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

  • Days Won


Everything posted by cc333

  1. @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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. No! I was speaking about Windows 10!!! c
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. It's funny, many of the reasons stated in that article for saying no to the LTSC are precisely the reasons why I'm saying yes! That helped. Thanks! I must say, MS has really ruined the whole experience for me! I remember saying that about the "new" Windows Vista control panel, but it still had some logic to it, and thus I was able to adjust to it over time (plus, it did genuinely get better in Windows 7, and even 8.1, for what it's worth, had some very good improvements, not only for the CP, but for the OS as a whole; too bad it got mostly cancelled out by all that Metro stuff), but this Settings app... everything's so obtuse and difficult to find it's driving me nuts! MS has become a master of obfuscation, and I can't stand it!! c
  13. I ended up downloading the ISO and installing it over the older version, so now I'm running build 17763.1. It was surprisingly easy. Everything appears to be more or less the same, other than more junk (not surprised), the traditional Personalize control panel from Wind 7 through 8.1 is gone (I don't like the one in the Settings app very much), and Aero Glass is broken (newest version, 1.5.9, seems to only support up to 17134; is a new version for 17763 in the works?) It's also quite sluggish compared to the old build. So now starts the fun part of stripping the junk out. Anyone have ideas on how I may accomplish that? Scripts? Apps (the Win32 kind)?? I suspect that, when I'm done, what I'll have will be essentially the same as the previous build I had installed (it was one or two beyond RTM... 1511?) c
  14. If you want to upgrade, install XP! XP is the best of the 9x and 2000 UI with somewhat modern underpinnings (10 has it beat in that particular regard, I'll admit). If it weren't for the fact that some of my software requires 7 as a minimum, I'd still be running XP! c
  15. Ah, 98SE! I really miss being able to simply install it and get online with the stock IE 5 (all but impossible nowadays). Windows 2000 with blackwingcat's extended core is a decent compromise. The UI is largely identical to that of 98SE, with a few additions and enhancements (and some new icons), but the architecture is much more modern (even without BWC's updates). Anyway, I have an odd question: how do I initiate a version upgrade? Like, say I want to upgrade Windows 10 from 1511 to the current version (1807?). How do I go about it without going through a bunch of rigamarole to download an ISO and reinstall (something I'm willing to do if need be, but would rather avoid if possible)? Since the world seems to be moving on, for better or worse, I feel I should at least be aware of new developments, and be able to play with them in a safe environment (an isolated VM on my MacBook) so I can help people out somewhat (my Windows XP/Vista/7 knowledge is becoming obsolescent). c
  16. And just as mysteriously as networking wasn't working, today it suddenly worked! Weird!! I didn't do anything! I see why people don't like this POJ of an OS! c
  17. Yes, it should. Be mindful of any Webextensions (or whatever they're called), though; PM doesn't support those. c
  18. I think I will do the same, if only because I like the older UI + ability to use some of my favorite themes of yore (for example: Moonscape, which is a port of Foxscape, is one of my favorite themes, and the last time I was able to use it was 2011 or so). current FF is still decent enough on Windows 7 and up, though. c
  19. I think what you discovered are backups of the files replaced during an IE8 upgrade, which are there to facilitate the downgrade back to IE6 (or 7), if one wishes. Nevertheless, I wonder if the old iexplore.exe can be modified to work more reliably with IE8's rendering engine? I'm also curious now if this would work in Windows Vista or 7 (with IE9 and 11, respectively)? Probably not, but it's worth a try nevertheless! c
  20. Wow! And to think, I only have one ThinkPad!! (can't recall the model#, though it's old enough to have native support and drivers for 98SE). c
  21. I just want to say this to satisfy my conscience, then we can let the issue rest: Yes, it was I who was reprimanded. My apologies to anyone who might've taken offense. You all have my word that it won't happen again. c
  22. @sdfox7Additionally to your statements being OT, they're probably not quite compliant with the forum rules (speaking of law). Nevertheless, I completely agree with you!-snip- then anything's possible! Enough said. c
  • Create New...