Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Is Putting Ads on the Mail App in Windows 10

thurrott.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 413 posts

Re: Microsoft Is Putting Ads on the Mail App in Windows 10

#391

Post by hakfoo »

jammygit wrote: post #44

All I want is to be able to give companies my money in exchange for not being spied on, manipulated, or locked into some walled garden. I can't for my OS - I have to use free gnu/Linux because everyone else treats me like crap. Is my money not good enough for them? This is getting absurd

I suspect the appeal of an ad model is that it's perpetual recurring revenue.

It's the same direction they go when they desperately push subscription licenses (see: Office 365) They want a business model less dependent on people replacing their PCs every three years.

I don't doubt they see a rapidly approaching future of management saying "these computers are more than adequate for office work and web browsing, so we won't replace them until they physically fail in 5+ years." It's an easier and easier argument to make, especially when we're running out of easy, cheap across-the-board performance boosts. (Office and Chrome don't run that much better on a new 32-core Threadripper than on a second-generation i5)

Re: Microsoft Is Putting Ads on the Mail App in Windows 10

#392

Post by ohithereyou »

Spivak wrote: post #351
ohithereyou wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are these machines HIPAA compliant when your OS vendor can push random software to them?

Vendors aren't considered threats under HIPPA which, tbf, is pretty rational because if you don't trust the entity that wrote the software or made your hardware you've got much bigger problems.

Microsoft's behavior here and Canonical's behavior shipping search tied into Amazon tracking show that this is not a pretty rational stance.

Re: Microsoft Is Putting Ads on the Mail App in Windows 10

#393

Post by hakfoo »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #134

Just another step towards the inevitable announcement of a "free," "promotion-supported" version of Windows. For decades, the beige-box industry was supported by doing things like including trialware antivirus, browser search bars, and shareware games on top of the OS. Why shouldn't Microsoft put the crapware on the machine directly, and eliminate the middle man? I would hope that this would allow them to split the c…

What's funny is that there was definitely a point where Microsoft themselves realized this business model by OEMs was undermining their platform.

They actually promoted "signature" PCs which were supposed to come without crapware. I can recall buying a Windows 8 tablet from a brick-and-mortar Microsoft store because I knew it would come with a hassle-free clean install.

Re: Microsoft Is Putting Ads on the Mail App in Windows 10

#394

Post by Havoc »

EduardoBautista wrote: post #263
Havoc wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I am fine with ads, just as long as they don't mine my data and follow me around. Pretty much every ad platform out there does exactly that

Duckduckgo does not. Hacker News does not. There are many examples. Ads on blogs such as Daring Fireball and Coding Horror do not. I gladly whitelist these sites.

Sure there are fringe cases where it's not true. In substance ad platforms are now tracking & targeting mechanisms. That's the "value" they sell, not their ability to deliver ads.

Re: Microsoft Is Putting Ads on the Mail App in Windows 10

#395

Post by robin_reala »

shados wrote: post #229
dpau wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long until Microsoft starts inserting ads into our Github repos?

I'd expect more like a deep LinkedIn integration to facilitate recruiters...as much as the thought makes me cringe.

That’s not a problem if you don‘t have a LinkedIn account. I recommend it.

Re: Microsoft Is Putting Ads on the Mail App in Windows 10

#396

Post by fredsanford »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #390
fredsanford wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're wrong, tiresome and ignorant. Windows allows multiple instances of the same app to work via the WinSxS mechanism which keeps copies of basically every DLL ever installed, including system DLLs. So it is basically keeping duplicates of everything, regardless. This includes some executables as well. [1] Before WinSxS you could achieve the same effect by keeping copies of the DLL dependencies in the app directory…

> Linux gives you the same choices and a couple more options. Only as the builder of an application. The application developers for Linux, on the whole, only ever chose option one, leaving everyone who uses their software no option that doesn't involve recompiling from source (which, as I've mentioned, is a ridiculous thing to expect people to do just to use your software). I have several dozen applications on Window…

>> Only as the builder of an application. The application developers for Linux, on the whole, only ever chose option one,

Again, wrong.

The people that package distributions usually make these choices. Gentoo and distros like it give you a choice of how things are built.

Off the top of my head I cannot think of a popular library that does not have the option to be statically or dynamically linked.

>> I have several dozen applications on Windows that are not installed. Many of them aren't even designed to be portable, ....

>> ... The DLLs, as far as I can tell, are unique to WinDirStat, so it wouldn't be unfair to say that this application actually doesn't have any dependencies other than the base OS.

This works in Linux too, somewhat. You have to have compatible ABIs though.

>> ... dependent DLLs in their install directory........

And Windows has 8 tons of different versions of system DLLs and C library runtimes in the WinSxS directories. MSVC runtimes are not interchangeable. Linux in general does not go to that length since a large majority of the apps are source available.

Re: Microsoft Is Putting Ads on the Mail App in Windows 10

#397

Post by ocdtrekkie »

binarycrusader wrote: post #185
rhexs wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. I did not consider that aspect. I'd still hope there would be a slightly less annoying way to accomplish that though.

As someone who's heard Cortana many times during initial setup, I understand. However, I also understand the tradeoff in favor of accessibility. For larger deployments, there's a registry key and other options: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/customize/... For other cases, I'd consider filing feedback requesting an easier way to mute during the setup process (if there isn't one already; I don't reme…

The microphone icon on the bottom left of the setup screen quiets her.

Re: Microsoft Is Putting Ads on the Mail App in Windows 10

#398

Post by amyjess »

WorldMaker wrote: post #146
amyjess wrote: post #25

I currently use this on my Surface because it's more touch-friendly than Gmail's website, but it looks like I'll be moving on. Any recommendations for a touch-friendly (i.e. must be UWP) mail app for Windows?

The latest Gmail revamp is more touch-friendly than it used to be, especially in Edge (despite Gmail's increasingly obnoxious insistence that you should only use Chrome). The article suggests that the Mail app will never have ads for Office 365 users. Office 365 Home is often a good deal for a Surface owner anyway, as it boosts your OneDrive space, and gives you up to date copies of all the Office programs, and stuff…

Hmm... I'm an Office 365 customer, so I guess I'm not getting ads then. Good.

Also, I love Edge to death (it's the only browser I'll use when I'm on my Surface), but I forgot another reason why I don't want to deal with Gmail in the browser: Gmail doesn't let me have my personal and work email open at the same time.

Re: Microsoft Is Putting Ads on the Mail App in Windows 10

#399

Post by inetknght »

neilalexander wrote: post #215
inetknght wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I'll do when I get home

You might find that running sshd in a Terminal is probably the best way to get a sense of what's really going on if the logging level isn't high enough by default - things like cipher disagreements would probably be visible on the client, whereas authentication errors are more likely to be logged on the target side. Do come back with how you get on!

So it turns out that I had deleted my shell, which also explains why iTerm and Terminal would instantly die.

Fixed it with `chsh` and now all that good stuff works \o/

Re: Microsoft Is Putting Ads on the Mail App in Windows 10

#400

Post by inetknght »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #302
inetknght wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Linux community has a remarkable amount of disdain for anyone who isn't a C greybeard I feel like you're the one providing disdain simply by saying "greybeard". Please don't disrespect people who have lots of C experience. I've found plenty of non-C applications in Ubuntu's and Fedora's repositories though. I've found Python, Ruby, and Perl applications and developer tools (in addition to the obvious C and C++…

> I've found plenty of non-C applications in Ubuntu's and Fedora's repositories though. [etc.] You've missed the point. I could go on for quite a while about what the point was, but ultimately it comes down to this: "You can fix it yourself!" isn't really true. Professional programmers who work on Linux for a living haven't even managed to fix a lot of its problems. > It looks like it supports every major Linux distr…

> You've missed the point.

Maybe.

> ultimately it comes down to this: "You can fix it yourself!" isn't really true. Professional programmers who work on Linux for a living haven't even managed to fix a lot of its problems.

I could say the same thing about every OS.

> The whole point of AppImage is that that's completely unnecessary.

Unnecessary to you perhaps. Being able to see the source code of applications I run is important to many Linux users.

> The only thing that really aught to be done is that file managers should display AppImage icons and not harass the user about double clicking one to run it.

I don't see why AppImage should be treated any differently than any other executable -- trusted or not. If that's not how it is now then you definitely have a point.

Have you built any AppImage-based programs?

Post reply on HN