software? Oops, my backup's hosed; how long will it take me to reinstall, reconfigure, and repatch?" problems with the Linux box.
You don't use 3rd party (e.g. not in your distro's repo) software or upgrade to new releases often, do you? It's something that happens in the real world and I'd figure someone with a UID nearly 1/10 of mine would have experienced it at some point. You've sure honed your misdirection and quasi-debate techniques in your time here.
So, you say that $125 is plenty for a 1 year support period, citing that Linux distros do it for free. Please, direct me to one that does. Which distro can I go to and grab a release from 2000 that still has a year of support left? I'll assume you can name one, or several, or you wouldn't have said that. Now, of those, which do *not* offer support contracts to provide a source of income to pay the people writing the patches? And from any that still remain, which maintain the kernel, packages that ship with the kernel to form a whole OS, and a reasonable suite of applications, entirely in-house?
None of them.
But, ignoring that, are you saying that you'd be cool with MS supporting XP for 2 more years? Because, in your last post, you just said there are XP computers out there that are less than 7 years old, which means that by the end of 15 years (from the release), those machines will be 9 years old. Are you saying that 9 years is reasonable? Or 15? Or 18 (based on your "at least 5 more years" comment in your previous post)? You've given so many EOL requirements that it's no wonder MS can't meet your demands.
You responded to:
Also, I'd love to know how you use EAC to sample LPs and cassettes; last I checked (a while after the last patch was released, over 2 years ago), it just reads CDs and doesn't touch audio devices at all. Can you point me to a writeup?
Can you please respond to the rest of that paragraph?
Also, while you're bitching about Microsoft dropping support for XP after 7 (actually 9, no 11, nope now it's 13) years, perhaps you shouldn't use software that's been unpatched and in beta for 2.25 years and, it appears, was EOL'd after 13 years (original release was in 1998, 0.1 beta) as an example of the right way to do things.
I realize it wasn't a direct question, but I was really hoping you'd comment on why you're okay with running software that has not received updates in years, while the whole time complaining that Microsoft is dropping the ball with XP.
The difference between you and me: I've never been a fan of MS; I just don't think they're handling XP inappropriately. Maybe I'm just biased against it because I know when it dies I don't have to support IE8 anymore.
Link to Original Source
I'm glad your brought the OEMs into this. XP was still being sold in 2009; fuck, it was still shipping on netbooks in 2010. Very irresponsible of the OEMs, indeed.
Please try to keep in mind that when Microsoft set the original 2009 EOL XP was not running on 1/3 of the world's computers; in fact, most Windows users hadn't made their way to 98 by that point, 3.1 was no longer supported by other vendors, and 95 required a major overhaul to fix many of its security issues (that's what 98 was) so releasing patches for that simply was not an option.
Which brings me to my next point... Throughout the history of Windows, software vendors have found and used "undocumented features" (you and I might call them exploits) in their software. Most of what wan on 3.1 also ran on 95; a lot that ran on 95 did *not* run on 98 because Microsoft had fixed the brokenness that the now non-working applications were exploiting. Simply patching 95 would have made it more secure, yes, but it would also have left users of those applications with nowhere to turn; an insecure but airgapped system is better than a secure but useless one, and that's why 95 couldn't just be patched. Going from 98 to ME brought with it large platform changes; parts of ME were built on NT, so MS couldn't just patch them in without potentially breaking software already in place on 98 machines (there was a *LOT* that refused to run on ME). This was an even bigger issue with ME to XP since XP was fully built on NT.
Plenty of software written for XP exploits a number of security vulnerabilities in the name of user convenience and Microsoft knows they'd be pissing a lot more people off by making their computers not work anymore by patching those than they'll piss off by dropping support. Pretty much anything that runs on XP but refuses to run on Vista, 7, or 8, is exploiting something that Microsoft has fixed in the later OSes and could fix in XP with a couple of patches, but it would be irresponsible of them to do so and leave the handful of users who truly *must* keep using XP for whatever reason with no working solution ("just don't install that patch" is NOT a solution because: Which patch broke my software? Oops, my backup's hosed; how long will it take me to reinstall, reconfigure, and repatch? Which future patches will also break my software? Guess I just won't install any more patches!); and since those users will simply stop installing patches anyway, why should Microsoft continue releasing them?
Simple. They shouldn't.
You keep saying Microsoft should charge more for their OS. So, how much, exactly, would you charge for a fully functioning OS and a steady stream of updates from the year 2000 until all hardware it runs on dies? I'd *still* like to see the math on this.
Also, I'd love to know how you use EAC to sample LPs and cassettes; last I checked (a while after the last patch was released, over 2 years ago), it just reads CDs and doesn't touch audio devices at all. Can you point me to a writeup? Also, while you're bitching about Microsoft dropping support for XP after 7 (actually 9, no 11, nope now it's 13) years, perhaps you shouldn't use software that's been unpatched and in beta for 2.25 years and, it appears, was OEL'd after 13 years (original release was in 1998, 0.1 beta) as an example of the right way to do things.
I'd love to know what XP-capable computers exist that work "just fine" by today's standards of usability and can't run Win7. I ran Win7 Ultimate on a fucking netbook with a single core Atom (32bit) CPU and 1GB of RAM for 3 years, from launch day (I attended the launch event), before passing that machine and OS along to my sister. I can't imagine anything slower than that being remotely usable for anything more than specialized/embedded systems (read: support contract).
So, how long until most of that hardware fails, then? And how much, exactly, would you charge for a fully functioning OS and a steady stream of updates from the year 2000 until then? I'd like to see the math on this.
You keep repeating your "responsibility" tirade and I'll keep asking you to support your position with something a tad stronger than opinion.
EOLing XP 4 years after the EOL that was announced when it launched is not only acceptable, it's reasonable *and* commendable. If the announced 9 year product lifespan wasn't acceptable, anyone who gave a damn had the opportunity to adopt another platform; if this *was* acceptable, as evident by the widespread adoption of the platform, then surely the 13 years to which it was later extended was also acceptable. Businesses that require longer term support for the platform have had ample opportunity to negotiate those contracts, and many such contracts are in place, so nobody's being left out in the cold here except by their own ignorance and inaction.
It is only when the laws disagree (e.g. one requires something that the other forbids) that Federal laws (and international treaties, for that matter) automatically win.
The paragraph immediately preceding your selective quote:
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state
Since the relevant Federal law does not fully address what an "unwanted shipment" is, it is not in disagreement with state laws based on UCC Article 2 and, therefore, does not trump them. IANAL, but the attorney 2 offices over, who agrees with me on this point, is.
The Federal law (39 USC 3009) has precedence over state law, particularly with regards to interstate transactions; therefore, if the UCC is in disagreement, then the federal law wins.
UCC isn't state law, in fact, as you state after this quote, UCC isn't law at all, so of course USC trumps it; however, Federal law never trumps state law. When a transaction takes place fully within the confines of a state, state laws, where they exist, apply; when a transaction involves parties in multiple states, the more restrictive law wins in all cases. What that means is that Federal law does certainly apply, but where state laws are more restrictive, those parts of state laws also apply. Since most states have adopted UCC, thereby writing their own laws based on it, UCC is, by way of those laws, law on most stated, and the parts of it that are more restrictive than Federal laws do trump Federal laws. It is only when the laws disagree (e.g. one requires something that the other forbids) that Federal laws (and international treaties, for that matter) automatically win. If the buyer and seller both reside in the same state and the item was shipped directly (e.g. from within that same state), Federal law can pretty much go fuck itself.
Anyways... the citation you linked to doesn't say anything about the Buyer having any liabilities it just lists some Buyer's rights; with respect to sales.
You are 100% absolutely correct on this point; you simply fail to understand the implications. The buyer has the right to accept (as in "I'm okay with this instead of that, let's settle up on any balance") or reject (as in "I don't want this. send me a shipping label and I'll return it") all, or part, of any incorrect shipment. Since that part is more restrictive than Federal law, it most certainly does apply if any party to the transaction resides in a state that has adopted that UCC recommendation as law. I believe there is a Federal law stating that the state laws of any state involved in the transaction, further detailing that the act of transporting goods through a state counts as involving that state, apply, as well; since most states have adopted UCC, in one form or another, it's a safe bet that it applies to the vast majority of interstate transactions.