#Windows10 Lets You Evaluate For 30 Days. I Rolled Back After 1 Hour.

First, some back history.

• I've been using Windows since 3.1.  Yes, that long.
• I can clearly recall installing Windows ME on my friend's computer.
• I received a free copy of Windows 2000 as part of a fly-by-night self paced school and mastered it from that.
• I can clearly recall buying the boxed Windows XP from Staples in Chula Vista, San Diego, and how extremely buggy it was at launch.
• Windows Vista wasn't actually a bad OS, it was just buggy prior to SP2.  Once SP2 was released, it was an amazing OS on the right hardware. (keyword: RIGHT HARDWARE).  But Vista SP2 made for an awesome VMWare guest OS.
• I was one of the first to touch Windows 7 before it was released, and was certified on it shortly after launch.  I attended the "Windows 7 Experience" in San Diego at my own expense and walked away with a free copy of the OS.  Used it ever since.
• I tested the earliest build of Windows 8 on an Asus Eee PC touch tablet (which was actually an amazing experience, frankly) long before Surface was even thought of.
• I own a Dell XPS13 (2015) that came with Windows 8.1 and a free upgrade to Windows 10.  Free.  Everyone loves free.

I'm not new to Windows.  I've used Mac OS since it was the Apple System.  I've used various flavors of Linux including "Lindows" (aka Linspire).  I've been working with computers for over 30 years and I touched my first computer when I was 6 years old.

I gave Windows 10 a fair chance because usually, this is when Microsoft "gets it right" after botching things so badly.  And honestly, Windows 10 is an OK OS for someone who isn't tech savvy.  If you're the kind of person who just wants to fire up their computer and type out the occasional email or browse the Web, you're not a developer or anything like that, Windows 10 is perfectly fine.

The problem is, so is every other OS.  Windows 10 doesn't add anything constructive.

For me, the key indicators that an OS is going to work for me...it has to pass two tests: Quantifiable Benefits, and Justifiable Compromises (if any).  For me, a person who works as a software developer/consultant/PM/BA type role, Windows 10 fails both of these tests.  8.1 fails the Quantifiable Benefits test, but passes the Justifiable Compromises (because on my laptop, it doesn't compromise much of the experience).  Let's talk about it though.

Quantifiable Benefits

1. Does the OS add features that I would find useful?
1. The only feature I saw added to Windows 10 that might be of any value was the virtual desktop feature.  For those that don't know what that is, it allows you to basically manage multiple "spaces" with different things going on.  So for example, you could have a work "space" with all of your work apps, then a school "space" with all of your school apps, and a personal "space" with everything else.  That way it's easier to keep track of what app has what open, and why.  The problem is, Windows 10 doesn't even call out this feature.  It's buried behind a poorly sized, redundant search bar.
2. Does the OS perform better than the OS before it?
1. While Windows 10 was certainly faster at certain tasks, I didn't find it booted or rebooted any faster than 8.1 on this machine.  Edge is lightning fast so long as the website is properly written, but Edge doesn't support LastPass (meaning no logins to websites) and doesn't support AdBlock (meaning you're blasted with ads all over the place).  Besides, Chrome performed admirably well anyway on both 8.1 and 10, so no real value add here.  Honestly, if your machine has a solid state drive, you likely won't see any improvement from 8.1 or 7.
3. Does the OS provide functionality that improves application support?
1. Not only did app support not improve, I was frequently hit with "not supported on Edge browser".  Even Dell's own website had this issue!  Months of having access to Windows 10 (since they had drivers available) and they didn't bother to rewrite their web app to support the Edge browser?  Really?  Other apps I had installed continued to work, but if web apps don't work it's a moot point.  Yes, I could just run Chrome and Firefox, but isn't Microsoft's point that I should be using Edge for a superior experience?
4. Does the OS provide enhanced driver support?
1. A funny story is that prior to release, Microsoft released a borked nVidia (graphics card) driver that caused Explorer (the heart and soul of your operating system, in a way) to crash.  No Explorer, no use.  So I put this as a fail.  They fixed it since, but the forced update issue (more on that later) negates that fix.
5. Is the OS easier to use or better from a usability perspective?
1. The big news is that Microsoft made the OS more intelligent.  If it detects you have a keyboard and mouse, it will send you to the Desktop, not the tiled "Start Screen".  If you have a Windows tablet, it will boot you into the Start Screen.  The regular Start Menu is back, with tiles.  But that's largely it.  Everything else is as it was with 8.1, except that certain critical settings (like Windows Update) have been dumbed down and buried in the "Metro" interface.  So, this is a fail.
6. Does the OS enhance core functionality and stability?
1. Microsoft would claim that their forcing updates will make the OS more stable and trustworthy.  I disagree.  At best, buggy updates will be deployed or even stable updates that break critical features will be deployed (this happened with an application I support, where a patch broke ActiveX in our application, causing a total rewrite of the code unexpectedly).  At worst, some plucky hacker manages to inject malware into the distribution engine and deploys it to botnets around the world.  Did you know there's a setting that basically allows internet PCs to share their updates with other PCs?  Yeah no.

In short, I saw nothing benefiting me as computer user.  I saw a lot of misguided attempts to dumb down the computer experience rather than leave power to those who know how to use it.  Microsoft's answer to this: "Buy the Enterprise Edition".  And of course, I'm not spending thousands of dollars to regain basic functionality I already have...in Windows 8.1.

Justifiable Compromises

This one is subjective, so I'll give you an example.

In Server 2008, you had to go through Server Manager and provision roles for the server.  There's a bug in that UI that, if you do certain roles out of order or if you do them at the same time rather than separately, it won't register certain files that are part of the role.  You have to then write a script to get it to "stick" properly.

Server 2012 corrected this by making one of the roles include all of the features necessary.  That way, it didn't matter which order you added the roles.  The trade-off is that the UI where you attach the roles was dumbed down severely; but they exposed PowerShell capability, so you could write a small script that attached the roles instead.  The result was that you could provision servers with defined roles much easier and faster in 2012, despite the UI being dumbed down, if you knew PowerShell scripting (which I do).

That's an example of a fair trade.  While functionality was taken out of one area, it was enhanced in another area, so productivity wasn't lost, it was improved.

The same is not the case with Windows 8.1 vs. 7, nor is it the case with Windows 10 versus either of the previous.  Windows 10 instead removes things (i.e. Windows Update advanced controls to refuse or delay updates regardless of version) and provides no other alternatives.  They're forcing their belief system upon the user, and it's wrong.  That's not justifiable, and I don't want to hear "but people would be exposed to all sorts of security problems!"  Wrong.  All this will do is cause underpowered, underspec'd machines to drag to a crawl or run out of storage prematurely.  People won't upgrade, they'll just reinstall the software, and the same thing happens again.  Geek Squad will make a killing on reimaging machines simply because some rogue update borked it, and others will complain that their metered satellite connection out in Hangem, Montana can't keep up and is dirt slow.  It's a problem.

I saw way too many compromises and not many benefits with Windows 10.  They didn't do enough to revert the damage done with Windows 8.  It's not close enough to Windows 7 in terms of usability and functionality to be a super success, and my guess is, we will see some updates that slowly revert some of the bad design decisions out of the OS.  Unfortunately, I won't be around to see any of it, and if this truly is the last full "Windows" we ever experience, I guess that means my personal machines will never see anything beyond 8.1.  At work, I'm curious if they'll update Windows 7 ever, or just stay on it to give the finger to Microsoft.

Why #DroughtShaming Is Misguided.

Hate mongering.

That's the first thing that comes to mind when I see tweets about this issue.  While it affects California presently, the reality is that the entire United States, if not North America at large, will at some point be impacted if global warming truly is a thing.

Drought shaming is the notion that by bullying someone who appears to be wasting water, you're making a difference by shaming them into changing.  Yes, I said bullying.  It amazes me that this is acceptable, but fat shaming isn't.  Makes one question where people's priorities lie, and the simple fact is that people who simply don't care about their lawn (or don't know how to properly take care of it) are using this as a free pass to say "neener neener neener!" at their neighbor who's outdoing them handily.  People jump on the bandwagon instead of appropriately saying, "it's not nice to tattle on people."  But the state (California) supports this bullying.

Below is one photo from this hashtag. 

 Now, I would call her a water waster, because she is blatantly watering the sidewalk with no care or empathy to the drought.  This woman should be instructed about the problem AND fined as her first offense.  If she keeps doing it, keep raising it.  There's intent here.


Here is another photo, this time of a fixed position spray nozzle irrigation system.  There is some sidewalk wetness.

This shouldn't be included in any drought shaming, and here's why.

1. The nozzle is aligned onto the lawn perfectly.  It's not intentionally spraying on the sidewalk or over it.
2. It's entirely possible that wind may have caused some of the sprinkler to mist back onto the sidewalk.  This is unavoidable; you can't control the wind.
3. The grass is very tall.  It's possible that what we're seeing is soil runoff due to over watering, but then we'd see a lot more water on the sidewalk.

Just that there's an irrigation system on a green lawn shouldn't be a free pass to bully someone.  Even if you watered with a hose you're still going to at least partially hit the sidewalk.  You can't prevent SOME water hitting the sidewalk, so we shouldn't be going around attacking people simply because the sidewalk's a little wet.

That said, there are instances where the sidewalk is clearly evidence of water wasting.  Take this photo for example:

Now, looking at the photo it's obvious what the problem is: slope.  It's just way too steep and the water is naturally running off.  His system is not designed to deal with this properly, to allow the soil to soak the water in before continuing to water.  Cycled light watering would help here, as would sideways cross watering instead of bottom-mounted spray heads.  A drip irrigation would probably be the best of both worlds since it would allow the soil to soak in the water over time.

Here's another example.

Here, it's clear that the problem is that the sprinkler heads are all wrong for this type of landscape.  It's sharply sloped upwards and the sprinkler heads are not adjusted for directed spray.  The result is significant misting, and in the case of the sprinkler on the bottom right, it's likely not aligned on the right stop.  There's also too much overlap in sprinkler heads, so there may be soil run off.

Then there are those who criticize green lawns in general.  People up in arms saying that homeowners should essentially turn their plots into Arizona deserts, like this:

Now, if you're the kind of person who doesn't want to maintain a lawn this is fine.  Although it will seriously tank the resale value.  Don't ever plan to sell?  Go for it, by all means.  It's not a solution to the problem.

A green lawn does not automatically equal water waste, and this is the point I'm trying to get across to people.  A family of 2+ will use more water in the bathroom every day than could possibly be used in an efficient irrigation system.  The lawn isn't a symptom of waste, it's a sign that the homeowner cares about the property.  That's it.  

The only way to prove waste is, as in the examples above, clear wasteful water spilling on sidewalks.  Otherwise, it's looking at the water meter results to determine if they are substantially higher than comparable homes in the neighborhood.  That's waste.  If that homeowner with a perfectly manicured lush lawn has a water bill of $40 where the neighbors with dead lawns are pushing $80, how can the lawn be evidence of water wasting?  It doesn't make sense.

1. That green lawn might be dwarf grass, which uses an extremely low amount of water and requires little maintenance.  This is used in some golf resorts because of its tolerance to foot traffic and abuse.
2. That green lawn might be artificial turf, which of course requires no water.  Some golf resorts have changed over to this now that techniques for manufacturing have yielded a more realistic look.  Some celebrity homes also use this - and no, stripes in the lawn aren't evidence that it's real grass.  Newer synthetic grass can actually stripe.
3. Some grass seed requires very little ongoing water.  Fescue, for example, is a resilient grass that doesn't require a lot of watering.  A person could water it once a week in the morning when it's cooler, and it will not only green nicely, but stay green.  Fescue also responds very well in shaded areas, so if the lawn is even partially shaded, it will retain green throughout the year with very minimal watering.
4. Some fertilizers are better at assisting grass growth and resilience, and minimize water needs.  That the lawn is super green compared to the neighbors might simply be the right balance of nutrients in the soil.
5. The majority of that lawn might be green moss, rather than actual grass.  This is especially true in the Pacific Northwest, because moss will largely stay green unless treated, and blends in with otherwise green grass.
6. Green lawns help cool the surrounding air with an evaporation effect.  Don't believe me?  Stand outside on a green lawn, then go stand on a completely dead lawn.  Do this in the middle of a heat wave.  You will feel a difference.  
7. Green lawns help deter fire spreading.  Dead lawns are kindling to fires.  In states such as California this is critical.  The moisture in watered lawns might be the difference between a quickly spreading fire and one that can be doused in time.
8. Hardscapes, gravel and asphalt increase heat emission.  Ever notice how much hotter it is in places that don't have many green lawns, or trees?  This is because of the absorption of heat by the hard materials that emits back upward.  

The answer isn't to bully people who happen to have a green lawn, and I'm not suggesting that there isn't blatant water waste.  But the drought shaming trend has gone way too far in the wrong direction with people pointing fingers at the wrong sources.  It's people who are knowingly and willfully wasteful (i.e. saturating sidewalks, and/or take 30+ minute showers, and/or run multiple laundry loads, etc.) that are deserving of the shame.  Don't just point fingers at people with green lawns when it very well may be that they're just really good at lawn maintenance.

Why $15 Minimum Wage Is The Wrong Answer

Hi.  My name is...well, call me ReV.  And I've got a story to tell.

1996.  I graduated high school and "at the behest of" (aka forced by) my father, went straight to work.  I didn't get the chance to go to college like I was planning to.  I've never worked a part-time job, ever.  That first job, I was making $8/hour at a time that minimum wage was under $6/hour.  I basically made about $1,000/month.  Back then you could rent an apartment for $500/month.  Wouldn't be anything fancy, and don't expect not to get robbed every so often, but the point is it was perfectly possible.

Rather than saving money or doing anything purposeful with it, I spent it on things I don't even remember.  Car stereos absolutely, clothes certainly.  Beyond that?  No clue.

Fast forward nearly 20 years, and I am still working full time and have been continuously for 11 years, though I have moved from job to job in search of "that right fit".  I'm convinced it doesn't exist.  But I digress; that's not what I'm here to talk about.  I'm here to rant about the minimum wage fight.  And let me clear: It's not that I don't think minimum wage should be raised.  On the contrary, it's long overdue and the law is broken.  I simply think that asking for $15 is out of whack.

About two years ago I did some number crunching and estimated that, according to the value of a minimum wage position to the economy, minimum wage should be around $10.  Last year (after I made that estimate) the certain economists stated that minimum wage, adjusted for inflation over the years, should be around $10.10.  You know what that tells me?  It tells me that I had the magic all along.  And I want to share  that magic with you, despite knowing that many people will simply react emotionally rather than process the information rationally.

The problem with higher wages?  Taxes.

Full time employees that  make a decent amount of money fully  understand how greedy our government is.  "The more you make, the more they take" was never true, and this is even worse if you live in a state with income tax separate from Federal.  In ways you're getting triple taxed, and this  is  all before you even see that money.  So the pundits say that raising minimum wage will spur the economy because people will spend more.  Here are the issues.  Let's put some metrics around this.

Say you're making $7/hour right now at some fast food joint, part time 6 hours a day/30 hours a week.  So your net income is going to be $210/week, $420/biweekly, $840/monthly.  

Under a $15 minimum wage at the same number of hours, you'd be looking at $450/week, $900/biweekly, $1800/monthly.

You with me so far?  Good.

1. Sales tax will destroy any potential benefits one might see from higher wages.  You know it's true.  It doesn't matter if you make $8/hour or $15/hour, you still won't buy that shiny new laptop knowing you're paying anywhere from 6%-12% in taxes.  Especially if said laptop is over $1,000 in the first place.  And don't give me garbage about Amazon, because even they're cracking down on that (reluctantly).  But say you start shopping.  You'd be thoroughly surprised how fast that $900 will disappear simply by renewing car tags, renewing bus passes, getting gas, getting food, renting a car, buying a plane ticket, getting OTC meds from the drug store, and taking care of one pet and one kid.  
2. Most that want minimum wage increased are smokers, drinkers, and/or both.  But the problem is that most in this minimum wage category are going to buy (more) cigarettes (or weed) and alcohol.  If they currently smoke, this just gives them ammunition to buy more of it.  Yes, they're paying hefty taxes on those (not hefty enough IMO), and that's the problem.  By the time it's done, they're back broke again and asking for another minimum wage hike.
3. The Feds are now able to come a-knockin'.  Did you know that, under the wage scenario in red above, you'd owe NOTHING in taxes?  That's right.  This is because, if you were so underpaid as the $7/hour scenario placed above, you'd make $10,080/year.  The minimum threshold for being taxable was (as of tax year 2014) $10,150.  What's this mean?  See, the minimum threshold was designed to ensure that if the government deems you simply insolvent and not financially in a position to pay taxes without putting yourself out, they just don't need to collect. 
   
   This is called EXEMPT and if you've filled out a W4, there's a line that asks you this very thing.  Many don't understand what it means, but it essentially says, "if you made so little that you ended up getting a full refund, and are still going to make so little that you would  get a full refund again, enter EXEMPT and keep your money, we won't take it."  That's right - more take home, instead of waiting for the scam known as a tax refund.  You don't owe it and it's a waste of time and taxpayer money to file a form requesting money back that never should have been taken from you.
   
   Now, if you bump minimum wage to $15/hour, you're now making $21,600 - well over the minimum threshold.  All of a sudden you must pay taxes, and legally, you must pay them via proper W4 exemptions.  Given that, and assuming you had 2 kids and filed single (since most  minimum wage harpers have at least 2 kids for some reason), your estimated tax is approximately $2600 every year.  So now, you're down to approx. $19,000/year.  
4. You're now paying a lot more into Social Security and Medicare like everyone else.  Federal was estimated at approx. $19,000/year.  So let's look at this a bit more.  Another $1,200 (approx.) for Social Security.  Another $300 (approx.) for Medicare.  So now you're down to $17,500/year.
5. Unless you live in one of 7 states, you're paying state income tax.  Let's take California - I mean that's where everyone wants to live, right? - so that's another $1,500  (approx.) for that sunshine.  So now you're down to $16,000/year.

Now, with those bullets, where's that leave you with your amazing minimum wage bump?  Approx. $1200/month take home.  Here's a funny fact: if you got a raise to $8/hour and worked full time,  you'd make slightly more than that.  That's right - an extra $1/hour would be the same from a financial standpoint vs. getting a $15 minimum wage if you're right now making $7/hour.  It just gets worse from there.

This is what is known as the Law of Diminishing Returns.  You're in a position where you are not required to pay as much tax, and end up making more money to where taxes nearly triple.  From a in-pocket perspective, you haven't benefited from the increase. The inevitable next step is to then ask for more money.  It becomes a domino effect from there - a slippery slope of failure and disappointment as those who don't understand the tax system start to feel that pain and realize that their "large wage increase" isn't as livable as what they had before.