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

#17447

On 22/02/2025 12:26 am, Joel wrote:
> Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> On 21/02/2025 7:42 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I've been on both sides of the fence. When current software wouldn't
>>>> install/run on my Windows 7 box it became a Linux box.
>>>
>>>     I think this calls for a famous quote from a newsgroup, a long, long
>>> time ago:
>>>
>>> Supported, known to work                -> warm fuzzies all around
>>> Supported, known to not work            -> an <redacted>ite is in trouble
>>> Unsupported, known to work              -> lucky today, unlucky tomorrow?
>>> Unsupported, not known to not work      -> there but for the grace of Turing
>>> Unsupported, known to not work          -> no, it was not deliberate ;-)
>>>
>>> [Hi Rick!]
>>>
>> Hmmm! Is that, sort of, like Iraq War??
>>
>> There are Known Knowns.
>> There are Known Unknowns.
>> There are Unknown Knows, and,
>> There are Unknown Unknows!!
>> c. Early 1990, so GW Bush Snr or his Defence Boss. ;-P
> 
> 
> That was in 2003 or later, Sec. Rumsfeld regarding the invasion of
> Iraq under GWB, not the elder Pres. Bush in the '90s.
> 
Ah!! Sorry! I was thinking of the wrong war!! ;-(

-- 
Daniel70

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

#17334

Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
> On 21/02/2025 7:42 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> 
> <Snip>
> 
> >> I've been on both sides of the fence. When current software wouldn't
> >> install/run on my Windows 7 box it became a Linux box.
> > 
> >    I think this calls for a famous quote from a newsgroup, a long, long
> > time ago:
> > 
> > Supported, known to work                -> warm fuzzies all around
> > Supported, known to not work            -> an <redacted>ite is in trouble
> > Unsupported, known to work              -> lucky today, unlucky tomorrow?
> > Unsupported, not known to not work      -> there but for the grace of Turing
> > Unsupported, known to not work          -> no, it was not deliberate ;-)
> > 
> > [Hi Rick!]
> > 
> Hmmm! Is that, sort of, like Iraq War??
> 
> There are Known Knowns.
> There are Known Unknowns.
> There are Unknown Knows, and,
> There are Unknown Unknows!!
> c. Early 1990, so GW Bush Snr or his Defence Boss. ;-P

  Could be. Perhaps the author was inspired by it, but I doubt it,
because it's a totally different subject matter.

  BTW, Wikipedia says the 1990-1991 war was the 'Gulf War' and
'Operation Desert Storm' or, later, referred by some as the 'First Iraq
War'.

  I looked it up, because to me, the 'Iraq War' is the 2003 one.
Wikipedia agrees with me and so they should! :-) 

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_(disambiguation)>

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

#17168

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:34:14 +0300
Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:

> rbowman:
> 
> > CrudeSausage:
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > So a software company would have to maintain, build, and
> > test several branches, some of which would have minimal
> > sales? No thanks.
> 
> Not at all.  This kind of compatibility is not maintained in
> branches, but rather in a common code base with perhaps (but
> not necessarily) some platform-specific fragments govenred
> by conditinal compilation.  Modern technology offers many
> open, stable, and well-supported standards and protocols to
> make software that lasts.
> 
> A reponsible developer uses the oldest technology that suits
> the task, to save the users from the upgrade treadmill.  For
> example, a terminal text editor may support 132x60 true-
> color terminals, but it will always support the standard ISO
> screen of 80x25 characters as the common denominator.  It
> may support Unicode, but will always support 7- and 8-bit
> codepages, and so on.  That way, computer can have their
> natural usable lifespan of 20-25 years for the majority of
> everyday tasks.
> 
> Many requirements are the result of a collusion between
> hardware, OS, and software makers to  force usees (as
> xwidnows calls them) continuosly to pay for newer hardware,
> OSes, and software -- merely too keep the PC usable.
> Hackers have demonstrated that many games and some browsers
> do not work on Windows XP simply because of an explicit
> version test in the code, removing which lets the program
> run.
> 
> This article is made in Windows XP: written in RPad32,

nearly 400k for a mere notepad treplacement ?! - ah maybe cyrillic support
takes it there.

> formatted with GNU Troff, 

formatting? feh, a few linewraps is easy.

> and posted via Sylpheed.

That's a good choice.

-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

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

#17267

Kerr-Mudd, John to Anton Shepelev:

> > This  article  is made in Windows XP: written in
> > RPad32,
>
> nearly 400k for a mere notepad treplacement ?!
> - ah maybe cyrillic support takes it there.

It has lots of nifty features in addition to suport-
ing  the  five  main  Cyrilic encodings, but none of
those seem to justify the size, which may be due  to
the  reliance  on  some third-party rich-text compo-
nent.  I never cared.

> > formatted with GNU Troff,
>
> formatting? feh, a few linewraps is easy.

Sometimes I also  use  autonumbered  lists,  tables,
display environments, footnotes, headers, justifica-
tion and hyphenation  (here),  &c.   I  typeset  the
CoreOps newsletter in nroff:

    https://corewar.co.uk/coreops/coreops02.txt

Otherwise,  Vim's "gq" formatter or a similar exter-
nal utility usually does the job.

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

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

#17275

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:11:23 +0300
Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:

> Kerr-Mudd, John to Anton Shepelev:
> 
> > > This  article  is made in Windows XP: written in
> > > RPad32,
> >
[snip fair comment about apps]
> 
>     https://corewar.co.uk/coreops/coreops02.txt
> 
Golly, that's a blast from the past; I recall seeing CW in the early 80's;
but I never did get into it enough to create any warriors.
[]

-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

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

#17279

Kerr-Mudd, John to Anton Shepelev:

> > https://corewar.co.uk/coreops/coreops02.txt
>
> Golly, that's a blast from the past; I recall seeing CW in
> the early 80's; but I never did get into it enough to
> create any warriors.

Nor did I, but this friend of mine has become one of the best
contemporary CoreWar masters.  I have, however, written some
non-warrior CoreWar programs in a competition, but I did not
win anything because no one else was crazy enough to write
utilities in Corewar... It is some 15 years ago, when it was
going strong.

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

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

#17268

Kerr-Mudd, John to Anton Shepelev:

> > and posted via Sylpheed.
>
> That's a good choice.

Good indeed, even though it has been unmaintained for quite
some time.

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

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

#17193

On 17/02/2025 8:38 am, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:23:49 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> So a software company would have to maintain, build, and test several
> branches, some of which would have minimal sales? No thanks.
> 
And then you get to 'Pentium' v '586'!! Similar but not the same!!
-- 
Daniel70

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

#17143

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. 

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

#17149

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.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage/
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
John 14:6

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

#17163

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> 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. 

Given the significant risks of cyber threats no-one is going to advocate
for removing security features. 

> The 
> core of Windows 11 should run on machines from the 2006-2007 era, it 
> just won't.

Are you a developer with intimate knowledge of the inner workings of
Windows? Windows doesn't work that way mostly for marketing reasons.

What you're looking for is linux, that way -->

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

#17169

On 2025-02-17 12:50 p.m., Chris wrote:
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> 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.
> 
> Given the significant risks of cyber threats no-one is going to advocate
> for removing security features.

Not removing; not enabling. Not everyone needs Bitlocker encryption, for 
example. Not everyone will need Smart App Control. Let that kind of 
functionality be optional and for more advanced computers.

>> The
>> core of Windows 11 should run on machines from the 2006-2007 era, it
>> just won't.
> 
> Are you a developer with intimate knowledge of the inner workings of
> Windows? Windows doesn't work that way mostly for marketing reasons.
> 
> What you're looking for is linux, that way -->

Linux, you say? Is that the name of Atari's new video game console?

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage/
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
John 14:6

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

#17304

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 17:50:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Are you a developer with intimate knowledge of the inner workings of
> Windows? Windows doesn't work that way mostly for marketing reasons.

Nobody knows how Windows works, not even Microsoft’s own engineers.

Who in the world, inside or outside of Microsoft, can answer yes to the 
first question? Nobody.

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

#17305

On 2025-02-20 7:19 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 17:50:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
> 
>> Are you a developer with intimate knowledge of the inner workings of
>> Windows? Windows doesn't work that way mostly for marketing reasons.
> 
> Nobody knows how Windows works, not even Microsoft’s own engineers.
> 
> Who in the world, inside or outside of Microsoft, can answer yes to the
> first question? Nobody.

I would be surprised about this considering how they rewrote most of it 
in the mid-2000s.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
John 14:6

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

#17306

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:32:44 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2025-02-20 7:19 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 17:50:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>> 
>>> Are you a developer with intimate knowledge of the inner workings of
>>> Windows? Windows doesn't work that way mostly for marketing reasons.
>> 
>> Nobody knows how Windows works, not even Microsoft’s own engineers.
>> 
>> Who in the world, inside or outside of Microsoft, can answer yes to the
>> first question? Nobody.
> 
> I would be surprised about this considering how they rewrote most of it
> in the mid-2000s.

They tried to. Remember “Longhorn”, which became Windows Vista? They were 
promising a whole bunch of new major technologies, none of which 
eventually shipped. Remember why it was so late? Because somebody had the 
bright idea of writing core parts of it in Dotnet. Which turned out to be 
a really bad idea. So the infamous “Longhorn Reset” involved chucking out 
and replacing all that Dotnet code. And even with the delay, they still 
had to rush to get it out. Hence all the bugs and inefficiencies and 
instabilities and other trouble.

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.

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

#17329

On 2025-02-20 8:29 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:32:44 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-02-20 7:19 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 17:50:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you a developer with intimate knowledge of the inner workings of
>>>> Windows? Windows doesn't work that way mostly for marketing reasons.
>>>
>>> Nobody knows how Windows works, not even Microsoft’s own engineers.
>>>
>>> Who in the world, inside or outside of Microsoft, can answer yes to the
>>> first question? Nobody.
>>
>> I would be surprised about this considering how they rewrote most of it
>> in the mid-2000s.
> 
> They tried to. Remember “Longhorn”, which became Windows Vista? They were
> promising a whole bunch of new major technologies, none of which
> eventually shipped. Remember why it was so late? Because somebody had the
> bright idea of writing core parts of it in Dotnet. Which turned out to be
> a really bad idea. So the infamous “Longhorn Reset” involved chucking out
> and replacing all that Dotnet code. And even with the delay, they still
> had to rush to get it out. Hence all the bugs and inefficiencies and
> instabilities and other trouble.
> 
> 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.

That could be true. I was part of the beta-testing experience back then 
(my friend from high school ended up working at Microsoft and sent me an 
invite), and I can honestly say that the product was a complete mess 
during the time that we tested it. Finding bugs was trivial. I found a 
bunch and they rewarded me with a product key for Windows Vista Ultimate 
for my efforts. I was surprised that it was ever released to 
manufacturers though.

Beta-testing 7 was a different story. There were bugs, but they were a 
lot harder to find. Even in beta, it was a superior product to the 
finished Vista.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
John 14:6

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

#17339

On Thu, 2/20/2025 8:29 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:32:44 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-02-20 7:19 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 17:50:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you a developer with intimate knowledge of the inner workings of
>>>> Windows? Windows doesn't work that way mostly for marketing reasons.
>>>
>>> Nobody knows how Windows works, not even Microsoft’s own engineers.
>>>
>>> Who in the world, inside or outside of Microsoft, can answer yes to the
>>> first question? Nobody.
>>
>> I would be surprised about this considering how they rewrote most of it
>> in the mid-2000s.
> 
> They tried to. Remember “Longhorn”, which became Windows Vista? They were 
> promising a whole bunch of new major technologies, none of which 
> eventually shipped. Remember why it was so late? Because somebody had the 
> bright idea of writing core parts of it in Dotnet. Which turned out to be 
> a really bad idea. So the infamous “Longhorn Reset” involved chucking out 
> and replacing all that Dotnet code. And even with the delay, they still 
> had to rush to get it out. Hence all the bugs and inefficiencies and 
> instabilities and other trouble.
> 
> 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

    1) Downlevel phase: ... this phase runs on the source OS  <=== can pop the DVD or .ISO after this reboots
                            The OS may download patches for Windows Update materials or similar.
                            the installer may restart itself (no reboot) after patched.
                            [This is the "media copy" phase. Decompression of install.wim happens here.]



    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
                            The logfiles go in a different place now. There will be Windows and Windows.old .
                            The datestamps on (1), versus (2),(3),(4), one uses local time, the other
                            uses UTC.

    3) First boot phase:  ...failures... almost exclusively caused by device drivers.

    4) Second boot phase: ... system ... running ... target OS.

and somewhere in there, is the "Migration phase", where programs are reinstalled
one by one. For example, when I Repair Installed a Win10 on the Test Machine
yesterday, and walked away, when I came back the screen was open, and the Logitech
webcam install program was asking for EReg (registration information). I could not
tell if the Repair Install had finished or it had bombed out (as the version of
the OS does not change during a Repair). I removed the Logitech package, and
re-ran the Repair Install, and it finished pretty quickly the second time. It
likely did not roll back after all (from the first attempt).

This is why there is a folder full of .msi files . It is used for program removal
normally, but also serves as the base for program reinstall on a Repair Install.

The Windows.old file is not as it seems. It is more than a Windows file, and
it contains all the materials needed during a rollback. Including some kind
of Program Files content. That is just in case you have some weird idea of
"renaming folders" and pretending it is the old system. Don't do that :-)
That stuff is there for a reason, it can be used for a reversion request by
the user, and the materials are erased on their own after ten days have elapsed.
You don't need to use CleanMgr.exe to remove Windows.old properly. *Do not* use
the Trash Bin for removal either. There is a command line sequence which
it is claimed, can do the removal (a little icacls magic I would assume). On
one occasion, some invalid characters were in a couple of places in Windows.old,
and then the command line method is going to fail.

The   https://learn.microsoft.com   site has the technical contents. One of the
problems, is getting the Google search syntax "just right" to get the most
topical page from that site. It took me around eight tries to get the above link.
The wrong keywords, will leave you showered in junk.

IT people have to be familiar with WADK, DISM and Sysprep and building reference OS
images for Enterprise setups. Then mass deployment of image to thousands of
machines. A lot of the educational materials are there to help the IT people.

   Paul

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

#17344

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.

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

#17354

On Fri, 2/21/2025 1:46 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 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.
> 

I haven't sat around counting them, but I do know that
on some installs I've done here, I had to be present to
set the boot to the correct device during the install.
The boot management hasn't always been overloaded with
the correct setting so you could, for example, walk away.

On one occasion, I walked away, and one of the other OSes
on the machine had booted, and the install was only
partially finished at that point. On rebooting and selecting
the entry which was the thing being installed, the install
picked up again without any problem.

You might have more of a problem like that, if you are
multibooting. Most of my drives here have more than one OS.

It helps if you set the Windows Boot Manager "default" partition
to the one receiving the installation, as then the automatic
selection will be set to the thing needing the attention.
(This would be for a Repair or Upgrade install.)

*******

I asked CoPilot the question, since Google search is not helping.

<Me>

What percentage values show during the various phases of a
Windows 10 or Windows 11 installation procedure ?

<CoPilot>

During the installation of Windows 10 and Windows 11, the percentage values
displayed on the screen represent the progress of different phases. Here’s
a general breakdown of what happens at various percentage points:

### Windows 10 Installation Phases:
1. **0% - 30%**: Initial setup and copying files.
2. **30% - 50%**: Installing features and drivers.
3. **50% - 75%**: Configuring settings and preparing files.
4. **75% - 100%**: Finalizing installation and completing setup.

### Windows 11 Installation Phases:
1. **0% - 30%**: Compatibility checks and initial setup.
2. **30% - 60%**: Copying files and installing features.
3. **60% - 90%**: Installing drivers and configuring settings.
4. **90% - 100%**: Finalizing installation and completing setup.

*******

And that suggests four reboots, as an approximate number.
If the Migration phase is null (like on a Clean Install),
I don't know how that is represented by the percentages
or the reboot behaviors.

   Paul

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

#17388

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>


[Linux group removed for this reply]

-- 
...w¡ñ§±¤ñ

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

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

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

csiph-web