Ask HN: Why credit cards despise sub $1 transactions? - <AUTHOR>

I signed up for a Google API paid account about a year ago. I use their API search console to determine how prevalent an IP registering to my service is. If there are too many results, they don't get the freebie and are told why. If there are few results, they get the freebie and never know they were checked.
So my services isn't all that popular apparently, and I only manage to rack up $0.05 to $0.25 in API charges per month.
Google for some reason decides to charge me in those amounts, every month. (Here's another question, doesn't google make $0.00 on a transaction below the minimum credit card fee?)
And every month, my credit card goes inactive, I get a phone call from security asking me if I "know anything about this Google charge?". I say yes. They re-instate my card. I hang up the phone. Sure enough, the entire process repeats itself the next month.
I am with PC Financial Mastercard in Canada, if that makes any difference? <comment><USER2> I believe credit card fraudsters often test the cards with small charges in order to determine if the cards actually work before going on a spending spree.

Such small transactions are quite suspicious from the point of view of the credit card company.

</comment><comment><USER3> The deactivation is probably due to the recurrence of the <$1 charges, not the value itself. Sub-$1 transactions are very common for verification purposes, IIRC PayPal uses a random amount in cents to verify you.</comment>


Show HN: FormKeep – Form endpoints for designers and developers - <AUTHOR> https://formkeep.com/

<comment><USER2> I was looking for something like this some time ago to integrate a form into a static website. Ended up building a less user friendly version of this. Really nicely done, I think I will use it if I ever need something like this again.

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks like a really painless way to handle forms. I will be using this.</comment>


What An Antitrust Case Against Google Might Look Like - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/01/what-an-antitrust-case-against-google-might-look-like/ <comment><USER2> " _abusing its monopoly position by overcharging corporations for access to consumers_ "

I guess I don't understand the problem here. If you advertise with Google you aren't barred from advertising elsewhere. This is like saying the Superbowl is abusing its popularity by charging high prices for ads. There are plenty of other places to buy advertising on the internet.

<comment><USER3> The American antitrust law (as I understand it, I'm not a lawyer) allows you to create and have a monopoly. What's illegal is using your monopoly in one market to muscle your way into another. The classical case is Microsoft having a monopoly on operating systems, and abusing that to dominate the browser market.

As I see the argument made by the author he is saying that Google has a monopoly on search, and that they are using that monopoly to dominate the advertising market.

<comment><USER2> " _he is saying that Google has a monopoly on search, and that they are using that monopoly to dominate the advertising market_ "

That's also what I thought he meant. The problem is that search isn't a market. They dominate the search based advertising market because they dominate search (which is not a market in and of itself, it's free content that gets eyeballs like a TV show).

And in my opinion at least they are great at their ad distribution business (where the ads go on other people's sites) because of their high value brand, not from some sinister tactic they are able to inflict because of their dominant search engine.

<comment><USER4> It is interesting to me when people say that "search is not a market". So pardon my ignorance but if search isn't a market, why (in the case of antitrust clauses against Microsoft) are browsers a market?

Can somebody explain what constitutes a market?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Given that Eric Schmidt was, only about 2 weeks ago, actively campaigning in favor of The President's stimulus package I find it highly unlikely that the US Justice Department will be going after Google. This could change if Google does something egregious, or there are significant changes in the 2010 mid term elections. However, I don't find it likely.

Also, I think it more likely that companies would pursue action in EU courts rather than US courts, because the EU courts have been more receptive to this type of thing.

</comment><comment><USER6> I wish TechCrunch had more content like this. Then we really wouldn't need the New York Times.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think we'll see more and more Guest Posts with quality content in the future. To me at least, it looks like Arrington is setting up the company for a future sale, and since right now Techcrunch=Arrington, he has to distance himself from writing. So that leaves a lot of free space that they need to fill up.

<comment><USER6> What makes you say they're gearing up to flip?

<comment><AUTHOR> Companies tend to avoid things that rely heavily on one "superstar", by stepping out of the limelight, Arrington is making Techcrunch stand on its own

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It strikes me as extremely ironic that the government, an organization which uses force to fund massively wasteful, unaccountable bureaucracies, should be concerned that Google, a organization which does not charge most of its users, is gouging consumers.

<comment><USER8> > a organization which does not charge most of its users

But the problem is, they are gouging (some of) their customers. It's just not the end users, it's the businesses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> _"Google is abusing its monopoly position by overcharging corporations for access to consumers."_

Aren't google adwords basically bought at auction? I don't see how you could accuse google of overcharging.

</comment><comment><USER10> And when the DOJ is done with Google, Facebook will get similar scrutiny.

<comment><USER11> From the article: _Google is earning enough from sponsored search to subsidize almost all of other businesses, including gmail, Google Office, Latitude, gDrive, and others._

I don't think Facebook is subsidizing other businesses with its profit. Actually it doesn't have any profit yet.

<comment><USER10> It will take years for the DOJ to be done with Google. Give Facebook some time!

I agree with Facebook board member Marc Andreesen's assessment: Facebook could be profitable and make over a billion in annual revenue whenever they choose. Instead, they're forgoing that for bigger riches -- and even more entrenched market power -- down the road. Facebook understands the game they're playing.

Facebook users face higher switching costs than Google search users. And individual features in Facebook -- photo sharing, status streams, comment threads, group utilities, invitations/RSVPs, instant-messaging, etc. -- already compete against multiple other companies.

When Facebook turns on their revenue spigot -- whatever it turns out to be -- they will look a lot like Google, in the same ways the article highlights. They will be subsidizing a bunch of free services, to the detriment of potential competitors, to defend their master proprietary asset -- the social graph plus a critical mass of users -- and the massive revenue that flows from it.

<comment><USER12> I'm curious, do you know when Andreessen said that? Because two years ago I would've believed it, but now I just don't buy it.

Beacon was supposed to be their adsense and look how that turned out. I don't doubt facebook's potential, but I do doubt that there's a switch that they're just waiting for some magic user count to flip.

<comment><USER10> _...when Andreesen said that?_

About 10 days ago, in the Charlie Rose interview. TechCrunch has a transcript:

[http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/20/andreessen-on- charlie-r...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/20/andreessen-on-charlie-rose- i-am-creating-a-fund-full-video/)

<comment><USER12> Thanks for that.

According to Alexa, Yahoo gets a little less than twice Facebook's traffic. Yahoo's revenue for 2008 was $7.22B. So yeah, $1B+ for Facebook from conventional ads is probably reasonable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Microsoft enjoys something like 90% market share on the desktop, and they're worried about Google's 70(ish)%.</comment>


Facebook friend-finder unlawful in Germany - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/14/germany-highest-court-facebook-friend-finder-unlawful <comment><USER3> You know what is even more hardcore than facebook with the "friend finder?" Freaking linkedin. That thing found people I sold things to on craigslist in 2005 and put them in my "people you may know" suggestions. Girls I hooked up with in high school, a professor who taught a course randomly during an off summer at a community college. People I've emailed from my fake throwaway email accounts I don't remember the logs ins or the passwords to any more. People I've only corresponded with from my firewalled work accounts and never logs into them from my personal computer. Old frat brothers who were 4 years ahead of me in college. A person who went missing when their family moved away from my jr high school and I completely forgot about them. My Japanese exchange student who I lost contact with in 2008. People from random 4-wheeling forum I never emailed with or talked to directly. I have no idea how they did it but it was rather disconcerting. If I knew how to turn it off, I would.

I seriously don't know how Linkedin found all these people but they somehow dredged them all up.

<comment><USER4> > I seriously don't know how Linkedin found all these people

By going through everything in mailbox? I think it is quite scary - <USER2> asks people for their email password and they type it in, like something obviously required for that site to work.

<comment><USER3> Also, I mean... it's kinda funny. Lol, no thanks, linkedin, no I do not want to add the guy I sold a bedframe to via craigslist to my professional network. Go home, linkedin, you're drunk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I myself started to receive emails on my work account from people in my circle to join this social network. I received an awful number of emails every week from this friend finder thing of Facebook.

I think they have fixed it now and you don't receive more than 1 email, but I was really pissed at that time.</comment>


Show HN: Dream Eaters, Fight procrastination one day at a time - <AUTHOR> I am building an app-game to help one make some progress on their dream, that thing that you are yearning to do. Get your close friends and relatives to keep you accountable and keep them informed by answering a simple question everyday "Did you do anything yesterday to achieve your dream?"
Would love to get your feedback about the mockups, the landing page and the problem/solution. If you find this interesting please signup for the beta access.
https://www.producthunt.com/upcoming/dream-eaters
Ahmad <comment><USER2> Looks good good luck!</comment>


Cloudfuji (YC S11) Launches Open-Source, Instant-Setup Fat Free CRM - <AUTHOR> http://cloudfuji.com/blog/2012/05/14/cloudfuji_launches_open_source_instant_setup_fat_free_crm.html

<comment><AUTHOR> We've worked with some great people to make this happen, and it's happened really quickly since just launching Kandan <http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=3940180>

The user and developer feedback has been incredible so far, and we want to thank everyone for that.

And we still have the hn discount for those of your looking to invite more teammates, just go to <http://cloudfuji.com/promo> and use 'hn-preview' (without the quotes) - just be sure to keep the awesome feedback coming!

</comment><comment><USER2> Hopefully this is a very nice tool. The current CRM scene, proprietary or not, is full of bloated bags of broken features.

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> It's hard to get a CRM that pleases most people and at the same time doesn't get in the way for most people - we have some strong opinions about why that is, and we'll be writing about it soon.

Thanks for the kind words!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> We will be discussing Fat Free CRM and other exciting open source projects at our SF meetup this Thursday.

[http://www.meetup.com/San-Francisco-New-Wave-Open-Source- App...](http://www.meetup.com/San-Francisco-New-Wave-Open-Source-Apps/)

Big thanks to our friends at singly.com for hosting.

</comment><comment><USER4> My rough estimate: Within the next 18 months, there will have been so many YC- supported start-ups that HN will feature YC-affiliated news on all its thirty front page slots.

<comment><USER2> That's sort of a jaded view, I think. There's plenty of YC startups that we never hear anything about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Congrats on the launch.

Quick tangential question: why the rename to Cloudfuji? Also I'm curious if the domain + social media accounts for 'cloudfuji' were available or had to be acquired?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the congrats, it means a lot!

We changed from Bushi.do to Cloudfuji mainly because we had difficulty getting the bushido.com tld, and it just wasn't worth it. So, we did the scrappy startup thing, rebranded and launched. As an unexpected benefit, the 'cloudfuji' name has been wide open on most properties, so we haven't had any problems there.

Happy to answer any other questions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It would be nice to get some standardization among app hosts. Are you guys supporting Procfiles/buildpacks ala Heroku? Most of that code is open source now

(disclosure: working on an app hosting service)

<comment><AUTHOR> Not yet, but we want to, definitely. We build on top of the Heroku and Cloud Foundry PaaS's of the world, so we haven't decided on the right way to standardize it.

Feel free to reach out to me at sean at cloudfuji, and let's chat a bit.

By the way, we've been impressed with some of the hustle we've seen from pogodan. Very good job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Congrats on the launch, this looks great!

</comment><comment><USER8> Awesome job guys, it looks great!</comment>


Part Time Designer for Y Combinator Video Startup - <AUTHOR> http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/med/2171631705.html <comment><USER2> how did nowmov get funding for this idea?

It's against youtube's terms and conditions to make any $$$ (ad revenue, sponsorship, endorsement, etc) off the youtube api, if it's the main feature of the website.</comment>


$115M verdict in Hulk Hogan sex-tape lawsuit could wipe out Gawker - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/115-million-verdict-in-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-lawsuit-could-wipe-out-gawker <comment><USER2> So they published a privately made video about people having sex without those people's consent? Yeah, good riddance Gawker. I'm still hoping the Condé Nast CFO sues them for outing him: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Cond.C3.A9_Nast_CFO_pro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Cond.C3.A9_Nast_CFO_prostitution_claims)

<comment><USER3> How different is this from Snowden giving top secret documents to Greenwald et al?

It's the "compelling news interest" so I think it falls under the First Amendment for Gawker.

I wouldn't be surprised it'll be overturned on appeal.

But Florida does require a bond to be put up and it's significant. This might hamstring Gawker while they go through the appeals process.

<comment><USER4> What's the compelling news interest with hulk hogan sex tape?

"In the public interest" != "what the public is interested in".

<comment><USER3> Entertainment news. Yeah I personally do not care. But Hulk has fans. And always boast of his sexual prowess, uses the media to sell his image etc.

Hence news interest in that area. It's distasteful but I prefer the 1A protect as much as possible before the govt or courts tries to narrow it down.

<comment><USER5> The 1st Amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT, not from INDIVIDUALS. Bollea was forced to leave the WWE, and his brand was damaged as a result of this action. He suffered real monetary loss. This is literally an example of the textbook definition of defamation, which in CIVIL cases, the first amendment does not protect.

You are not allowed to say harmful or malicious things about another person that has the potential to cause damage to their reputation.

<comment><USER6> In order for something to be defamation it has to be a false statement. No one has accused Gawker of saying anything untrue.

So no, this is not a textbook example of defamation.

You're also confused about the scope of the 1st amendment. It applies in civil cases. I'm not sure why you would think it doesn't. See, for example _Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell_ for a famous example. The trial was a central plot point in a major motion picture!

<comment><USER5> Fair point on the defamation.

Bringing up the Falwell vs. Flynt was more about protecting parody. Very few people would have taken seriously the idea that Falwell would run an ad in Hustler magazine, it was clearly satire. In this case, however, the information was recorded without the other's party's notice. I'd have to look up the laws in California, but I know in NYS, we have to inform the other party when we are recording are the conversation. In this case, it's the right to privacy vs. freedom of speech. The argument that since a person is a celebrity he does not have privscy rights never made sense. He is entitled to his privacy as much as the rest of us.

<comment><USER6> You said:

"The 1st Amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT, not from INDIVIDUALS."

I was merely pointing out that this statement is wrong. The 1st amendment does protect defendants in civil trials. In this case it was found (rightly or wrongly) that Hulk's right to privacy outweighed Gawker's freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the 1st didn't apply at all. It simply means it lost this time.

It doesn't even mean that celebrity's rights to privacy will always outweigh freedom of speech. I'm sure that TMZ prints stuff every single day that celebrities would prefer to remain private and you don't see them losing lawsuits very often.

This was a very particular case right on the edge of the line. And, by the way, it will certainly be appealed and Gawker could very well win in a higher court.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was a regular Gawker reader for a while, their salacious stories are hard to resist. Eventually I realized they were crossing lines, both in their aggressive attacks toward individuals who didn't really deserve it and their general preference for sexy headlines and clicks over actual stories and reporting. If this really does bring down Gawker I will consider Hulk Hogan one of the great heroes of our generation. Hopefully it will cause other "news" outlets to step a little more carefully in regards to casually ruining someone's life.

<comment><USER8> Really? The guy that spends half the time on tape making racist remarks? I don't know, 'hero' isn't the first word that crosses my mind.

<comment><USER9> Name any widely revered person; basically every one of them has serious flaws.

Besides, you can honor an act without endorsing the entirety of the person. Lovecraft was an amazing writer and also a frothing racist.

<comment><USER10> Mr. Fred Rogers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This article written by Justices-to-be Warren and Brandeis about the right to privacy is always a good read: [http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/priva...](http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm a bit confused why people are taking the side of Hulk Hogan. Maybe the dislike of gossip news is blinding people to the larger free speech implications.

Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person?

Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent?

Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were initially obtained illegally but were given to the publication? (see wikileaks…etc)

If you answered 'yes' to all 3, what principals (or ideally…laws) let you side with Hulk Hogan?

<comment><USER5> Because this is a civil case, that's why. The government has does nothing to Gawker. No one has been censored, illegally detained, or made to vanish. That is what free speech is about: ensuring the government cannot censor or retaliate against you for publishing an piece of work that criticizes the government.

In civil cases, freedom of speech does not cover defamation of character (libel and slander). I think publishing someone's sex tape could definitely harm their reputation, which is what free speech does NOT protect.

Relevant XKCD: [https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> And nothing of value was lost.

</comment><comment><USER14> The discussion attached to the BBC's version of the story can be found here [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11315985](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11315985) (135 comments)

</comment><comment><USER15> The $115m verdict seems excessive. It vastly exceeds the damage done by the offense and the benefits gained by the perpetrators.

<comment><USER16> It takes into account that gawker ignored a court order and kept the video up1.

They are absolute scum. And then to be such hypocrites about the fappening. Good riddance to such rubbish.

1 [http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk- hoga...](http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex- tape-po-481328088)

<comment><USER17> The post you link to says they took the video down, only leaving the post up.

One would think someone would read posts before citing them as a source, and notice if it actually says the opposite.

<comment><USER16> Its funny, because the wikipedia article says the opposite:

In April 2013, Gawker wrote, "A judge told us to take down our Hulk Hogan sex tape post. We won't." It also stated that "we are refusing to comply" with the order of the circuit court judge.

And so does the archived version of the page.

<comment><USER10> From April 27, 2013, [http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/GAWKER- SAYS-...](http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/GAWKER-SAYS-NO-TO- COURT-ORDER-IN-HULK-HOGAN-SEX-TAPE-CASE-1333410) :

> A Pinellas County Judge, Pamela A.M. Campbell issued an order Wednesday > directing Gawker to remove a video of Hogan (real name Terry Bollea) > purportedly having sex with the ex-wife of a disc jockey named "Bubba the > Love Sponge" Clem, as well as a 1,400-word narrative about the tape and > hundreds of user-submitted comments.

> The site did take down the video, but the narrative and comments remain on > the site with the website's attorney, Gregg Thomas saying the order to > remove that material infringes on the website's First Amendment rights.

So, yes, the video was taken down. No, the post _concerning_ the video was not, despite the court order to do so.

I believe "Hulk Hogan sex tape post" refers to the latter commentary post, not the actual video.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Hows is this hacker news?, I mean; seems like another Kim K story....

<comment><USER19> Gawker is a major media org which had and has a lot of influence over online news reporting.

Going further than that, this judgement may be useful in determining how future, similar acts are treated by the courts.</comment></comment>


"Customers are likely to see regressions with Windows 7 ongoing servicing" - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2016/01/15/windows-10-embracing-silicon-innovation/ <comment><USER2> I have outgrown a few laptops since 2006 when I finally gave up dual boot and just ran with Linux. Linux admittedly does have the occasional mixup (especially about competing graphical interfaces and init systems) and does sometimes need a little experimentation to get things working as I would like; however, these seeming inconveniences are mostly caused by newly presented "options" and are not about forced lock-in. Besides, Linux also has some very positive qualities that have become essential to me. Linux maintains compatibility with old code (sometimes very very old code) that is still useful to me. Linux puts an astounding array of tools at my fingertips that help me automate work and learn new things. Linux also keeps me secure, virus- free and conveniently keeps everything installed on disk up-to-date... and it gradually (every 6 mos for me) gets better all the time -- for free. I can't see a reason why I would ever want to return to an OS as restrictive and inconvenient as Windows.

<comment><USER3> I went in the other direction. I used to use Linux (Ubuntu) but I got tired of essential things breaking after updates, like Nautilus, and the constant battle with getting the printer to work. Eventually I just got too frustrated, went out and bought Windows for $300 and considered it cheap.

Now I need Linux for work (software dev) again, so I gave dual-boot a try. I installed OpenSuse, Ubuntu, and Debian a total of 7 times since Christmas, each time ending up with something unbootable within days. And I spent a couple thousand dollars of my time getting them to work, fixing the horrible fonts on OpenSuse, etc. Eventually I gave up and bought VMWare where Ubuntu now sits happily isolated from real hardware, a configuration that it's somehow more stable in. And at least I have automatic snapshots on every reboot, so when something goes wrong I just roll back.

Honestly, desktop Linux is the most expensive OS out there if you count the value of your time. I really like Windows, not because it's a pleasure to use (Windows 8 with that metro crap was terrible!) but because it just works. If I can't get desktop Linux to work nicely as software engineer, what chance does your average person have? Unless some company does to Linux what Apple did to BSD (SteamOS?), I don't see any hope for it ever being anything but a niche desktop OS.

<comment><USER4> I wonder if you used hardware than is actually supported by the distributions you tried? If you need/want Linux I would highly recommend buying something pre-installed. You don't have to use the pre-installed OS but at least you can reasonably assume that drivers will be available.

<comment><USER5> I wonder if part of the problem is people going outside of the OS's curated repositories.

With Debian at least the curation of the repositories is one of the biggest attractions for me. Everything in there is tested at length and is known to work well together. I've never had problems staying within the repos.

Friends on the other hand always want to install the latest version of whatever package and install tens of external PPAs to achieve that, without consideration for what that means for the stability of their system.

They still carry their windows experiences and think that to install software you have to go find the software authors website and read their instructions - which much of the time apply to other distros and not the one you are using. I have to keep teaching people the Linux way to install software, use your local repos.

<comment><USER4> It turns out the OP borked one of his attempts at Linux by trying to install Spotify in OpenSuse...

I.e. exactly what you are saying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For me personally, support for W7&8 has ended months ago when they tried to sneak in the same privacy invading updates that infest windows 10. Windows update has been disabled since then, can't even install updates manually since I can no longer trust that the package does what the wiki page says.

<comment><USER7> Damn, yeah, same for me actually. After I found out that Microsoft was including that crap in updates for Windows 7 & 8, I also completely disabled Windows Update.

It would be really nice if there was some site that kept an up-to-date database listing of all the KBXXXXXXX update numbers that include this crap ( _up-to-date_ being the key here since Microsoft actually renames old KBXXXXXXX numbers every once in a while to include the same crap the old KBXXXXXXX did).

<comment><USER8> I don't think they rename them. They make a new version that unhides the update, but it keeps the same KB number.

<comment><USER7> There have been some updates in the past that people are suspicious have been renumbered¹, although I suppose that without confirmation from Microsoft, we can't say for sure.

――――――

¹ — [http://www.eightforums.com/windows-updates- activation/66805-...](http://www.eightforums.com/windows-updates- activation/66805-update-kb3022345-renamed-kb3068708.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I remember when XP shipped and people bemoaned the Tinker Toy GUI that it came with. Years later people are still complaining about change in the UI of operating systems by Microsoft. At least with Windows 10 they seem to be dedicated to sticking with something for a while as they plan to continuously update the same OS for a long while.

<comment><USER10> Windows XP was very close to Windows 2000. I have not met any windows 2000/XP user that missed windows 98, even in the first few minutes of using it.

<comment><USER11> I heard quite a few people who (even after Windows 7 came out) were complaining that MS made DOS harder to boot into with Win 95.

<comment><USER10> We should have never moved away from our trusted 16bit systems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Do you want to support two major versions of your software for years? No? > Well neither does Microsoft.

Well, if they hadn't made both Vista and Windows 8 such piles of fail perhaps Microsoft wouldn't have had this problem.

Lots of people stayed with XP for a very good reason ... drivers for hardware that worked reliably for better than a decade simply wouldn't work with Vista.

Similarly lots of people are staying with Windows 7 for very good reasons ... Windows 7 was actually decent, Windows 8 sucks, and Windows 10 is a resource pig which someone who hasn't upgraded a computer in 3-5 years can't run.

<comment><USER13> Windows 8 is fine. Like its actually fine. I use it at home every day. I use Win10 at work. I can't even tell them apart.

Edit: Fuck your downvotes. You can't provide an objective list as to why Win8 is garbage because it's not. If you simply ignore the metro screen and swap out the Start Menu with Classic Shell it's the same damn thing as Win7 but with a variety of minor improvements.

<comment><USER10> Let's start a list (a mix of 8 and 8.1):

Notifications appear as big banner accross the screen which is extremely disruptive

When you do a right click, the contextual menu appears at the bottom of the screen, very very very far from your mouse on a 4k monitor.

Full screen apps, with often no intuitive way to get out. Why full screen apps in a world of 4k monitors???

When you install the system you have to click on some really non obvious sub menu to opt out of using microsoft accounts over local accounts. I am not completely computer illeterate and I missed it the first time. This is really cavalier.

Two control panels, like if the win7 control panel wasn't confusing enough already.

Enormous buttons that look ridiculous when clicking them with a tiny mouse cursor.

Hidden (but critical) buttons requiring to move the mouse to the edge of the screen, again a long way on a 4k monitor.

I am sure that if I start using it again I can double this list. There is a reason why Microsoft fired the head of the windows division shortly before he even announced windows 8.

<comment><USER14> Full screen apps: Do you mean "modern" UI apps/tools that ship with Windows? Don't use those. You likely don't need any of the built in win8 apps like Mail. And you never ever need to go to the start page or any other part of the modern UI. Everything can be done from desktop (I'm talking about Win8.1 now, not 8). I agree the control panel thing is a fiasco (barely sorted in win10) but have found the classic one to still cover e everything I need.

4K: In Win7 I thought you couldn't even have per-screen scaling settings, so 4K was practically useless unless you were on a single screen or all screens had the same dpi scale? At least in win8 that feature is clearly better than win7.

<comment><USER10> On modern apps, I agree, I actually created this very morning a script to uninstall all of them in one go. But I still have to fight windows' defaults, and reassign a decent default application for each extension.

On 4k, some people use 4k to get high dpi, I am rather into the big screen, native resolution category. I need the real estate space more than the high resolution (provided the screen is big enough to allow it). As probably most people who do any development.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Not surprising. Last week HN celebrated the "death" of IE, but this week will bemoan the passing of their dear Windows 7. Windows XP was ended last year. Do you want to support two major versions of your software for years? No? Well neither does Microsoft. The "legacy systems" explanation of maintaining outdated software is vanishing with the rise of the modern web browser and the cloud. The local machine has less and less responsibility to run anything beyond a browser. And coders recognize they can no longer lock users onto Windows XP using IE 7, or the modern equivalent. Progress marches on, and at an ever quickening pace.

<comment><USER16> If windows 10 didn't have that metro ui and wasn't plagued with spying accusations most people wouldn't be bemoaning the death of windows 7. However because windows 10 comes with many different ways to track users, I see this not as an effort for "progress" but just another screw for microsoft to turn against their users.

<comment><USER17> There's nothing wrong with metro ui, people just didn't like full screen start menu in win8. Win10 has the old start menu back

<comment><USER8> The search on the windows 10 start menu is oddly broken. Really a lot of 10 is quite buggy right now.

<comment> ju-st The most ridiculous "bug" is: [http://answers.microsoft.com/en- us/windows/forum/windows_10-...](http://answers.microsoft.com/en- us/windows/forum/windows_10-win_cortana/windows-10-search-does-not-index-exe- files/2b451f16-6a0e-49b4-a245-ebfeadf0d82e?auth=1)

But I'm just using Everything as search app, it's much better than any other search function.

<comment><USER8> I think the limit of 512^H^H^H2048 start menu items that can be searched is more ridiculous, not sure if they fully fixed that yet. All too easy to hit with programs that install a dozen entries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What does the title phrase actually mean? That's not a use of "regression" I'm familiar with.

<comment><USER19> The new hardware systems discussed will result in driver updates for pre- existing hardware to take advantage of/fix bugs with Skylake/Tablets/SoCs. Once Windows 7 is no longer the primary mainstream version, vendors will spend less QA effort on not breaking Windows 7 with a driver update.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It does look like it is almost time to upgrade. The OS of the majority of steam users (ie. the best supported) is getting close to going from 7 to 10...

Windows 7 64bit 34.81% -0.82% Windows 10 64bit 31.25% +2.44%

</comment><comment><USER21> "After July 2017, the most critical Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 security updates will be addressed for these [Skylake] configurations, and will be released if the update does not risk the reliability or compatibility of the Windows 7/8.1 platform on other devices."

I think this only refers to driver updates and the like, right?

<comment><USER22> Security updates, etc too. PCs in the past few years have been growing more and more towards being Systems on Chips that have a few more interesting ports on them. One of the reasons MS is doing this is because the underlying hardware is changing pretty severely, so the OS needs to change to match.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> If a corporate app needs Windows 7, can it be run in a client Hyper-V VM on top of Windows 10?

<comment><USER10> Yep, but I have heard it doesn't work very well on laptops, that having hyper-v running messes up with the sleep features. On a desktop, windows 10 hyper-v is very good.

<comment><USER24> That might be the case for Surface but I'm running Hyper-V on two laptops without issues. One is a Macbook actually.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> the line: > enables up to 30x better graphics and 3x the battery life reminds me of these "save up to 50%" sales.

<comment><USER26> Yeah, that line was odd in particular because they're comparing Windows 10 to Windows 7, not Windows 10 to Some Other OS. They're effectively saying, "Wow, Windows 7 is _really bad_ ; you shouldn't use that crap. But Windows 10 is great!" Which is kind of an odd sales pitch, even if you ignore how exaggeratedly outrageous those numbers sound.</comment></comment>