|
|
Avoid 10 !
|
Avoid 10 !
|
Avoid 10 !
On 1/12/2018 12:27 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 01/12/2018 10:53 AM, Neil wrote: [snip] There is no reason to upgrade to another OS if you are able to do your work with the one you have. I still have machines running Win2k Pro, which I prefer to several of its successors. I still prefer W2K (the last version without the anti-user "activation"), although there are a few new features of later Windows. Mostly, these aren't very important but software does seem to require them. Structural changes that beginning with XP made it necessary for applications to move on. Vista introduced some very fundamental changes such as relative memory addressing that required more significant application changes. Some apps did, others didn't, and many users didn't know why they had problems all of a sudden with those that didn't. And so on, and so on. -- best regards, Neil |
Avoid 10 !
|
Avoid 10 !
|
Avoid 10 !
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:33:14 -0500, Neil
wrote: On 1/12/2018 11:03 AM, Mayayana wrote: wrote | Starting with the introduction of 10, I posted ( repeatedly ) for | anyone to give me one good reason to "upgrade" from 7 to 10. So far | nobody has been able to do that. I've noticed the same thing. I join in here because I write Windows software and because I like to keep track of developments. In other words, as a programmer and as a tweaker. I also need to know these things because I help friends and family. What I've noticed is that there are mostly just a few regulars. Most of them are just experimenting and not using Win10 as their primary system. And many of the questions are things like: "That latest update just screwed me. What do I do?" And, since you don't have any direct experience with Win10, you don't realize that many of these comments come from the relatively few "regulars" who do really stupid things with their Win10 systems thinking that they should be functionally like XP. The rest of us who have multiple Win10 systems with no such issues just shake our heads at those comments and keep working. Moreover, this is a place where people come with their problems, not a place where people come to tell us how much they love Windows 10. As I've said before, "hang out around a transmission shop and you'll think all cars have transmission problems." |
Avoid 10 !
I've got 28 importane apps written in Quick Basic 4.5 and 14 in Visual
Basic v3, that won't run in 7, and probably won't in 10. I use a virtual box running XP for these 42. Works OK. |
Avoid 10 !
|
Avoid 10 !
Try compatibility mode in Win7. It gives you XP Service Pack 2 and 3 as choices. I believe I tried that, unsuccessively, but maybe doing something wrong. Win10 claims to support compatibility. Have you tried it? Haven't got 10 on anything so can't try it. Just for the 42, I've got vitual box which works seamlessly and well. |
Avoid 10 !
On 01/12/2018 05:15 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 1/12/2018 5:58 AM, wrote: Anyone with half a brain, would have stayed with 7, which was and is optimal. I did. I occasionally peruse this group to see what I'm missing. Whew ! ... Why does any one bother to respond to this type of message.Â*Â* If I were "Good Guy" I would have resounded with some comment about his mental capacity. All he is looking for is attention.Â* He lives in the virtual world he created in his computer by responding all you are doing is bringing the outside world. He could regain contact with the real world by getting out and interacting with real people, at the nearest community center, church or volunteer at one of the local charities. The best response would be "don't feed the trolls!" Reminds me of the guys on the Linux|Windows groups saying Windows|Linux is better than Linux|Windows. They are just lonely and want to talk to someone. |
Avoid 10 !
wrote
| I've got 28 importane apps written in Quick Basic 4.5 and 14 in Visual | Basic v3, that won't run in 7, and probably won't in 10. I use a | virtual box running XP for these 42. Works OK. That's not due to the OS, it's because those are 16-bit. 16-bit can run on 32-bit but not on 64-bit. The same is true for 32/64. I can write VB6 software that runs on all systems from Win95 to Win10 because it's 32-bit running on 32 or 64. The same should be true for VB5 except that it would need a library installed on Win10. Microsoft has been very good with backward compatibility because corporations often write in-house software and expect it to run on new Windows versions. But 16-bit is just too far back. Though you should be able to run that software on Win7-32. You might just need to install the runtime DLL. |
Avoid 10 !
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:45:52 -0500, Neil
wrote: On 1/12/2018 11:03 AM, Mayayana wrote: [snip] "That latest update just screwed me. What do I do?" And, since you don't have any direct experience with Win10, you don't realize that many of these comments come from the relatively few "regulars" who do really stupid things with their Win10 systems thinking that they should be functionally like XP. The rest of us who have multiple Win10 systems with no such issues just shake our heads at those comments and keep working. OTOH, going to Windows 7 broke my app development system. Since I had an iteration that was due shortly, I had to scramble to deal with what, to me, were real deficiencies in Windows 7. I was not able to mitigate all of them. There is also a race condition bug in Windows 7's rd that has bitten me many times. I am not eager to switch operating systems yet again to get my computing disrupted again who-know-how. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
Avoid 10 !
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:32:09 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote: [snip] I won't do that, because if I did, your reply would be "that's not a good reason." Maybe, but your idea of a good reason might not be a good reason for someone else. The latest is not always the greatest. [snip] Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
Avoid 10 !
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:36:46 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote: wrote | I've got 28 importane apps written in Quick Basic 4.5 and 14 in Visual | Basic v3, that won't run in 7, and probably won't in 10. I use a | virtual box running XP for these 42. Works OK. That's not due to the OS, it's because those are 16-bit. 16-bit can run on 32-bit No, it is because the OS refuses to run such apps. The app did not change, the OS did, and now, there is a difference. Therefore, it is due to the OS. but not on 64-bit. The same is true for 32/64. I can write VB6 software that runs on all systems from Win95 to Win10 because it's 32-bit running on 32 or 64. The same should be true for VB5 except that it would need a library installed on Win10. Microsoft has been very good with backward compatibility because corporations often write in-house software and expect it to run on new Windows versions. But 16-bit is just too far back. Though you should be able to run that software on Win7-32. You might just need to install the runtime DLL. Microsoft dropped support for 16-bit applications. I do not call that being very good with backward compatibility. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
Avoid 10 !
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 12:06:46 -0800, Gene Wirchenko
wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:32:09 -0700, Ken Blake wrote: [snip] I won't do that, because if I did, your reply would be "that's not a good reason." Maybe, but your idea of a good reason might not be a good reason for someone else. The latest is not always the greatest. I agree with both those statements, especially the first one; we are all different and have different likes and dislikes. But I still won't do it, simply because anyone who pasts a message entitled "Avoid 10 !" saying "Starting with the introduction of 10, I posted ( repeatedly ) for anyone to give me one good reason to "upgrade" from 7 to 10. So far nobody has been able to do that" is highly unlikely to accept as a good reason anything anyone says. Clearly, his mind is already made up. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2004 - 2006 PCbanter
Comments are property of their posters