What are the pros/cons to upgrading to Windows 10?
-
My suspicion is that ME was supposed to be a branch of windows for home release.
And that 2000 was the business branch.
-
Windows 8 would nag too, but much lower key and eventually (at about 2 days) just go ahead and reboot anyway
IME, it reboots seem to be triggered by clicking on "Batch Build" in VS.
-
i think that's not reboot so much as crash and restart.
-
My suspicion is that ME was supposed to be a branch of windows for home release.And that 2000 was the business branch.
That would just raise more questions than it answered, as Win2000 was (I believe) the first Windows version to have a separate Home and Pro version?
Edit: Nope, I was wrong. These days, it seems my memory is about as long as my dick.
-
I don't work at Microsoft.
-
Edit: Nope, I was wrong. These days, it seems my memory is about as long as my dick.
[spoiler]When laid on a keyboard streching all the way from
A
toZ
?[/spoiler]
-
as Win2000 was (I believe) the first Windows version to have a separate Home and Pro version?
Windows 2000 only had a Professional and Server version. You believe wrong.
-
Windows 2000 only had a Professional and Server version. You believe wrong.
Do you just overlook the part where people have corrected themselves?
Also, you are wrong. They also had Advanced Server and Datacenter Server editions. Suck it @blakeyrat.
-
it seems my memory is about as long as my dick.
Short dick?
Windows 2000 only had a Professional and Server version. You believe wrong.
That's part of it.
The other part was the lack of respect and trust ME had for the user's autonomy.
Options and settings completely hidden or aggressively hidden.
It very much behaved as an OS for
stupid peopletechnically challenged.
-
Obviously they wanted to make a good Windows so they had to make the bad Windows first.
-
It very much behaved as an OS for stupid people technically challenged.
and as such it was aggressively hostile to technically adept users.
-
Obviously they wanted to make a good Windows so they had to make the bad Windows first.
Kind of like how I realize how awesome my wife is when I look back at all the cunts I dated before meeting her?
-
You dated the cunts?
I dated mostly fingers and noses before I met my wife.
-
No, no, no!
Windows 2000 was part of the Windows NT line, and was aimed at corporate customers/servers. It was originally called Windows NT 5.0, but changed in beta.
Windows ME was part of the Windows 9x line, and targeted at home users.
It's just that Windows ME
sucked so hard corehad such a poor reputation that OEM's started marketing 2k to everyday users.The 9x and NT lines didn't merge until Windows XP.
-
Windows ME
sucked so hard corehad such a poor reputationWe would have also accepted:
- Was complete rubbish
- Crashed more than it worked
- Made its users homicidal
-
How about "Drove call center costs well into unsustainable territory"?
-
Also, yes.
-
I was fortunate enough to have run into it on someone else's computer
-
I heard a lot of its crashiness was due to how System Restore was implemented into the Windows 9x system.
Obviously Windows XP didn't have that issue as it was built on NT.
-
Actually before "the Internet" was a thing at all.)
Can we all say, "Well, actually..."? I knew you could!
OK, so it depends on what you call 'the Internet", I guess, but you do know that the Internet (by that name) dates from 1982. and it's predecessors (ARPAnet, BITNET, etc.) from the late 1960s and early 1970s, right? Yeah, it only became publicly accessible in 1991, but given that MS-DOS was the dominant PC platform at the time, and that Windows was not a stand-alone OS until five years later, I think it is safe to say that this is at best a 'sort of yes, sort of no' kind of thing.
-
the clusterfuck that was Windows ME.
ME[1] wasn't a clusterfuck. The clusterfuck was all the hardware makers loaded down the PCs with crapware.
I had an HP I bought in a store. SSL didn't work. Eventually for various reasons I did a clean install from a retail ME CD, and every single problem I had with the computer went away.
[1] that is, the OS was no worse than any other 9x version of Windows. The general aura is bad because pretty much all of the vendors were filling their PCs with poorly-written bloatware.
-
Windows 2000 (released February 17, 2000) came out before Windows ME (released September 14, 2000) did.
Not terribly relevant, though, because 2000 was NT and ME wasn't; two different codebases.
-
What was the fucking point of ME then? Did they just want to release an "also-ran" operating system?
Essentially, it was the penultimate step in their plan to merge the two separate Windows code bases.
-
ME[1] wasn't a clusterfuck. The clusterfuck was all the hardware makers loaded down the PCs with crapware.
There is no reality. Only the perception thereof.
Filed under: There is no spoon
-
It was more like a stop-gap, really. The merge was supposed to be in ME, but proved to be much more problematic than anticipated, so they were forced to dust off the existing Win9x codebase and bolt on some fixes to it, but most of them proved to be misses because they didn't have time to do as thorough a job of integration and usability testing as they wanted.
That having been said, the haphazard bundling of (frequently malware-laden) junk by hardware vendors was a large part of ME's poor reputation, not that it wasn't terrible enough on its own. I seem to recall at least one major vendor packaging Bonzi Buddy, of all things, with their standard deployment, which is savage wrongery.
-
A lot of that probably could have been fixed back if ME didn't lock you out.
-
ME was supposed to be a branch of windows for home release.And that 2000 was the business branch.
That's the way I remember it, too, but my memory isn't always as reliable as I think it is. And as I read the rest of the thread, I see I've been 'd multiple times.
-
I'll add that if you're non-English user that is using an IME which involves selecting characters from more than one page (like the "Quick" IME for Traditional Chinese), the IME toolbar of Metro no longer appears broken.
-
One of my coworkers is crying because he can't install MS Office starter (the free one whatever is called) in Windows X
-
Maybe he can't install it because his computer fell off a shelf and killed his kitten?
I can't imagine any other scenario where crying would be called for.
-
W10 will by default schedule reboots for updates at a time you won't likely be using the computer. the default time is 3AM local IIRC but that will self adjust over time based on your usage patterns or you can set it yourself.
I literally sleep 6 hours a week sometimes from working nonstop on projects. I wonder what Windows will do.
-
probably reboot when you get up from your desk to get a new cup of coffee.
-
As much as I prefer Linux over Windows, I have to admit that, IME, during periods of heavy development work by the kernel team, Linux updates the kernel about as often as Windows does, which means Windows updates force a reboot at about the same rate as Linux updates do during those times.
The big difference is that Windows applications force reboots as well, especially system tools such as anti-virus and anti-spyware scanners, which is almost never the case in Linux. This is partly because Linux is based on a multiuser model that was intended to reduce reboots from the start, and partly because few if any malware writers bother to target anything other than Windows (it just doesn't pay to, especially in the case of Linux since there really aren't many casual users of the sort who are easily taken in by social engineering ploys - not because they are smarter than Windows users, but because they have more experience at working with the system - if they didn't, they wouldn't be using something as demanding as Linux), so the few Linux users who bother with anti-malware scanners, and those scanners which do get used are mostly looking for e-mail worms and phishing scams rather than rootkits and trojans.
-
Seriously, if you can't take a long enough break for windows to reboot from an update.
You need to rethink your current job situation.
And if you're getting paid salary, we need to rethink the concept of salary/exempt.
You aren't getting much done after 12 hours of work.
-
You need to rethink your current job situation.
Or to find ways to run things that cope better with reboots. Some things find that harder than you'd like to recover from, alasβ¦
-
Seriously, if you can't take a long enough break for windows to reboot from an update.
You need to rethink your current job situation.
And if you're getting paid salary, we need to rethink the concept of salary/exempt.
You aren't getting much done after 12 hours of work.
What? Who says its one job and not consulting on the side. I don't really get tired like most people.
-
the Win10 ISOs are not available for me on VLSC yet for some damned reason
They've been available for us since the week it was released. That's really odd.
-
LPT: When your system has to "reboot" daily, you've got a problem.
Since when did they say it reboots daily?
Why don't you read a little bit.
-
Or to find ways to run things that cope better with reboots
If you need that, you need redundancy.
-
and not consulting on the side. I don't really get tired like most people.
Depending on the type of consulting, I would not want to be your client and find that out.
"You're doing my task at the end of the day after working 10 hours? Check please."
-
If you need that, you need redundancy.
Or stuff that's just less pissy about having its state ripped out from underneath its feet. Not all the world is a trivial GUI or database.
-
Or stuff that's just less pissy about having its state ripped out from underneath its feet.
Vital state should be in more robust storage than live memory.
And if scheduled reboots are the problem, then why can't we figure out when it will reboot and safely shutdown.
And if ALLLLLL of that fails. Why are you running on a personal version of windows, you should be running enterprise that doesn't force reboots... that's what that is there for. Likely, vital servers like that don't connect to the internet, so you don't need to be that up to date on security.
Most of our clients have a private intranet that runs parallel out to remote devices. No internet connectivity.
-
Vital state should be in more robust storage than live memory.
I take it you don't work with large simulations. They can checkpoint (provided their creator remembered to put in the code to do so; it's anyone's guess as to whether that happened, and the developers of this sort of thing aren't exactly famed for best practices except in the numerical part of the code where it really matters). It takes a long time, even with an SSD, so there's an incentive to not actually turn the checkpointing on.
Not everything is as nice as you paint. The world really does not always cooperate.
-
They can checkpoint
developers of this sort of thing aren't exactly famed for best practices
Why are you running on a personal version of windows
There's two solutions right there, one you gave me.
Unless it's distributed simulations, why are you connected to the internet?
There are so many ways to prevent it, without mentioning it won't happen but once a month.
Are you telling me you're running simulations so fragile that a once of month occurrence loses you a month of work?
I suppose windows should have a way to turn it off.
But that's a feature of windows, it's what they sell.
If there was a way to turn it off, then a security leak could allow viruses to turn it off. And if windows were to find a way to stop that particular virus, you won't get the update.
#seems like a lot of whining over a problem that's magnitudes less risk than a power outage, or a janitor.
-
So, you're going for the apologist cop-out. Time for a blakeyratian βI win again!β.
-
No, I'm simply saying that if you cannot account for a scheduled reboot, then your software sucks, because there are infinite more ways that a machine can lose its state due to a power-down.
Not only that, but Microsoft offers a package that supports your anti-feature.
-
Another fanboy without any reading comprehension.
-
-
The entire debacle annoys me
The only thing worse than getting older is not getting older :-)
-
didn't reboot-- meaning the vulnerable code was still running on the system
Restarting upgraded services != rebooting != leaving vulnerable code running.
Patching the running kernel != leaving vulnerable code running.