Useful electronics programs that work on Win7 but not on Win10

[Electro Detective]

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?     LOL,  sorry mate I couldn't resist the giggle   

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.. 

...unless they are honest and or humbly welcoming investors
or directors have done a runner with the cash and staff/employee supers    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    

[nctnico]

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.

[james_s]

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.

[NorthGuy]

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.

[soldar]

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.

[Electro Detective]

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   


------------------------

...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   

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    


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 

[NorthGuy]

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.

[rdl]

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.

[Mr. Scram]

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.

[Mr. Scram]

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.

[NorthGuy]

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.

[Mr. Scram]

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.

[Bassman59]

Xilinx ISE 14, because we still have to support the devices it supports.

[technix]

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.

[Zero999]

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.

[TonyStewart]

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"  !
 
 

[Red Squirrel]

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.

[Zero999]

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.

[Mr. Scram]

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.

[Mr. Scram]

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.

[Red Squirrel]

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.    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. 

[rdl]

They even make cloud based network gear now.    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. 

[Mr. Scram]

I was setting up some TP-Link stuff recently and their first option for configuring anything seemed to be by using some website. 

That website didn't happen to be pointing at some internet management page? DNS requests are resolved within the network first.

[rdl]

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/

[NorthGuy]

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 or http://192.168.1.1 to login instead of tplinkwifi.net."

Apparently, it is supposed to access the router.