Jody Thornton

That's what I was always told jaclaz. Whatever the actual reason, the Windows 8 x64 DVD boots and starts setup. The installation for Windows 8.1 doesn't. No biggie. I'm hoping NoelC will chime in with his opinion too. Thanks guys. EDIT: I was saying Windows 8 "Classic" to make certain I was distiguishing from 8.1 (I have seen the lack of clarity trip up people). Penium Classic didn't exactly exist either, but I hate when people say "Pentium One" ... lol, so I followed in the footsteps of those few that used it.. I saw many people back two decades ago use the term "Windows 95 Classic" to refer to its original non-SR2 release, when I knew in reality it was just Windows 95. I just gave a psuedonym to Windows 8 for clarity.

Windows 8.1 has processor-specific demands like SSE2 and NX which aren't needed for 8 Classic. So vanilla 8 will run on my system. Regarding your comparison to 7, I think 8 runs better, faster and smoother than 7, and I like the somewhat flatter look. So even if I want to just use Windows 8 the way I'd use Windows 7, I actually prefer the feel of the environment a tad better. Just a curiosity Why would I use Classic Shell on Windows 7? I was thinking about how NoelC is running Windows 8.1 in a "frozen" time state (with no new updates). I figured that I would basically be in the same boat on Windows 8, and I would avoid all telemetry add-ons.

I have a serious question here. I posted this on the "Windows 8 Forums": If I were to install Windows 8 Classic, install Classic Shell for a Start Menu, conceal all Metro stuff, and run as Administrator (so in other words, I'm only going to use explorer based stuff; no metro apps), would there be anything I'd be missing from Windows 8.1? I know there's only IE 10, but I would be using Pale Moon anyway. I only ask because my xw8200 workstation could support the x64 version of Windows 8, but not 8.1

Hey Noel, how is this going so far? Any hiccups?

So I am curious. When were the latest updates installed? Or what have been the newest patches placed on your system? Was Update 1 installed? Where's the cutoff point?

Maybe because they're defaulting to an HTML5 player, no?

Funny how different the posts are here than on MSFN. Over there, they have a lot of bullying fan boys who very much dislike anyone who doesn't worship Windows 10. http://www.tenforums.com/windows-10-news/25838-old-control-panel-may-soon-gone.html

When I worked at Streamline in Brantford, Ontario, we deployed a LOT of DEC servers (Intel machines - not DEC Alpha ), mostly running SCO Open Server. Very tough machnes. I am a little concerned with HP doing its company split. I really like their workstations. In many cases, they can be used as small servers.

Just heard "I Ran" by Flock of Seagulls

The 4.3.404 build for Vista/7 x64 should work with current definitions. I run the x86 build of this on Server 2003.

When you say "spoofed" is that more like a user agent identifier, or can you now run IE9 in XP by doing this?

My experience was with an 80 GB partition (or less), FAT32 gave slightly better performance. I would DEFINITELY go NTFS once you exceed 120 GB, but also, NTFS is a more robust file system. Still FAT32 was faster on my XP installations, no doubt about it.

I won't. I'm enjoying the conversation a lot.

See that's the real question. I'll bet it's more shareholder steered. This move isn't ulitmately decided by tech-savvy staff. The shareholders probably are pushing Microsoft to "get with the times" to ensure a return. I'm not saying I agree Noel (please understand that). I just think that we're now an afterthought to Microsoft.

Well I'm not out of touch on that front Noel. I'm not trying to claim I have all of the answers. And I know that desktops are still plentiful in corporate environments. But many were adopting tablets three years ago. But guess what? Even that is fading. Phones are even more compact and suited to some tasks where a person is moved to a satellite or home office. Of course notebooks (and not desktops) take the first hit there. I'm not arguing that corporate desktop use is not still massive, but it's not an innovative area. I don't mean in terms of file system, server and OS improvements Noel. I mean in function. End users still link up to a web-delivered database, use email, and manipulate spreadsheets and documents. I've seen a lot of it Noel. And it will change. But you're wrong if you think I'm trying to fight with you. But a lot of people on tech forums get this idea that everybody still wants to use Windows. It's simply not the case.

Unfortunately, no disagreement here. Everyone wants instant gratification and entitlement. Hopefully we will come to our senses.

But how big of a chunk is "We" Noel? (by the way, please know I am not arguing with you or being hostile - just having a debate/discussion. ). Is "We" a big enough market to stake your future on? Will shareholders care? As long as they get their return when promised. If not, then "We" don't matter worth poop. Do you think millions care for the file system improvement that were originally promised for Vista? Or for prettier desktops (look how simple everything is becoming now - even the new Google logo is...lol) And I know you think I'm being narrow minded. I'm not. I run Vista still, so I know all about pretty desktops, and I even like them. I love good performance from my dual Xeon HP Workstation. But again, I'm part of that "we" group you spoke of. I do not typify an everyday person in 2015. Last year I bought my last LP (and I never just bought vinyl bacause it was back in fashion. I bought it throught the 90s and 2000s when it was NOT cool. I cannot tell you much I was laughed at even in 1989 and 1990 for buying LPs and singles) Take care Noel.

But youth isn't just accepting the "new normal". They have been asked time and again (check surveys, radio shows, etc...) and what they want is to have the localization and customization that Google and Apple affords them. Now you counteract that with, "Yes, but you do realize that for those services to be as effective as they are, Google and Apple need to gather information from you that compromises your privacy. don't you"? The response is a loud and resounding ....................... (wait for it) ........................... "MEH!" They just don't care. They want their features. Look Noel, I really ACTUALLY agree with you. But the Genie is out of the bottle now. People are now (not becoming - already are) dependant on things that on exist only because they willing to part with personal information. Privacy is becoming a past concept. It shouldn't be, but it is. Take the latest Ashley-Madison hack for example. Many belives the clients have no case to sue, because NO ONE should realistically expect absolute privacy on an online service. Do you hear that Noel? It is becoming foolish to think you have the right to expect online privacy. Now, you take Microsoft who (prior to Windows 8x) needed to catch up in this race because moblile products were leaving Windows in the dust. So they made a bold move with Windows 8 to incoporate an apps environment within and Explorer-based Windows. Sure it flopped, but they seemed to perhaps recovered a tad with Windows 10 even if just for a little while. They probably will never topple Google or Apple, but they need to be seen as trying to even have a chance of survival. There is NO future growth in desktop systems. NONE!

But there's the thing. It's demonstrated that MOST people don't need or even want the product that gets things done. They don't need full on office suite applications or audio production apps, or heavy photo publshing apps. They just need small tailored apps to get quick things done. Tablets and phones are not toys, and their OSs (even though I care not for them) aren't toys either. They fit the bill perfectly for what MOST people want to do. The term "MOST" doesn't represent us on tech forums. We are quite the minority. You might want to think most people are feeling turned against by Microsoft going in this mobile direction. But the truth is, most just don't care. They ditched Windows long ago. To them, Windows is something they have to use at work, and they are just pining for the day that their boss lets them use an iPad instead. I've seen it in action. Now you might say, "Today's tablet and phone addicts used to use PCs and Windows XP religiously. How did we lose them?" Because in 2004, websites were still the norm. In 2005 and 2006, YouTube videos had to be watched on a PC web browser. And you had to use a PC to get all of those songs on your iPod. (Hear that I never mentioned a Word document or an Excel Spreadsheet?) Fast forward to 2015, and there are Android/iOS apps to view YouTube, and to post on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. No one downloads MP3s anymore. They just play songs on YouTube. And, if they really did need to see a work-related document or spreadsheet, they can open it with Google Docs. See? They have everything they ever needed or wanted, WITHOUT being tied down to a PC or some dumb product called Windows (by the way, I don't think that, I'm just echoing the mindset of a millenial. ) - but you need to hear it.

Not that I agree with Microsoft's prying eyes, but doesn't Google do the same thing? The only way we have all of the customized Android and iOS options (like regionalized search or customized apps) is specifically because of data gathering. Ask most people to adopt a more secured user environment, and they'll kick and scream because they want the "always connected" convenience. Microsoft may not last, and this may be the beginning of the end for them. But they need to be seen by their shareholders as entering the mobile apps space. They need to be seen as using information as a way to draw growing revenue. So yes, Microsoft still needs a way to provide a way (for now) to run Explorer-based applications so you can still produce with them. But that's not where the future is - for anyone! Microsoft needs to chase the same space everyone else is? Since corporations and PC tech types want to stick with more conventional desktop designs, where is the revenue growth in that? There are no new ideas wanted here. (in fact, I'm sure most of us would be happier if Microsoft just kept supplying security and driver updates to allow new hardware to just keep runing on Windows 7 in perpetuity.) So Microsoft is catering to a market that embraces the idea of regularly turning things upside down. These types don't embrace "if it ain't broke; don't fix it". There's no adventure in that for them.

Haaaaaaaaaa! (That's clever)

Isn't that a wee bit strong? (LOL funny though) but they are trying to get everyone on a unilateral platform. Information gathering apps are going to be the way software companies make money in the future. Operating systems are just a means to an end in that respect, and while at it, provide the end user with the basic tools needed to achieve productivity. I don't think there's much farther you can go with a desktop, is there? Microsoft, even though they may fail at it because of their late entry, NEEDS to be in the mobility market. Desktop environment like conventional Windows are indeed necessary, but not growth industries. We may still need them in the office or for specialized work, but most people don't "want" them. In fact I know a lot of people, mostly women who've told me that they always hated computers but loved the Internet (I responded to that with "Huh?), but a phone or tablet gives them the joy of the Internet without having to use geeky computers or websites. Just use easily customized apps.

I want to agree that there's no buzz surrounding Windows 10. But over at tenforums.com (aside from the fact that there are a few fan boys), there seems to be a lot of joy over the OS. I'm personally just not stuck on it.

Actually I use Windows Basic out of choice, but still I might have used Chrome way back when if it had conformed to the UI (It does in Linux, so why can't it do so in Windows?)

I prefer Sumatra PDF. Any Adobe can bite me.