Please MS just go to hell...

[Raj]

SSD drives are very tricky as long term storage and have lot of corner cases.

What's worse, is They aren't even marked clearly is they are SLC, DLC, TLC or QLC.

hi coppice..
i did not find it anywhere,it was just my computer that did not want to update
the cure was at new install of win 10

You want HEIC or HEVC Codec? there's a free for OEM version on windows store (anyone can get that BTW). It won't show up in windows store search though...only via links shared over the internet so google it.

[bd139]

All the drives are MLC these days. Other than some enterprise cache drives.

[james_s]

That "every second Windows" thing doesn't really hold up under closer scrutiny. Vista is not a bad OS, it just got a bad rap because the average PC was not powerful enough to run it properly at the time it was released.

Don't forget the UAC was the worst thing that had happened back then... But it was only due to the fact all application software treated the system critical areas as their own backyard and tried to crap all over - it seems the software houses tested only  with users with Administrative privileges. By the time 7 came along, much of that initial stupidity was properly handled.

I still have Vista in a few machines and it is quite alright.

Windows 2000 that came out prior to XP was very good, XP was a bit of a turd when first released but became very good after a few patches. Win8 had a solid framework but a terrible UI, Win10 improved the UI while trashing the framework with the stupid forced updates.

The way I remember is that people liked Windows 3.11 but had to put up with its bad cooperative multitasking (where only a handful of applications really cooperated).  Then 95 was crap-ish at first, especially since MS wanted to advertise it as fully supporting the advanced games of the time, (it took a while until they had DOS4/GW running well, and SCUUM only worked good on 98). 95 OSR2 was alright due to FAT32, but only 98 was the one that fixed quite a few things. Me was really bad. 2000 was good albeit much heavier and slow to boot and XP came about with faster boot but lots of crap decisions that were fixed along the way. Common to alltse versions? An absolute crap printer spooler, really fixed on Vista.

UAC was terrible initially but everybody just turned it off which was easy to do. At that point on decent hardware Vista was fine, the extremely popular Windows 7 was just Vista with a few tweaks.

I think most people who actually used Windows pretty quickly saw 95 as a massive improvement over 3.1. The issue is that the vast majority of games were still DOS based and with Windows 95 you couldn't easily exit into a pure DOS mode. It took DirectX for Windows to finally turn into a reasonable gaming OS, and gaming has always been what drove the consumer PC market.

Windows ME was a real turd. It was all the worst features of both the consumer OS line and the business (NT) OS line rolled into one with none of the advantages. Windows 2000 looked almost identical to ME but was far more stable. Right around that time games started being developed to work on it and by the time XP came along most stuff ran just fine on it.

[NiHaoMike]

Windows ME was a real turd. It was all the worst features of both the consumer OS line and the business (NT) OS line rolled into one with none of the advantages. Windows 2000 looked almost identical to ME but was far more stable. Right around that time games started being developed to work on it and by the time XP came along most stuff ran just fine on it.

If consumer Windows remained as unreliable as Windows ME, Linux probably would have taken over in the mid 2000s. We have to thank Linux for telling M$ that they can't just keep pushing junk on consumers, because an alternative was emerging.

[james_s]

If consumer Windows remained as unreliable as Windows ME, Linux probably would have taken over in the mid 2000s. We have to thank Linux for telling M$ that they can't just keep pushing junk on consumers, because an alternative was emerging.

I'm not so sure about that. Desktop Linux was pretty rough around the edges still in the mid 2000's and the larger problem is it couldn't run the enormous library of software supported by Windows. Ultimately nobody buys a computer to play with the OS, it's all down to the software. A fantastic operating system on state of the art hardware will go nowhere if it doesn't run the software people want to use.

[Raj]

A fantastic operating system on state of the art hardware will go nowhere if it doesn't run the software people want to use.

If that's the case... Windows will be dead in 5....4....3...2...1......oh well it didn't. cause windows is easy to use even when you can run most stuff on linux either via proton or virtual machine windows.
Brand loyalty is a thing too. Plus someone unfamiliar with linux will hard time choosing what distro to use.

But since I was a kid in that era. Why did most devs make software exclusively for windows? Why did all the school had windows 95 on them? I don't know.

[PKTKS]

..
But since I was a kid in that era. Why did most devs make software exclusively for windows? Why did all the school had windows 95 on them? I don't know.

Because MS was never a soft company

They are a property holder umbrella made by buying other company and soft from others..

This way they always made their buz by pushing that bundle into hardware sellers forcing consumers wo choice

They also adopted an agressive demolish strategy of imploding all competitors they could not buy.. the list is very very long..

This is their buz.. buy from others or kill them.  Lock users by origin and deprecate soon

A hell crappy buz.. patent troller harbour
Paul

[bd139]

As much as I am not a fan of MS, that's complete bollocks.

[Just_another_Dave]

A fantastic operating system on state of the art hardware will go nowhere if it doesn't run the software people want to use.

If that's the case... Windows will be dead in 5....4....3...2...1......oh well it didn't. cause windows is easy to use even when you can run most stuff on linux either via proton or virtual machine windows.
Brand loyalty is a thing too. Plus someone unfamiliar with linux will hard time choosing what distro to use.

But since I was a kid in that era. Why did most devs make software exclusively for windows? Why did all the school had windows 95 on them? I don't know.

It’s not just having difficulties choosing a distro. Installing the programs they need in windows is pretty easy (they just need to download an installer and press next several times), whereas in the Linux world it is not uncommon that you need to use the shell to install a new application and even search or ask in forums to solve installation or configuration problems. That’s discouraging for most people without a programming background and telling them that they will need to use a virtual machine to run the programs that they had been using their whole live might seem too complicated for them.

Nevertheless, appimages might help, as they simplify a lot using and distributing distro independent (to some extent) programs, yet a distro that almost never requires using the shell for the things an average user might need is still missing. Linux distros are prepared for people that need to finely tune their computers to take advantage of what they can provide, but not for users that just don’t care what an os is. Additionally, relying on proton for running the windows-only programs that you need for your job is not usually a good option, as updates might make them to crash and force you to switch back to windows.

On the other hand, porting a program with a graphical user interface to another operating system is not usually trivial (unless you chose a cross platform GUI api like QT when you started developing it). Many companies develop their programs in Visual Studio and that tights them to windows GUI api, so ports are unlikely to happen unless a cross platform library that uses the same api is created

[PKTKS]

As much as I am not a fan of MS, that's complete bollocks.

Do you think ? think again..   
by 90s there was no "Internet" as we know it today

- 80s they bought DOS  and hired the developer later 'cause  they could not even bear it
- to implode Netware after the FIASCO of Xenix they bought LanManager (kinda Lantastic)
   so to have some kind of stack to detonate all Netware base.
- by 90s they "obtained" what was necessary to have a "GUI" (hype at that time) from
  IBM really a  shameless OS/2 deteriorated clone
- using the exponential Internet wave at 90s .. they just released the crappiest ever OS
 called 98 then "ME"  -  a plethora of bugs and Blue screens...  nightmare..
  a lot of hardware damaged by that crap..
- by early 00s using the public *NIX base at time they managed to put together
 what they sold as 2000 "NT"  - TBH the "best" ever thingy they did.

- I could go on putting all the imploded competitors..
LOTUS/COREL/NOVEL/Borland/WATCOM... very long list

But you got it.. 

They are very sick people with one goal - no matter consequences:
 - TO BE THE SOLELY DIGITAL LANDLORDS.

Everybody requested to pay fees and things as tenants..
Today they extended that to absorb not just Linux as a "SUBTHING" but
they will  incorporate Android apps.. the thing goes on...
to the CLOUD

Whoever was in their way ended up  bought or imploded.
Unless Antivirus partners which turned to be top allies

Paul

[NiHaoMike]

I'm not so sure about that. Desktop Linux was pretty rough around the edges still in the mid 2000's and the larger problem is it couldn't run the enormous library of software supported by Windows. Ultimately nobody buys a computer to play with the OS, it's all down to the software. A fantastic operating system on state of the art hardware will go nowhere if it doesn't run the software people want to use.

Windows XP was a big leap in consumer Windows, offering a big advantage that Linux had (good reliability) along with remaining compatible with most Windows apps. Had consumer Windows remained as unreliable as Windows ME was, most likely dual booting Linux would have been common for things like browsing the web and basic office work so that users wouldn't have to deal with a machine that crashes all the time.

[SiliconWizard]

I'm not so sure about that. Desktop Linux was pretty rough around the edges still in the mid 2000's and the larger problem is it couldn't run the enormous library of software supported by Windows. Ultimately nobody buys a computer to play with the OS, it's all down to the software. A fantastic operating system on state of the art hardware will go nowhere if it doesn't run the software people want to use.

Windows XP was a big leap in consumer Windows, offering a big advantage that Linux had (good reliability) along with remaining compatible with most Windows apps. Had consumer Windows remained as unreliable as Windows ME was, most likely dual booting Linux would have been common for things like browsing the web and basic office work so that users wouldn't have to deal with a machine that crashes all the time.

That's Windows 2000 that offered this, which was just a Windows NT4 with modernized GUI and USB support.
XP itself didn't add so much to the table from Win 2000, except a - questionable IMHO - cartoonish GUI and a few enhancements here and there. The real breakthrough for consumer Windows was definitely Windows 2000.

[james_s]

I don't know what they were thinking with that Fisher Price UI theme on XP. Switching to classic theme was always the first thing I did on any XP system, that garish blue and green one was just hideous. Easily disabled though, I almost never saw anybody using that.

Windows 2000 was never intended to be a consumer Windows. It was released roughly concurrently with Windows ME and was the continuation of the professional NT line while ME was the consumer line. Win2k was polished enough that it started to become popular as a consumer OS and with XP the lines were finally merged so that consumer and corporate both used the same core.

[PKTKS]

I don't know what they were thinking with that Fisher Price UI theme on XP. Switching to classic theme was always the first thing I did on any XP system, that garish blue and green one was just hideous. Easily disabled though, I almost never saw anybody using that.

Windows 2000 was never intended to be a consumer Windows. It was released roughly concurrently with Windows ME and was the continuation of the professional NT line while ME was the consumer line. Win2k was polished enough that it started to become popular as a consumer OS and with XP the lines were finally merged so that consumer and corporate both used the same core.

WTF is that thing ? 

MS decided that "a consumer" is some sort of (home)
 underclass citizen that should have a (paid)  deplorable 2nd class OS..

and .. a professional  is some sort of stupid folk which should
pay 10 times as much for a non deliberated crippled OS?

TBH both solutions can go to hell with MS altogether..

Times changed where we can choose not to be treated
as underclass imbeciles by these MS assholes

2 cents

Paul

[SiliconWizard]

Well, I don't have internal info about exact MS plans in the late 90s, but what I do know is that while Windows 2000 was indeed Windows NT 5 for most of its development, it was clearly meant to unify all Windows versions and MS wanted to get rid of the W9x line for good. I remember a lot of computers were sold with Windows 2000 already in 2000. Win ME never really took off and was mostly a failure. It was just Win 98SE with a couple GUI changes and a few new built-in apps. I'm sure they perfectly knew at MS that it was going to be the last artefact of the W9x line.

For the record, as a Windows user, here is what I have ever installed throughout the years:
- Win 3.11 for Workgroups
- Win 95
- Win NT 4 Workstation
- Win 2000 (all SPs)
- Win 2003 Server (configured as workstation) (all SPs)
- Win 7 (all SPs, but there was only 1, although there has been a post-SP1 cumulative update that is sometimes referred to as SP2!)

[james_s]

I was working at MS during that era, not in the OS group but I was around none the less and we were developing software to run on Win2k and WinME simultaneously. It was widely rumored that unification was ultimately the plan but it was not expected to happen as quickly as it did. Win2k and WinMe were released almost simultaneously and it was expected that Me would be what most home users would run. It turned out to be problematic while Win2k ended up being much more popular with home users than most thought it would be, it was a lot more polished than NT and ran games reasonably well after some initial hiccups. I remember there being a lot of problems with games trying to write to locations that were forbidden in Win2k but once those issues were ironed out it worked pretty well. I dual booted Win98SE and Win2k for a year or so before realizing that I never really booted into 98 anymore and started using Win2k exclusively.

[rsjsouza]

I don't know what they were thinking with that Fisher Price UI theme on XP.

Apart from the interesting story behind the wallpaper photograph, the overall look and feel was a precursor of what was coming with the infantilization of UIs all around (another much more modern example is here).

[Robbin]

People still pay money for Windows?

Unfortunately, yes, Halcyon 

[madires]

I don't know what they were thinking with that Fisher Price UI theme on XP.

Apart from the interesting story behind the wallpaper photograph, the overall look and feel was a precursor of what was coming with the infantilization of UIs all around (another much more modern example is here).

There's a wonderful German derogatory term for too colorful and overloaded UIs: Klickibunti. It's a made-up word based on "klicken" (to click [the mouse button]) and "bunt" (colorful) in a kind of baby talk.

[PKTKS]

I don't know what they were thinking with that Fisher Price UI theme on XP.

Apart from the interesting story behind the wallpaper photograph, the overall look and feel was a precursor of what was coming with the infantilization of UIs all around (another much more modern example is here).

There's a wonderful German derogatory term for too colorful and overloaded UIs: Klickibunti. It's a made-up word based on "klicken" (to click [the mouse button]) and "bunt" (colorful) in a kind of baby talk.

German is a language unique by itself.

I am German descender from father part.
Absolute unique proper definition ...

Although in Brazil  German dialects are spread in south
barely you find such constructs..

Paul 
 

[SiliconWizard]

People still pay money for Windows?

Unfortunately, yes, Halcyon 

For the crap it has become, it would be unfortunate indeed.
But, as others have said, I'm personally all for paying for stuff that is well designed, works well and doesn't do things behind my back. If MS released a Windows edition that I could buy, but that didn't have any of the telemetry crap, online account forcing, could be fully customized and had a leaner and more reasonable UI, I would buy it.

[bd139]

I can’t remember the last time I paid for windows. You guys must be doing something wrong 

[bsfeechannel]

Times changed where we can choose not to be treated
as underclass imbeciles by these MS assholes

"Microsoft isn’t evil, they just make really crappy operating systems."

-- Linus Torvalds.

I switched to Linux for the OS. Stayed for the sarcasm.

[james_s]

I can’t remember the last time I paid for windows. You guys must be doing something wrong 

Well, you can buy a computer that comes with it, in which case you paid for it as part of the purchase price, or you can steal it, or you can get somebody to give you a copy. I'm not sure how else to get it. Up through XP I was able to get the current version at the MS company store for $50, Win7 came with my laptop and then later I salvaged a few product IDs from dead PCs that were scrapped at a former job. I'm not opposed to paying for software provided it's of reasonable quality, and perpetual license.

[Raj]

I can’t remember the last time I paid for windows. You guys must be doing something wrong 

Well, you can buy a computer that comes with it, in which case you paid for it as part of the purchase price, or you can steal it, or you can get somebody to give you a copy. I'm not sure how else to get it. Up through XP I was able to get the current version at the MS company store for $50, Win7 came with my laptop and then later I salvaged a few product IDs from dead PCs that were scrapped at a former job. I'm not opposed to paying for software provided it's of reasonable quality, and perpetual license.

got a windows 7,8,8.1 pro keys from my college at no cost (in addition to college fee). used up and upgraded 2 of my computer to windows 10 using 7 and 8 key.

Karma is such, both computers won't run windows 11 officially.