NotHereToPlayGames

I was not citing win32 directly, so unsure why his birthday has any relevance. Our own IT department extends the kernel of embedded XP applications that run some of our factory equipment. Guess my main point was that "knowledge learned" during the whole modding process is never a "waste of time", even if a mod is "short-lived" as far as useful for Year X but no longer useful for Year Y. I do think it is fair for this thread to not be locked in to any specific "older Windows 10 versions and RTM". Or any specific version of Chromium. My experience with Win10 is fairly new. At this stage, it is more of a "hobby project". 1511 not having an LTSB version is a minor concern. It definitely requires much more modding in order to make it a lean and mean OS. I am only one day in on modding my 1511 and already have it very close to my 1607 LTSB. Ungoogled Chromium v114 does work equally well in both 1511 and 1607. Will Ungoogled Chromium v200 still work in 1511? Don't know. Will that be 2 years from now? Or 10 years from now? Will Ungoogled Chromium v200 still work in 1607? Don't know. Will that be 2 years from now? Or 10 years from now? I am leaning on the side of 1607 becoming my new preferred OS. But it's also a bit too early to tell as this "hobby project" is just unfolding.

I don't see it that way. Modding shouldn't be regarded as "time wasted" simply because what is modded today will need performed again 2 or 3 years down the road. Today's Linux is nothing more than modified open-source "mods" of yesterday's Linux. Backporting Opera not intended to run on Vista or 7 and getting it to work on Vista or 7 should never be thought of as "time wasted". An "extended kernel" is nothing more than an evolving set of "mods". Nowhere near "time wasted". Tweaking and modding and optimizing an OS should be regarded as learning experiences, technological evolution, the computer equivalent of hiking a trail in a rain forest opposed to walking a treadmill at the gym. Extending a kernel is never "time wasted". I guarantee you that folks that "extend" kernels were tweaking and optimizing Win98 long before they were "backporting" Win10 functions to Vista, for example. I'm only "just now" migrating some (not all!) of my XP systems to Win 10. I guarantee you that the XP install I was using yesterday is not the same as the XP install I was using 20 years ago. And the learning experiences of tweaking and optimizing XP over the years only assists is tweaking and optimizing 10. Doesn't the gaming community tweak and mod in the spirit of competitive advantage? Should we view that as "time wasted"? (I cite that one as a bit of a pun).

There are days where MSFN is nothing more than a remake of West Side Story.

Can I claim that being an MSFN Member is punishment enough.

I found my 1511. Plan to test it compared to LTSB 2016 [1607] over the weekend. Did a "default" install in a VM and Ungoogled Chromium v114 works, that's the HIGHEST version I will need for the next SEVERAL years (technically v86 still meets ALL of my needs). Will require some very heavy tweaking and modding and debloating compared to LTSB.

Cathedra mea, regulae meae.

So Chromium 119 works on 1511 but does not work on 1507? So far, I'm not sure if I'm going to keep LTSB 2016 [1607]. When (and only when!) I resume from hibernate or perform a full restart, the first (and only first!) launch of any Chrome/Chromium browser (including Opera and Vivaldi) takes 16 to 34 seconds to launch! Sorry, but "unacceptable". Online reading suggests that MS Edge does not have this delay (but there is no "ungoogled" vesion of Edge and this is equally "unacceptable" for my preferences). Official Pale Moon does not have the launch delay but holy d@mn is it SSLLLOOOOOOWWW for EVERYTHING that a browser is supposed to be capable of doing.

Not likely, to be perfectly honest. While I do follow this thread [and respect the knowledge herein] (and basically "all" threads here at MSFN), I don't actually use "security programs" on ANY of my OSs. <side note - https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/Which-is-correct-OSs-OSes-or-OSs > <insert AstroSkipper's "to each their own" gif>

News to me. I didn't think this thread was dedicated to x86 "only". Unsure of what the split is on MSFN Members that run XP as to how many of them are x86 versus x64. I run x64 (Windows XP Professional x64 Edition) but had no clue that there are "two versions" of x64. Interesting. It is safe to say that no MSFN Member is running the "Itanium" edition.

Always makes me HAPPY TO READ. Especially with a very long and growing list of "posts" here at MSFN that like to remind us that much newer versions of Chrome shouldn't even be used. "We know already." Something like that. I have St52 at home and will test this player and "Google-ism" from St52 later today.

I do have an old 15xx LTSB lying around somewhere. May need to resurrect it. I thought it was 1507 instead of 1511 but I really don't remember without reinstalling it.

I feel like a "broken record", but don't care. Sad part is "you already know that".

I did see 6% boost on some benchmarks on LTSC 21H2, but slight decreases in other benchmarks. But I'm also still digging for some drivers before I can officially migrate to LTSC 2021 (if I end up migrating). Overall, it just doesn't seem that LTSC 2021 really gains me anything over LTSB 2016. Process count TRIPLES but even with the much higher process count in LTSC 2021, it does seem to perform "equally" (within margin of error) with LTSB 2016.

For my very old Asus X54C with Win10 LTSB 2016 [1607] - Passmark CPU Mark five-run-average (very tightly clustered, very good for statistics) scored 1343 (like I say, very old Asus X54C). The CPU Mark five-run-average (still very tightly clustered) improved to 1345 by disabling Spectre/Meltdown. Ugh, hardly worth the effort.

I've been recently comparing/contrasting Win10 LTSB 2016 [1607] with Win10 LTSC 2021 [21H2] (not to be confused with LTSC 2018 [1809]). The gaming community forums tend to prefer 1607 over 1809 but don't seem to discuss 21H2. But one thing of interest, the gaming community also often intentionally disables Spectre/Meltdown mitigation (intentionally making themselves "vulnerable") for a gaming performance IMPROVEMENT. Here is one analysis that cites 4% performance boost by running UNPATCHED - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC1WuKdPVCQ Here is a third-party tool to intentionally disable Spectre/Meltdown protection - https://www.grc.com/inspectre.htm Reminder that some of our HARDWARE provides Spectre/Meltdown protection. The added software layer only "slows down our computer" (not claiming "night and day", but there is a performance effect).

Can't! Disabled "feature" on company computers, as it should be I'm sure you'd agree. Can't enable it if I wanted to. But I also assume you were kind of asking "as a joke". Or do you report this type of stuff to Microsoft? I prefer to disable "error reports" on my home computers also. edit - but we are clearly getting further and further off-topic so "moving on", as the saying goes...

Ah, thanks. Will try that over the next couple of days or so. I do not update windows. Never have! Because it turns itself back on after a reboot.

Not on our corporate laptops. Our test lab test benches are a different story. We are admins of our own PCs in the test lab. Very limited internet access, of course. We have email and MS Teams. Corporate does our "updates". In all Windows versions prior to xxHy, you can simply disable Defender from Services, you cannot in xxHy. MS Defender has false positives on several of our vision system optical inspection equipment, several of our laser weld equipment, and several of our legacy ECU systems which control our dyne equipment. Technically, we are always several OS versions behind on all of our lab equipment. We do 'attemp' to start with the most recent OS on new equipment. It will very likely be two or three years before what we set up here in the lab (ie, LTSB or LTSC) hits the factory floor. Heck, a good 70% of everything on the factory floor still runs Embedded XP.

I was able to disable Defender and Base Filtering Engine via @tekkaman's suggested app to disable Window Updates. https://www.sordum.org/9470/windows-update-blocker-v1-8/ Edit the .ini file and add Defender and BFE to the list of services to disable. Though also in returning to this thread, I did forget to try Autoruns in Admin Mode (I generally never have to because my user account *IS* an "admin" account with full admin privileges).

While that may be, this "Windows Update Blocker" is the ONLY way I have found that SUCCESSFULLY disables DEFENDER (and BFE) in Win10 21H2 !!! The page you linked to for us to download it has a section on how to edit the .ini file to disable OTHER services also - this has been the ONLY thing I've found that can DISABLE DEFENDER. Thank you, thank you, thank you. While you may have only posted in regards to MS Updates, you solved my biggest issue preventing my upgrade from LTSB to LTSC. Even our corporate IT department was unable to disable DEFENDER and so several test benches have not been able to be upgraded. We have "legacy projects" from the '90s automotive industry that MS Defender will always flag and delete. MS Defender is a NIGHTMARE! Thanks again!

I'm not particularly worried/concerned, to be honest. While I am getting "use" out of that old Asus laptop, it's an "international" keyboard layout and I will actually "be happy" when it finally dies (I remap several keys because I keep accidentally hitting the wrong key with the "international" layout). Aside from a ThinkPad out in the garage used for turbo engine tuning, it's by far my oldest laptop and it was a FREEBIE. I prefer to use by freebies "oldest to newest". Kind of intentionally let the OLDER ones die first. There's one small problem with this logic though, I've never actually had a computer ever "die" - I just kind of have to "assume" that they eventually do! I mean, my circa 1986 Commodore C64 still works - but I cannot claim to turn it on every day, lol. I may upgrade this laptop from tweaked LTSB 2016 to tweaked xxHy to test this hybrid shutdown/hibernate issue. I'll have to verify graphis driver WDDM 2.4 availability first. I know that hibernate did not effect GPU-Z's temp sensors but I know that wasn't the original concern either. That desktop runs five widescreen monitors, I'd expect it to run a little hotter. But still not concerned. I didn't check that tower desktop, but I did <search engine of choice as a verb> around for the Asus X54C and several users report idle temps MUCH higher than mine. I also don't use any of my computers for any graphic-intensive games or whatnot so my "idle" and my "normal operating" are only a few degrees apart from each other.

I don't have a need to monitor CPU or GPU temps "full time, real time" but it's cool to check them out of curiosity every once in a while. I used to monitor CPU temp "full time, real time" and dynamically changed FSB clock speed based on computer activity. Idle temp for CPU was in the mid 20 deg C. Normal activity was low to mid 30 deg C. But web browser CPU and RAM usage is WAY higher than back when I monitored CPU. I guess one of these days I'll start monitoring CPU again just to watch what it does during spreadsheeting versus web browsing, et cetera. I only ever really monitored CPU back in the day because I was an "overclocker" but overclocked "dynamically", the computer ran UNDERclocked the majority of the time.

WinXP x64 desktop i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz has the CPU running at 39 deg C and its Nvidia GeForce GT 635 running at 46 deg C Win10 x64 laptop i5-6300U @ 2.4 GHz has the CPU running at 29 deg C and its Intel HD Graphics 520 running at 31 deg C Win10 x64 laptop i7-6820HQ @ 2.7 GHz has the CPU running at 29 deg C and its Nvidia Quadro P3000 running at 30 deg C Win10 x64 laptop i3-2310M @ 2.1 GHz has the CPU running at 48 deg C and its Intel HD Graphics 3000 running at 48 deg C -- GPU-Z's CPU and GPU both fluctuate IDENTICALLY, I suspect it's not being sensed correctly -- this laptop also does not use its internal display but rather feeds the HDMI input of a 42" television WinXP x86 desktop Q6700 @ 2.66 GHz -- GPU-Z isn't picking up CPU or GPU for its Intel G33 / G31 or for its Nvidia GeForce2 MX / MX 400

GPU-Z is showing my GPU at 49 to 52 degrees. No clue if that is "normal" range or not as I've never monitored GPU temp. Dislike having to HOVER over GPU-Z systray icon to get the temp, would prefer the number displayed in the systray. I used to monitor CPU temp but forget what I used but it was in the systray. I am not finding GPU temp in Win10's Task Manager (but I am also using 2016 Win10 and not any of the yyHx variants).

Depends on what you use your computer for. Ten years or so ago, it would take seven hours to convert a 4+ GB dvd movie to a 600 MB avi file on a computer that was five years old or so at the time. I can do that in 20 minutes now and my computer is ten years old with an HDD and not so much as an SSD. Ten years ago, I was on an AMD Athlon 64 and yep, it took seven hours to convert a dvd movie to a cd-r sized avi file. 420 minutes. My i7 is ten years old and it can do it in 20 minutes. Multi-thread, not single-process. So I guess that puts me in the "21x more productive" camp if you look at 20min versus 420min. But if you look at it from an 8hr job perspective, that is 1 movie per day for 5 days a week, so only 5 per week. Versus 3 per hour so 24 in an 8hr day times 5 days or 120 per week. That would be "24x more productive". Or something like that, lol. However, "work" is force times distance times the cosine of theta, so can a computer really even do "work"?