Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #15848 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-12-31 19:08 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-01-07 02:07 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 121 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11
This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-31 19:08 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-31 15:19 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2024-12-31 15:41 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-31 21:09 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-31 21:40 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-31 22:14 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-31 22:16 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-31 22:46 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-01 07:50 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-01 08:37 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-01 09:20 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-01 10:06 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-01 23:31 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-01 19:26 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-02 19:14 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-01 09:38 -0600
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Gregg Fowler <totsob@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-01 14:45 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-01 10:20 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 11:42 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-01 19:28 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 14:34 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-01 18:17 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 18:30 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-01 19:23 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 20:10 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-02 08:32 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-02 19:00 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-02 15:04 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 15:18 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-04 20:10 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-01 23:46 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 00:15 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-02 08:58 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 12:11 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-01 23:38 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 18:54 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-01 19:28 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-01 23:59 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 00:16 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-02 05:31 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-02 18:21 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-02 21:55 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 10:18 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-03 21:25 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 13:06 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-04 09:48 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 00:28 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-04 21:16 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 02:44 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-01-04 13:29 -0700
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-02 08:55 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-02 19:22 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-02 15:04 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-03 01:58 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-02 22:12 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-03 08:41 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-03 07:16 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-03 20:24 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-03 15:38 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-02 22:36 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 11:26 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-03 06:13 -0600
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 13:47 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-03 21:26 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-03 20:24 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-04 06:43 -0600
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-04 10:20 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 13:47 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 13:16 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 00:26 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 14:35 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 00:15 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-06 14:47 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 20:20 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-04 20:21 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-02 18:50 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-02 21:57 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-02 22:41 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 10:37 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 10:28 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-01 20:19 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 15:24 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-01 21:14 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 17:10 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-02 00:19 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-01 22:12 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-02 19:26 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-01 23:53 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-01 21:54 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-01 22:42 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-02 05:29 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-02 18:39 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-02 21:56 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 10:18 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-03 21:27 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-01-26 19:07 +1100
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-27 17:14 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-31 20:45 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-01 01:27 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-31 21:33 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-01 13:45 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-01-02 13:50 +0100
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-02 09:47 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 10:37 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-03 05:20 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 16:48 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-04 20:32 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-01-05 01:39 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2025-01-05 00:43 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 02:45 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2025-01-08 00:00 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 14:14 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 00:15 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-05 22:29 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 06:29 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2025-01-08 00:09 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-08 02:24 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-07 22:44 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-01-09 09:02 -0700
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-06 14:48 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-07 02:07 +0000
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 14:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o26bnjt79jdmu8nn810b9cit5rvrvl2pc8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #15906 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 14:45:44 GMT, Gregg Fowler wrote: > >> Beta software is beta software. An OS is an OS. > >And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and expecting its >users to rely on that for mission-critical production work. Yeah, weird, huh? It's like they can't make it right from the beginning, they need people to put up with bugs to test it in the wild, how is their internal testing so poor? Being on the cutting edge with M$ is just spinning one's wheels. Linux is the refuge. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 18:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <62kdP.13233$XfF8.7735@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #15909 |
On 2025-01-01 14:34, Joel wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 14:45:44 GMT, Gregg Fowler wrote: >> >>> Beta software is beta software. An OS is an OS. >> >> And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and expecting its >> users to rely on that for mission-critical production work. > > > Yeah, weird, huh? It's like they can't make it right from the > beginning, they need people to put up with bugs to test it in the > wild, how is their internal testing so poor? Being on the cutting > edge with M$ is just spinning one's wheels. Linux is the refuge. If Windows 11 didn't routinely become unbootable from an update that Microsoft didn't test under certain conditions, I'd disagree with Joel here. However, it seems that it happens with every one of their cumulative updates. -- Andrzej (Andre) Matuch Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41 KDE supporting member
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 18:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <oljbnjlun52i9ti02mancub64i0uh7sbkl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #15927 |
Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote: >On 2025-01-01 14:34, Joel wrote: >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 14:45:44 GMT, Gregg Fowler wrote: >>> >>>> Beta software is beta software. An OS is an OS. >>> >>> And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and expecting its >>> users to rely on that for mission-critical production work. >> >> Yeah, weird, huh? It's like they can't make it right from the >> beginning, they need people to put up with bugs to test it in the >> wild, how is their internal testing so poor? Being on the cutting >> edge with M$ is just spinning one's wheels. Linux is the refuge. > >If Windows 11 didn't routinely become unbootable from an update that >Microsoft didn't test under certain conditions, I'd disagree with Joel >here. However, it seems that it happens with every one of their >cumulative updates. Seemingly, they aren't really testing the code, much less testing deployment, because the kinds of bugs just don't reflect an odd incompatibility but rather that specific PC systems are treated in an erroneous manner, M$ can't manage its bloated OS, I guess. They do a passable job on the whole, though, but certain customers are plagued by the bugs. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 19:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <z0ldP.24349$DPp5.18068@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #15928 |
On 2025-01-01 18:30, Joel wrote: > Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote: >> On 2025-01-01 14:34, Joel wrote: >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 14:45:44 GMT, Gregg Fowler wrote: >>>> >>>>> Beta software is beta software. An OS is an OS. >>>> >>>> And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and expecting its >>>> users to rely on that for mission-critical production work. >>> >>> Yeah, weird, huh? It's like they can't make it right from the >>> beginning, they need people to put up with bugs to test it in the >>> wild, how is their internal testing so poor? Being on the cutting >>> edge with M$ is just spinning one's wheels. Linux is the refuge. >> >> If Windows 11 didn't routinely become unbootable from an update that >> Microsoft didn't test under certain conditions, I'd disagree with Joel >> here. However, it seems that it happens with every one of their >> cumulative updates. > > > Seemingly, they aren't really testing the code, much less testing > deployment, because the kinds of bugs just don't reflect an odd > incompatibility but rather that specific PC systems are treated in an > erroneous manner, M$ can't manage its bloated OS, I guess. They do a > passable job on the whole, though, but certain customers are plagued > by the bugs. The bug that finally caused me to stop bothering with them isn't Microsoft's fault, but I do fault them for continuing to demand TPM when the requirement was causing stuttering with anyone who owned an AMD processor. Like I said, if you were aware of what was causing the problem and your motherboard allowed you to install a hardware TPM, you were clear as long as you didn't mind paying to buy one, assuming that a BIOS update wasn't available. However, most people could _at best_ disable it and lose the ability to install 11. If they knew about Rufus, they could try to circumvent the problem and hope that Microsoft didn't screw them over in an update. For laptop owners though, it's an absolute mess that the manufacturers have no interest in fixing. There is no excuse for any manufacturer to be aware of such an issue for years and not do a thing about it. Additionally, there is no excuse for Microsoft to acknowledge this reality and not at least allow AMD users to use 11 without TPM if not disable the hwrng causing the issue. Anyways, I'm tired of being treated like I don't matter because they already got my money. At least the manufacturer replaced my motherboard when I intentionally fucked it up on the day before my warranty ended. It was becoming clear that the fingerprint reader wasn't working because the technician shorted the motherboard during the first repair when they replaced my battery, so I wanted a replacement and I wouldn't get it unless I killed it. -- Andrzej (Andre) Matuch Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41 KDE supporting member
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 20:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <m9pbnjpa0ce9qqcc74htus7p1uhktcp05d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #15936 |
Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote: >On 2025-01-01 18:30, Joel wrote: >> Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote: >>> On 2025-01-01 14:34, Joel wrote: >>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 14:45:44 GMT, Gregg Fowler wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Beta software is beta software. An OS is an OS. >>>>> >>>>> And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and expecting its >>>>> users to rely on that for mission-critical production work. >>>> >>>> Yeah, weird, huh? It's like they can't make it right from the >>>> beginning, they need people to put up with bugs to test it in the >>>> wild, how is their internal testing so poor? Being on the cutting >>>> edge with M$ is just spinning one's wheels. Linux is the refuge. >>> >>> If Windows 11 didn't routinely become unbootable from an update that >>> Microsoft didn't test under certain conditions, I'd disagree with Joel >>> here. However, it seems that it happens with every one of their >>> cumulative updates. >> >> Seemingly, they aren't really testing the code, much less testing >> deployment, because the kinds of bugs just don't reflect an odd >> incompatibility but rather that specific PC systems are treated in an >> erroneous manner, M$ can't manage its bloated OS, I guess. They do a >> passable job on the whole, though, but certain customers are plagued >> by the bugs. > >The bug that finally caused me to stop bothering with them isn't >Microsoft's fault, but I do fault them for continuing to demand TPM when >the requirement was causing stuttering with anyone who owned an AMD >processor. Like I said, if you were aware of what was causing the >problem and your motherboard allowed you to install a hardware TPM, you >were clear as long as you didn't mind paying to buy one, assuming that a >BIOS update wasn't available. However, most people could _at best_ >disable it and lose the ability to install 11. If they knew about Rufus, >they could try to circumvent the problem and hope that Microsoft didn't >screw them over in an update. For laptop owners though, it's an absolute >mess that the manufacturers have no interest in fixing. There is no >excuse for any manufacturer to be aware of such an issue for years and >not do a thing about it. Additionally, there is no excuse for Microsoft >to acknowledge this reality and not at least allow AMD users to use 11 >without TPM if not disable the hwrng causing the issue. Anyways, I'm >tired of being treated like I don't matter because they already got my >money. I think Microsoft genuinely feels that their barely supporting hardware, in any real sense, is the natural way, that if people are too stupid or stubborn to try Linux on a somewhat older system, they get what they deserve, bloat that overloads their gear. It's really amazing, how attached people are to Winblows software, and how intimidated they are by anything Linux (I mean they can try Mint, FFS), M$ and the OEMs just suck their money year after year. >At least the manufacturer replaced my motherboard when I intentionally >fucked it up on the day before my warranty ended. It was becoming clear >that the fingerprint reader wasn't working because the technician >shorted the motherboard during the first repair when they replaced my >battery, so I wanted a replacement and I wouldn't get it unless I killed >it. You mean that you made an already malfunctioning board completely dead, because you didn't want the fingerprint reader alone repaired, but a replacement of the board? I guess I can't fault you, for that, to me the idea of a warranty claim is the ultimate in drudgery, which is why I purchased the wireless charger for my phone when its USB-C stopped working under warranty, no fucking way am I playing that game where they issue me a replacement and refurbish and profit from my original one, fuck them, I'd rather give Amazon the few bucks for an alternative charging mechanism. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-02 08:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <TzwdP.38352$vfee.24212@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #15940 |
On 2025-01-01 20:10, Joel wrote: > Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote: >> On 2025-01-01 18:30, Joel wrote: >>> Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote: >>>> On 2025-01-01 14:34, Joel wrote: >>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 14:45:44 GMT, Gregg Fowler wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Beta software is beta software. An OS is an OS. >>>>>> >>>>>> And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and expecting its >>>>>> users to rely on that for mission-critical production work. >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, weird, huh? It's like they can't make it right from the >>>>> beginning, they need people to put up with bugs to test it in the >>>>> wild, how is their internal testing so poor? Being on the cutting >>>>> edge with M$ is just spinning one's wheels. Linux is the refuge. >>>> >>>> If Windows 11 didn't routinely become unbootable from an update that >>>> Microsoft didn't test under certain conditions, I'd disagree with Joel >>>> here. However, it seems that it happens with every one of their >>>> cumulative updates. >>> >>> Seemingly, they aren't really testing the code, much less testing >>> deployment, because the kinds of bugs just don't reflect an odd >>> incompatibility but rather that specific PC systems are treated in an >>> erroneous manner, M$ can't manage its bloated OS, I guess. They do a >>> passable job on the whole, though, but certain customers are plagued >>> by the bugs. >> >> The bug that finally caused me to stop bothering with them isn't >> Microsoft's fault, but I do fault them for continuing to demand TPM when >> the requirement was causing stuttering with anyone who owned an AMD >> processor. Like I said, if you were aware of what was causing the >> problem and your motherboard allowed you to install a hardware TPM, you >> were clear as long as you didn't mind paying to buy one, assuming that a >> BIOS update wasn't available. However, most people could _at best_ >> disable it and lose the ability to install 11. If they knew about Rufus, >> they could try to circumvent the problem and hope that Microsoft didn't >> screw them over in an update. For laptop owners though, it's an absolute >> mess that the manufacturers have no interest in fixing. There is no >> excuse for any manufacturer to be aware of such an issue for years and >> not do a thing about it. Additionally, there is no excuse for Microsoft >> to acknowledge this reality and not at least allow AMD users to use 11 >> without TPM if not disable the hwrng causing the issue. Anyways, I'm >> tired of being treated like I don't matter because they already got my >> money. > > > I think Microsoft genuinely feels that their barely supporting > hardware, in any real sense, is the natural way, that if people are > too stupid or stubborn to try Linux on a somewhat older system, they > get what they deserve, bloat that overloads their gear. It's really > amazing, how attached people are to Winblows software, and how > intimidated they are by anything Linux (I mean they can try Mint, > FFS), M$ and the OEMs just suck their money year after year. As simple as the process of creating a USB thumdrive loaded with Linux and booting from it is, this is considered too complicated by a large amount of computer users. A lot of them already find it difficult to uninstall software that they clearly don't need or to run a command like sfc periodically to check if their system files are corrupt. They need someone to hold their hand to install Linux and even then, they'll need a hand just to figure out how to install and remove software. It seems ridiculous for me to say this but it's not a joke; people really are this stupid. I've grown up surrounded by these people. I spent a lot of my life thinking that everyone around me was at least as smart as I was. Instead, I'm realizing that most people are either book smart or street smart, and very few have the curiosity required to learn how things work on their own. >> At least the manufacturer replaced my motherboard when I intentionally >> fucked it up on the day before my warranty ended. It was becoming clear >> that the fingerprint reader wasn't working because the technician >> shorted the motherboard during the first repair when they replaced my >> battery, so I wanted a replacement and I wouldn't get it unless I killed >> it. > > You mean that you made an already malfunctioning board completely > dead, because you didn't want the fingerprint reader alone repaired, > but a replacement of the board? I guess I can't fault you, for that, > to me the idea of a warranty claim is the ultimate in drudgery, which > is why I purchased the wireless charger for my phone when its USB-C > stopped working under warranty, no fucking way am I playing that game > where they issue me a replacement and refurbish and profit from my > original one, fuck them, I'd rather give Amazon the few bucks for an > alternative charging mechanism. When they first repaired the laptop because the keyboard was faulty, I asked them to replace the battery while they were at it because the wear was at 17% or so. I was told that replacing it myself was risky because one wrong move results in a spark that might kill your motherboard, so I figured a professional would do a cleaner job. When I got the unit back, the keyboard worked fine but suddenly the fingerprint reader was broken so I asked them to look into it. They did nothing, as far as I know, but sent me the unit back with some laptop sleeve and an apology. From that point on, I tried literally everything to get that fingerprint reader to work right but nothing resulted in it working consistently. With a day left to my warranty, I figured they had gotten a spark when they changed the battery, so I killed the motherboard (without it receiving any kind of obvious damage) to force them to remedy the situation they had ignored the previous time around. I was right: the motherboard was indeed the issue and they had most likely gotten a spark because it works perfectly now (in Windows, since it is not supported under Linux). -- Andrzej (Andre) Matuch Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41 KDE supporting member
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-02 19:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <vl6r7g.dio.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #15936 |
Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote: [...] > The bug that finally caused me to stop bothering with them isn't > Microsoft's fault, but I do fault them for continuing to demand TPM when > the requirement was causing stuttering with anyone who owned an AMD > processor. [...] I didn't follow this 'stuttering' problem before, but as I have an AMD processor and - like you - in a laptop [1], can you tell me how/where I would experience said stuttering? So far everything seems to be running fine. [...] [1] HP Pavilion 15-eh2560nd laptop, AMD Ryzen 5 5625U 2.3Ghz 6 Cores, Windows 11 24H2.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-02 15:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <YiCdP.414641$bYV2.368740@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #15981 |
On 2025-01-02 14:00, Frank Slootweg wrote: > Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote: > [...] > >> The bug that finally caused me to stop bothering with them isn't >> Microsoft's fault, but I do fault them for continuing to demand TPM when >> the requirement was causing stuttering with anyone who owned an AMD >> processor. [...] > > I didn't follow this 'stuttering' problem before, but as I have an AMD > processor and - like you - in a laptop [1], can you tell me how/where I > would experience said stuttering? So far everything seems to be running > fine. > > [...] > > [1] HP Pavilion 15-eh2560nd laptop, AMD Ryzen 5 5625U 2.3Ghz 6 Cores, > Windows 11 24H2. An example: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYnRL-x6DVI> An acknowledgement from AMD: <https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-acknowledges-ftpm-stuttering-issues-promises-a-bios-fix-in-may> I doubt that you never experienced it. However, you might have had it fixed if you use a desktop and the manufacturer of your motherboard issued an update for the problem. -- Andrzej (Andre) Matuch Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41 KDE supporting member
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 15:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <vl92ie.qp8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #15989 |
Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2025-01-02 14:00, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> The bug that finally caused me to stop bothering with them isn't
> >> Microsoft's fault, but I do fault them for continuing to demand TPM when
> >> the requirement was causing stuttering with anyone who owned an AMD
> >> processor. [...]
> >
> > I didn't follow this 'stuttering' problem before, but as I have an AMD
> > processor and - like you - in a laptop [1], can you tell me how/where I
> > would experience said stuttering? So far everything seems to be running
> > fine.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > [1] HP Pavilion 15-eh2560nd laptop, AMD Ryzen 5 5625U 2.3Ghz 6 Cores,
> > Windows 11 24H2.
>
> An example:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYnRL-x6DVI>
Thankss!
I've never experienced any noticeable video/display stuttering, but
then I don't play games and watch few, but some, videos. OTOH, the
author says "Regardless of what programs I was running.". I assume he
means "Regardless of what *other* programs I was running."
I got my laptop in end of July 2022. Most references are older than
that. Perhaps my laptop was already fixed by HP/AMD.
The video and its notes talk about 'fTPM' ('firmware TPM'). When I run
'tpm.msc' as mentioned in the notes, the 'Trusted Platform Module
Management' plugin only mentions 'TPM', not 'fTPM' anywhere, so perhaps
I *do* have a discrete TPM module.
Anyway, the only specific information reported is:
"TPM Manufacturer Information
Manufacturer Name: AMD
Manufacturer Version: 3.91.2.5
Specification Version: 2.0"
> An acknowledgement from AMD:
>
> <https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-acknowledges-ftpm-stuttering-issues-promises-a-bios-fix-in-may>
>
> I doubt that you never experienced it. However, you might have had it
> fixed if you use a desktop and the manufacturer of your motherboard
> issued an update for the problem.
Thanks again! I thought I didn't download/install any BIOS firmware
update, but on checking my notes, I remembered/saw that there was a
*forced* BIOS upgrade as part of the 12SEP2023 monthly Windows Update
cycle, so perhaps the problem (which I never encountered/noticed) was
fixed at that time.
AFAIC, case closed. But feel free to comment. Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 20:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <vlcm6f$mvsg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16039 |
On Fri, 1/3/2025 10:18 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On 2025-01-02 14:00, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> The bug that finally caused me to stop bothering with them isn't
>>>> Microsoft's fault, but I do fault them for continuing to demand TPM when
>>>> the requirement was causing stuttering with anyone who owned an AMD
>>>> processor. [...]
>>>
>>> I didn't follow this 'stuttering' problem before, but as I have an AMD
>>> processor and - like you - in a laptop [1], can you tell me how/where I
>>> would experience said stuttering? So far everything seems to be running
>>> fine.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> [1] HP Pavilion 15-eh2560nd laptop, AMD Ryzen 5 5625U 2.3Ghz 6 Cores,
>>> Windows 11 24H2.
>>
>> An example:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYnRL-x6DVI>
>
> Thankss!
>
> I've never experienced any noticeable video/display stuttering, but
> then I don't play games and watch few, but some, videos. OTOH, the
> author says "Regardless of what programs I was running.". I assume he
> means "Regardless of what *other* programs I was running."
>
> I got my laptop in end of July 2022. Most references are older than
> that. Perhaps my laptop was already fixed by HP/AMD.
>
> The video and its notes talk about 'fTPM' ('firmware TPM'). When I run
> 'tpm.msc' as mentioned in the notes, the 'Trusted Platform Module
> Management' plugin only mentions 'TPM', not 'fTPM' anywhere, so perhaps
> I *do* have a discrete TPM module.
>
> Anyway, the only specific information reported is:
>
> "TPM Manufacturer Information
> Manufacturer Name: AMD
> Manufacturer Version: 3.91.2.5
> Specification Version: 2.0"
>
>> An acknowledgement from AMD:
>>
>> <https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-acknowledges-ftpm-stuttering-issues-promises-a-bios-fix-in-may>
>>
>> I doubt that you never experienced it. However, you might have had it
>> fixed if you use a desktop and the manufacturer of your motherboard
>> issued an update for the problem.
>
> Thanks again! I thought I didn't download/install any BIOS firmware
> update, but on checking my notes, I remembered/saw that there was a
> *forced* BIOS upgrade as part of the 12SEP2023 monthly Windows Update
> cycle, so perhaps the problem (which I never encountered/noticed) was
> fixed at that time.
>
> AFAIC, case closed. But feel free to comment. Thanks.
>
You could check your BIOS date with CPU-Z .
The other machine, they stopped delivering BIOS updates,
so I'm missing one for security on that machine. The
machine has no TPM and only an fTPM style implementation.
What's strange on the Asus board, is the BIOS file happens
to support around a half-dozen of their machines (design
similarity) and has code for physical TPM detection and use,
yet, there are no pins on the motherboard for a TPM module to
plug into.
All my BIOS have been installed by me.
I don't normally flash BIOS for fun, but I flash in
the security ones.
[Picture]
https://i.postimg.cc/xT5W12yT/BIOS-f-TPM-Five-Fans-machine.gif
Some Windwos things, may involve screwing with MOK or CA stored
in the NVRAM of the UEFI BIOS. On Linux, a boot time utility
(MOKutil?) makes changes to the BIOS info. Microsoft updated some
key thing, to a 2023 date, and the Linux signed shims align
with that same item that was added to the BIOS.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 23:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <vl55n3$36h5q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15927 |
On Wed, 1/1/2025 6:17 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote: > On 2025-01-01 14:34, Joel wrote: >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 14:45:44 GMT, Gregg Fowler wrote: >>> >>>> Beta software is beta software. An OS is an OS. >>> >>> And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and expecting its >>> users to rely on that for mission-critical production work. >> >> >> Yeah, weird, huh? It's like they can't make it right from the >> beginning, they need people to put up with bugs to test it in the >> wild, how is their internal testing so poor? Being on the cutting >> edge with M$ is just spinning one's wheels. Linux is the refuge. > > If Windows 11 didn't routinely become unbootable from an update that > Microsoft didn't test under certain conditions, I'd disagree with Joel here. > However, it seems that it happens with every one of their cumulative updates. What does this "unbootable" mean exactly ? Do you have just Windows on a disk by itself, and after every Cumulative, the OS does not boot ? If it does not boot, does it try three times until concluding the repair procedures did not work ? And if the OS did not boot, I presume at some point it did not boot and you were stuck. Did you have a multiboot, GRUB was in control of the menu, GRUB would no longer start (but the Windows Boot Manager entry in the popup boot did work?). Generally, the only time Windows breaks GRUB, is when adding a C: to the disk via Clean Install. ******* Did you "Clean Install" to resume operation ? Every time ? If multi-booting, this would require the (linux) Boot Repair CD, for easiest GRUB repair. I've used that a few times, and for simple setups, it can work. The thing I have trouble with, is seeming damage to the Microsoft folder in UEFI partition. I don't know of a simple way to 're-pave" the files in there, like while running from a DVD. It may be possible to restore /EFI/Microsoft from a backup (Macrium could put the whole partition back), but for people without a backup, I don't know of a solution that is direct and to the point. Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-02 00:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <868cnj1m0jnr2tcoov81ennaofmeddjncj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #15944 |
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: >On Wed, 1/1/2025 6:17 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote: >> >> If Windows 11 didn't routinely become unbootable from an update that >> Microsoft didn't test under certain conditions, I'd disagree with Joel here. >> However, it seems that it happens with every one of their cumulative updates. > >What does this "unbootable" mean exactly ? > >Do you have just Windows on a disk by itself, and after >every Cumulative, the OS does not boot ? If it does not >boot, does it try three times until concluding the >repair procedures did not work ? And if the OS did not boot, >I presume at some point it did not boot and you were stuck. > >Did you have a multiboot, GRUB was in control of the menu, >GRUB would no longer start (but the Windows Boot Manager entry >in the popup boot did work?). Generally, the only time Windows >breaks GRUB, is when adding a C: to the disk via Clean Install. > >******* > >Did you "Clean Install" to resume operation ? Every time ? >If multi-booting, this would require the (linux) Boot Repair CD, for >easiest GRUB repair. I've used that a few times, and for simple >setups, it can work. > >The thing I have trouble with, is seeming damage to the Microsoft >folder in UEFI partition. I don't know of a simple way to 're-pave" >the files in there, like while running from a DVD. It may be >possible to restore /EFI/Microsoft from a backup (Macrium could >put the whole partition back), but for people without a backup, >I don't know of a solution that is direct and to the point. There have been a couple too many media reports, about Winblows fucking up to that degree. And several more about severe bugs on certain OS install scenarios, yada yada. (And we're pretending not to remember the various security and Internet holes there were, beginning with NT 4, including 2000 and XP. Vista of course was probably pretty great in that regard, though, oddly enough, as its overall code was a mess.) -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-02 08:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <dYwdP.318141$%aWb.265321@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #15947 |
On 2025-01-02 00:15, Joel wrote: > Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: >> On Wed, 1/1/2025 6:17 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote: >>> >>> If Windows 11 didn't routinely become unbootable from an update that >>> Microsoft didn't test under certain conditions, I'd disagree with Joel here. >>> However, it seems that it happens with every one of their cumulative updates. >> >> What does this "unbootable" mean exactly ? >> >> Do you have just Windows on a disk by itself, and after >> every Cumulative, the OS does not boot ? If it does not >> boot, does it try three times until concluding the >> repair procedures did not work ? And if the OS did not boot, >> I presume at some point it did not boot and you were stuck. >> >> Did you have a multiboot, GRUB was in control of the menu, >> GRUB would no longer start (but the Windows Boot Manager entry >> in the popup boot did work?). Generally, the only time Windows >> breaks GRUB, is when adding a C: to the disk via Clean Install. >> >> ******* >> >> Did you "Clean Install" to resume operation ? Every time ? >> If multi-booting, this would require the (linux) Boot Repair CD, for >> easiest GRUB repair. I've used that a few times, and for simple >> setups, it can work. >> >> The thing I have trouble with, is seeming damage to the Microsoft >> folder in UEFI partition. I don't know of a simple way to 're-pave" >> the files in there, like while running from a DVD. It may be >> possible to restore /EFI/Microsoft from a backup (Macrium could >> put the whole partition back), but for people without a backup, >> I don't know of a solution that is direct and to the point. > > > There have been a couple too many media reports, about Winblows > fucking up to that degree. And several more about severe bugs on > certain OS install scenarios, yada yada. (And we're pretending not to > remember the various security and Internet holes there were, beginning > with NT 4, including 2000 and XP. Vista of course was probably pretty > great in that regard, though, oddly enough, as its overall code was a > mess.) Its code was a mess because it was a complete rewrite of what already existed. The reason Vista was bad and 7 was good was because the same code that had gone into the former was optimized by the time of the former's release. Windows is still using that code today and I would imagine that there is no longer a need for a rewrite. -- Andrzej (Andre) Matuch Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41 KDE supporting member
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-02 12:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <ishdnjpjas7pf681fk574fvq7t8ogubuop@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #15968 |
Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote: >> (And we're pretending not to >> remember the various security and Internet holes there were, beginning >> with NT 4, including 2000 and XP. Vista of course was probably pretty >> great in that regard, though, oddly enough, as its overall code was a >> mess.) > >Its code was a mess because it was a complete rewrite of what already >existed. The reason Vista was bad and 7 was good was because the same >code that had gone into the former was optimized by the time of the >former's release. Windows is still using that code today and I would >imagine that there is no longer a need for a rewrite. The basis of Windows hasn't really changed since 7 and Vista's equivalent service pack, right - the big changes during 8.x/10's era and during 11's are higher level. What matters to me, though, is that with the update schemes for both 10 and 11, now the only supported Windows, even truly primitive hardware can boot 10 supposedly but will have an abysmal experience doing so. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 23:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ltm1vgFhvukU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #15909 |
On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 14:34:06 -0500, Joel wrote: > Yeah, weird, huh? It's like they can't make it right from the > beginning, they need people to put up with bugs to test it in the wild, > how is their internal testing so poor? Being on the cutting edge with > M$ is just spinning one's wheels. Linux is the refuge. I really hate defending Microsoft but when they do a release how are they supposed to test every possible combination of hardware and software? Linux has gotten better but it was problematic on laptops and there were/ are lists of Linux friendly laptops. The Windows world assumes it's going to work. Apple has a much easier task since they know exactly what the software is going to run on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 18:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9clbnj9n370u7ok25d67ljcu14sua7bteh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #15930 |
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >> Yeah, weird, huh? It's like they can't make it right from the >> beginning, they need people to put up with bugs to test it in the wild, >> how is their internal testing so poor? Being on the cutting edge with >> M$ is just spinning one's wheels. Linux is the refuge. > >I really hate defending Microsoft but when they do a release how are they >supposed to test every possible combination of hardware and software? >Linux has gotten better but it was problematic on laptops and there were/ >are lists of Linux friendly laptops. The Windows world assumes it's going >to work. > >Apple has a much easier task since they know exactly what the software is >going to run on. In part that is true analysis, yeah. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 19:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <a5ldP.24351$DPp5.18598@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #15930 |
On 2025-01-01 18:38, rbowman wrote: > On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 14:34:06 -0500, Joel wrote: > >> Yeah, weird, huh? It's like they can't make it right from the >> beginning, they need people to put up with bugs to test it in the wild, >> how is their internal testing so poor? Being on the cutting edge with >> M$ is just spinning one's wheels. Linux is the refuge. > > I really hate defending Microsoft but when they do a release how are they > supposed to test every possible combination of hardware and software? No, but they should give people the option to take a wait and see approach rather than force updates on everyone who didn't pay for a Pro license. Some people want every update the moment it's available; others like my wife want to watch the other computer crash and let the corporation fix the issue before she installs them. > Linux has gotten better but it was problematic on laptops and there were/ > are lists of Linux friendly laptops. The Windows world assumes it's going > to work. > > Apple has a much easier task since they know exactly what the software is > going to run on. I have yet to see an Apple update screw anything up but it is definitely easier for them since there aren't as many MacOS configurations to consider. -- Andrzej (Andre) Matuch Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41 KDE supporting member
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 23:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <vl56g9$36l6t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15938 |
On Wed, 1/1/2025 7:28 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
> On 2025-01-01 18:38, rbowman wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 14:34:06 -0500, Joel wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, weird, huh? It's like they can't make it right from the
>>> beginning, they need people to put up with bugs to test it in the wild,
>>> how is their internal testing so poor? Being on the cutting edge with
>>> M$ is just spinning one's wheels. Linux is the refuge.
>>
>> I really hate defending Microsoft but when they do a release how are they
>> supposed to test every possible combination of hardware and software?
>
> No, but they should give people the option to take a wait and see approach rather than force updates on everyone who didn't pay for a Pro license. Some people want every update the moment it's available; others like my wife want to watch the other computer crash and let the corporation fix the issue before she installs them.
>
>> Linux has gotten better but it was problematic on laptops and there were/
>> are lists of Linux friendly laptops. The Windows world assumes it's going
>> to work.
>>
>> Apple has a much easier task since they know exactly what the software is
>> going to run on.
>
> I have yet to see an Apple update screw anything up but it is definitely easier for them since there aren't as many MacOS configurations to consider.
>
There is a button in Windows Update, to delay the installation of patches.
"Pause Updates" Pull-down menu == "Up to 5 weeks (35 days)"
This should be sufficient, you can resume updates when your desktop is
free and a block of time is available for the update to happen.
The purpose of this, is to control the "arbitrariness" of updating.
It does not stop updating altogether. People here have also achieved
that (no updates) by breaking stuff :-) The "Update Orchestrator"
exists, to try to keep updates flowing, by noticing damage to
the update system.
Windows used to have a control variable between 0..4, and one of the
values made it so updates only showed up if you clicked the button
to check for updates. That made the control of it, perfectly manual,
and if you wanted to stop updating for three years, you could. The
design intent of the current scheme, is to not do it like that,
and (long term average) always be receiving updates.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-02 00:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <v78cnj9nh55hp3b8s0dmh2ju590qjpjfb1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #15945 |
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: >There is a button in Windows Update, to delay the installation of patches. > > "Pause Updates" Pull-down menu == "Up to 5 weeks (35 days)" > >This should be sufficient, you can resume updates when your desktop is >free and a block of time is available for the update to happen. > >The purpose of this, is to control the "arbitrariness" of updating. >It does not stop updating altogether. People here have also achieved >that (no updates) by breaking stuff :-) The "Update Orchestrator" >exists, to try to keep updates flowing, by noticing damage to >the update system. > >Windows used to have a control variable between 0..4, and one of the >values made it so updates only showed up if you clicked the button >to check for updates. That made the control of it, perfectly manual, >and if you wanted to stop updating for three years, you could. The >design intent of the current scheme, is to not do it like that, >and (long term average) always be receiving updates. If Windows Update is so dependent on this delay feature, that tells me M$ is being ridiculous. Either they expect me to still be running Win10, or to have clung to 23H2 at least, I guess, I mean WTF is going on with them? Why would they imply that 24H2 was something "seekers" would be cool with, having *severe* bugs? In any event, it would seem evident people running 23H2 should wait for Windows Update to offer a version upgrade, at least - if not engage your delay "feature". -- Joel W. Crump Yeah, (supported versions of) Microsoft Windows is a piece of shit*. * Unless you're running very high-end or fresh hardware..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-02 05:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <vl58bj$36ulr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15945 |
On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 23:59:53 -0500, Paul wrote: > People here have also achieved that (no updates) by breaking stuff :-) Microsoft itself has now come up with an update that does this, too--kills the ability to receive further updates. As I mentioned in the posting that started this thread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-11
csiph-web