How do you know they exist in the first place? Start menu is a copy of the Apple menu as enhanced by an ancient shareware utility called "Hierarchical Menus". That add-on does exactly what the start menu does, allowing shortcuts to be grouped in folders etc. and for nesting of folders. It predates the Start menu by a few years.

One of the points was to be able to organise by category. I might not know what the thing-to-set-up-a-disk-partition is called, but it's probably in a menu hierarchy called "Utilities" and I can go look. It's discoverable, and it should be there.

Pinned things? Probably a set of defaults that are easily removable would be my preferred answer (which is what they do), but I could also settle for none until you put it there. But I very much disagree that nothing at all should be in the Start menu except your own choices.

I mean - the Apple's "Microsoft - Start Your Photocopiers!" definitely applied to the start of the Win 7 era. It was pretty much a straight lift of Aqua, ironically (given this post's subject) with more flexibility on positioningthe task bar vs the Dock. Certainly Windows didn't introduce pinning apps.

By the end of it though, I thought that Win7 had better actually window management than the Mac did, and even with the split view stuff etc. that's been introduced since I still feel that in order to get the same flexibility of window management that I get in Windows I need to install 3rd party stuff on the Mac.

Admittedly I haven't sat down and done a feature-to-feature comparison for a while there, but yep: will definitely give MS the edge of the ability to re-arrange your windows on the screen.

Yeah, but I heard exactly the same thing about Windows 7 (although admittedly never about 8). If you're using Windows, you will eventually move for something. Whether it's hardware, or some new app you want...can't predict it. Just that looking at the pattern over many years, you will.

I have an install of it. I don't use it, I'm Mac for my main platform and Linux for my gaming. But I still have a Windows partition, and it's Windows 11 too, mostly to handle odd manufacturer firmware update programs for external hardware. Even I moved to 11, and eventually people will do need to do so if they want to stay on the Windows platform. In my case, even if they don't want to stay on that platform in fact.

This isn't about Office. This is about Office 365 and Azure, and how a license is bundled when you use Azure but unbundled if you wanted to use 365 and, for example, AWS.

It's a shame because I wish they would, but the gov.uk link explicitly talks about "CMA’s cloud market investigation – Microsoft’s use of software licensing reducing competition in cloud".

This won't be what people are hoping for here - actual Office. This is purely about licensing costs with regards to cloud deployments.

"The other zero-days leaked include .... BlueHammer, a separate Microsoft vulnerability tracked as CVE-2026-32201 that was patched in April."

By definition, if a patch is available it is not a zero day.

It's the original founder at least, Kevin Rose. I had a look at the relaunched I-can't-believe-it's-not-Reddit version and it was...ok'ish. But yes, they were unprepared for the bots in the main forums and unfortunately the place never got big enough to have any traffic in the smaller ones.

It's ironic - I looked at Reddit before The Great Migration following Dig...err...3? whatever the fiasco revision was. Like many others, I moved when that version of Digg appeared. I was interested when Digg said they were coming back, because Reddit has become a bit tiresome other than the smaller, subject-specialised subs. Alas though, never took off.

"sponsored work visa entirely depended on people primarily coming over to mooch off of benefits". I'm not American, but that sentence doesn't make much sense to me. If they're working, they're earning and contributing tax, right?

UK. I installed solar on my roof and put a home battery in last month, and am very happy with the results. It took up-front investment of course and payback times vary between 4-7 years depending on the rates for selling energy back to the grid, but I'm fine with that. My first bill has my electricity cost down about 40% - I installed part way through the month so can't really give consistent figures as yet.

With the solar+home battery, all my domestic electricity usage is easily taken care of. I also took the opportunity to put in a whole home backup, meaning that if there's a power cut the house carries on. Power cuts aren't really a big problem in the UK but little micro ones do happen, and I got fed up of resetting the digital clocks and rebooting everything.

The solar+battery doesnt take care of 100% of my usage though, not by a long way. I've been driving an EV since 2018. I do around 22,000 miles per year, My solar peaks at around 5kWh and is best used to power the house and add to the house's battery capacity. I use about 22kWhs on a round-trip commute, and the home battery is 12.5kWh. The typical max I might need then is 34.5kWh a day, and I also need it overnight - solar isn't going to help me there. My actual pattern is load-shifting: charge both car and home batteries cheaply overnight, use solar+battery through the day on the house and sell the daytime excess to the grid.

On the car alone I have saved around £8-10,000 vs petrol, add in the car maintenance and the savings are even higher. For solar+home battery I don't yet know, not owned it long enough to be able to give good figures but the usage pattern is looking good. If I'm asked about EVs I rarely make an environmental argument - if you can charge at home, the cost argument is so massively in favour of them that's it's barely worth a debate. If you can't - nuance time and more questions to be asked.

I'm not off fossil just yet - still have gas heating. The heat pump equations are a lot trickier to work out - without load shifting it's much more expensive, plus how will it average out over winter when I presumably get less solar to recharge the home battery during the day. So heat pump is the next bit of research rather than my automatic next move. For the rest though - just no argument, the renewable/EV route is just better.

"....except for closing the deal and signing the paperwork". In other words, the one step where it matters to the company that it got everything right. Previous steps where it only matters to you if it got things right? Pah.

My understanding from the various blogs is that they have indeed 'developed their own', in that they worked jointly to get a design together. The panel isn't going to be the same as in previous folding phones, and that's actually one reason for the later launch vs other manufacturers.

Source is just the various rumour blogs on my RSS feeds, I'm no expert here.

I always dislike the nostalgia for the Classic. When brand new, it was already nostalgia bait and seriously under specced for the price. The original 9" Macs I really like, worked with and owned as a retro computer (I owned a contemporary LC). The Classic I always thought was a cash grab.

Colour Classic...yeah maybe, and again as a retro machine I like them. As a contemporary machine though they were way overpriced for what they were.

Can confirm Bazzite. 85/90% there I'd say, which means there's still a bit of "tread carefully" for people. I'm very happy with the running, but I'd be less than truthful if I said it was completely frictionless.

For example, 90% of my gaming is on Elder Scrolls Online, the 'play' button on Steam runs the Zenimax launcher not the game itself and there's also an annoying recent'ish (few months) bug where it seems games launched from a 3rd party launcher don't know they've got the foreground focus. Steam thinks the launcher has the foreground., andn ESO this manifests as not autoswitching to the main game window after you've gone through the Zenimax launcher, no sound and sometimes stuttering frames because the ESO game window still thinks its in the background somehow. Random'ish alt-tabbing and clicking will bring it back, but it means there's a a) a small bit of friction where there was previously none and b) some change or regression because all this used to run fine without that issue.

I played Rez:Infinite. Great game, but it has an "Attack" mode which will crash after the third level or so. Again, friction.

I play Skyrim. Setting both Skyrim and ESO up for modding, including running some Windows binaries required by the mods, was a relatively painful learning experience.

I have a friend who wanted to switch but didn't because of kernel DRM in some of the Windows games. Once again, friction.

I'm very happy with the switch and wouldn't go back, but I'm experienced with Linux (Slackware 0.9 alpha being my first distro, and I'd installed before distros like that existed as well - anyone for Minix on an Atari ST?). I can see people not quite as annoyed with Windows as me not really seeing the benefit. For me, it was one giant Co-pilot advert too far that made me say "right then, done". After I'd told it no god knows how many flaming times, Windows popped up some "Let's get ready in your new Co-Pilot account!" thing that literally just had me hard power off and wipe the OS away. My PC is purely for gaming, I use a Mac laptop for my desktop work, so I get that luxury.

(as an aside, I do wish Steam would ban using launchers when it itself is the launcher. There's no reason for that Zenimax launcher to exist in the Steam version of the game, and it's annoying as hell because it prevents me from using Big Picture mode and just treating the whole thing like a console. That's true for either Windows or Linux, this is a 3rd party launcher thing and not an OS thing).

Mostly agree. I abandoned the Mac around Systen 7.5 era for the 486DX 66Mhz. The multitasking and protected memory spaces put it in advance of the Mac, and the CPUs started to lag the competition as well.

I came back in the OS X era (can't remember if I ever had Cheetah, but I definitely had Jaguar) where although the chips were a bit slower overall it didn't matter much because the OS was just better. Now the chips are better, the OS is better (for versions of 'better' that don't include gaming)...but the OS as compared to its own standards is worse than it used to be. Better than Win 11 - hmm. Not the highest bar anymore.

Which, to be honest, fundamentally misunderstands used RAM readings. Vast majority of that 'used' RAM is in easily discardable caches - Apple had the same PR problem with misleading reports when they released whatever the version was about 4-5 years ago and their tools reported full memory.

Windows does use more RAM than most, but it showing almost all the RAM full is the same kind of caching strategy that macOS uses. Apple eventually started calling this "Memory Pressure" and gave it a simple traffic light system. RAM is doing you no good if it's free, might as well use it to cache if there's not a hard requirement for it right that moment.

I strongly believe Word peaked with Word 4.2 on the Mac - System 6, 1Mb RAM. There are those who would argue 5.1a on the Mac because it included envelope printing, but it was much, much slower and needed more like 2 or 4Mb.

Then they unified the version numbers across the platforms and moved to this pcode stuff in v6. This was so bad and so slow on the Mac that they actually issued an apology for it. Things have gone downhill since then, and v6 was released 1994.