Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Bronze Sponsor
  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

61 Excellent

1 Follower

About cc333

Profile Information

  • OS
    XP Pro x64
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. cc333

    Update Win 7, or Not ?

    @quadriped True points, but thanks to @roytam1, we have a fork of Pale Moon which runs wonderfully, and there are still some Antivirus programs which still get definition updates. c
  2. @Jody Thornton MS's quality control is just a steaming mess of uselessness nowadays, it seems. Consequently, it also seems like a very bad idea to use average users (via the Windows Insider program) to test new updates! It's probably a stingy business decision designed to maximize profit margins, as it would appear that there was no other reason to cut the QA team at all, was there? Anyway, I decided to upgrade to 8.1 after upgrading my PC to Skylake (it had been based on Westmere previously), but mostly because I had to give up my beloved 7 and XP installs (the XP install simply won't work, and the 7 install could, except it's yelling at me, saying my license is counterfeit when it isn't). I plan to somehow repair the 7 install eventually, but I'm going to try to bite the bullet and use 8.1 for awhile to see how I like it. That is, when I'm not using macOS Sierra (my PC is also a Hackintosh ) That being said, I'll probably be hanging out in this forum somewhat more now, so I can follow up on the latest updates and tweaks. c
  3. cc333

    Update Win 7, or Not ?

    @greenhillmaniac Yes, but are POSReady 7's updates compatible with plain 7, either directly or with minor modifications? If they are, then you're correct! c
  4. cc333

    Update Win 7, or Not ?

    I agree with all of you. It's just FUD. I highly doubt that 7 will suddenly stop booting when it hits its EOL (it would be a very insidious thi0ng indeed if that were to happen). XP never did (I bought into the hype at first, but I've since smartened up, and now I use it (well, XP x64) in a VM on my MacBook semi regularly to do "PC things"). In fact, thanks to the efforts by roytam and other's (not to mention the POS hack) it's still quite alive and well, and, with so many talented and dedicated people, it will remain so for many years to come (as will Vista, 7, and 8.x). An OS is only worthless when it loses all software support; this happened with Win2k; it is largely the same as XP, and indeed, at first, many programs, unless specifically written for one version or the other, were 100% compatible with both. After XP SP2, however, it and 2k diverged quite a bit, with the eventual result being that they became mostly incompatible with one another on an API level (2k-era programs mostly ran fine on XP, but but trying to run many XP programs (aside from the simplest) on 2k was hit or miss). Again, thanks to Black Wing Cat, this disadvantage has been largely negated (many things still don't work 100%, but the important stuff does, like newish browsers). TL;DR is that when there's a certain percentage of very dedicated people who want to use a certain Windows version, no matter how unsupported it may become, they'll find a way to make it work. c
  5. cc333

    Blue Screens around the world

    Is this real?! c
  6. I'd wager that most modern-ish GPUs won't support anything before 7, *maybe* Vista (with much rigamarole) if you're lucky. This is via official drivers, of course. As for the unofficial ones (such as BWC's), I don't have a clue. c
  7. cc333

    How to use 4 Cores in Windows 2000

    I'm not sure of its legitimacy, but I have read that there's a *super* rare version of Windows 2000 Datacenter Server which is 64-bit (I think it was called "Limited Edition" or something similar, and only ran on Itanium CPUs). Perhaps if someone can find a copy of that, it can shed some light on how it compares to 32-bit 2k, allowing for ways to mod the 32-bit 2k kernel/user land to incorporate some 64-bitness? Another way might be to examine Windows 2k3, but that one's different enough that I don't expect it to be very relevant (else someone would've thought of it by now). That being said, modding 2k to run most XP-era stuff (and maybe some Vista/7-specific stuff too) is still more than enough to ensure that it'll remain relevant for at least several more years, as most Windows software still supports 32-bit CPUs, to an extent. That, in my mind, renders 64-bitness somewhat pointless in most cases (the only case where it would be genuinely useful is to allow more addressable RAM, but we have PAE for that). c
  8. cc333

    Official - Windows 10 Worst Crap Ever!

    Yes, it's a really strange situation where Windows 10 actually works as it should *rolleyes* I have 1809 on my VM, and it seems to be working OK, although I don't use it much (it's only really there so that if someone has a question about Windows 10, I can answer it without sounding unsmart). c
  9. cc333

    Windows 10 - Deeper Impressions

    OK, you got me there. I meant to edit that to read "Including Windows 10:" Sorry. Anyway, it would appear that 1500 Insiders actually were affected by this bug, but for some reason, MS didn't catch it despite said insiders submitting bug reports. Source. c
  10. cc333

    Windows 10 - Deeper Impressions

    No! I was speaking about Windows 10!!! c
  11. cc333

    Windows 10 - Deeper Impressions

    Agreed. Nothing positive to say... As for Windows 10, it's pitiful that Micro$oft can't seem to fix this obvious file deletion bug *before* releasing the update! I suppose Windows as a Service isn't necessarily a bad strategy (Apple has been doing essentially that with their OS X for the better part of a decade now, and it works surprisingly well (their software's quality has suffered a bit too, but not nearly as much)), but their approach to debugging and testing is totally flawed, it would seem. I, too, am glad I stuck with Windows 7. I do have 8.1, which is more 10-like, but without some of the headaches (such as forced security and driver updates (which needlessly break things and make using the OS miserable for those who actually care to use it for serious stuff) and mandatory biannual feature upgrades (same deal). c
  12. I think that it's a lot of effort to get Windows 10 to roughly resemble 7, which resembled itself () out of the box! And if that weren't bad enough, these forced feature updates arbitrarily break compatibility with tweaks that make 10 tolerable and reset settings (many of which relate to privacy and security, coincidentally) that should be left alone. *every 6 months!* c
  13. cc333

    Windows 10 - Deeper Impressions

    I think @viniferahit the proverbial nail squarely on the head. It's easier and cheaper to fire hundreds of QA workers, and drop support for all but the latest version, which changes every 6 months. From a business perspective, it might be a good thing, but the quality of their products is suffering dearly. Apple, for what it's worth, has had a similar model for awhile now, and their software quality is managing to remain somewhat steady (it, too has suffered from reductions in quality, but not quite as severely). c
  14. cc333

    Windows 10 - Deeper Impressions

    This is what happens when a company relies on amateurs for beta testing instead of trained and experienced professional programmers. Bugs still happened, but they seemed to be much less severe and much smaller in scope (notable exceptions to this exist, I'm sure... I just can't think of any ) There's a lot to be said about waiting a year or more for a piece of software to be tested and properly matured (and thus properly debugging it) before releasing it to the public. All this fast-tracking has been lowering the overall quality of most software considerably over the last 7 years or so. In my opinion, anyway. And long term stability is important too. Having an OS that constantly updates itself, with no way for the user to control or stop the process, introduces a lot of variables that can make the OS inherently less stable. There is an upside, I suppose, in that important fixes or new features that are genuinely useful can be released much more rapidly. Isn't that what monthly hotfixes were for? Somehow, we as users of Windows managed to get by with the old, supposedly inferior OS update/upgrade model for many years. What makes this new, rapid release model so much better? So far, all I've seen are countless examples of why it's broken and more difficult to manage (pretty much every time there's an update now, I've noticed that something important breaks, and the update is withdrawn and re released with fixes, where if they'd take the time to test more thoroughly (like they used to), they could've gotten the updates right the first time). Having monolithic update packs, whose contents are inseparable from one another, doesn't help, because one bad update in the pack can spoil the rest of them. The old model, for any flaws it may have, at least was predictable and mostly reliable. c