Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #17098 > unrolled thread

Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11

Contents

  Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 06:04 -0500
    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-16 08:53 -0500
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Johnny LaRue <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.zzz> - 2025-02-16 19:18 +0000
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-16 16:23 -0500
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> - 2025-02-16 21:31 +0000
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-16 18:49 -0500
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:27 -0500
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-16 21:38 +0000
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-16 18:49 -0500
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-17 05:08 +0000
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-17 06:56 -0500
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-17 19:34 +0300
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-17 18:38 +0000
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 15:16 +0300
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-20 12:56 +0000
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-20 19:58 +0000
                    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-20 15:14 -0500
                    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-20 20:42 +0000
                      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-21 21:24 +1100
                        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-21 08:26 -0500
                          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-24 22:37 +1100
                        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-21 16:45 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-17 19:06 +0000
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 15:11 +0300
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-20 12:51 +0000
                    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 17:18 +0300
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 15:13 +0300
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-18 21:40 +1100
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 08:23 +0000
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-17 07:15 -0500
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 17:50 +0000
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-17 14:35 -0500
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 00:19 +0000
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-20 19:32 -0500
                    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 01:29 +0000
                      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-21 08:35 -0500
                      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 13:11 -0500
                        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-21 18:46 +0000
                          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 17:32 -0500
                          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ  <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-02-22 11:57 -0700
                            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-22 19:27 +0000
                              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ  <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-02-22 16:14 -0700
                        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 21:33 +0000
                          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-22 05:49 -0500
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 08:10 -0500
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-20 21:56 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-02-21 18:15 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-10 18:20 +0000
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:23 -0500
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-17 19:40 +0300
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-17 18:59 +0000
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 14:59 +0300
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-02-20 07:18 -0500
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-20 21:25 +0000
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-21 02:11 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-21 07:48 +0000
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 21:35 +0000
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-22 10:26 -0500
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-20 21:23 +0000
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-20 17:04 -0500
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:13 -0500
    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-02-16 08:02 -0600
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:15 -0500
    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-16 12:40 -0500
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-17 05:28 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:22 -0500
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-17 15:11 -0500
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 15:19 +0300
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-20 09:00 -0500
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 17:29 +0300
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-20 12:27 -0500
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-20 19:50 +0000
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-20 21:22 +0000
                    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 10:53 -0500
                      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-21 18:10 +0000
                        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 19:24 -0500
                          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-26 20:29 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-21 18:31 +1100
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2025-02-20 15:38 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-20 11:23 -0500
    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-16 20:10 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:24 -0500
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-17 18:52 +0000
    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-02-21 08:13 +0000

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#17390

...w¡ñ§±¤ñ  <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote on 2/21/2025 11:46 AM:
> > Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2/20/2025 8:29 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> Why does Windows need to reboot about 5 times during an install? Because
> >>> nobody at Microsoft knows to reliably shut down and restart their own
> >>> services, so it?s easier just to reboot everything.
> >>>
> >>
> >> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-client/setup-upgrade-and-drivers/windows-10-upgrade-issues-troubleshooting
> > 
> > [Lots deleted.]
> > 
> >    I think the answer to Lawrence's claim got lost in your elaborate
> > details.
> > 
> >    So *how many* reboots are there actually during an install?
> > 
> >    I haven't experienced anything over only *two*, for Windows 10.
> > Windows 11 was only one, but that was an 'install' from a new preloaded
> > laptop, so probably more a 'setup' than an install.
> > 
> >    Anyway, two is quite a bit less than Lawrence's "about 5 times".
> > 
> >    Not that a few reboots during an *install* are anything to get one's
> > knickers in a twist, but apparently some knickers get twisted rather
> > easily.
> 
> Five is unlikely.
> An SSU is automatic, no reboot/restart
> An LCU auto or manual - normally one, at most two if WinRE is updated.
> A .NET reboot is rare.
> 
> Which raises the question - what is a reboot in Lawrence terms or was the 
> '5 reboots' just a randomly chosen number(for posting sake to make a 
> point, valid or invalid)??
> 
> i.e. reboots could mean Windows Update determining the need for 
> subsequent security patches after a pre-requisite(current or earlier 
> released) LCU or KB is installed.
> 
> Even so, 5 reboots would be extremely rare for any device.
>   - well maybe if it was one or 'T's tweaked customer devices<gdr>

  And note that Lawrence's 'point' was about an *install*, not about
about an *update*. That an update might be done *after* the install -
for example for old installation media - is irrelevant. He says "Windows
need to reboot about 5 times during an install".

  Anyway, he has shut up about this FUD of his.

> [Linux group removed for this reply]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17413

Frank Slootweg wrote on 2/22/2025 12:27 PM:
> ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ  <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg wrote on 2/21/2025 11:46 AM:
>>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2/20/2025 8:29 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Why does Windows need to reboot about 5 times during an install? Because
>>>>> nobody at Microsoft knows to reliably shut down and restart their own
>>>>> services, so it?s easier just to reboot everything.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-client/setup-upgrade-and-drivers/windows-10-upgrade-issues-troubleshooting
>>>
>>> [Lots deleted.]
>>>
>>>     I think the answer to Lawrence's claim got lost in your elaborate
>>> details.
>>>
>>>     So *how many* reboots are there actually during an install?
>>>
>>>     I haven't experienced anything over only *two*, for Windows 10.
>>> Windows 11 was only one, but that was an 'install' from a new preloaded
>>> laptop, so probably more a 'setup' than an install.
>>>
>>>     Anyway, two is quite a bit less than Lawrence's "about 5 times".
>>>
>>>     Not that a few reboots during an *install* are anything to get one's
>>> knickers in a twist, but apparently some knickers get twisted rather
>>> easily.
>>
>> Five is unlikely.
>> An SSU is automatic, no reboot/restart
>> An LCU auto or manual - normally one, at most two if WinRE is updated.
>> A .NET reboot is rare.
>>
>> Which raises the question - what is a reboot in Lawrence terms or was the
>> '5 reboots' just a randomly chosen number(for posting sake to make a
>> point, valid or invalid)??
>>
>> i.e. reboots could mean Windows Update determining the need for
>> subsequent security patches after a pre-requisite(current or earlier
>> released) LCU or KB is installed.
>>
>> Even so, 5 reboots would be extremely rare for any device.
>>    - well maybe if it was one or 'T's tweaked customer devices<gdr>
> 
>    And note that Lawrence's 'point' was about an *install*, not about
> about an *update*. That an update might be done *after* the install -
> for example for old installation media - is irrelevant. He says "Windows
> need to reboot about 5 times during an install".
> 
>    Anyway, he has shut up about this FUD of his.
> 
>> [Linux group removed for this reply]
One could easily misrepresent what occurs after an install with 
subsequent Windows updates on initial use after an install.

Installation media is point-in-time installation files, not necessarily 
the current date with all LCU, .NET, SafeOS updates/patches.
  - i.e. not unusual after an install(usb, iso, reset install), 
especially for auto updating in Win10 Home, that subsequent 
download/installs may need to occur - even so, 5 reboots for and install 
and subsequent updating when LCU/SSU/SafeOS/Windows Update engine are 
primarily cumulative(last one includes and supercedes need for earlier).

-- 
...w¡ñ§±¤ñ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17348

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:11:54 -0500, Paul wrote:

> On Thu, 2/20/2025 8:29 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> Why does Windows need to reboot about 5 times during an install?
>> Because nobody at Microsoft knows to reliably shut down and restart
>> their own services, so it’s easier just to reboot everything.
>>
> ...
> 
>     2) SafeOS phase:    ...computer is booted into Windows PE during the
>     SafeOS phase
>                             Now the computer has a known good OS, to
>                             continue the installation process

Here’s something else that wasn’t mentioned: on Windows, the running 
processes keep open files locked, so they cannot be upgraded. Switching to 
a minimal boot kernel isn’t so much about being “known good” as it is 
about avoiding locks on files that need to be upgraded.

> The logfiles go in a different place now.

Why? So that locks on files in that “different place” don’t matter for 
upgrading the regular OS.

> and somewhere in there, is the "Migration phase", where programs are
> reinstalled one by one.

Wonder why this is even necessary. A Linux distro can upgrade itself in-
place, without touching third-party stuff in /usr/local or /opt.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17377

On Fri, 2/21/2025 4:33 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:11:54 -0500, Paul wrote:

>> and somewhere in there, is the "Migration phase", where programs are
>> reinstalled one by one.
> 
> Wonder why this is even necessary. A Linux distro can upgrade itself in-
> place, without touching third-party stuff in /usr/local or /opt.

The appcompat knows a lot about well-known programs
and their needs. And can configure things for you.

Executable files have a compatibility setting in the Properties
of the file. You can tell it to "assume a WinXP environment", and
the OS can adjust the resources the program sees, so it looks like
Windows XP. For example, you can run Audacity, and offer it OpenAL
(no compat setting) or a previous audio subsystem if you set the
value to an earlier OS. The names of the audio inputs and outputs
change when you do this.

The appcompat can do that by itself. The user can adjust the menu value
as they see fit, if they think some other value is better.

In a Linux upgrade, all the package versions and their dependencies
are upgraded, so it's a forklift change where the existing packages
guide what items are updated immediately. Maybe the old version
of program used GTK2, the new version uses GTK3.

Part of a Linux upgrade, is removing some customizations known to
break an upgrade attempt. On Linux, you *back up* before an Upgrade
attempt. If Linux becomes wobbly, don't fret, restore from backup
and try again, like after you evaluate whether any PPA you added
could be responsible.

The Windows installer explicitly looks for blockers. For
example, I had one Windows Upgrade denied because "your VirtualBox
is not compatible with the new OS". Removing VBox 5 and
installing VBox 6, shuts up the message and the
check before the install starts, is satiated. But a
lot of other stuff is handled by AppCompat and installing
things using the .msi collection stored in C: . If you were upgrading
a Win7 Pro with WinXP mode to Win10, you would likely be told
that Virtual PC is not compatible with the OS, and the user then
removes WinXP Mode (supported by a Virtual PC install) from the
playing field and the Upgrade goes ahead. Anything virtualization
related, stands a chance of being an issue, unless the installer
logic finds the item is OK.

The Windows Installer doesn't know everything. It should have known
my video card was too old, but it does not attempt to resolve driver
dependencies early on. My Upgrade attempt rolled back, and on a
hunch, I installed another video card (desktop) to replace
the GMA4500 iGPU and the Upgrade finished on the second try.
There was no message on the screen that was the issue, it just
rolled back and that was it. I was supposed to "read logfiles
and figure it out for myself". I put in a sufficiently modern
card (WDDM 1.1 driver available) and took my chances without
reading any logs. That's because I'd read somewhere on the web,
that the particular Upgrade did not support XDDM driver cards.
We had been warned on previous occasions that support would
not last forever on XDDM (presumably, a WinXP era driver).

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17326

On Mon, 2/17/2025 7:15 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2025-02-17 3:23 a.m., Chris wrote:
>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-16 2:18 p.m., Johnny LaRue wrote:
>>>> On Feb 16, 2025 at 8:53:44 AM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2025-02-16 6:04 a.m., Joel wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-removes-windows-11-24h2-official-support-on-8th-9th-10th-gen-intel-cpus/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I can still boot Win11 on my box, because it's grandfathered in,
>>>>>> from 2021.  OK.  Great.  Nah, I'll stick with Linux, thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is honestly very interesting. It's looking like Microsoft is
>>>>> borrowing Apple's approach to support.
>>>>
>>>> Good. It's about damn time.  Very hard to move forward when you are still
>>>> supporting ancient hardware (and software).
>>>>
>>>> And let's face it.  To have any future at all, Windows desperately needs to
>>>> move forward.
>>>
>>> Have you ever considered that an operating system could offer layers of
>>> functionality? For example, a 286 could run Windows 3.0, but if you
>>> wanted the enhanced features, you needed a 386. Why can't it be that way
>>> with Windows again?
>>
>> Because judging the tech market by 30 year old standards is daft. Windows
>> 11 has nothing in common with Windows 3.0.
> 
> Yes, but it can easily make itself available to lower-end machines by turning off some graphical features which are enabled by default and some security features which aren't supported on older machines. The core of Windows 11 should run on machines from the 2006-2007 era, it just won't.
> 

The truth of the matter is, 400,000,000 computers are going to the
landfill, and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

Even throwing them out is going to be a problem. The recycling plants
don't have the capacity for something like that. There will be a very
large pile out back of the shredding plant. Anything which requires manual
labor (remove mobo from desktop case) times 400,000,000 is "a lot of hours".

*******

Here are some breadcrumbs.

   CMPXCHG16b requirement only applies to the 64-bit installation of Windows 8.1;
   the 32-bit version should work just fine on your machine.

   CMPXCHG16b, PrefetchW, and LAHF/SAHF

   SSE2, PAE, NX

   SSE4.2 POPCNT, plus the vanilla (single operand) POPCNT

   Some applications also have at least an SSE2 requirement
   (could be used as an equivalent to the MOVEM on a 68K processor).
   That might have been a browser (all platforms) needing SSE2.

The labeling of the features varies a bit in utilities.

https://superuser.com/questions/931742/windows-10-64-bit-requirements-does-my-cpu-support-cmpxchg16b-prefetchw-and-la

LAHF-SAHF       -       Supports LAHF/SAHF instructions in 64-bit mode
NX              -       Supports no-execute page protection
CX16            *       Supports CMPXCHG16B instruction
X64             *       Supports 64-bit mode
PREFETCHW       -       Supports PREFETCHW instruction

Graphics are DX9, DX11, DX12, DX12 Ultimate, sorted into driver
versions XDDM and WDDM 1.1 thru 3.4 . Win10 22H2 requires min WDDM 1.1.
A HD6450 is WDDM 1.1 (it got only one WDDM driver). The 7900GT crashes
on Linux, runs on Windows 10. As example of "adventures for the unwary".
It's because of this and various secure boot messes (shim signing),
the industry has set this up such that "it takes too many hours
of maintenance to wrestle this stuff from the landfill". The industry
has won, with their stupid little tricks. Even Wayland plays a part
(follow the money). Wayland is the superfluous third tit.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17301

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:23:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Windows 11 has nothing in common with Windows 3.0.

Oh, it has plenty in common. Drive letters, default extensions for finding 
executables, crap .BAT files, “reserved” file names (anybody know what 
they are?), tendency to become flaky over time, difficulties with multi-
tasking ...

And that’s just off the top of my head.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17340

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:56:23 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:23:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
> 
>> Windows 11 has nothing in common with Windows 3.0.
> 
> Oh, it has plenty in common. Drive letters, default extensions for
> finding executables, crap .BAT files, “reserved” file names (anybody
> know what they are?), tendency to become flaky over time, difficulties
> with multi- tasking ...
> 
> And that’s just off the top of my head.

How about the "hide known file extensions" feature that makes it easier 
for malware writers? Where an EXE file called "help.txt.exe" can look like 
a harmless text file.

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Error! No keyboard detected. Press F1 to continue."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17662

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 21:56 this Thursday (GMT):
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:23:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> Windows 11 has nothing in common with Windows 3.0.
>
> Oh, it has plenty in common. Drive letters, default extensions for finding 
> executables, crap .BAT files, “reserved” file names (anybody know what 
> they are?), tendency to become flaky over time, difficulties with multi-
> tasking ...
>
> And that’s just off the top of my head.


I know COM and LPT.
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17156

Johnny LaRue <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.zzz> wrote:
>On Feb 16, 2025 at 8:53:44?AM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2025-02-16 6:04 a.m., Joel wrote:

>>> https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-removes-windows-11-24h2-official-support-on-8th-9th-10th-gen-intel-cpus/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So, I can still boot Win11 on my box, because it's grandfathered in,
>>> from 2021.  OK.  Great.  Nah, I'll stick with Linux, thanks.
>> 
>> That is honestly very interesting. It's looking like Microsoft is
>> borrowing Apple's approach to support.
>
>Good. It's about damn time.  Very hard to move forward when you are still
>supporting ancient hardware (and software). 
>
>And let's face it.  To have any future at all, Windows desperately needs to
>move forward. 
>
>> I suppose that I should be
>> expecting my own processor to be unsupported with a future release.
>
>See above.


You have no problem replacing your computer every few years?  No
wonder you use a Mac, heh.

-- 
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]

#17162

Johnny LaRue to CrudeSausage:

> > That is honestly very interesting. It's looking like
> > Microsoft is borrowing Apple's approach to support.
>
> Good. It's about damn time.  Very hard to move forward
> when you are still supporting ancient hardware (and
> software).
>
> And let's face it.  To have any future at all, Windows
> desperately needs to move forward.

Progress for the sake of progress is meaningless.  Progress
shall serve the benefit of the end user, e.g. by helping
them use their computer, OS, and software without the
incessand upgrade treadmill, unless they need some
functionality that cannot be implemented on their hardware
for technical -- rather than capitalistic -- reasons.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17166

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:40:12 +0300
Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:

> Johnny LaRue to CrudeSausage:
> 
> > > That is honestly very interesting. It's looking like
> > > Microsoft is borrowing Apple's approach to support.
> >
> > Good. It's about damn time.  Very hard to move forward
> > when you are still supporting ancient hardware (and
> > software).
> >
> > And let's face it.  To have any future at all, Windows
> > desperately needs to move forward.
> 
> Progress for the sake of progress is meaningless.  Progress
> shall serve the benefit of the end user, e.g. by helping
> them use their computer, OS, and software without the
> incessand upgrade treadmill, unless they need some
> functionality that cannot be implemented on their hardware
> for technical -- rather than capitalistic -- reasons.
> 
Feh. It's a well-known business model; FWSE: 'built-in obscelence'.
I do /not/ need extra spyware or AI bots, Thanks.
-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17266

Kerr-Mudd, John to Anton Shepelev:

> > Progress for the sake of progress is meaningless.
> > Progress shall serve the benefit of the end user, e.g.
> > by helping them use their computer, OS, and software
> > without the incessand upgrade treadmill, unless they
> > need some functionality that cannot be implemented on
> > their hardware for technical -- rather than capitalistic
> > -- reasons.
>
> Feh.

feg is a good image viewer.

> It's a well-known business model; FWSE: 'built-in
> obscelence'.  I do /not/ need extra spyware or AI bots,
> Thanks.

Why the /thanks/?  I did not offer aught of the above.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17270

Anton Shepelev wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> Kerr-Mudd, John to Anton Shepelev:
>
>> > Progress for the sake of progress is meaningless.
>> > Progress shall serve the benefit of the end user, e.g.
>> > by helping them use their computer, OS, and software
>> > without the incessand upgrade treadmill, unless they
>> > need some functionality that cannot be implemented on
>> > their hardware for technical -- rather than capitalistic
>> > -- reasons.
>>
>> Feh.
>
> feg is a good image viewer.

Here's how I use feh to splat different random wallpapers on each monitor:

    feh --bg-scale --randomize --recursive ~/.local/wallpapers/ &

It's in my .xsession and also mapped (in Fluxbox) to the Super-Z key combo.

I notice feh is still getting updates (in Debian Sid).

-- 
If I were a grave-digger or even a hangman, there are some people I could
work for with a great deal of enjoyment.
		-- Douglas Jerrold

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17298

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:40:12 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> Johnny LaRue to CrudeSausage:
> 
>> And let's face it.  To have any future at all, Windows desperately
>> needs to move forward.
> 
> Progress for the sake of progress is meaningless.

Particularly when most of what seems to be called “progress” these days 
(at least in the proprietary world) seems to be about promotion of new GUI 
fashions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17308

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:25:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:40:12 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> 
>> Johnny LaRue to CrudeSausage:
>> 
>>> And let's face it.  To have any future at all, Windows desperately
>>> needs to move forward.
>> 
>> Progress for the sake of progress is meaningless.
> 
> Particularly when most of what seems to be called “progress” these days
> (at least in the proprietary world) seems to be about promotion of new
> GUI fashions.

Like the women's fashion industry the new Guis are what was popular 10 
years ago. Are we past flat and back to skeuomorphic yet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17316

On 21 Feb 2025 02:11:58 GMT
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:25:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:40:12 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > 
> >> Johnny LaRue to CrudeSausage:
> >> 
> >>> And let's face it.  To have any future at all, Windows desperately
> >>> needs to move forward.
> >> 
> >> Progress for the sake of progress is meaningless.
> > 
> > Particularly when most of what seems to be called “progress” these days
> > (at least in the proprietary world) seems to be about promotion of new
> > GUI fashions.
> 
> Like the women's fashion industry the new Guis are what was popular 10 
> years ago. Are we past flat and back to skeuomorphic yet?

semi-transparent is like so cool!
-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17349

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 07:48:03 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:25:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> 
>> Particularly when most of what seems to be called “progress” these
>> days (at least in the proprietary world) seems to be about promotion
>> of new GUI fashions.
> 
> semi-transparent is like so cool!

I do like my 3D effects. But Microsoft doesn’t seem too keen on them any 
more. Absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Linux GUIs can implement 
them more efficiently, and on lower-spec hardware, than Windows was ever 
able to manage, oh no!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17382

On Fri, 2/21/2025 4:35 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 07:48:03 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:25:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> Particularly when most of what seems to be called “progress” these
>>> days (at least in the proprietary world) seems to be about promotion
>>> of new GUI fashions.
>>
>> semi-transparent is like so cool!
> 
> I do like my 3D effects. But Microsoft doesn’t seem too keen on them any 
> more. Absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Linux GUIs can implement 
> them more efficiently, and on lower-spec hardware, than Windows was ever 
> able to manage, oh no!
> 

Windows has animation effects, but it is not Compiz level.
There are no fireworks or screen shimmer effects. (Modern Compiz
is just compositing.)

If you have ever watched a video card trigger the Watchdog,
and the screen has stopped updating while this has happened,
you will see that the simplest of things, are being faded in and
out, and you can catch the GUI between states, with half of one image
and half of the other, signaling a transition is taking place.

sysdm.cpl : Advanced : Performance (Settings) : Visual Effects

the Custom settings there, allow you to turn off most of the
buttery smooth stuff, in the interests of reducing the
overhead needed to do a job. If you were, for example,
stuck with the Microsoft Basic Display Adapter (no driver
is otherwise available for the card, it is the VESA driver),
running all those effects emulated, on the CPU, would be wasteful.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17297

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:18:24 +0000, Johnny LaRue wrote:

> Very hard to move forward when you are still supporting ancient hardware
> (and software).

Linux seems to do a better job of the ancient-hardware bit. And it manages 
it with a fraction of the resources available to Microsoft.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17302

On 2025-02-20 4:23 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:18:24 +0000, Johnny LaRue wrote:
> 
>> Very hard to move forward when you are still supporting ancient hardware
>> (and software).
> 
> Linux seems to do a better job of the ancient-hardware bit. And it manages
> it with a fraction of the resources available to Microsoft.

Linux's existence is what caused me to be confident that I can make use 
of the 2017 MacBook Air I just bought for $150. With MacOS, it probably 
won't go far; with Linux, it will be a perfectly usable machine that I 
can keep at work. I already invested in screwdrivers, an SSD adapter and 
a DisplayPort-to-HDMI adapter to make it even better and potentially use 
it all the way to the next decade.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-11

csiph-web