Jody Thornton

I guess no one found a way to get any kind of security patches past July, eh? Not that it would make any sense since Server 2003 is gone too. Just thought I'd check in.

Hey Jaclaz, I cannot confirm that the CPU instruction you mentioned is the culprit. However, I do agree with that word "demented" as a fair description of making an oh-so slight change to hardware requirements on what you correctly labelled as a service pack. Nonetheless, I'm still hoping NoelC will chime in on this thread. I know what he has done with his Windows 8.1 installation with much success (basically updating to a point where Windows still operates at an optimum fashion, and then stops updating). I would think that with Windows 8, I would get updates to January, then it stops as well, and I don't even have to block telemetry updates. So as long as I can live without whatever Update 1 brings to the table, it sounds like I'm good, until I switch out the machine.

Yes I know. Hence the thread title. But I figured if NoelC is running Windows 8.1 successfully without updates (so no telemetry BS), I'd basically be in the same boat as him, except I'd even get updates in to January 2016. Just was trying to rationalize moving to a newer version of Windows. I have had good experiences setting up 8.1 for friends. I wondered if I'd be equally happy with original Windows 8. Whoops -- I read the entire thread and then went back to reply to your post. By the time I got around to that, I'd forgotten the title of the thread! --JorgeA You should hear me laughing when I saw your blushy emoticon. No worries. I guess what I really want to know is (with Classic Shell installed), will I be able to hide charms, and run Explorer-style Windows 8 the same way as with Windows 8.1, and has the Update 1 on 8.1 fixed anything that I'd be hard-pressed to put up with on Windows 8 original.

If you have time and opportunity, please run the latest CPU-Z on it, so that, on knowing for sure what CPU is inside, we may pursue the reason why 8.1 doesn't like it, even if just to satisfy our collective curiosity. Here ya go!

If it's important to you, Microsoft stops supporting Windows 8.0 four weeks from now. --JorgeA Yes I know. Hence the thread title. But I figured if NoelC is running Windows 8.1 successfully without updates (so no telemetry BS), I'd basically be in the same boat as him, except I'd even get updates in to January 2016. Just was trying to rationalize moving to a newer version of Windows. I have had good experiences setting up 8.1 for friends. I wondered if I'd be equally happy with original Windows 8.

Well, this snippet is interesting: Would it be possible that the good MS guys are wrong or lying? jaclaz No I've known this for quite awhile Jaclaz. The processors in an HP wxw8600 (which shipped with Windows 7 in 2009) will run Windows 8.1. The xw8200 with P4-style Xeons will Blue Screen on boot. I can load Windows 8 setup, but I cannot load Windows 8.1 setup. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2058683/new-windows-8-1-requirements-strand-some-users-on-windows-8.html I was trying to find the extensive thread on eightforum.com where several users run into this issue unknowingly. Boy were they angry. Here's one: http://www.eightforums.com/installation-setup/34549-win8-1-upgrade-win8-0-8-1-2-computers-one-failed.html

I will - I know that I have two Netburst (P4-style) Xeon Processors at 3.68 GHz.. But I'll grab CPU-Z when I get a chance.

I love using it with Windows 8.1. That's how I have my friend set up.

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.