UCyborg Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: "Nobody is listening." Screaming into the void. Shouting into the wind. Honestly, this place, as many others, in the end, they all become echo chambers. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NullEntity Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 All I can really say about this chromium stuff being hacked onto old windows 10 versions is that its making my head spin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 6 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: Until when-and-only-when we see a Google Bug Report specifically cite MSFN, then NO, they don't base their development from our "rants". That's not what I said. We can't say yes or no. A Boolean evaluation is not possible. Both is possible. That's what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 So Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead, got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 (edited) 14 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: So Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead, got it. This is true if we were talking about quantum physical states. But a theory in the macroscopic space (and that's what we are talking about) can only have one of two states, either true or false. We have to prove it. Until we have done that, we cannot say yes (true) or no (false). But both at once, as in the quantum physical world, that cannot happen in the macroscopic world at all. Edited September 19 by AstroSkipper Linguistically revised for clarity 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 Agreed. Coincidence ≠ Proof Q.E.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 (edited) On 9/18/2023 at 11:14 PM, NotHereToPlayGames said: Coincidence ≠ Proof That's right. But of course, no proof also does not mean a theory is incorrect. Think, for example, of Fermat's Last Theorem! Edited October 10 by AstroSkipper Update of content 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonyu Posted September 23 Share Posted September 23 (edited) On 9/13/2023 at 11:16 AM, TSNH said: Basically these are the key differences: Disadvantages of 1511: No LTSB version .NET Framework 4 is limited to 4.6.2. Most developers have already moved to .NET 5+ versions which do work. I haven't done any performance tests are you sure? don't believe the truth Net Framework 4.8 can be installed on 1511 / 10586 Edited September 23 by sonyu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSNH Posted September 26 Share Posted September 26 (edited) On 9/23/2023 at 2:42 AM, sonyu said: are you sure? don't believe the truth Net Framework 4.8 can be installed on 1511 / 10586 Since Windows 8.0 .NET Framework are being installed using Windows Update .cab packages which are designed for specific OS builds and not build-neutral .msi installers. So it's kind of like with Windows 8.0 (both did't receive any update past 4.6.2) except that 8.0 had a Server equivalent with the same build number while 1511 does not. If you know how to install Windows updates on Windows version with different build numbers then please let me know, that would be a huge breakthrough! EDIT: Apparently this has already been achieved Edited September 26 by TSNH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxon Posted September 26 Share Posted September 26 5 hours ago, TSNH said: Since Windows 8.0 .NET Framework are being installed using Windows Update .cab packages which are designed for specific OS builds and not build-neutral .msi installers. So it's kind of like with Windows 8.0 (both did't receive any update past 4.6.2) except that 8.0 had a Server equivalent with the same build number while 1511 does not. If you know how to install Windows updates on Windows version with different build numbers then please let me know, that would be a huge breakthrough! EDIT: Apparently this has already been achieved Chrome doesn't require those to be installed to run on any versions of Windows 10. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cockatiel Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 On 9/26/2023 at 12:56 PM, TSNH said: Since Windows 8.0 .NET Framework are being installed using Windows Update .cab packages which are designed for specific OS builds and not build-neutral .msi installers. So it's kind of like with Windows 8.0 (both did't receive any update past 4.6.2) except that 8.0 had a Server equivalent with the same build number while 1511 does not. If you know how to install Windows updates on Windows version with different build numbers then please let me know, that would be a huge breakthrough! EDIT: Apparently this has already been achieved abbodi1406 has made an installer of .net 4.8 for 10 1507 and 1511, and it works perfectly, although you need to install it from windows pe with powershell support, but otherwise, it works pretty well, here is the link to the installer https://github.com/abbodi1406/WHD/raw/master/scripts/dotNetFx48-1507_1511_refresh.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted October 9 Author Share Posted October 9 Someone already tried Chromium dev.120.0.6047.0 (1205234)? • Wednesday, 4 Oct 2023 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjd79 Posted October 18 Share Posted October 18 It still works without modification. I think the lack of support for version 118 in Windows 10 1507 was simply a mistake by the developers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted October 18 Author Share Posted October 18 Could be they were simply ashamed, when we caught them lying. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cocodile Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 The transition to the minimum Win10 1607 is inevitable. "Support for Windows 8 and for Windows 10 before 1607 is now dropped" https://qutebrowser.org/doc/changelog.html The fact 120 Chrome started to work seems more like a temporary bug. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now