I've been using the internet since it was available on dial-up in my area (1995). In 1995 search engines were paid to put your site to the top of their list. Many sites used banner ads which weren't as invasive as current ad systems. Most news sites were paid subscription which you did by mail or via phone. Most of the content was free because as you stated, it was generated by hobbyist. The quality of content today is significantly better than a 3KB web page with no pictures. It wasn't sustainable for hobbyist to support sites with text content, pictures, databases and video hosting visited by hundreds of thousands of users daily. This is why ads became the go to option for most users since most could not easily host payment systems and more users would simply stop visiting.

There's nothing wrong with ads. Some sites turn their services to garbage with bad ad implementations or too much of it. As a user, you have the option to go somewhere if you are not happy. Nobody HAS to give anybody anything for free.

That's not 100% accurate. The cities will continue to go up in cost and that's just how it is (simple supply and demand). Giving bigger wages or subsidizing the cost for new buyers will just bring that cost up. The solution isn't in controlling the cost of house either.

For 1, preventing residential properties such as detached and semi-detached from being purchased for the purpose of renting should be disallowed or at least, taxed more aggressively. I have 2 friends that own 8 - 10 properties each because it's easy to buy more properties once you've owned one for at least 5 years.

Second, dispersing the population can have a very positive impact on housing affordability. Provinces should provide incentives for corporations to setup in smaller cities. This will spread the demand for house resulting in more affordable housing.

My 2 cents.

Unfortunately I don't think one series of successful AMD processors is going to convince corporations to change right away. That includes the IT department I currently head. There are a few reasons for that:
- Past reputation of AMD processors is meh! Nobody was going to hang their reputation for $100 - 200 saving per workstation
- Because Intel was the go to, there was/is a larger hardware offering to satisfy wider spectrum of needs.
- Lots of software maker build their application around Intel processors, hence them recommending Intel processors. This was true of Solidworks for the longest time. Their preferred specs included Intel processors.
- Intel is a prime target because of it's widespread use hence it's flaws being discovered in the last 2 years. Fact is, we don't know what AMD flaws exist that could completely stain it's "secure processor" status

The point I'm trying to make is that 1 year of amazing success will not move decision makers away from Intel. Gamers on the other hand will because the risk is theirs only. In 2 - 3 years, if AMD is still shinning, I guarantee most decision makers will switch their loyalty and AMD will be seen as the new "roughed and reliable standard. The roles will finally be reversed and AMD will charge more for it.

I get it. You don't have counter arguments but you don't like MS so this is how you tangent from the comments you made.

At least now I know to ignore your comments as they unverified opinions and lack facts.

I didn't even come close to providing support for your opinion. On the opposite, it's an OS that has supported critical systems for 17 years. It's lack of support for security updates after 2014 is the only reason a technology leader would not leave it connected to a live network.

I think the issue is that you lack industry knowledge which in turn has you making large assumptions. It also sounds like you don't know what the life expectancy of an OS is.

FACT. When an OS reaches a certain age, it's core structure needs to change to adapt to the new technological realities. This is true of all OSes. Windows XP for example was the most successful OS ever produced in regards to adaptation and length of use. It was launched in 2001 and still occupies a small segment of the desktop market (although I would advise against at this point). The product was supported until April 2014. That's 13 years for an OS. There is no other OS that has that kind of track record for Desktop computers while continue to support new hardware.

If your benchmark for how good/bad an OS was is Slashdot, then I question your judgement.

Actually, why don't you back your claims with facts. I can and have. The numbers presented above are readily available online with a simple "windows xp" lookup on google.

Opinion, not fact. We have Windows XP systems still kicking around. They aren't exposed to the internet for obvious reasons but they operate critical pieces of equipment. Runs on low spec hardware and doesn't crash. I can say the same of Windows 7 since we still have a number of workstations running here..

That's a narrow view of the world and actually far from the truth. If all you do is youtube, spreadsheets and word then you're correct but otherwise you are simply WRONG. Virtualization and SSD are two very good reasons for advancements in OS. Windows 10 did good there. Additionally the OS was redesigned with multi device support in mind which if you ask developer, they'll tell you they love it (BTW, this reduces software cost and increase usability). There are also a number of significant changes for corporations running DCs so it's far from being a waste (If you don't know what a DC is then you clearly weren't in a position to comment on the OS).

You are clearly only speaking from your perspective which means it's just an uneducated opinion. Microsoft has already accepted it's lost the typical home user market to mobile devices which is why they focused their efforts on back-end and virtualization.

On top of reducing cost of delivery and gallons spilled per year.

Can you define "a lot more" because I can't see how your Android phone does more or less.

That makes no sense. Us versus them is decided by the users, not the corporations or entities.

That's incorrect. First off, VB is just a language, not a compiler. Second, some of the most used engineering software in the world still use VB as their scripting language. AutoDesk products is just one example in case you ask.

I think you knowledge of the tech world is limited to your personal experience. It's not meant as an insult. Applications are not all designed as web apps. I dare you to automate printer processes with applications running through your browser (Not JAVA applets). Processes that do not require multi-platform support do not need to be developed for multi-platform. It's an overhead that isn't needed.

Technology can solve all problems, including the existence of humans... Reference: The Matrix, Terminator...

Not true in north america at least.

They are still a major player for email servers through exchange server. https://www.quora.com/What-is-...

They still have one of the best on premise server OS with over 70% of the market cornered: https://www.computerprofile.co...

They are remaining strong in the virtualization server area with about 35% of the market. Note their market share of this was 0% until 2008 so 35% is not bad.

They still have the best office suite available for corporate use. Home use is a different story but that could be debated either way.

Opinion more than fact. They actually believe in providing the tools required to do the job. As a multi platform developer I appreciate the ability to create Linux environments in my environment of choice.

You make it an "us versus them" argument. I don't understand why any tech professional would think that way. Maybe you're just a kid that hasn't been in the real world yet. If so, you've already closing your mind to a number of possibilities.

Maybe, depends how you read the comment

Why not have more than one option? We have multiple options for spreadsheet editing, document editing, CAD editing, dev IDE... What makes this different? You know a tool and if you can use it across multiple platforms it's a win for the user.

Statements like this make it obvious that fanboys of any kind don't understand that there are different markets and business needs. I'm a software developer that has coded on most platforms using many different compilers and languages. I don't make money or meet objectives by troubleshooting OS issues if my specialty is application development. I buy an OS which includes a large team of people that support said product. With Linux it's different as it's an open system which is intended to be tailored to specific needs. It's a versatile and lean OS which offers endless possibility. The flip side is you need to become more of an expert or hire said experts to achieve your objectives.

I'm not ditching Linux or MS. Instead I'm just pointing out that there was a time where MS didn't have a need to provide said tools. Now they feel it matters and I see only benefits for the Linux community..

Not oil company FUD. Conservative voter thinking FUD. There are people out there that cling to old ways. Plenty of proof to go around and that way of thinking won the republicans the last election. Coal, de-regulation, closing free trade. These are old ways of thinking way past our current time but it still gets pushes by individuals that don't care to dig into issues and take guys like Tucker Carlson at face value.