EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: Cloud on April 03, 2019, 09:09:26 am
-
Are they any useful electronics programs that still haven't been updated to work on windows 10?
-
By the title of the thread i would have assumed you HAD such a list.
Since you are asking, why don't you ask directly which electronic programs you are using, that you fear you won't be able to use anymore if you upgrade to windows 10?
-I've had no issues yet with various CADs and simulators-
-
I have no idea.
Why are you asking? Are you considering upgrading to Windows 10 and are worried some of the programs you currently use won't work?
I use LTSpice, at home under Linux/WINE, at work under Windows 7 and occasionally at my parent's house on their PC, which runs Windows 10. I've found LTSpice performs worse under Windows 10, than any other system. It's even more stable under Linux/WINE, although it does crash occasionally.
I occasionally use Proteus at work, again under Windows 7, but not at home: I haven't done any hobby PCBs for ages and would probably use KiCAD or stay at work and do it after hours using Proteus if needs be.
My advice is don't bother with Windows 10. Migrate to Linux if you can. It's now a perfectly viable desktop OS and most problems can be easily resolved, without reinstalling it. Last night I had a problem logging in to MATE desktop after a crash: I got the "could not update .ICEauthority" when logging on. At first I thought I'd needed to reinstall, but I got out my phone, Googled the error and found a fix in five minutes: just delete the .ICEauthority file, so I renamed it, using the command like and was able to log into the desktop with no problems. This is the first such problem I've had in nearly three years of using Linux as my primary OS and it was easily fixed.
-
We are being threatened with windows 10 upgrade but I am strongly against it so I am looking which programs I could use as bias to not upgrading ;D
Linux is not applicable since my work is mostly done in Altium. I was hoping that some old programs like filter lab wouldn't work but it works perfectly on W10 :(
I'll do comparison in LTSpice between W7 and W10
-
Well, many CAD/EDA programs will be unsupported on Windows 10 if you haven't updated them in a while (updating can be costly). Doesn't mean they won't work. But the perspective of using unsupported software in a professional setting is often a good motivator. If you are in such a situation, just make it clear to your management with the vendor's statement that it's not supported, then get a quote for upgrading your software, and watch the reaction.
As for Altium, AD is officially supported on Windows 10 since version 15 so, you'd have to use a pretty old version to use that as an argument.
But again, do not let the fact that "it works" on Windows 10 deter you: look for official statements from software vendors, and use that.
-
My advice is don't bother with Windows 10. Migrate to Linux if you can. It's now a perfectly viable desktop OS and most problems can be easily resolved, without reinstalling it. Last night I had a problem logging in to MATE desktop after a crash: I got the "could not update .ICEauthority" when logging on. At first I thought I'd needed to reinstall, but I got out my phone, Googled the error and found a fix in five minutes: just delete the .ICEauthority file, so I renamed it, using the command like and was able to log into the desktop with no problems. This is the first such problem I've had in nearly three years of using Linux as my primary OS and it was easily fixed.
Definitely. Also check if the program doesn't run under Proton, as there are now a significant number of games that didn't run on Wine that now run flawlessly on Proton, so high end graphical stuff like CAD software might work under Proton.
I adopted Linux as a primary operating system, probably almost a year ago, and for me at least, I've found that I've rarely ever had a problem I couldn't fix with just looking it up.
What I will say if you aren't prepared to learn something about how Linux works and is arranged, then you won't get the experience that I nor many other people advertise, and you'll end up like a couple of people on the AfterNET fan channel who might just have trouble installing something as simple as VICE.
-
I'm not aware of any standard desktop apps that work on Windows 7 but not on Windows 10 (I've been running Windows 10 as my sole OS since it was in preview). The only issues would be apps that use custom device drivers, as Windows 10 has significantly increased the security requirements for kernel-mode drivers.
-
At my employer, we used a Mentor Graphics program for schematic capture and PCB layout. Individual EE's (like me) have the schematic capture part but only the layout folks have the PCB layout parts. This was recently upgraded to DXdesigner. Lots of teething issues in the transition of that.
My last new design scratch project was in 2015 with a rev in 2017. I got my most recent company issue computer in Jan 2018 and it had Win7 on it. But in all of '18 I had no reason to use Mentor Graphics. December of '18 they were pushing out Win10 to the department and I elected to do it over the 1 week shut down over the holidays as otherwise a 2-4hr lockout of the computer that could happen at some random time.
Then, early February a memo comes out that they stopped pushing out Win10 to the department since not compatible with DXdesigner? I've not tried to run it so don't know what the issue is. Told my boss somewhat in jest that I guess I cannot work on any new or revisions for the time being!
-
Older Autodesk apps (MAX 2010 and earlier, Autocad 2010 and earlier) will not work on 10 due to some weird .NET objects being used.
-
The forced update thing is problematic for automated test machines, but I think the enterprise version allows the administrator to control the update schedule just like with the previous versions.
-
We are being threatened with windows 10 upgrade but I am strongly against it
Why? W10 is decent.
-
We're in the middle of a Win 7 to Win 10 migration project at work and it's going really well so far, there's a few bits of software that aren't compatible but that's because the business hasn't spent the money to upgrade them, other than that, it seems faster, more responsive and it works.
Have to say, the enterprise/corporate versions of Win 10 are a different animal to the home versions (which are hateful), you may be pleasantly surprised.
-
We are being threatened with windows 10 upgrade but I am strongly against it
Why? W10 is decent.
Many people here would disagree. (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/windows-is-getting-disgusting/) I think Windows 10 is horrible and would never install it on my own PC.
-
Windows 10 may leak intellectual property given it spies on everything you do, I would bring that up. They might actually care about that.
-
Windows 10 may leak intellectual property given it spies on everything you do, I would bring that up. They might actually care about that.
So staying on an old version of windows until its no longer supported and will be full of security issues is clearly the better option then...
Even if that were the case, it is not OPs concern in the slightest, that is for IT to decide.
-
Windows 10 may leak intellectual property given it spies on everything you do, I would bring that up. They might actually care about that.
Microcunt really have gone total retard with Winblow$ 10!
I can understand the add/spyware, which is needed for them to make money, as they can't get enough people to buy their shitware, but what the hell are they don't with the UI? In the past M$ has insisted on a common look and feel across Winblow$ programs, which was seen as an advantage over Linux, but now they've dropped it. There are the Metro crapps which look totally different to the traditional ones. They can't make their mind up whether they want it to be a desktop or tabled OS. They really need to have two different versions for desktop and tablet use.
-
Windows 10 may leak intellectual property given it spies on everything you do, I would bring that up. They might actually care about that.
So staying on an old version of windows until its no longer supported and will be full of security issues is clearly the better option then...
Even if that were the case, it is not OPs concern in the slightest, that is for IT to decide.
It's behind the corporate firewall/router, just make sure uPNP is disabled and use other proper security practices. Relying on updates for security has never been a very good model, as there is never an update that is final. Stuff is always out of date. When a vulnerability gets patched, it means that vulnerability has existed for many years prior. Proper setup should ensure that it was not exploitable in first place. Ex: not facing the internet directly.
Of course it's best to try to keep stuff up to date, but when the up to date version sucks so much sometimes you have to compromise. Hopefully MS releases a more business oriented and usable OS at some point when Windows 7 is no longer supported. Not holding my breath though, they've gone completely off their rocker.
And yeah that UI sucks, I can't stand it. Too much white and too much wasted space. I should not have to use scroll bars to use a dialog box (ex: display settings) that back in the day fit fine on a 800x600 screen.
-
Well that's because 600x800 is no longer an acceptable screen resolution. My phone has a screen with over double that resolution.
-
Windows 10 may leak intellectual property given it spies on everything you do, I would bring that up. They might actually care about that.
So staying on an old version of windows until its no longer supported and will be full of security issues is clearly the better option then...
Windows 10 is a "security issue." What difference does it make if my PC is trashed by a virus or by Windows Update?
The last virus I got was called happy99.exe, when I accidentally plugged a NIC on a brand new Windows 98 installation into the wrong side of the firewall. It took about 15 minutes to recover from that. On the other hand, the last Windows Update patch I installed cost me the better part of a day, spent trying to get my secondary monitor working again.
The monkeys are running the zoo in Redmond these days. Everyone who was any good has long since cashed out.
-
Well that's because 600x800 is no longer an acceptable screen resolution. My phone has a screen with over double that resolution.
But it's no excuse to make everything bigger for nothing. The whole idea of bigger resolutions is to have more screen real estate, but they keep making UI elements and dialogs bigger and bigger to the point that you practically need 4k to use windows 10. The use of space is horribly inefficient in windows 8/10.
-
Windows 7 is on the verge of dying and no sane company is going to migrate to Windows 8.1 at this point in time, only to do it again in 3 years time. Migrating to another OS is expensive and risky as there are more question marks and new software purchases and personell may not cope.
-
Windows 10 may leak intellectual property given it spies on everything you do, I would bring that up. They might actually care about that.
Professional versions of Windows 10 allow you to turn this off, although that's still a matter of trust. As mighty as Microsoft is I don't think it can afford being caught snooping in enterprise environments when explicitly told not to.
-
Windows 7 is on the verge of dying ...
I don't think so. Still approximately the same market share as W10, which is remarkable since all the new computers come with W10.
I'll never going to use W10. W10 has a screwed up user interface, is very buggy, and you don't have any control of what it's doing. It is now only a matter of time until it starts serving targeted ads.
I'll hang to W7 as long as I can, and then it's Linux. They may, of course, screw up future CPUs/Motherboards so that they only can run Windows, but that's a different question.
-
I use tons of softwares / scripts hacks etc ..... to silence windows 10, but they are a few things left who cant be silenced
The Entreprise version is supposed to be the best to kill almost every telemetry services with registry and policy group ... the others dont.
I run on Win 10 pro for workstation, use win10 privacy and o&o shutup 10, they do a good job
M$oft has played us a good trick in declaring windows 10 as a service, we will never geting back what we had in the ''old and reliable" os'es
Tried a few linux variants, some of them are very good / fast / light / reliable, some of them can run windows apps in a vm ...
-
I don't think so. Still approximately the same market share as W10, which is remarkable since all the new computers come with W10.
I'll never going to use W10. W10 has a screwed up user interface, is very buggy, and you don't have any control of what it's doing. It is now only a matter of time until it starts serving targeted ads.
I'll hang to W7 as long as I can, and then it's Linux. They may, of course, screw up future CPUs/Motherboards so that they only can run Windows, but that's a different question.
I'm referring to the extended support being dropped in less than a year. Half the arguments that are in favour of Windows 7 now evaporate at that point. Market share is not a good measure of an OS being viable for safe daily use. There will inevitably be people claiming they don't need security updates, but that's a bit like being a computing antivaxer. Windows 7 has 9 months left. After that it's either Windows 8.1 until 2023, Windows 10 or migrating to another OS altogether.
-
I'm referring to the extended support being dropped in less than a year. Half the arguments that are in favour of Windows 7 now evaporate at that point. Market share is not a good measure of an OS being viable for safe daily use. There will inevitably be people claiming they don't need security updates, but that's a bit like being a computing antivaxer. Windows 7 has 9 months left. After that it's either Windows 8.1 until 2023, Windows 10 or migrating to another OS altogether.
Of course, sooner or later the hardware will move forward and W7 becomes obsolete, but this has very little to do with Microsoft, and this is not happening in 6 months. I stopped using their updates when they tried to push their telemetry spyware and their W10 upgrade malware through the security updates. You have absolutely no control over what Microsoft pushes on you, and I don't trust them any more. I looked at W10 attentively, and it's way below the standards that I'm willing to accept. So, as soon as W7 runs out, Linux it is (well Mac is still an option).
-
I don't think so. Still approximately the same market share as W10, which is remarkable since all the new computers come with W10.
I'll never going to use W10. W10 has a screwed up user interface, is very buggy, and you don't have any control of what it's doing. It is now only a matter of time until it starts serving targeted ads.
I'll hang to W7 as long as I can, and then it's Linux. They may, of course, screw up future CPUs/Motherboards so that they only can run Windows, but that's a different question.
I'm referring to the extended support being dropped in less than a year. Half the arguments that are in favour of Windows 7 now evaporate at that point. Market share is not a good measure of an OS being viable for safe daily use. There will inevitably be people claiming they don't need security updates, but that's a bit like being a computing antivaxer. Windows 7 has 9 months left. After that it's either Windows 8.1 until 2023, Windows 10 or migrating to another OS altogether.
That is assuming you run Windows as the base OS. If you run it from a VM and don't use it for browsing on internet you are very safe. I'm still using XP in a VM because it just works very well.
-
I'm referring to the extended support being dropped in less than a year. Half the arguments that are in favour of Windows 7 now evaporate at that point. Market share is not a good measure of an OS being viable for safe daily use. There will inevitably be people claiming they don't need security updates, but that's a bit like being a computing antivaxer.
Yeah, it's like being an antivaxxer in some twisted alternative reality where vaccines actually do cause widespread catastrophic epidemics of autism.
The end of Windows 7 won't affect me, since I disabled Windows Update on my primary machine as soon as it was co-opted as a marketing channel -- meaning, when the first unsolicited forced updates to Windows 10 began to appear. Only the most critical security patches are installed, and then only by hand.
Unfortunately I neglected to do the same for the laptop in a different room, which mirrors its screen to a large secondary display that we watch while working out. Automatic updates remained enabled on that one. Sure enough, Microsoft duly punished me for my negligence.
-
Well that's because 600x800 is no longer an acceptable screen resolution. My phone has a screen with over double that resolution.
But it's no excuse to make everything bigger for nothing. The whole idea of bigger resolutions is to have more screen real estate, but they keep making UI elements and dialogs bigger and bigger to the point that you practically need 4k to use windows 10. The use of space is horribly inefficient in windows 8/10.
I really don't understand. Show me how you'd make a popup window work on a 4k monitor and a 640x480 CRT.
I use W10 with a 2k screen and have no problems. What is your issue other than being a grumpy old fart?
-
I managed to convince IT that the software that my former colleague has written is really important to me and it doesn't work on W10. But yeah migration to W10 is definitely gonna happen before end of the year :(
-
I managed to convince IT that the software that my former colleague has written is really important to me and it doesn't work on W10. But yeah migration to W10 is definitely gonna happen before end of the year :(
Please don't burden your collegues with a problem that isn't actually a problem.
-
OP should 'burden' I.T. to clone or image the current hard drive, store it somewhere SAFE,
then nuke the clone with the Windwoes 10 migration, and pray it doesn't fly south. :scared:
If it does, de-migrate and put back the original hard drive or restore the saved image :phew:
--------------------
FWIW to the doom forecasters: ???
Windows 7 is not 'dying' unless some forced "update fix for a security patch for a critical update" etc..kills it.
LOL, what an obvious wank all that bloatware shyte is today, to force connedsumers on a constant upgrade merry go round, laced with AnythingGoesWare,
till they get peaved enough to blow their retirement money on a beachball vending Mac (another player forcing connedsumers on a constant software and HARDWARE upgrade merry go round..)
or try Linux,
or stay with the Windows version that works.
Just how many clueless computer suckers do these marketing 'teams' think are around in 2019? ::)
2000, XP, and Vista still haven't appeared at Boot Hill yet
I reckon there's a few lurkers still rolling with NT4, 98 and ME too (you know who you are ;D)
Even W8 and W8.1 are bearable, compared to bossy boots come tiled phone wannabee W10 :palm:
At the end of the day it's the apps that count to get work and play done, and users should not give a stuff about the host OS.
The OS should have a convenient GUI layout that doesn't require OS Developer thinking, mashed with changes for the hell of it,
or previous skill stuffing around with a tiled phone concept,
and as good as it's potential was,
they bailed on it toward the finishing line, and gave it the ass anyway..
Who wants to wrestle with an oversized handheld phone GUI on a decent sized monitor,
and balls about with silly annoying floater tiles :horse: :rant: >:( :-\ :-[
rather than a simple Start Menu, Programs List, and obvious Desktop shortcuts like MY COMPUTER :clap:
Control Panel, Recycle Bin and Task Bar etc etc ? :-+
-
Microsoft supported Windows 7 for 10 years. More importantly, newer version have significant improvements under the hood that Windows 7 will never have without effectively making it a reskin of a newer OS. A decade is a century in computer land. Microsoft has a lot and I mean a lot of flaws but you can't really fault them for ending support of an OS which is getting outdated. Moreover, they've always mentioned the support term being 10 years.
-
I really don't understand. Show me how you'd make a popup window work on a 4k monitor and a 640x480 CRT.
What's not to understand? The popup will be smaller on a 4K monitor, as will everything else. Smaller objects mean you can fit more of them on the screen at the same time and the high resolution means they are still readable. If you want to zoom in to make something larger this should be an option but not being able to zoom out is unacceptable.
I want to have several applications I'm using tiled across my screen but even with the 2560x1600 display I have at work I can't make Slack small enough to sit unobtrusively in the corner of the screen without being overlapped by the browser window and Word document, this is crazy! Back in the day I used to be able to shrink MSN Messenger down into the corner of a 1280x1024 monitor, I can fit less on a screen with more than double the pixels than I could 20 years ago.
It's unfortunate that people with your view have negated the main advantage of higher resolution displays by just making everything bigger to compensate, which then requires those of us who want to fit more information on our displays go for yet higher resolution before some clueless UI designer decides to make everything bigger again. :palm:
Why have all those pixels if you can't make proper use of them?
-
I want to have several applications I'm using tiled across my screen but even with the 2560x1600 display I have at work I can't make Slack small enough to sit unobtrusively in the corner of the screen without being overlapped by the browser window and Word document, this is crazy! Back in the day I used to be able to shrink MSN Messenger down into the corner of a 1280x1024 monitor, I can fit less on a screen with more than double the pixels than I could 20 years ago.
It's unfortunate that people with your view have negated the main advantage of higher resolution displays by just making everything bigger to compensate, which then requires those of us who want to fit more information on our displays go for yet higher resolution before some clueless UI designer decides to make everything bigger again. :palm:
Why have all those pixels if you can't make proper use of them?
Use ctrl - to zoom out in slack, might help a bit.
Anyway that is a problem with the specific software (slack), and not really a windows issue. Which I don't really disagree with. Skype seems to have started to figure it out.
-
I really don't understand. Show me how you'd make a popup window work on a 4k monitor and a 640x480 CRT.
What's not to understand? The popup will be smaller on a 4K monitor, as will everything else. Smaller objects mean you can fit more of them on the screen at the same time and the high resolution means they are still readable. If you want to zoom in to make something larger this should be an option but not being able to zoom out is unacceptable.
I want to have several applications I'm using tiled across my screen but even with the 2560x1600 display I have at work I can't make Slack small enough to sit unobtrusively in the corner of the screen without being overlapped by the browser window and Word document, this is crazy! Back in the day I used to be able to shrink MSN Messenger down into the corner of a 1280x1024 monitor, I can fit less on a screen with more than double the pixels than I could 20 years ago.
It's unfortunate that people with your view have negated the main advantage of higher resolution displays by just making everything bigger to compensate, which then requires those of us who want to fit more information on our displays go for yet higher resolution before some clueless UI designer decides to make everything bigger again. :palm:
Sorry, I just couldn't resist! ;D 30s->
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFTgkibl7DU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFTgkibl7DU)
-
Use ctrl - to zoom out in slack, might help a bit.
Anyway that is a problem with the specific software (slack), and not really a windows issue. Which I don't really disagree with. Skype seems to have started to figure it out.
I'm zoomed out as far as I can go, it's not enough. This a problem with modern software in general including many of the UI elements of Windows, Slack just happened to be a specific example. It is a plague that has been spreading everywhere, and arms race between monitors offering more pixels and software gulping up those pixels for dubious benefits. The point is valid, the control panel from say Windows 2000 could display much more information in a given number of pixels without having to scroll than the Win10 control center. Again like Slack this is a specific example, not the entire problem.
I want a large monitor with high information density so I have everything laid out in front of me where I can see it, not gigantic UI elements that require endless scrolling and flipping to get to what I need.
-
Microsoft supported Windows 7 for 10 years.
More importantly, newer version have significant improvements under the hood that Windows 7 will never have without effectively making it a reskin of a newer OS.
A decade is a century in computer land. Microsoft has a lot and I mean a lot of flaws but you can't really fault them for ending support of an OS which is getting outdated.
Moreover, they've always mentioned the support term being 10 years.
I don't know mate :-// W7 still working 'Day One' fine here with older and or current apps and browsers,
and haven't needed any 'support' for probably 10 years since first install,
and envisage I won't need any for another decade.
Any support may have been drivers and browser updates, but none from MS
Cloning to a larger drive is the only DIY support needed thus far, plus malware defence and scan stuff,
again none from MS.
As far as W10 having "..significant improvements under the hood that Windows 7 will never have.." I don't see it after a dual boot comparison on the same PC
with compatible drivers and using same resource hog apps etc
Maybe Gamers or Benchmark apps can point out improvements under certain conditions, but it escapes me.
and it doesn't really say anything if gamers use a stripped down W10 to get what they need.
XP still going good too from the few I've seen and used, and that's like 18? years old
Even the later (fixed) versions of Vista on a bad day can run good enough vs W10,
and does what it's told, not vice versa
-
I don't know mate :-// W7 still working 'Day One' fine here with older and or current apps and browsers,
and haven't needed any 'support' for probably 10 years since first install,
and envisage I won't need any for another decade.
Any support may have been drivers and browser updates, but none from MS
Cloning to a larger drive is the only DIY support needed thus far, plus malware defence and scan stuff,
again none from MS.
As far as W10 having "..significant improvements under the hood that Windows 7 will never have.." I don't see it after a dual boot comparison on the same PC
with compatible drivers and using same resource hog apps etc
Maybe Gamers or Benchmark apps can point out improvements under certain conditions, but it escapes me.
and it doesn't really say anything if gamers use a stripped down W10 to get what they need.
XP still going good too from the few I've seen and used, and that's like 18? years old
Even the later (fixed) versions of Vista on a bad day can run good enough vs W10,
and does what it's told, not vice versa
Windows 7 isn't working "'Day One' fine" if you're using it in a typical fashion. A lot of hard work and updates have gone into keeping the product safe and functional and it is this hard work and updates Microsoft isn't willing to keep up indefinitely.
The differences you can see between Windows 7 and 10 are barely relevant. You just see the GUI and user side of things, which is a relatively modest layer on top of a much more involved beast. A lot of the changes between Windows 7 and 10 have to do with improving security. It entails the underlying architecture, the kernel, the protocols used and supported and much more. This is a response to computer criminality becoming an industry and our evolving understanding how to deal with that. It'd be hopefully naive to think that the changes made to an OS entail nothing more than the placement of a checkbox or how the start menu looks. That's what people get hung up about, but aren't really very relevant changes.
-
You really believe the BS M$ is spreading? :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
Get real. 90% is still the same old crap with a new layer of polish on top. Remember the leak in the WMF format they found a couple of years ago? That existed since Windows 3.0 or so.
-
Would not be surprised if there's left over stuff from 3.11 in Windows. To be fair, they do their best to try to ensure compatibility so it's kind of needed.
That said, windows 7 works fine. As long as the programs you use run in it there is no reason to upgrade. You should not put a windows system on the internet directly anyway so any security issues should not be accessible in first place.
If your security approach is simply ensuring stuff is up to date then it's a bad security approach, because nothing is ever 100% up to date. It's best to ensure any exploits are not accessible in first place by securing the perimeter better. Ex: firewall and risk management.
-
You really believe the BS M$ is spreading? :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
Get real. 90% is still the same old crap with a new layer of polish on top. Remember the leak in the WMF format they found a couple of years ago? That existed since Windows 3.0 or so.
Pretty much anyone can see significant changes if they know where to look and what to look for. The problem is that most people don't have a clue what they're talking about. Pretending that issues in old libraries mean that nothing has changed since isn't very realistic. Somehow people love to believe the stories they or others have pulled from thin air.
-
Pretty much anyone can see significant changes if they know where to look and what to look for. The problem is that most people don't have a clue what they're talking about. Pretending that issues in old libraries mean that nothing has changed since isn't very realistic. Somehow people love to believe the stories they or others have pulled from thin air.
But it still is a rather entertaining thread to follow. There's this guy who hates the thing so much but isn't really sure why so asks the forum for reasons to hate it. Then, when amongst much bitching and moaning in the Microsoft's general direction, it turns out they're actually quite good with backwards compatibility, he triumphantly reports that he resorted to lying in order to push his agenda. Then, when we're at it, some more bitching and moaning ensues, "because Micro$oft" (seriously, are you guys ten?) and it doesn't look good on monitors from 1993. Great stuff :popcorn:
-
I haven't found much that flat out doesn't work on Win10 but the frequent reboots are a non-starter, I cannot have a machine randomly deciding to lock me out for an hour at a time. Then there are very basic features like Searxh that just flat out don't work worth a crap, and incessant changes to my default program settings, and a subjective matter I think if they had set out to make the most ugly UI possible they would have been hard pressed to do much better. It was enough that I switched my main work PC to Linux at my last job then chose the Mac when offered a choice where I am now. I've been very happy with that choice, it just works so much better, the OS is polished and stays out of my way the way an OS should and it's optimized for a proper desktop/laptop user experience with none of that touch nonsense shoehorned in. I can't imagine ever wanting to go back to Windows, it's only momentum and familiarity that is keeping me on Win7 at home, I'll keep using that there until it stops working.
Yes I'm sure there are a lot of improvements under the hood of Win10 but this is academic if it does not somehow improve my ability to do work, or enable something useful to me which it does not. When combined with all the stuff it makes harder and/or less pleasant there is a total net negative and it's irritating to have smug fanbois and Microsoft apologists defending all the user hostility and shady tactics. People have every right to dislike something and there are plenty of legitimate gripes about Win10. To blow that off as nothing requires that someone have either a vested interest in pushing others to the platform, i.e. MS employee or stockholder or they have drank a great deal of the kool aid and convinced themselves that their favorite company can do no wrong.
-
I haven't found much that flat out doesn't work on Win10 but the frequent reboots are a non-starter, I cannot have a machine randomly deciding to lock me out for an hour at a time. Then there are very basic features like Searxh that just flat out don't work worth a crap, and incessant changes to my default program settings, and a subjective matter I think if they had set out to make the most ugly UI possible they would have been hard pressed to do much better. It was enough that I switched my main work PC to Linux at my last job then chose the Mac when offered a choice where I am now. I've been very happy with that choice, it just works so much better, the OS is polished and stays out of my way the way an OS should and it's optimized for a proper desktop/laptop user experience with none of that touch nonsense shoehorned in. I can't imagine ever wanting to go back to Windows, it's only momentum and familiarity that is keeping me on Win7 at home, I'll keep using that there until it stops working.
Yes I'm sure there are a lot of improvements under the hood of Win10 but this is academic if it does not somehow improve my ability to do work, or enable something useful to me which it does not. When combined with all the stuff it makes harder and/or less pleasant there is a total net negative and it's irritating to have smug fanbois and Microsoft apologists defending all the user hostility and shady tactics. People have every right to dislike something and there are plenty of legitimate gripes about Win10. To blow that off as nothing requires that someone have either a vested interest in pushing others to the platform, i.e. MS employee or stockholder or they have drank a great deal of the kool aid and convinced themselves that their favorite company can do no wrong.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of reasons to dislike a fair few of the current Microsoft products. I absolutely loathe most of the current cloud products Microsoft is pushing right now and I feel Windows 10 took a number of wrong turns as well. It's just rather annoying to see people fabricate all kinds of reasons to gripe about certain products which are objectively and demonstrably untrue. People's opinions aren't blown off because they are the wrong opinions, they're blown off because the reasoning is lopsided or people evidently don't have a clue what they're on about.
-
You really believe the BS M$ is spreading? :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
Get real. 90% is still the same old crap with a new layer of polish on top. Remember the leak in the WMF format they found a couple of years ago? That existed since Windows 3.0 or so.
Pretty much anyone can see significant changes if they know where to look and what to look for. The problem is that most people don't have a clue what they're talking about. Pretending that issues in old libraries mean that nothing has changed since isn't very realistic. Somehow people love to believe the stories they or others have pulled from thin air.
What changes? Microsoft is just bouncing back & forth between making Windows useable and locking it down. Lock it down too much and people complain, opening it up too much and malware goes wild. The biggest problem is that the legacy on which the Windows concept was built didn't include security (*). Even today this means that some software won't work without having administrator priviliges. This is easely circumvented by choosing 'run as adminitrator' after which (usually) no password is asked. Many people use Windows with administrative priviliges by default to make their lifes easier. That is something Microsoft should fix.
* It took a wake-up call in the form of a worm called 'code red' which infected about half a million computers in a few days to make Microsoft take security serious.
-
What changes? Microsoft is just bouncing back & forth between making Windows useable and locking it down. [..]
Seriously, are you even trying?
- WSL - Windows Subsystem for Linux. You can now install various Linux distributions on Windows 10 and run thousands of Linux programs natively, without re-implementing the POSIX layer (like what Cygwin does) or resorting to full-blown virtualization. I can use Linux shell, tools and applications on my Windows installation like it's nothing and it starts in no time. I can pipe streams between Windows and Linux programs.
- Client Hyper-V. You now have a fully usable and mature hypervisor-based virtualization platform bundled with every Windows 10 Professional license. Unlike e.g. VirtualBox, it's baked deeply and seamlessly into the OS so your VMs could start and run without you even being logged into you Windows account
- Multiple desktops that are actually usable and convenient.
- Numerous improvements on how you can can work and configure multiple monitor setups.
- native OpenSSH client implementation
- PowerShell lets you configure pretty much anything via console
- Various kernel-level security and performance improvements that you don't see but it doesn't mean they are not there.
I could probably just go on like that but let's not let any pesky facts spoil your opinion. Hell, there's even a Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_10) dedicated just to Windows 10's new features but as you don't use any of them, let's just keep repeating the same tired blanket BS statements.
Of course if you run the same few applications since 20 years and someone moves the icon or changes the color of the button, that's what you're going to complain about. It's also perfectly valid to refuse learning anything new - nothing wrong with that, either. It's only when you pretend to know something when you clearly don't where it gets embarrassing. Your statements that nothing in Windows is really changing are so demonstrably untrue yet you just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again like it makes it any less of a nonsense.
-
It is great Windows is getting the features other OSses already had for decades but how exactly does that prevent a user from getting infected by malware? or not needing administrator priviliges for using a piece of hardware because the driver isn't included (or not signed)?
-
It is great Windows is getting the features other OSses already had for decades but how exactly does that prevent a user from getting infected by malware? or not needing administrator priviliges for using a piece of hardware because the driver isn't included (or not signed)?
I've just decided it's not worth any more minute of my time arguing with you. I've already met far too many people of the "I was wrong but I'm always right so I'll just change the subject, move the goalposts and switch to another, equally wrong argument" type in my life to fall for that once again.
EDIT:
Especially given you didn't even bother to actually read my post. So other OSes had native execution of "foreign" binary executable formats, built-in, full-blown hypervisors "for decades" now? You don't listen, you don't want to learn. You just already "know" everything there is to know about anything.
-
Seriously, are you even trying?
- WSL - Windows Subsystem for Linux. You can now install various Linux distributions on Windows 10 and run thousands of Linux programs natively, without re-implementing the POSIX layer (like what Cygwin does) or resorting to full-blown virtualization. I can use Linux shell, tools and applications on my Windows installation like it's nothing and it starts in no time. I can pipe streams between Windows and Linux programs.
- Client Hyper-V. You now have a fully usable and mature hypervisor-based virtualization platform bundled with every Windows 10 Professional license. Unlike e.g. VirtualBox, it's baked deeply and seamlessly into the OS so your VMs could start and run without you even being logged into you Windows account
- Multiple desktops that are actually usable and convenient.
- Numerous improvements on how you can can work and configure multiple monitor setups.
- native OpenSSH client implementation
- PowerShell lets you configure pretty much anything via console
- Various kernel-level security and performance improvements that you don't see but it doesn't mean they are not there.
I could probably just go on like that but let's not let any pesky facts spoil your opinion. Hell, there's even a Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_10) dedicated just to Windows 10's new features but as you don't use any of them, let's just keep repeating the same tired blanket BS statements.
Of course if you run the same few applications since 20 years and someone moves the icon or changes the color of the button, that's what you're going to complain about. It's also perfectly valid to refuse learning anything new - nothing wrong with that, either. It's only when you pretend to know something when you clearly don't where it gets embarrassing. Your statements that nothing in Windows is really changing are so demonstrably untrue yet you just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again like it makes it any less of a nonsense.
Don't forget to add the features new to Windows 8, because 8 introduced many of them. Windows 8 is hated by the masses, but a much more modern OS underneath.
One notable difference introduced in Windows 10 I'd like to highlight is the update system. I can't really agree with how Windows 10 does it exactly, but that something needed to be done was very evident. The Windows 7 and 8 update system was causing all kinds of problems in even modestly sized deployments. It's just unfortunate that Microsoft opted for a solution I don't consider quite ideal.
-
Don't forget to add the features new to Windows 8, because 8 introduced many of them. Windows 8 is hated by the masses, but a much more modern OS underneath.
One notable difference introduced in Windows 10 I'd like to highlight is the update system. I can't really agree with how Windows 10 does it exactly, but that something needed to be done was very evident. The Windows 7 and 8 update system was causing all kinds of problems in even modestly sized deployments. It's just unfortunate that Microsoft opted for a solution I don't consider quite ideal.
That's right, much of the good stuff was introduced in Windows 8 just as many innovations people praised Windows 7 for were actually introduced in Vista. But it takes some courage to publicly say anything positive about these two versions just anticipating the sheer amount of hate you'll going to have coming your way for daring to do that. Oops... ;)
-
The core OS of Win8 was fine, arguably superior to Win10 but they ruined the UI and as the market illustrated, all the greatness in the world doesn't matter if the UI is crap. At least with 8 you can install 3rd party tools that fix many of the flaws.
That all said, people seem to have a hard time articulating what all these nebulous improvements actually do for me, the end user, because having used 8 and later 10 at work for some time I tried to like them but it was no use. Whatever improvements they had under the hood provided no tangible benefits to my productivity and were overshadowed by all the negative aspects that came with them. Microsoft has failed to convince me and millions of others of these net benefits and so have the fanbois.
-
The core OS of Win8 was fine, arguably superior to Win10 but they ruined the UI and as the market illustrated, all the greatness in the world doesn't matter if the UI is crap. At least with 8 you can install 3rd party tools that fix many of the flaws.
That all said, people seem to have a hard time articulating what all these nebulous improvements actually do for me, the end user, because having used 8 and later 10 at work for some time I tried to like them but it was no use. Whatever improvements they had under the hood provided no tangible benefits to my productivity and were overshadowed by all the negative aspects that came with them. Microsoft has failed to convince me and millions of others of these net benefits and so have the fanbois.
I guess people don't appreciate architectural and security improvements until it's too late. It's like people bemoaning how airbags or vaccines are a waste and provide no tangible benefit.
-
That all said, people seem to have a hard time articulating what all these nebulous improvements actually do for me, the end user, because having used 8 and later 10 at work for some time I tried to like them but it was no use. Whatever improvements they had under the hood provided no tangible benefits to my productivity and were overshadowed by all the negative aspects that came with them. Microsoft has failed to convince me and millions of others of these net benefits and so have the fanbois.
This is exactly the problem. It is baffling that a huge company like Microsoft has such a large disconnect with their users. They try to be innovative by being different instead of being innovative by offering what their customers want. Windows8 was a big failure simply due to the odd-ball user interface. Trying to create a unified interface for both desktop and mobile devices... It is an admireable attempt but it should have been thouroughly tested on focus groups and their feedback taken seriously.
-
This is exactly the problem. It is baffling that a huge company like Microsoft has such a large disconnect with their users. They try to be innovative by being different instead of being innovative by offering what their customers want. Windows8 was a big failure simply due to the odd-ball user interface. Trying to create a unified interface for both desktop and mobile devices... It is an admireable attempt but it should have been thouroughly tested on focus groups and their feedback taken seriously.
Who says they didn't? Maybe it's an illustration how focus groups can lead companies astray.
-
This is exactly the problem. It is baffling that a huge company like Microsoft has such a large disconnect with their users. They try to be innovative by being different instead of being innovative by offering what their customers want. Windows8 was a big failure simply due to the odd-ball user interface. Trying to create a unified interface for both desktop and mobile devices... It is an admireable attempt but it should have been thouroughly tested on focus groups and their feedback taken seriously.
Who says they didn't? Maybe it's an illustration how focus groups can lead companies astray.
It is more likely the results of the focus group got ignored because it said 'keep everything as it was'.
-
I get angry when i see Win10 UI and start throwing things at it!
-
It is more likely the results of the focus group got ignored because it said 'keep everything as it was'.
This thread has hit a rich vein of pure speculation. ;D
-
It is more likely the results of the focus group got ignored because it said 'keep everything as it was'.
Since I'm still in touch with quite a few people who work for MS, I have a bit of insight into what goes on. The issue is more complex than many people realize but in a nutshell it appears to me very similar to the disjointed mess that is reflected in the OS. Windows took the current trajectory after several wrong assumptions were made about the direction of computers as a whole, and this whole vision relied on Windows Mobile which fell flat on its face. Now it seems there is no clear, coherent vision within the company and Windows is no longer a priority. As has long been the case, re-orgs and churn are frequent, and poor communication between different groups continues to be a plague. They fired all the professional testers with the new vision being developers would unit test their own code and the rest would be covered by automation. Unfortunately developers generally speaking make terrible testers, they want to write code not run test cases, and automation only covers precisely what it has been scripted to cover.
Now the focus groups and feedback, the main issues here are one, the people who participate are overwhelmingly Microsoft enthusiasts who have drank enough kool aid that they get excited over testing the OS for free, they tend to be very different than the bread & butter customers who actually USE the product.
Then there is the classic case of design by committee, you have a bunch of different people pushing the product in different directions with no clear vision of what the product is supposed to be and what problems it solves for the end user. Win8 started that last part, it seemed very much so to be a product designed around the needs of Microsoft's new business plan instead of what users actually needed or wanted. Then with 10 they tried to please everybody and ended up with a train wreck that pleases very few. Given how extremely hard it was pushed, and the fact that it required significant and deliberate effort to avoid, I think it speaks volumes that at the end of the free "upgrade" period it had not even hit 50%.
-
The core OS of Win8 was fine, arguably superior to Win10 but they ruined the UI and as the market illustrated, all the greatness in the world doesn't matter if the UI is crap. At least with 8 you can install 3rd party tools that fix many of the flaws.
That all said, people seem to have a hard time articulating what all these nebulous improvements actually do for me, the end user, because having used 8 and later 10 at work for some time I tried to like them but it was no use. Whatever improvements they had under the hood provided no tangible benefits to my productivity and were overshadowed by all the negative aspects that came with them. Microsoft has failed to convince me and millions of others of these net benefits and so have the fanbois.
I guess people don't appreciate architectural and security improvements until it's too late. It's like people bemoaning how airbags or vaccines are a waste and provide no tangible benefit.
That's a bit of a daft analogy.
Of course people don't notice any improvements to the core of the OS, if the UI is crap. They just notice the crappy UI. A car might have superior safety features to it's previous model, but if it's more of a pain to drive, no one will want it.
-
That's a bit of a daft analogy.
Of course people don't notice any improvements to the core of the OS, if the UI is crap. They just notice the crappy UI. A car might have superior safety features to it's previous model, but if it's more of a pain to drive, no one will want it.
You could argue the reverse. People shying away from a new type of aircraft which despite being safer has slightly less comfortable seats or exposing their families to more risk because they consider a safer car to have a less comfortable steering wheel sounds fairly daft. It sounds like what people would do, but daft nonetheless.
-
That's a bit of a daft analogy.
Of course people don't notice any improvements to the core of the OS, if the UI is crap. They just notice the crappy UI. A car might have superior safety features to it's previous model, but if it's more of a pain to drive, no one will want it.
You could argue the reverse. People shying away from a new type of aircraft which despite being safer has slightly less comfortable seats
No, the stupidity is completely at the manufacturer / owner of the airplane: after all why build an airplane nobody wants to sit in? I really shouldn't have to point this out :palm:
-
Since I am using it recently, the only version of classic Xilinx ISE that works properly under Windows 10 is ISE 14.7 after the manual NoSH patch. ISE 9.2 flat out refuse to install, and ISE 10.x is acting weird.
The lone Windows machine I use is way too big for desktop versions of Windows except Windows 10 Pro for Workstation (Windows 7 Pro won't work with my NVMe boot SSD, and both Windows 7 Pro and Windows 10 Pro has problems dealing with 128GB of RAM. Windows 10 Pro for Workstation uses Windows Server 2019 kernel but retains full Windows 10 desktop.)
-
Pretty much anyone can see significant changes if they know where to look and what to look for. The problem is that most people don't have a clue what they're talking about. Pretending that issues in old libraries mean that nothing has changed since isn't very realistic. Somehow people love to believe the stories they or others have pulled from thin air.
I see. The stupid and incompetent people cannot see this, but you can. This is actually very typical situation which has been described long before Windows ever existed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes
-
Well that's because 600x800 is no longer an acceptable screen resolution. My phone has a screen with over double that resolution.
But it's no excuse to make everything bigger for nothing. The whole idea of bigger resolutions is to have more screen real estate, but they keep making UI elements and dialogs bigger and bigger to the point that you practically need 4k to use windows 10. The use of space is horribly inefficient in windows 8/10.
The problem is it's not consistent. Some things are bigger, others smaller. It's a total mess! Microsoft used to pride themselves on having a consistent UI across the Windows platform. They used to have a design guide to encourage developers to stick to it, but they've abandoned it. Look at how big the display setting is in control panel and how small character map is!
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/bloody-windows!!!/?action=dlattach;attach=388228;image)
-
Of course people don't notice any improvements to the core of the OS, if the UI is crap. They just notice the crappy UI. A car might have superior safety features to it's previous model, but if it's more of a pain to drive, no one will want it.
Even more so if it is ugly. Automotive history has many examples of technologically advanced cars that fell flat on their face in the market because the general public perceived them as ugly. It may be silly and/or irrational but looks matter and Windows has gotten *ugly*.
-
The problem is it's not consistent. Some things are bigger, others smaller. It's a total mess! Microsoft used to pride themselves on having a consistent UI across the Windows platform. They used to have a design guide to encourage developers to stick to it, but they've abandoned it. Look at how big the display setting is in control panel and how small character map is!
I would argue they have never been good at this, at least not since the days of Windows 3.1 or maybe 95. An example I noticed many years ago is MS Office, I don't know about recent versions since I've only used them on Mac but for a long time Office applications were skinned and ignored the Windows theme entirely. What this meant is you install a version of Office on a version of Windows of a different generation or with a custom theme it doesn't match and looks out of place. I have always found this inexcusable that their flagship productivity suite doesn't follow the theme of their own operating system. System themes exist for a reason and there are very few good reasons for skinned applications that don't utilize the theme.
-
The problem is it's not consistent. Some things are bigger, others smaller. It's a total mess! Microsoft used to pride themselves on having a consistent UI across the Windows platform. They used to have a design guide to encourage developers to stick to it, but they've abandoned it. Look at how big the display setting is in control panel and how small character map is!
I would argue they have never been good at this, at least not since the days of Windows 3.1 or maybe 95. An example I noticed many years ago is MS Office, I don't know about recent versions since I've only used them on Mac but for a long time Office applications were skinned and ignored the Windows theme entirely. What this meant is you install a version of Office on a version of Windows of a different generation or with a custom theme it doesn't match and looks out of place. I have always found this inexcusable that their flagship productivity suite doesn't follow the theme of their own operating system. System themes exist for a reason and there are very few good reasons for skinned applications that don't utilize the theme.
Yes, that's true. MS Office was the exception. Lots of the other software followed the Windows standard quite well though. I always found it very odd and wondered why they made their office suite look different. Generally though, even MS Office looking different wasn't as bad as the current situation with the Metro crapps looking much bigger than everything else. They really should keep the Metro stuff for their tablet version. Yes they could allow it to run on desktop versions, in the interests of computability, but focus more on the traditional desktop GUI, which has worked quite well for years.
I thought Windows XP was best at having custom skins, even though the built-in lunar one was crap, it was easy to install another one so it looked completely different.
-
I could never figure out that default gaudy blue and green skin XP came with, it was like they went out of their way to make it horrible. Of course I almost never saw anyone actually using that skin, one of the first things we all did when setting up a new XP machine was to change to the classic theme.
-
I could never figure out that default gaudy blue and green skin XP came with, it was like they went out of their way to make it horrible. Of course I almost never saw anyone actually using that skin, one of the first things we all did when setting up a new XP machine was to change to the classic theme.
Agreed. Although there was a funny moment when I told my kids they could spot the Teletubbies on the default background image if they looked carefully at the picture >:D
-
That default background image is a photograph taken in Eastern Washington just a few hours drive from where I live as I recall, quite a nice looking area. Not the best wallpaper for a desktop though in my opinion, it's too bright.
-
When a host OS is a self serving smartass bossy boots program that randomly jacks control from the user
(great fun during a multi-task ram intensive resource hog session |O)
and isn't providing any real or benchmark provable benefits to the apps installed,
it gets the 'write zeros to hard drive' day one spinning disk treatment,
i.e. Win 10's fate here, after a LOT of wasted time and patience
lost faith in AWESOME marketing BS, techno waffle from sold out geeks ::)
and lost time reading/replying to corpotroll apologists :bullshit: :horse: defending the cumbersome, no favors, eye candy code trash
that was initially offered as a free (forced) upgrade,
aka millions of reluctant, free MS beta testers for a silly phone styled OS that may draw in some Mac big spenders too, 8)
= win win dows :clap:
-
I could never figure out that default gaudy blue and green skin XP came with, it was like they went out of their way to make it horrible. Of course I almost never saw anyone actually using that skin, one of the first things we all did when setting up a new XP machine was to change to the classic theme.
I agree about the default XP theme being terrible, but the good thing about Windows XP, was the skin could be completely changed. Here's the skin I used to use a lot on my old XP machine.
Unfortunately Microsoft dropped the custom skin support with Windows Vista onwards. It's a shame, rather than messing around with aero, they should have spent the time producing some nice looking skins.
-
Plain light grey or MS blue Desktop for me :clap:
It's easy on the eyes, what little of it that's visible
..under all the scattered sardined folder and shortcuts litter :-[
-
When a host OS is a self serving smartass bossy boots program that randomly jacks control from the user
(great fun during a multi-task ram intensive resource hog session |O)
and isn't providing any real or benchmark provable benefits to the apps installed,
I have a similar issue: whenever I fire up Windows10 (in a VM) it needs an hour or so to run a process which seems to do nothing other than using 100% of the CPU and it can't be killed. Very nice if I want to test something quickly or use it for Skype. :palm: I've tried to let it run, get all updates but the next time it is the same story allover again. Maddening and utterly useless.
-
No, the stupidity is completely at the manufacturer / owner of the airplane: after all why build an airplane nobody wants to sit in? I really shouldn't have to point this out :palm:
It really were mostly laymen and casual press who experienced the most issues. I'm not saying it was a perfect release because it most definitely wasn't, but it's obvious people with different levels of experience focused on different things. Your assessment that "nobody would sit in it" isn't accurate, although I would agree that nobodies wouldn't.
I see. The stupid and incompetent people cannot see this, but you can. This is actually very typical situation which has been described long before Windows ever existed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes
You misspelled Dunning-Kruger. ;D But seriously, pointing out the good with the bad isn't being blinded by some unexplainable devotion. It's probably close to the opposite. Painting people who try to express a nuanced view as fanboys has been attempted a few times in this thread, but isn't going to fly.
-
The problem is it's not consistent. Some things are bigger, others smaller. It's a total mess! Microsoft used to pride themselves on having a consistent UI across the Windows platform. They used to have a design guide to encourage developers to stick to it, but they've abandoned it. Look at how big the display setting is in control panel and how small character map is!
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/bloody-windows!!!/?action=dlattach;attach=388228;image)
I'm fairly certainly that what you see is the result of Windows 10 being an ongoing development. The character map is an old component, while the rest is new and updated to be scalable. Note that the user can scale the modern GUI at will. Windows 10 being a rolling release is obviously a bit of a shit excuse for the GUI inconsistencies and having different parts stuck in two eras, but I do believe that's the actual reason.
-
I have a similar issue: whenever I fire up Windows10 (in a VM) it needs an hour or so to run a process which seems to do nothing other than using 100% of the CPU and it can't be killed. Very nice if I want to test something quickly or use it for Skype. :palm: I've tried to let it run, get all updates but the next time it is the same story allover again. Maddening and utterly useless.
How much time is there between VM boots? Most users reporting similar stories use their machine incidentally.
-
Yes, that's true. MS Office was the exception. Lots of the other software followed the Windows standard quite well though. I always found it very odd and wondered why they made their office suite look different. Generally though, even MS Office looking different wasn't as bad as the current situation with the Metro crapps looking much bigger than everything else. They really should keep the Metro stuff for their tablet version. Yes they could allow it to run on desktop versions, in the interests of computability, but focus more on the traditional desktop GUI, which has worked quite well for years.
I thought Windows XP was best at having custom skins, even though the built-in lunar one was crap, it was easy to install another one so it looked completely different.
The Microsoft Store should die in a fire. It's not only a shit show on the outside, but isn't very manageable in the back either. It's essentially throwing most of what makes Windows a worthwhile platform out and replacing it with inflexible garbage.
-
I agree about the default XP theme being terrible, but the good thing about Windows XP, was the skin could be completely changed. Here's the skin I used to use a lot on my old XP machine.
I want my computer to be stable, simple, easy to use and to not keep changing things around where I can't find them. Once MS decided they would change things around to where I couldn't find them I decided I'd rather learn Linux.
On all my Win XP machines the first thing I did was change to "Classic" skin and I have even changed the file type icons to what they were in the very beginning. And the sounds too.
My desktop is plain flat blue. I do not need or want photos of mount Sushi cluttering my desktop.
MS lost me as a customer long time ago when they decided to change things around all the time just so they had something new to sell.
-
The problem is it's not consistent. Some things are bigger, others smaller. It's a total mess! Microsoft used to pride themselves on having a consistent UI across the Windows platform. They used to have a design guide to encourage developers to stick to it, but they've abandoned it. Look at how big the display setting is in control panel and how small character map is!
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/bloody-windows!!!/?action=dlattach;attach=388228;image)
I'm fairly certainly that what you see is the result of Windows 10 being an ongoing development. The character map is an old component, while the rest is new and updated to be scalable. Note that the user can scale the modern GUI at will. Windows 10 being a rolling release is obviously a bit of a shit excuse for the GUI inconsistencies and having different parts stuck in two eras, but I do believe that's the actual reason.
Main reason I hate win10. Every few weeks crap is moved around on the UI just to justify some schmucks job in redmond
-
I'm fairly certainly that what you see is the result of Windows 10 being an ongoing development. The character map is an old component, while the rest is new and updated to be scalable. Note that the user can scale the modern GUI at will. Windows 10 being a rolling release is obviously a bit of a shit excuse for the GUI inconsistencies and having different parts stuck in two eras, but I do believe that's the actual reason.
I'm pretty sure the character map did alter its scale, depending on the system settings, in older Windows versions, but will have to check on my old XP box. Setting the scale is of no use, if one program is too small and the other too big. They should keep everything the same size and have two Windows versions or configurations for the desktop and tablet platforms.
The fact that Windows 10 is still in beta phase is partly why it receives so much hate. I'm sure many people would rather pay for an OS with a decent, intuitive, consistent user interface, rather than the crap that is Windows 10. People used to criticise the Linux platform for this kind of thing, but now it's much better.
-
I have a similar issue: whenever I fire up Windows10 (in a VM) it needs an hour or so to run a process which seems to do nothing other than using 100% of the CPU and it can't be killed. Very nice if I want to test something quickly or use it for Skype. :palm: I've tried to let it run, get all updates but the next time it is the same story allover again. Maddening and utterly useless.
How much time is there between VM boots? Most users reporting similar stories use their machine incidentally.
Weeks or months. WinXP and Windows7 don't have this problem.
-
I'm pretty sure the character map did alter its scale, depending on the system settings, in older Windows versions, but will have to check on my old XP box. Setting the scale is of no use, if one program is too small and the other too big. They should keep everything the same size and have two Windows versions or configurations for the desktop and tablet platforms.
The fact that Windows 10 is still in beta phase is partly why it receives so much hate. I'm sure many people would rather pay for an OS with a decent, intuitive, consistent user interface, rather than the crap that is Windows 10. People used to criticise the Linux platform for this kind of thing, but now it's much better.
Scaling used to be horrid on Windows. That's one of the things Windows 10 really did improve on.
The idea behind Windows 10 is more user input and quicker development cycles, so you don't work years on an OS only to then find out how people use it and which issues they experience. The promise sounds good but it unfortunately led to telemetry, the UI regularly changing and occasionally experimental software. Also needing to line up Windows as a tool to sell their cloud services negatively impacted what could have been a fairly nice thing.
-
Weeks or months. WinXP and Windows7 don't have this problem.
Windows 10 has been written for the way people use their computers nowadays. It does continuous maintenance in the background, whereas XP and 7 only did this sporadically and at once which cost a lot of time or not at all if the user didn't initiate the maintenance. Almost all users will use their computer more than once every few weeks, which means Windows 10 may run suboptimally when used in such a fashion. Times have changed and OS's do too. XP never even had a proper mainstream 64 bit release. A lot of maintenance traditionally left to the user has now been automated as typical users suck at doing it consistently or at all.
Your situation may be helped by some modest scripting to have the Windows 10 VM boot in the background once a week and shut down after a while again. If you know how to set up a VM that shouldn't be too hard.
-
The scaling or lack thereof is one of the things I like about older versions of Windows. Higher resolution means everything on the screen is smaller and I can fit more things on the screen at once. I use a high resolution monitor because I want high information density, and I hate the way an arms race has started where resolutions get higher so UI designers make everything bigger. I have several times more pixels than I had 20 years ago yet can fit less on the screen due to software that insists on having acres of useless whitespace.
Infrequent booting is a perfectly valid use case for a PC, quite a few of us have a secondary machine or VM that goes days/weeks/months without being used and the scenario of getting forcibly locked out for a half hour or more is an unacceptable behavior that was not a problem with prior or competing operating systems. MS needs to listen to those customers and find an acceptable way of handling that use case rather than the current "too bad, fuck you, pathetic consumer" or "you're using it wrong."
-
I'm pretty sure the character map did alter its scale, depending on the system settings, in older Windows versions, but will have to check on my old XP box. Setting the scale is of no use, if one program is too small and the other too big. They should keep everything the same size and have two Windows versions or configurations for the desktop and tablet platforms.
The fact that Windows 10 is still in beta phase is partly why it receives so much hate. I'm sure many people would rather pay for an OS with a decent, intuitive, consistent user interface, rather than the crap that is Windows 10. People used to criticise the Linux platform for this kind of thing, but now it's much better.
Scaling used to be horrid on Windows. That's one of the things Windows 10 really did improve on.
The idea behind Windows 10 is more user input and quicker development cycles, so you don't work years on an OS only to then find out how people use it and which issues they experience. The promise sounds good but it unfortunately led to telemetry, the UI regularly changing and occasionally experimental software. Also needing to line up Windows as a tool to sell their cloud services negatively impacted what could have been a fairly nice thing.
Yes, I remember some really older Windows versions having problems with scaling, with some software displaying incorrectly, if the setting was non-standard.
I haven't really noticed any improvements with Windows 10, just the inconsistencies between different applications. They should have re-written everything for the new graphical tool-kit, with better scaling and stick to it. Also they should get rid of all this flat nonsense, which looks very 1980s and makes it more difficult to use because it's not always clear which elements the user can click on. The old chiselled look was better.
I agree about the default XP theme being terrible, but the good thing about Windows XP, was the skin could be completely changed. Here's the skin I used to use a lot on my old XP machine.
I want my computer to be stable, simple, easy to use and to not keep changing things around where I can't find them. Once MS decided they would change things around to where I couldn't find them I decided I'd rather learn Linux.
On all my Win XP machines the first thing I did was change to "Classic" skin and I have even changed the file type icons to what they were in the very beginning. And the sounds too.
My desktop is plain flat blue. I do not need or want photos of mount Sushi cluttering my desktop.
MS lost me as a customer long time ago when they decided to change things around all the time just so they had something new to sell.
That's one of the worst things about the more recent Windows versions: you don't have a choice, MS have fixed everything so it suits themselves. XP was probably the peak of user customisation, regarding things such as the user interface. Initially I used classic too, but I got tired of it and discovered I could install third party skins, which I preferred. Fine they may not be your cup of tea, but at least you could change it. Now MS just mandate a crappy looking GUI for everyone.
Yes, Linux is much better, especially at being customisable. There used to be an issue with programs having significantly different UIs, because they were built with different graphical tool kits, normally Qt or GTK, but now it's possible to set it up, so they look similar.
Weeks or months. WinXP and Windows7 don't have this problem.
Windows 10 has been written for the way people use their computers nowadays. It does continuous maintenance in the background, whereas XP and 7 only did this sporadically and at once which cost a lot of time or not at all if the user didn't initiate the maintenance. Almost all users will use their computer more than once every few weeks, which means Windows 10 may run suboptimally when used in such a fashion. Times have changed and OS's do too. XP never even had a proper mainstream 64 bit release. A lot of maintenance traditionally left to the user has now been automated as typical users suck at doing it consistently or at all.
Your situation may be helped by some modest scripting to have the Windows 10 VM boot in the background once a week and shut down after a while again. If you know how to set up a VM that shouldn't be too hard.
But users had a choice. Doing everything in the background is a PITA when one is watching streamed video and it gets jerky, because Windows is downloading something. People could also choose not to install updates, which have been known to cause problems. It also didn't randomly set everything back to the crappy default settings.
And Windows 10 is clearly not designed for how people use desktop computers nowadays. Lots of the UI is optimised for a touchscreen. If it really was well designed for how people used their computers, then it wouldn't receive so much criticism.
-
Yes, I remember some really older Windows versions having problems with scaling, with some software displaying incorrectly, if the setting was non-standard.
I haven't really noticed any improvements with Windows 10, just the inconsistencies between different applications. They should have re-written everything for the new graphical tool-kit, with better scaling and stick to it. Also they should get rid of all this flat nonsense, which looks very 1980s and makes it more difficult to use because it's not always clear which elements the user can click on. The old chiselled look was better.
That's one of the worst things about the more recent Windows versions: you don't have a choice, MS have fixed everything so it suits themselves. XP was probably the peak of user customisation, regarding things such as the user interface. Initially I used classic too, but I got tired of it and discovered I could install third party skins, which I preferred. Fine they may not be your cup of tea, but at least you could change it. Now MS just mandate a crappy looking GUI for everyone.
Yes, Linux is much better, especially at being customisable. There used to be an issue with programs having significantly different UIs, because they were built with different graphical tool kits, normally Qt or GTK, but now it's possible to set it up, so they look similar.
But users had a choice. Doing everything in the background is a PITA when one is watching streamed video and it gets jerky, because Windows is downloading something. People could also choose not to install updates, which have been known to cause problems. It also didn't randomly set everything back to the crappy default settings.
And Windows 10 is clearly not designed for how people use desktop computers nowadays. Lots of the UI is optimised for a touchscreen. If it really was well designed for how people used their computers, then it wouldn't receive so much criticism.
Windows 10 makes significant changes to how it handles the UI and subsequent rendering. I guess it's an example of how people don't see changes, even though there's a significant rewrite. Windows 10 doing things in the background can be controlled and tweaked by the user, but seems to be a bridge too far for users who then claim Windows 10 is broken. There's a sound argument to be made for Microsoft actually protecting these people against themselves. Windows 10 has had the nasty habit of resetting certain settings after major updates. This is either a very unfortunate bug but more likely a rather naive attempt to coax users to Microsoft products, annoying them quite a bit in the process.
-
The scaling or lack thereof is one of the things I like about older versions of Windows. Higher resolution means everything on the screen is smaller and I can fit more things on the screen at once. I use a high resolution monitor because I want high information density, and I hate the way an arms race has started where resolutions get higher so UI designers make everything bigger. I have several times more pixels than I had 20 years ago yet can fit less on the screen due to software that insists on having acres of useless whitespace.
Infrequent booting is a perfectly valid use case for a PC, quite a few of us have a secondary machine or VM that goes days/weeks/months without being used and the scenario of getting forcibly locked out for a half hour or more is an unacceptable behavior that was not a problem with prior or competing operating systems. MS needs to listen to those customers and find an acceptable way of handling that use case rather than the current "too bad, fuck you, pathetic consumer" or "you're using it wrong."
The size of screen elements has been made Independent of the resolution of your screen. Some GUIs were getting small to the point of being unusable. You can set the screen scaling however you like it, although older applications don't always respond equally well.
Hampering optimisation for all users to serve a few edge cases doesn't seem reasonable. While this behaviour seems to be reported more often and seems triggered by not using a system for prolonged periods of time, it definitely doesn't occur every time. I just booted a Windows 10 deployment last used two months ago and there's no process eating up CPU cycles or hampering usage. A deployment last used about 7 months ago doesn't have the issue either. I'm not entirely sure which processes are responsible for the behaviour people who boot their system infrequently, but it's very likely some tweaking will mitigate or solve the issue and that's probably not too much to expect from edge case users.
-
Weeks or months. WinXP and Windows7 don't have this problem.
Windows 10 has been written for the way people use their computers nowadays. It does continuous maintenance in the background, whereas XP and 7 only did this sporadically and at once which cost a lot of time or not at all if the user didn't initiate the maintenance. Almost all users will use their computer more than once every few weeks, which means Windows 10 may run suboptimally when used in such a fashion. Times have changed and OS's do too. XP never even had a proper mainstream 64 bit release. A lot of maintenance traditionally left to the user has now been automated as typical users suck at doing it consistently or at all.
Your situation may be helped by some modest scripting to have the Windows 10 VM boot in the background once a week and shut down after a while again. If you know how to set up a VM that shouldn't be too hard.
Thanks for pointing this out but it just makes me like to give Microsoft another :palm: The sheer insanity of devising such a feature :wtf: Can't the software see it has been powered off for 364 days out of 365 so it is likely nothing has changed since then? I don't want to turn this into yet another Linux versus Windows debate but I'm happy I switched away from Windows. Suffice to say I've completely had it with Microsoft's circus of idiosyncratic madness.
-
Thanks for pointing this out but it just makes me like to give Microsoft another :palm: The sheer insanity of devising such a feature :wtf: Can't the software see it has been powered off for 364 days out of 365 so it is likely nothing has changed since then?
But things have changed, haven't they? It's not as if a fresh Windows 10 deployment will be the same as one turned off for a year. Work has to be done. Like it or not, this is the networked era. Though again, I'm not seeing the offending behaviour in tests but I've seen it reported more than once, so I'm curious what triggers it exactly. Just not turning a machine on for a longer period of time doesn't seem to be the sole issue. Restrain your outrage a little longer. ;)
-
Back in the day I used to be able to shrink MSN Messenger down into the corner of a 1280x1024 monitor, I can fit less on a screen with more than double the pixels than I could 20 years ago.
Very much agree. If I spend money on a monitor with more pixels it is so I can display more information. Displaying the same information using more pixels defeats the purpose.
-
Without referring to anyone in this thread but I find it crazy when people put me down for not being worthy of the new things. Things change! Get with the program!
I had a camera that I liked. Plugged it into the USB port and downloaded pictures to the computer. When the next model came out I couldn't do that anymore. Now I had to install some newfangled software and everything was a lot more complicated. I went to their forums to ask if I could do things the simple way I had always done them before and their attitude was that it is my fault for not being up to the most excellent new product which is much better than the old one. Well, it may be "better" in other ways but not for I want to do with it. The new product takes away possibilities I had before, makes things more complicated, but it is "better".
I think the MS attitude of superiority, of saying "this is the future, this is where the world is going, and if you can't keep up then you will be left behind", I think that has come to bite them in the rear.
If Linux is not gaining greater share it is because they are not even trying, which is not surprising as they aren't getting paid to try.
-
Thanks for pointing this out but it just makes me like to give Microsoft another :palm: The sheer insanity of devising such a feature :wtf: Can't the software see it has been powered off for 364 days out of 365 so it is likely nothing has changed since then?
But things have changed, haven't they? It's not as if a fresh Windows 10 deployment will be the same as one turned off for a year.
Why not? After a year the data in the VM hasn't changed (probably rolled back after previous use anyway) so there is no need for any maintenance.
Work has to be done.
Well... my work has to be done. To me a computer is a hammer. Pick it up and it works out of the box. I don't want a hammer that needs to be polished or banged against a piece of steel for one hour before use.
-
Why not? After a year the data in the VM hasn't changed (probably rolled back after previous use anyway) so there is no need for any maintenance.
Well... my work has to be done. To me a computer is a hammer. Pick it up and it works out of the box. I don't want a hammer that needs to be polished or banged against a piece of steel for one hour before use.
The VM may not have changed but the world around it certainly has. That's why updates exist. Needing to wait an hour before use doesn't seem to be very typical, so luckily everyone seems to agree with you on that one.
-
Why not? After a year the data in the VM hasn't changed (probably rolled back after previous use anyway) so there is no need for any maintenance.
Well... my work has to be done. To me a computer is a hammer. Pick it up and it works out of the box. I don't want a hammer that needs to be polished or banged against a piece of steel for one hour before use.
The VM may not have changed but the world around it certainly has.
No, that is a false assumption. This kind of random behaviour makes me want to run Windows from VMs. When (not if) a Windows install starts acting up I roll it back to the previous state. This way fixing a Windows problem is being reduced from days to 10 seconds.
-
No, that is a false assumption.
It's not an assumption. It's the very point of releasing updates.
https://pureinfotech.com/windows-10-version-release-history/
-
No, that is a false assumption.
It's not an assumption. It's the very point of releasing updates.
I don't need updates to test stuff every now and then (except if something broke after a specific update but I'd still need to be able to roll-back). I need the hammer to work right out of the box. And every now and then updates break more than they fix. I rather run an up-to-date malware/virus scanner to keep nasty stuff out than relying on updates to always work (I've lost many days due to updates breaking my computer and bringing my company to a grinding halt).
Either way it still doesn't solve the issue of Windows10 being useless (for me and many others who have the same problem) after not being used for a while.
-
I don't need updates to test stuff every now and then (except if something broke after a specific update but I'd still need to be able to roll-back). I need the hammer to work right out of the box. And every now and then updates break more than they fix. I rather run an up-to-date malware/virus scanner to keep nasty stuff out than relying on updates to always work (I've lost many days due to updates breaking my computer and bringing my company to a grinding halt).
Either way it still doesn't solve the issue of Windows10 being useless (for me and many others who have the same problem) after not being used for a while.
As has been mentioned a couple of times now, Windows doesn't seem to show the behaviour in every case. Maybe not even in a lot of cases. If the hammer presented to you isn't working for your needs, you may need to swing it differently. There's a saying about a workman blaming his tools. Insisting on hitting your finger because a previous hammer was shaped differently and complaining it keeps hurting is no use. If you require the machine for work, I can't imagine sorting this out not paying.
You need both updates and an up to date anti malware program. The best anti malware program in the world can't prevent vulnerabilities not being patched, though many will warn you about patches missing.
-
Without referring to anyone in this thread but I find it crazy when people put me down for not being worthy of the new things. Things change! Get with the program!
I had a camera that I liked. Plugged it into the USB port and downloaded pictures to the computer. When the next model came out I couldn't do that anymore. Now I had to install some newfangled software and everything was a lot more complicated. I went to their forums to ask if I could do things the simple way I had always done them before and their attitude was that it is my fault for not being up to the most excellent new product which is much better than the old one. Well, it may be "better" in other ways but not for I want to do with it. The new product takes away possibilities I had before, makes things more complicated, but it is "better".
I think the MS attitude of superiority, of saying "this is the future, this is where the world is going, and if you can't keep up then you will be left behind", I think that has come to bite them in the rear.
If Linux is not gaining greater share it is because they are not even trying, which is not surprising as they aren't getting paid to try.
Though I agree that tends to happen regularly and is frustrating, it doesn't appear to be the case with Microsoft and Windows. Microsoft has realised the desktop OS market isn't growing as explosively. Mobile has taken off and has partly replaced casual desktop computing. The desktop market has reached maturity. Microsoft is being overtaken by companies like Google which sell ads, information and services instead of software. Microsoft has reinvented itself as a cloud service provider and is re-jigging Windows to be a tool to push those services. I thoroughly dislike this development as I don't think it brings improvements for the customer, but it's effectively the world who told Microsoft to get with the program. Selling OSs won't keep your company relevant as it did 20 years ago and Microsoft needed a new course.
-
I don't need updates to test stuff every now and then (except if something broke after a specific update but I'd still need to be able to roll-back). I need the hammer to work right out of the box. And every now and then updates break more than they fix. I rather run an up-to-date malware/virus scanner to keep nasty stuff out than relying on updates to always work (I've lost many days due to updates breaking my computer and bringing my company to a grinding halt).
Either way it still doesn't solve the issue of Windows10 being useless (for me and many others who have the same problem) after not being used for a while.
As has been mentioned a couple of times now, Windows doesn't seem to show the behaviour in every case. Maybe not even in a lot of cases. If the hammer presented to you isn't working for your needs, you may need to swing it differently. There's a saying about a workman blaming his tools. Insisting on hitting your finger because a previous hammer was shaped differently and complaining it keeps hurting is no use. If you require the machine for work, I can't imagine sorting this out not paying.
Spending a day (or more) sorting Windows10 stuff isn't going to pay off. Last time I started the Windows10 VM is 6 months ago (and counting). It is very likely I won't need it for another 6 months or more since I only fire it up if a customer has a problem related to Windows 10 specifically. Unfortunately I can't write the hours on a project. It would appear strange to charge 10 hours to fix a bug which I'd normally fix in half an hour.
-
Spending a day (or more) sorting Windows10 stuff isn't going to pay off. Last time I started the Windows10 VM is 6 months ago (and counting). It is very likely I won't need it for another 6 months or more since I only fire it up if a customer has a problem related to Windows 10 specifically. Unfortunately I can't write the hours on a project. It would appear strange to charge 10 hours to fix a bug which I'd normally fix in half an hour.
Even if you're completely unwilling to figure out what's actually going on, setting up the VM being started and shut down in the background every now and then takes less time than what that VM reportedly needs to straighten itself out after a boot. Computers are made for automation. If you need it for your job a professional attitude probably serves you best and that means sorting it out once and for all. Not to mention that your client is likely to have an updated copy of Windows 10 too, which means your testing will be more representative if you ensure the VM is updated.
-
I'm not unwilling to figure out what is wrong, it is just a complete waste of time. If I let the VM run for one hour or so and do something else useful instead it isn't a showstopping nuisance. It just requires planning, slows my computer down and wastes electricity. There just isn't an ROI on getting Windows10 going especially since I can't use it due to Astigmatism; I need to be able to turn font anti-aliasing off in order to be able to read the text on a screen. For me the Windows world ends at version 7.
-
It seems Windows 10 is written for the way Microsoft thinks people use computers, or the way they wish people used computers, or perhaps the way a portion of people use computers. Unfortunately it lacks the flexibility older versions had to be suitable for the way I and many others use computers. It's no longer fit for purpose, and telling customers they're doing it wrong or implying that they're idiots is not the way to win anyone over. Especially when there are other operating systems on the market that work much better. It is only legacy software and momentum that keeps many of us using any form of Windows.
-
I'm not unwilling to figure out what is wrong, it is just a complete waste of time. If I let the VM run for one hour or so and do something else useful instead it isn't a showstopping nuisance. It just requires planning, slows my computer down and wastes electricity. There just isn't an ROI on getting Windows10 going especially since I can't use it due to Astigmatism; I need to be able to turn font anti-aliasing off in order to be able to read the text on a screen. For me the Windows world ends at version 7.
You're not unwilling to figure out what's wrong, you're just not willing to actually do it. Splendid.
-
No, there is no monetary gain for me to figure out what is wrong. That was your question a few posts ago: according to you it should pay off to figure out what is wrong with Windows 10. Well, it doesn't pay off. Just bang the hammer on a piece of steel for one hour prior to use because that takes less time than fixing the hammer (-if it can be fixed at all-).
-
Sure, a 1957 Chevy Pickup is missing a lot of bells and whistles we take for granted these days, but it still gets one from point A to point B. And it has a lot of features that modern vehicles don't have. Like large fresh air vents in the footwell, windows that can be opened when the ignition is off, no seat belts installed or required, hand throttle and choke, and just about everything can be maintained with ordinary tools. And to top it off, it's now worth more than your average NEW car.
You get rid of things when they no longer do what you need them to do, not when someone tells you it's time to upgrade.
-
This talk about hammers and Windows 10, may give frustrated users dark ideas
..in alternative problem solving :horse:
-
No, there is no monetary gain for me to figure out what is wrong. That was your question a few posts ago: according to you it should pay off to figure out what is wrong with Windows 10. Well, it doesn't pay off. Just bang the hammer on a piece of steel for one hour prior to use because that takes less time than fixing the hammer (-if it can be fixed at all-).
I just told you multiple times that mitigating or fixing the issue your experience is likely to cost less time than enduring it once according to your own story. Yet you insist it doesn't pay off. I can't say I'm surprised people are utterly unwilling to budge from their preconceived grudges and do anything to hold on to them as Zbig already concluded pages ago, but it's still disappointing.
-
What part of "..there is no monetary gain for me to figure out what is wrong." was not clear mate ? :-//
-
What part of "..there is no monetary gain for me to figure out what is wrong." was not clear mate ? :-//
The concept of it taking less time to fix or mitigate than to endure the issue even once isn't terribly complicated, although I may be severely overestimating some people's abilities.
-
Sure, a 1957 Chevy Pickup is missing a lot of bells and whistles we take for granted these days, but it still gets one from point A to point B. And it has a lot of features that modern vehicles don't have. Like large fresh air vents in the footwell, windows that can be opened when the ignition is off, no seat belts installed or required, hand throttle and choke, and just about everything can be maintained with ordinary tools. And to top it off, it's now worth more than your average NEW car.
You get rid of things when they no longer do what you need them to do, not when someone tells you it's time to upgrade.
The problem is that this Chevy Pickup has a flaw in its design which is no longer going to be fixed by the manufacturer, but enables criminals to endanger the owner and his surroundings. These are the kind of well organised criminals who do this systematically. Owners are expected to conclude it's in their best interest to move on to a safer model, but due to not understanding the actual risks involved very well don't seem to do that as much as they should.
-
What part of "..there is no monetary gain for me to figure out what is wrong." was not clear mate ? :-//
The concept of it taking less time to fix or mitigate than to endure the issue even once isn't terribly complicated, although I may be severely overestimating some people's abilities.
Ofcourse I investigated the problem and found out a) I'm not the only one b) there is no fix. By your own admission you know the problem exists but you are also unaware of a fix. So how many unknown hours do I need to sink into a problem for which even Microsoft themselves has no solution for?
-
MSFT is using the security issue to force upgrades and keep the income stream going. Mr Scrams only argument seems to be the need for more network security.
It is for sure an issue but me thinks they make a mountain out of it.
-
Microsoft has realised the desktop OS market isn't growing as explosively. Mobile has taken off and has partly replaced casual desktop computing. The desktop market has reached maturity. Microsoft is being overtaken by companies like Google which sell ads, information and services instead of software. Microsoft has reinvented itself as a cloud service provider and is re-jigging Windows to be a tool to push those services. I thoroughly dislike this development as I don't think it brings improvements for the customer, but it's effectively the world who told Microsoft to get with the program. Selling OSs won't keep your company relevant as it did 20 years ago and Microsoft needed a new course.
MS botched the mobile market and now they are doing the same to the computer market. They could have left well enough alone and started new lines of business without ruining the old ones. They could have said "we will offer a free OS in exchange for ads and your first-born child or we can also offer you a traditional OS in exchange for some cash". They are trying to be all things to all people and the result is they are not pleasing anyone.
I hope Linux finally takes off and can become mainstream.
-
It's the very point of releasing updates.
Consider two scenarios:
Scenario 1. You browse web and because software you use it buggy you accidentally download a virus. You computer became slow. Some unknown processes are running in the background consuming lots of resources. There's unwanted background Internet traffic consuming the bandwidth you're paying for. Settings unpredictably change, and if you restore your previous settings, they mysteriously get changed back again. Some of the software which worked before stops working ...
Scenario 2. You use Windows 10 and Microsoft rolled a new update. You computer became slow. Some unknown processes are running in the background consuming lots of resources. There's unwanted background Internet traffic consuming the bandwidth you're paying for. Settings unpredictably change, and if you restore your previous settings, they mysteriously get changed back again. Some of the software which worked before stops working ...
Do you see any difference? I don't.
-
You know, I would pay good money for an OS which was stable and secure. I do not understand why they keep making changes which introduce vulnerabilities. I do not need flashy things, I just want reliability, stability, security first and foremost, before anything else. Windows has been a disgrace in this aspect. They run to introduce technologies (which are sometimes retired soon after) which introduce vulnerabilities.
Can you imagine an airplane manufacturer who did this?
OK, never mind, bad example.
-
The desktop market is mature, Microsoft bought into the hype that the desktop is dead. Mature market is not the same as dead by a long shot. The traditional desktop (and laptop) PC is alive and well, with something like a billion of them in use and they are not going away any time soon. What has changed is the technology has matured so users are upgrading less frequently than ever and the casual users who never really needed a full PC in the first place can now get by with mobile devices. Microsoft missed the boat with mobile, they arrived to that party almost 10 years too late which is an absolute eternity in tech then tried to play catch up with predictable results. Android and iOS were firmly dominant with Blackberry a distant third by the time MS even took the market seriously, by which point it was hopeless.
They threw Windows under the bus in a desperate effort to use it to jump start their mobile platform but that failed, Windows Mobile is dead yet for some reason they continue on the trajectory of "universal" apps that have no reason to exist without a robust mobile platform. They have failed to grasp that "legacy" Windows software and familiarity is nearly the entire reason most people use Windows, succeed in killing that off and Windows has no reason to exist.
Now it seems what they've done with 10 is made one final last ditch effort, sacrificing what is left of Windows trying to get people using their services and app store. One of the problems there is that the services are not needed by a great many of us and the apps are almost universally garbage. I do not use a single default Microsoft app on any Windows machine, for every last one of them there is a 3rd party product that is superior. When I had Win10 at work I found it incredibly frustrating that it kept changing my settings away from the software that I had carefully selected and deliberately installed, back to the crappy default garbage they wanted me to use.
-
Ofcourse I investigated the problem and found out a) I'm not the only one b) there is no fix. By your own admission you know the problem exists but you are also unaware of a fix. So how many unknown hours do I need to sink into a problem for which even Microsoft themselves has no solution for?
It doesn't occur in regularly booted VMs. That's a ready made workaround right there, implemented in minutes. You wouldn't even need to stop ragging on Windows as inventing another problem is easy enough.
-
MSFT is using the security issue to force upgrades and keep the income stream going. Mr Scrams only argument seems to be the need for more network security.
It is for sure an issue but me thinks they make a mountain out of it.
It is a huge issue, but it's definitely also abused to be able to leverage the Windows market share. It's obviously also not the only argument.
-
MS botched the mobile market and now they are doing the same to the computer market. They could have left well enough alone and started new lines of business without ruining the old ones. They could have said "we will offer a free OS in exchange for ads and your first-born child or we can also offer you a traditional OS in exchange for some cash". They are trying to be all things to all people and the result is they are not pleasing anyone.
I hope Linux finally takes off and can become mainstream.
You forget that Microsoft is a publicly traded company. They're doing whatever their shareholders feel it should be doing. Shareholders saw Google and Facebook growing exponentially and see the Windows market share as a resource. That's why Satya Nadella got installed. I don't agree with many of the things he's done, but have to admit the company's doing well in the financial sense under his lead.
-
The desktop market is mature, Microsoft bought into the hype that the desktop is dead. Mature market is not the same as dead by a long shot. The traditional desktop (and laptop) PC is alive and well, with something like a billion of them in use and they are not going away any time soon. What has changed is the technology has matured so users are upgrading less frequently than ever and the casual users who never really needed a full PC in the first place can now get by with mobile devices. Microsoft missed the boat with mobile, they arrived to that party almost 10 years too late which is an absolute eternity in tech then tried to play catch up with predictable results. Android and iOS were firmly dominant with Blackberry a distant third by the time MS even took the market seriously, by which point it was hopeless.
They threw Windows under the bus in a desperate effort to use it to jump start their mobile platform but that failed, Windows Mobile is dead yet for some reason they continue on the trajectory of "universal" apps that have no reason to exist without a robust mobile platform. They have failed to grasp that "legacy" Windows software and familiarity is nearly the entire reason most people use Windows, succeed in killing that off and Windows has no reason to exist.
Now it seems what they've done with 10 is made one final last ditch effort, sacrificing what is left of Windows trying to get people using their services and app store. One of the problems there is that the services are not needed by a great many of us and the apps are almost universally garbage. I do not use a single default Microsoft app on any Windows machine, for every last one of them there is a 3rd party product that is superior. When I had Win10 at work I found it incredibly frustrating that it kept changing my settings away from the software that I had carefully selected and deliberately installed, back to the crappy default garbage they wanted me to use.
If settings keep changing at work it's most likely those settings are forcibly set by your organisation, or your work organisation isn't managing its IT very well.
-
Consider two scenarios:
Scenario 1. You browse web and because software you use it buggy you accidentally download a virus. You computer became slow. Some unknown processes are running in the background consuming lots of resources. There's unwanted background Internet traffic consuming the bandwidth you're paying for. Settings unpredictably change, and if you restore your previous settings, they mysteriously get changed back again. Some of the software which worked before stops working ...
Scenario 2. You use Windows 10 and Microsoft rolled a new update. You computer became slow. Some unknown processes are running in the background consuming lots of resources. There's unwanted background Internet traffic consuming the bandwidth you're paying for. Settings unpredictably change, and if you restore your previous settings, they mysteriously get changed back again. Some of the software which worked before stops working ...
Do you see any difference? I don't.
I'm willing to believe you don't see key differences. I guess that's why they're now releasing updates more forcibly.
-
I'm willing to believe you don't see key differences. I guess that's why they're now releasing updates more forcibly.
Perhaps if you cannot tell what the differences are, and I don't see them at all, they don't really exist - the king is naked :)
-
Perhaps if you cannot tell what the differences are, and I don't see them at all, they don't really exist - the king is naked :)
Do I really need to explain the difference between an unknown malicious actor and a known party bound by law and contract? Even just the known and unknown part makes a world of difference. This just boils down to "I don't enough about this to see a difference so there musn't be one". If this discussion has reached the point where people are essentially calling fake news, I guess it's time for me to bow out.
-
You forget that Microsoft is a publicly traded company. They're doing whatever their shareholders feel it should be doing.
Shareholders saw Google and Facebook growing exponentially and see the Windows market share as a resource.
That's why Satya Nadella got installed.
I don't agree with many of the things he's done, but have to admit the company's doing well in the financial sense under his lead.
"Installed"
like a program? :o LOL, sorry mate I couldn't resist the giggle ;D
So what are these many things he's done you don't agree with? :-//
and FWIW no big company ever reports they are doing unwell, it's bad for business,
exciting BS and air statistics packaging the preferred reporting method.. :clap:
...unless they are honest and or humbly welcoming investors
or directors have done a runner with the cash and staff/employee supers >:D >:D and company assets sold off for peanuts
--------------------------
I'm willing to believe you don't see key differences. I guess that's why they're now releasing updates more forcibly.
Perhaps if you cannot tell what the differences are, and I don't see them at all, they don't really exist - the king is naked :)
the king is naked = four words that seal the deal on Win 10 dud OS denial
almost fell off the chair :popcorn: :-DD
-
Perhaps if you cannot tell what the differences are, and I don't see them at all, they don't really exist - the king is naked :)
Do I really need to explain the difference between an unknown malicious actor and a known party bound by law and contract? Even just the known and unknown part makes a world of difference. This just boils down to "I don't enough about this to see a difference so there musn't be one". If this discussion has reached the point where people are essentially calling fake news, I guess it's time for me to bow out.
There is a sense of truth in NorthGuy's statement from a user's perspective: In all the years of using Windows on my own PCs I lost more time dealing with fixing Windows than with malware / virusses.
BTW I have been an 'IT guy' in the past as a side business (including NT / Outlook office server setups) so I'm not a complete Windows illiterate. A big reason I stopped doing that is because for me there is no satisfaction at all in fixing a Windows problem.
-
I'm willing to believe you don't see key differences. I guess that's why they're now releasing updates more forcibly.
Perhaps if you cannot tell what the differences are, and I don't see them at all, they don't really exist - the king is naked :)
I don't deny there are differences, but I don't see much value in most of them. If it were just security patches then that would be great but most seem to be endless tinkering adding features nobody is asking for and making it harder to avoid edge/bing/Cortana. Most of the bug fixes are things that should have been finished before the OS shipped.
-
Do I really need to explain the difference between an unknown malicious actor and a known party bound by law and contract? Even just the known and unknown part makes a world of difference.
Malicious actors are bound by law too, and if caught will go to jail (and many get caught and prosecuted). In contrast, Microsoft's activity is completely legalized. You cannot sue them for the harm they cause to you - lost productivity, for example. Remember, ca 1997 there was huge lawsuit against Microsoft for including their browser with the OS. This was peanuts compared to the things they do now. But it is all perfectly legal now.
My computer got infected bya virus once. The virus was buggy so it didn't manage to do any harm. I bought a new computer anyway. That was it. Windows 10 has much more profound effect. I cannot put up with the changes. I now will have to switch to Linux, which is much bigger and costlier endeavour. I don't really see any remedy in the fact that I know who did it.
-
You forget that Microsoft is a publicly traded company. They're doing whatever their shareholders feel it should be doing.
Many companies have been driven into the ground by bad management. We shall have to wait and see where is MS in five or ten years from now and how much of their revenue comes from OS.
-
You forget that Microsoft is a publicly traded company. They're doing whatever their shareholders feel it should be doing.
Many companies have been driven into the ground by bad management.
We shall have to wait and see where is MS in five or ten years from now and how much of their revenue comes from OS.
They'll release Win 12 at the same time MacApple flog their latest glacier speed Montes Alpes OS
and there'll be a post like this to cater for it ;D
------------------------
...I now will have to switch to Linux, which is much bigger and costlier endeavour.
I don't really see any remedy in the fact that I know who did it.
There's no need mate, if there's drama just do a fresh install of Win 7 with SP1 with your preferred apps,
and good to go for a few years yet.
With 99.999% of apps, you won't need any flapdates, patches or PC life threatening critical security BS :scared: :bullshit: :palm:
If you do buy a new/er PC, just ensure it is Win 7 and not just Win 10 compatible (mobo drivers etc) and brush up on the -too many- file systems available
or stick to plain NTFS, Legacy, or whatever the system BIOS gives by default on a fresh install.
This way no guessing games later for recovery or boot issues
Suggest to use the retired box for Linux :clap:
FWIW: best bet to avoid malware and security issues, is have a separate high performance/decent apps PC with no internet connection, no browser, no email, just straight up computing
Nowadays, once you hit the web, and or others do so on your fine tuned customized personal computer,
unless you are a well versed IT person familiar with dealing with disasters > run for cover :scared:
-
If you do buy a new/er PC, just ensure it is Win 7 and not just Win 10 compatible (mobo drivers etc)
Hardware changes. Sooner or later, it becomes incompatible with Win 7. For example, Win XP won't run on modern PCs because of lack of drivers. Also, Win 7 requires activation. Microsoft may stop activations at any time. If they feel Win 7 is a thread, they may do it sooner rather than later.
-
That's not a huge problem. I have one machine running unactivated for over six years. Skip the automatic activation during installation and then the first time the computer is restarted after 30 days run a simple, built-in command (slmgr -rearm). No third party software required. You can do this a limited number of times before having to perform a slightly more complicated procedure to reset the count. This is basically just taking advantage of the built in "30 Day Free Trial". There are a number of other things slmgr.vbs can do. If you google "Windows 7 offline activation", or just the command itself, you'll find plenty more information.
...
Also, Win 7 requires activation. Microsoft may stop activations at any time. If they feel Win 7 is a thread, they may do it sooner rather than later.
-
Many companies have been driven into the ground by bad management. We shall have to wait and see where is MS in five or ten years from now and how much of their revenue comes from OS.
The revenue from the OS will likely be reduced as that's no longer the product. The current financial success of Microsoft is mostly derived from their new cloud services, as much as I loathe them.
-
I don't deny there are differences, but I don't see much value in most of them. If it were just security patches then that would be great but most seem to be endless tinkering adding features nobody is asking for and making it harder to avoid edge/bing/Cortana. Most of the bug fixes are things that should have been finished before the OS shipped.
The idea or promise of a rolling release was that quicker development iterations could be made and that catering to the needs of the customers is easier and quicker. Instead of launching a Windows 8 which scares the public at large, you make incremental changes and dial back what doesn't work. It boils down to a more modern agile approach which seems to work fairly well elsewhere. Although I do think the current interpretation is a bit of a dystopian version of that approach, people seem unhappy about the basics too. When Windows shipped in big lumps people complained about changes being too big or not suiting their needs. Now there's a different approach where changes are more iterative and people are complaining about the exact opposite. The conclusion seems to be that people will be complaining regardless.
As I've said I don't like the current way they handle things. A rolling release and the associated trade-offs like more bugs in the field are fine, but currently it mostly seems to be a tool used against the users instead of one that serves them. That's classic Microsoft though, doing all the right things in exactly the wrong way.
-
The idea or promise of a rolling release was that quicker development iterations could be made and that catering to the needs of the customers is easier and quicker.
I think the idea is to turn OS into the service. Then they can monetize with monthly fees, selling adds, collecting data end all that.
Think about it. You pay $10/month to Google to remove ads from the videos you watch on Youtube. It's $120/year. Over 10 years, it's $1,200. For comparison, I bought Windows 7 Professinal for about $100-150 (I don't remember the exact number) 10 years ago. Less store markup, Microsoft got may be $60-80.
$1,200 vs $60-80. No brainer, right? That's why it is going in the direction where the new paradigm of Windows as a service is capable of delivering continuous money flow. Hell with user experiences and everything else of that sort.
If one day Microsoft decides that Windows must live in Azure with thin client running "Virtual Windows Desktop" on an "affordable" brainless ARM-powered user station, then it's where Windows is going to go. Effortless maintenance and oceans of fee support for you, or shameless snooping, privacy invasion and constant disturbances for me. I better leave the bandwagon now, while I still can.
-
I think the idea is to turn OS into the service. Then they can monetize with monthly fees, selling adds, collecting data end all that.
Think about it. You pay $10/month to Google to remove ads from the videos you watch on Youtube. It's $120/year. Over 10 years, it's $1,200. For comparison, I bought Windows 7 Professinal for about $100-150 (I don't remember the exact number) 10 years ago. Less store markup, Microsoft got may be $60-80.
$1,200 vs $60-80. No brainer, right? That's why it is going in the direction where the new paradigm of Windows as a service is capable of delivering continuous money flow. Hell with user experiences and everything else of that sort.
If one day Microsoft decides that Windows must live in Azure with thin client running "Virtual Windows Desktop" on an "affordable" brainless ARM-powered user station, then it's where Windows is going to go. Effortless maintenance and oceans of fee support for you, or shameless snooping, privacy invasion and constant disturbances for me. I better leave the bandwagon now, while I still can.
One of the services, perhaps. It may just remain a means to support and push the other services, though. We live in an unfortunately era of shifting everything into control of others and leasing instead of owning. I don't think it's a good idea, but it looks like we'll have to relearn that lesson the hard way in the digital era.
-
Xilinx ISE 14, because we still have to support the devices it supports.
-
Xilinx ISE 14, because we still have to support the devices it supports.
ISE 14.7 ships with a libPortabilityNOSH.dll that allows it to work almost perfectly under Windows 10.
-
Do I really need to explain the difference between an unknown malicious actor and a known party bound by law and contract? Even just the known and unknown part makes a world of difference.
Malicious actors are bound by law too, and if caught will go to jail (and many get caught and prosecuted). In contrast, Microsoft's activity is completely legalized. You cannot sue them for the harm they cause to you - lost productivity, for example. Remember, ca 1997 there was huge lawsuit against Microsoft for including their browser with the OS. This was peanuts compared to the things they do now. But it is all perfectly legal now.
My computer got infected bya virus once. The virus was buggy so it didn't manage to do any harm. I bought a new computer anyway. That was it. Windows 10 has much more profound effect. I cannot put up with the changes. I now will have to switch to Linux, which is much bigger and costlier endeavour. I don't really see any remedy in the fact that I know who did it.
Yes, even if the cause of the two scenarios is different, the effect is the same: the user has a computer which no longer does what they want and continuously fucks up.
Switching to Linux is not costly. You don't have to switch completely. Have two computers: one with Windows 7 which is completely isolated from the Internet and one with Linux for the Internet. The isolated computer can be used for all your computing needs. If you need to access anything from the Internet, download it onto a USB key, using the Linux computer, virus scan it and load it onto your Windows computer. A slightly less secure but more convenient idea is to connect the Windows computer, to the Linux one, so files can be transferred between them.
Another option is to just use Linux and run Windows programs through WINE or a Windows virtual machine.
-
Win7 is far more stable and no surprise updates "your system will shut down in 30 seconds" since I disabled all updates shortly after SP1 with a couple exceptions. Never any AV security suite, just proactive detection on autoruns and good browser security. As Security Now guru, Steve Gibson says " Never Again" !
-
You forget that Microsoft is a publicly traded company. They're doing whatever their shareholders feel it should be doing.
Many companies have been driven into the ground by bad management. We shall have to wait and see where is MS in five or ten years from now and how much of their revenue comes from OS.
Sadly I think they are actually heading the right direction as far as trends and corporate stuff etc. People are into this sort of thing now, flashy UIs, cloud, "connected" stuff etc. As much as I hate and probably most of us hate that stuff, it's sadly the future. Win8/10 are entertainment OSes and not productivity OSes though but since there won't be any other options when Win7 is out of support companies won't have the choice but to shoe horn it in their IT infrastructure and try to make it work. The bolder companies might actually look at switching to Mac or Linux.
What I'd like to see MS do is have a "windows 2000" equivalent version of windows 10. It would have all the same stuff under the hood as 10, but a more tame and usable UI that is more geared for office use. Normal UI elements, normal buttons, no advertisements, no telemetry etc. None of this overly grossly sized stuff and wasted space. I could seem them muck that up though, they'd probably make it a subscription based thing or something. That's another trend I'm seeing more now.
-
If Microsoft aren't making much money from Windows, then why spend a lot improving it? Microsoft are just spending enough money to keep Windows going, so they see a return on thier investment.
-
Sadly I think they are actually heading the right direction as far as trends and corporate stuff etc. People are into this sort of thing now, flashy UIs, cloud, "connected" stuff etc. As much as I hate and probably most of us hate that stuff, it's sadly the future. Win8/10 are entertainment OSes and not productivity OSes though but since there won't be any other options when Win7 is out of support companies won't have the choice but to shoe horn it in their IT infrastructure and try to make it work. The bolder companies might actually look at switching to Mac or Linux.
What I'd like to see MS do is have a "windows 2000" equivalent version of windows 10. It would have all the same stuff under the hood as 10, but a more tame and usable UI that is more geared for office use. Normal UI elements, normal buttons, no advertisements, no telemetry etc. None of this overly grossly sized stuff and wasted space. I could seem them muck that up though, they'd probably make it a subscription based thing or something. That's another trend I'm seeing more now.
The problem with the whole cloud thing as its currently interpreted is that it creates a massive dependency on others and also introduces all kinds of performance issues. That dependency seems to be a feature as companies see it as a way of cornering clients and the market, but it's a matter of time before that causes massive issues and people realize it's not quite how you'd want to do it. Caching things locally and running frequent syncs in the background may work quite well, but running everything directly from the network is asking for trouble. Remember when Blackberry's infrastructure just refused to work for about three days? It was effectively the end of Blackberry as an enterprise option. The clostest to a Windows 2000 version is currently the server version. As little frills as you like. NTLite may be another option.
-
Win7 is far more stable and no surprise updates "your system will shut down in 30 seconds" since I disabled all updates shortly after SP1 with a couple exceptions. Never any AV security suite, just proactive detection on autoruns and good browser security. As Security Now guru, Steve Gibson says " Never Again" !
What do you think Steve Gibson is a proponent of? Because it's highly likely your computer never received the Spectre and Meltdown update, something he specifically wrote a tool for to detect.
-
Sadly I think they are actually heading the right direction as far as trends and corporate stuff etc. People are into this sort of thing now, flashy UIs, cloud, "connected" stuff etc. As much as I hate and probably most of us hate that stuff, it's sadly the future. Win8/10 are entertainment OSes and not productivity OSes though but since there won't be any other options when Win7 is out of support companies won't have the choice but to shoe horn it in their IT infrastructure and try to make it work. The bolder companies might actually look at switching to Mac or Linux.
What I'd like to see MS do is have a "windows 2000" equivalent version of windows 10. It would have all the same stuff under the hood as 10, but a more tame and usable UI that is more geared for office use. Normal UI elements, normal buttons, no advertisements, no telemetry etc. None of this overly grossly sized stuff and wasted space. I could seem them muck that up though, they'd probably make it a subscription based thing or something. That's another trend I'm seeing more now.
The problem with the whole cloud thing as its currently interpreted is that it creates a massive dependency on others and also introduces all kinds of performance issues. That dependency seems to be a feature as companies see it as a way of cornering clients and the market, but it's a matter of time before that causes massive issues and people realize it's not quite how you'd want to do it. Caching things locally and running frequent syncs in the background may work quite well, but running everything directly from the network is asking for trouble. Remember when Blackberry's infrastructure just refused to work for about three days? It was effectively the end of Blackberry as an enterprise option. The clostest to a Windows 2000 version is currently the server version. As little frills as you like. NTLite may be another option.
Oh yeah I agree but unfortunately the general public, even lot of tech people seem to be embracing it. I've even seen people say that server rooms are outdated and everything should be in cloud. They talk about it like it's this magical thing that is 100% perfect.
They even make cloud based network gear now. :o Like you need to use a 3rd party online service to configure it. so if that service goes down or your internet goes down you can't even make changes to your own network.
-
They even make cloud based network gear now. :o Like you need to use a 3rd party online service to configure it. so if that service goes down or your internet goes down you can't even make changes to your own network.
I was setting up some TP-Link stuff recently and their first option for configuring anything seemed to be by using some website.
:palm:
-
I was setting up some TP-Link stuff recently and their first option for configuring anything seemed to be by using some website.
:palm:
That website didn't happen to be pointing at some internet management page? DNS requests are resolved within the network first.
-
That website didn't happen to be pointing at some internet management page? DNS requests are resolved within the network first.
Did you mean internal management page?
This is the link, it's in the pdf documentation. Since I was setting the device up as an access point instead of as a router and there was no internet connection at that point, I didn't bother with it
http://tplinkwifi.net/ (http://tplinkwifi.net/)
-
http://tplinkwifi.net/ (http://tplinkwifi.net/)
I clicked this. It says:
"You may get the wrong DNS Server. You can use the Router's IP address http://192.168.0.1 (http://192.168.0.1) or http://192.168.1.1 (http://192.168.1.1) to login instead of tplinkwifi.net."
Apparently, it is supposed to access the router.
-
Did you mean internal management page?
This is the link, it's in the pdf documentation. Since I was setting the device up as an access point instead of as a router and there was no internet connection at that point, I didn't bother with it
http://tplinkwifi.net/ (http://tplinkwifi.net/)
That address links to a local page on the router. They just decided to get fancy with the DNS.
-
They even make cloud based network gear now. :o Like you need to use a 3rd party online service to configure it. so if that service goes down or your internet goes down you can't even make changes to your own network.
The phone company in Spain used that for a while but soon got rid of it. It is ridiculous.
And people who trust the cloud should learn the adage that "there is no cloud, there is only your computers and other people's computers". Which ones do you have more control of?
-
They even make cloud based network gear now. :o Like you need to use a 3rd party online service to configure it. so if that service goes down or your internet goes down you can't even make changes to your own network.
The phone company in Spain used that for a while but soon got rid of it. It is ridiculous.
And people who trust the cloud should learn the adage that "there is no cloud, there is only your computers and other people's computers".
Which ones do you have more control of?
Cloud surfers won't learn till the cloud brings rain,
the air based security develops pin holes,
and of course the deluge of 'not so free anymore' user fees that are bound to happen
Not knowing who exactly owns, operates and admins those cloudy servers, and why many are FREE :-// is enough to think twice about hoarding data there
Perhaps akin to a stranger near an alleyway, offering passer by kids free candy daily,
and then maybe one cloudy day... :scared: