Jody Thornton

I know yesterday was patch Tuesday. I will get to it tomorrow morning. Been incredibly busy.

To be fair, I hope you know I wasn't citing your age as a means of questioning your ability or adaptability. I was simply using it as a market share or demographics label. I do think different age groups are influenced differently. No insult intended. I can easily tell you're wise. And no question that top-notch technology combined with greater abilities will provide superior results. I just question whether or not superior results will be much sought after. I think that we are already tailoring our form and function by the limits of available tech. In my sister's example, once an Excel guru, she now just settles for quick and dirty updates on Google Docs. So not only is she utilizing less from spreadsheet technology; there is likely less of a need to develop fancy macros for someone with this information, because the presentation of the spreadsheet doesn't really matter much any more. Where you hit the nail on the head was when you said "The root problem is that people who carry around mobile technology feel they're doing important things, when they don't really even have a handle on what's important. Or how hard you have to work to do something important." That's bang on. But unfortunately, they see what they do as already important enough. They don't long for any better. Notice how they ACTUALLY LIKE watching movies on their phone. Why on earth wouldn't they want to watch programs on a high definition larger screen, relaxed on their couch? Why would they prefer "on the run" as opposed to leisurely? I'll never understand, but that is the way it's going. I agree that Windows 10 isn't better. You don't need to preach to me :). Where we're both off the mark is thinking that most millennials even want ANY kind of windowing OS on x86-x64 architecture. Just because it provides superior and tweakable results, doesn't mean they even want it. Blue Ray offers superior HD video, and SACD blows away CDs. But consumers (largely youngers folks) never turned the page to read the next chapters in those sagas. Smartphone video and digital music will suffice, thank you. And yes, I think most vendors don't see profitability in providing programmable create it yourself solutions anymore. I think they either want to provide you with a completed solution. You being able to program and develop and customize doesn't allow Microsoft or Google to brand themselves with something instantly recognizable. Customization or choice interferes with branding and image, so they can't have that. The other thing is, an OS really is just becoming a conduit for apps and services. So it's really no longer the product. Please know though NoelC, I really do hear you.

It really doesn't seem that Microsoft is in touch with the real world, does it? It appears they've conceded to defeat on the mobile front, and they are putting more of their energy into the whole 3D creative bit on Surface tablets. It sounds fun, but it doesn't seem to be in line with what people are looking for. I would say, focus on making people like NoelC happy, and provide long term support for enterprise-class desktops (no need for anything innovative here - just keep it working on today's equipment), and then diversify. Maybe creat phone apps for Android, and return to being the software moguls they used to be.

You and I were discussing this before. I even quoted your post over at tenforums.com, just to see what the Windows 10 fan boys would say over there about your concerns (I guess I should have asked first, so sorry). And please understand that you and I are in pretty much complete agreement about what we should expect from a desktop OS. But you and I are a dying breed. You said once something to the effect of not letting millennials decide what you should want for a real desktop (or at least a real computing solution), but they already have: a looooooong loooooong time ago. First off, Microsoft cares not about your customizations or your Big Muscle Aero fixes. They want you to leave the interface alone. When you see a modern day screenshot of the default Windows 10 interface, that's what they want you to be acclimatized to thinking of when you create a mental image of what Windows is. When Ford advertises a new Mustang, they don't want you to imagine a classic 1965 model. Same applies here. I'm almost sure (I'm just being smart-a** here, but maybe not) that if Microsoft could, they would send you a cease and desist letter to stop customizing their beautiful interface, and quit misrepresenting Windows by posting screenshots on MSFN. I think that reflects their thinking, doesn't it? But I digress. You mentioned previously that you can't fathom how no one would need serious machines to do serious development and work on, am I right? or close enough? But as more millennials and frankly middle age folks below 55 embrace mobile technology, and abandon the desktop model, less and less need exists for desktop application development. Now there is one thing that perplexes me, I'll admit. If Microsoft is hoping that the Modern UI penetrates the entire OS, and basically blows away the Explorer shell completely, so that Windows can becomes a completely mobile touch OS, then why did they give up on Windows Phone so easily? Isn't that a big part of creating a mobile ecosystem that can compete with Android and iOS? You were referring to full featured desktop solutions as "state of the art" computing, correct. Now, a little off topic, but just go with me here. I'm a long time hi-fi buff. Sadly, very very few people care about state of the art any more. Turntables have had a tad of a comeback, but most people are fine with mobile digital players (basically a smart phone component now). Contrarily, I would think it be odd to live in a residence where there isn't somewhere I could find a pair of speakers almost as tall as I am, or a turntable for spinning tunes. But that's because I listen to music the way I did in the 80s. Most people think that hi-fi equipment lays waste to their home, but at one time, people were envious over it. I rarely hear gamers looking at top-flight video hardware or overclocking CPUs anymore. Even five years ago (maybe even just three) I still heard about that a lot. They all use game consoles now. Because no one uses Windows like us oldsters do (and some of these people I speak of that have abandoned Windows: they sometimes are in their forties). My sister is 45, and never uses Windows at home. It's her Samsung Galaxy all the way. Need to see a spreadsheet? She can open it Google Docs, and she doesn't miss the big screen or full size keyboard. Me? I'd be lost, and I'd feel it was a compromise. But again, I'm a dyin ----- never mind, I'm gonna go play a record.

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa! That's classic!

See, I don't think these companies look at this from a perspective of "we don't care any more about XP". You're saying that Google basically "has it in" for XP. There's nothing personal about it. Perhaps Google has development plans coming very shorty, and they definitely know that it will not work with XP. So force the change now and create the incompatibility now (even if it's an artificial at the moment) so that Google users will not even consider XP as a usable platform for Google products. And send the memo to both Vista users, so that they know as well. Now, Google makes a big big change to HTL5 video applets or makes a big change in Chrome. Guess what the two things are that they now DON'T have to do (which saves hours of testing and money, and that last point will make shareholders happy), they don't have to test the rollout on XP or Vista. So if FranceBB complains that Google Drive doesn't work - well that's OK, because it wasn't supposed to. And saying that XP is special because many millions of users still run the OS, will just make Google say, "Then why are you"? If Google had a personal vendetta against XP, then why did they update Chrome and allow it to run on XP until April 2016? There is your answer right there. They did so until it wasn't feasible for them to do so anymore. They weighed the man hours and cost against the market share and said, "Hmmmm, seems most people use smartphones and Windows 7, so let's focus on Android and NT v6x, ... er except Vista, just because it's not a going concern". That's all there is to it.

Phantogram from the summer with "You Don't Get Me High Anymore"

That would be my BIGGEST concern. Now I understand why Microsoft (in addition to most other tech companies) feels that desktop computing is no longer a priority. I hate it too, but mobility is where it's at, and I don't see it changing. Young people 40 and under just are NOT voluntarily using PCs. Anecdotally, all I see are devices. They only use Windows 7 at work because they have to, and even that's changing slowly. So, since I know I'm not along with the tide of popularity, I'll stay with a Windows OS release that seems under the radar a bit. That "a**-emblers" crack was quite clever.

How did the OP get USB working? Was it just for mouse support, and has that been added by someone experimentally? Would Firefox 2x be just as cumbersome to use as Internet Explorer 6?

Nope I completely think it's valid. Funny I was just posting on the XP forums, and there are times that I felt that I wasn't able to post my two cents on here. But for example, I no longer condone running XP, so I express it (and yes the same caveats apply - YMMV and all that) but at some point you should be able to state what's on your mind point blank. That's what makes us all different. I am enjoying Windows 8 though Dencorso. Come 2023, I'm not quite sure what I'll do. Maybe I'll keep a disconnected Windows box around for my older audio apps, and go Linux for Internet. But it's nice to have them integrated. Or one never knows, just like I've had a change of heart on XP (which I used to love) and Windows 8 (which I originally loathed), maybe changes may come around in Windows 10 that may draw me to the OS. Could that possibly happen?

Can you really disagree with that though? The ESR release will run on XP and Vista for quite some time. Besides newer mainline versions will likely lump in together stuff that XP won't want or need anyway. Isn't being able to run Windows XP until 2019 good enough? Would you REALLY want to still run it past then? It will be 18-year old software then. And before you say I'm being disparaging with my remarks to XP users, yet you're thinking, "Wait, didn't this guy fret over security issues when XP ran out of support two years ago?". And yes, you'd be right. Windows XP x64 Edition was likely one of the best environments on my HP xw8200. It was a perfect match. .... but that was two years ago, and things change. Windows 8, when tweaked (and even Vista to an extent) are WAY BETTER environments to perform daily work on. And you have to adopt the mindset that times move on for hardware too. I used to be one of those that HATED how much bloat the Component Store (WinSxS folder) took up in Windows Vista and higher. I HATED when others said, "15 GB is now the norm for an OS installation and HDD space is plentiful, so get used to it." Because in my mind, even XP's 3 GB footprint was too much. .... but then I realized, wait! The Component Store actually makes sense. It really does cure DLL Hell, and so what if it's a bloated method of doing this? It works. And now with Windows 8, I can clean the wasted space in The Component Store quite easily. Plus hardware has come a long way. So an OS REQUIRING 2 GB of RAM is really no big deal. It used to irk, and then I asked, Why? So what? So I no longer am bothered that RAM and disk requirements are higher. I would never use less than 4 GB of RAM nowadays any way. Go to the Windows 8 forum on here, and see all of the effort that NoelC (who seems quite brilliant in a lot of ways, and has a very sensible approach to things) is putting forth to getting the most out of Windows 8.1. It really is quite a notch above XP. I'm not saying don't use XP. But saying it's the most secure OS out there, or wanting to use "XP Forever" is a stretch. Saying that since no security apocalypse has maligned XP over the last two years, that means that security concerns are FUD, I can't agree with that. We have nuclear power plants in Pickering, Ontario and I do believe they pose a certain level of danger. Is that any less true because there hasn't been an explosion yet? Again, it's just a change of mind, and I feel that I've learned to see Windows NT 6x as having merit, and I suppose that I'm starting to understand why Windows XP is rightfully being left behind. No harm meant, but I will express my opinions likewise.

Gosh between audio and tech forums, I'm on a ton of them: All of the DM Forums for Windows Vista, 7, 8 and 10. There is the Windows XP Forums at xpforums.com Pale Moon Forums, Mozilla Forums and K-Meleon Forums MSFN Forums TapeHeads and AudioKarma, Canuck Audio Mart, BoomBox Forums, SOWNY (for radio), and Quad Cities Radio Forums Radio Discussions Forum Cheers!

But from what I've seen in recent documentation, Server 2008 (non-r2) will be shifting to unified servicing as well. I'm sure if Server 2012 updates work on Windows 8, that also Server 2008 patches will work on Vista too. (er, I hope)

Other than the ICMP and Japanese character-mapping issues, it appears I've got everything else covered with the Security Only updates. Thanks for that link greenhillmaniac

I'm surprised that there was no separate .NET Monthly Rollup https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2016/08/15/introducing-the-net-framework-monthly-rollup/ Also the Monthly Rollup includes "Reliability Updates". What exactly are those? Drivers? I just can't be sure.

Well it worked. Both the Flash and Security Only update installed without issue. So I wonder what I passed up by not installing the Monthly Rollup for October? Now a tad off-topic, but what does the mean for Vista come April 2017? Vista retains the old separate update model, while the classic release of Server 2008 adopts the unified update model. I wonder if Server 2008 Security Only updates will install to Vista?

My bad: The IE 10 update is included in the security only update. Silly me.

I was about to post similarly. Now before I install, as of ** right now ** what is the difference between the Security Only and the Monthly Rollup? As of right now, should they not be identical? The Monthly Rollup is slightly bigger. For the test I have only downloaded the Flash, IE10, and Security Only. From what I understand, the .NET updates are included in the Security Only. So if I had v3.5 installed, I'd only need the single file. Here we go!

Well it's not up on the page yet (11:26 am EST) I'll keep checking.

Tomorrow we shall see if this experiment survives the unified update model. My concern is that perhaps with the new rollup format, Microsoft may introduce checks on Server 2012 rollups that will identify Windows 8, and halt installation. I will try extracting the updates with 7-zip to see what's inside. Perhaps standalone installers for each updates can be extracted and ran separately. Tomorrow will tell.

Actually when I used XP x64, I used the Vista/7 64-bit MSE and it worked fully. And I used the x86 version of the Vista/7 install on Server 2003. I know that the Server 2003 arrangement I described still updates on v4.4.304. I just wondered if the XP x64 setup still did.

Well Frank Barone (of Everybody Loves Raymond fame) was supposedly told he required a cone of silence when he felt "Bad Frank" coming on.

I don't believe ANY telemetry updates are available on Windows Server 2012 (initial version). There were none on Windows 8. Now I'm curious as to what will happen on Patch Tuesday in October. Will I only be able to download rollups? Will they be reworked so that they will ONLY install on Windows Server 2012? In a couple weeks I'll find out.

And I just learned in another thread that XP x64 Edition is still supported by the 64-bit variant of Waterfox. I wonder if the Vista/7 version of MSE still works on it.

Wow, really? Now all you need is the classic theme restoration add-on to rid of Australis