Microsoft end of support dates

On 10/07/2020 19.55, Joel wrote:
"Carlos E.R." wrote:

As for Windows Me, the idea was to redesign the 9x line to be more
like 2000, for example it included the new TCP/IP in 2000 (and in 95,
98, 98 SE and NT 4, it had been abysmal, so that was one thing in Me's
favor). The problem was that for many if not most computers, Me was
far less stable than 98 SE. There were exceptions to that, but it was
released with a lot of flaws.

I bought a desktop computer at the time that came with Windows Me - I
did not find it specially faulty. Later I upgraded it to Linux and
double booted.


Yeah, a friend of mine bought a computer that came with WinMe, and for
him it was just fine. But others had serious problems with it. Kind
of strange, and yet we're seeing similar issues with Win10 today - an
update works for some people and royally screws up with others.

My guess is that the vendor made sure the machine worked.

It seems that updates are worse nowdays, they discarded the team that
tested them through.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2020-07-10 12:55 p.m., Joel wrote:
"Carlos E.R." wrote:

As for Windows Me, the idea was to redesign the 9x line to be more
like 2000, for example it included the new TCP/IP in 2000 (and in 95,
98, 98 SE and NT 4, it had been abysmal, so that was one thing in Me's
favor). The problem was that for many if not most computers, Me was
far less stable than 98 SE. There were exceptions to that, but it was
released with a lot of flaws.

I bought a desktop computer at the time that came with Windows Me - I
did not find it specially faulty. Later I upgraded it to Linux and
double booted.


Yeah, a friend of mine bought a computer that came with WinMe, and for
him it was just fine. But others had serious problems with it. Kind
of strange, and yet we're seeing similar issues with Win10 today - an
update works for some people and royally screws up with others.


Never any problems with ME here neither, also none with Win 10

Rene
n

On 7/10/20 3:15 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 00:00:55 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On 7/9/20 3:51 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Just found this beauty: Windows 1.0 ran from 1985 until 2001!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0

"Windows 1.0 was released on November 20, 1985"

"On December 31, 2001, Windows 1.0 was declared obsolete and Microsoft
stopped providing support and updates for the system."

I did not use Windows 1, but I did use an Apple IIe for years. The Apple
II series was sold for 17 years, which is rather amazing. Even the IIe
version, with just minor changes, sold for 11 years. Then they had an
Apple IIe on a card made for Macs (I had one of those in a lab I ran).

The Apple IIgs was also backward compatible with it -- I used to own one
of the Woz signed ones. I loaned it out and it was stolen -- which
really irked me. Oh well.

It's a pity Apple don't do compatibility any more.* Every time a new
connector comes out, they ditch the old one.* I remember having to throw
away or donate printers etc when we changed to Macs with USB on them
instead of serial ports.* PCs however kept the serial and parallel
ports, and some made now still have them!

Apple has always gone their own way with ports... which has pros and
cons. For the most part it has not been a problem for me -- but there
have been times. And even when the ports work, they drop support for
things, like their own modems. Not a huge deal for me but not ideal.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 7/10/20 9:02 AM, Joel wrote:
"Commander Kinsey" wrote:

Another oddity, what was Windows ME for? Once 2000 was out, we had an NT based OS which also played games. ME was pointless.


Windows 2000 was originally intended to be what XP ended up being - an
NT version for both business and home use. They didn't quite get
there, so they released only the business version, but, around the
time they were completing XP, a service pack for 2000 was released
that backported the key features of XP to 2000, and it became more
compatible with old games, etc.

As for Windows Me, the idea was to redesign the 9x line to be more
like 2000, for example it included the new TCP/IP in 2000 (and in 95,
98, 98 SE and NT 4, it had been abysmal, so that was one thing in Me's
favor). The problem was that for many if not most computers, Me was
far less stable than 98 SE. There were exceptions to that, but it was
released with a lot of flaws.


Worked with someone who had an ME machine that came with a printer. The
printer was not compatible with ME. From what I saw Windows ME was a
disaster.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 7/10/20 5:14 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

But it's very odd they supported it until 2001, by which times we'd had
Windows 2, 3, 95, 98, NT 4 (and 1, 2, 3?) 2000.

IIRC. windows NT started with (about) NT 3.5 so the numbers would
parallel the numbers for DOS-based Windows. 2000 is NT 5.

Another oddity, what was Windows ME for?* Once 2000 was out, we had an
NT based OS which also played games.* ME was pointless.

Maybe MS wanted to continue the DOS-based series (intended for home
use). I had ME before I started using 2000, which was a definite
improvement.

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

"Next to a circus there ain't nothing that packs up and tears out any
quicker than the Christmas spirit." [Kin Hubbard]

On 7/10/20 5:15 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

It's a pity Apple don't do compatibility any more.* Every time a new
connector comes out, they ditch the old one.* I remember having to throw
away or donate printers etc when we changed to Macs with USB on them
instead of serial ports.* PCs however kept the serial and parallel
ports, and some made now still have them!

The latest desktop systems I bought had them, but only as motherboard
headers.

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

"Next to a circus there ain't nothing that packs up and tears out any
quicker than the Christmas spirit." [Kin Hubbard]

On 7/10/20 6:27 AM, Wolffan wrote:
On 10 Jul 2020, Commander Kinsey wrote
(in article op.0njap7viwdg98l@glass):

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 01:30:22 +0100, Eric
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jul 2020 23:51:43 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

Just found this beauty: Windows 1.0 ran from 1985 until 2001!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0

"Windows 1.0 was released on November 20, 1985"

"On December 31, 2001, Windows 1.0 was declared obsolete and Microsoft
stopped providing support and updates for the system."

Those who used it regarded Windows 1.0 as obsolete almost from the
beginning.

I never even heard of it and wondered why Windows 2 was the first one. When I
looked up that query, I found there was a windows 1.

But it's very odd they supported it until 2001, by which times we'd had
Windows 2, 3, 95, 98, NT 4 (and 1, 2, 3?) 2000.

there was never any NT 1 or 2. NT started with 3, actually 3.1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT

Basically, it takes Microsoft at least three tries to get a good product out
the door. Win 1 stunk. Win 2 stunk worse. Win 3 was actually usable, but
required more work. Win 3.1 and then Win 3.1.1 followed. NT 3 was never
actually released; NT3.1 was... problematic. NT 3.5 and then NT 3.51 quickly
came out. NT 4 was... not so good. NT 5 fixed most of the problems. NT 5.1
(a.k.a XP) ruled the desktop for a very long time indeed. Note that Vista was
NT 6 and Win 7 was NT 6.1, Win 8 was NT 6.2, and Win 8.1 was NT 6.3...

The first (prerelease) Win10 I had had an internal version number of
6.4. They changed to 10 before the official release.

[snip]

ME was the worst MS OS since Bob (you don’t want to know about Bob. You
really don’t. Bob was a total disaster, the gold standard of what never,
ever, to do in an OS. It’s still the worst thing Microsoft has ever
released. Yes, worse than Zune. Worse than Windows RT. Worse than Kin. The
only reason why the project manager in charge of Bob wasn’t fired was that
she was married to Bill.), and the worst until Win 8. It was basically 98SE
plus the interface from NT 5 plus tons of bugs, and was intended for home
use. NT 5.1, XP, killed off ME by having a home use version as well as a
business version.

I never could find that "worst" version of ME. What I had was slightly
better than 98, but only slightly.

When setting up an old system recently, I chose ME over 98 but only
because ME comes with the USB storage driver, making setup a little easier.

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

"Next to a circus there ain't nothing that packs up and tears out any
quicker than the Christmas spirit." [Kin Hubbard]

On 7/10/20 6:29 AM, Wolffan wrote:

[snip]

That 2001 date was also the time they stopped supporting MSDOS 6 as
well as Win 2 & 3 which depended on it or lower versions. Win95& 98
ran on MSDOS 7+.

Later 98 as well as 98SE came with DOS 7.1 (which added FAT32 support).
ME came with a limited DOS called version 8.

BTW, long file name support was not a DOS feature, but a part of Windows.

95/98/98SE/ME were actual OSes. Win 1/2/3.x were applications running on DOS.

95/98/98SE/ME ran on DOS too. It's just that DOS was provided with Windows.

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

"Next to a circus there ain't nothing that packs up and tears out any
quicker than the Christmas spirit." [Kin Hubbard]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 21:16:48 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 7/10/20 5:15 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

It's a pity Apple don't do compatibility any more. Every time a new
connector comes out, they ditch the old one. I remember having to throw
away or donate printers etc when we changed to Macs with USB on them
instead of serial ports. PCs however kept the serial and parallel
ports, and some made now still have them!

The latest desktop systems I bought had them, but only as motherboard
headers.

So you could easily buy a lead for them. And I've had quite a few with actual ports on the back. The point is they stayed on all PCs for years after USB came out, so you didn't have to change every peripheral along with the computer. But Apple want you to waste even more money.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 20:33:47 +0100, Snit wrote:

On 7/10/20 3:15 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 00:00:55 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On 7/9/20 3:51 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Just found this beauty: Windows 1.0 ran from 1985 until 2001!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0

"Windows 1.0 was released on November 20, 1985"

"On December 31, 2001, Windows 1.0 was declared obsolete and Microsoft
stopped providing support and updates for the system."

I did not use Windows 1, but I did use an Apple IIe for years. The Apple
II series was sold for 17 years, which is rather amazing. Even the IIe
version, with just minor changes, sold for 11 years. Then they had an
Apple IIe on a card made for Macs (I had one of those in a lab I ran).

The Apple IIgs was also backward compatible with it -- I used to own one
of the Woz signed ones. I loaned it out and it was stolen -- which
really irked me. Oh well.

It's a pity Apple don't do compatibility any more. Every time a new
connector comes out, they ditch the old one. I remember having to throw
away or donate printers etc when we changed to Macs with USB on them
instead of serial ports. PCs however kept the serial and parallel
ports, and some made now still have them!

Apple has always gone their own way with ports... which has pros and
cons. For the most part it has not been a problem for me -- but there
have been times. And even when the ports work, they drop support for
things, like their own modems. Not a huge deal for me but not ideal.

I stick to PCs for 4 reasons.

1) The interface is way easier.
2) They're half the price due to competition.
3) Way more software and hardware available.
4) They don't look like something a woman would buy.

The only thing I like about Macs is they put OK and Cancel the right way round in the dialog boxes.

On 7/10/20 2:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
....
It's a pity Apple don't do compatibility any more.* Every time a new
connector comes out, they ditch the old one.* I remember having to throw
away or donate printers etc when we changed to Macs with USB on them
instead of serial ports.* PCs however kept the serial and parallel
ports, and some made now still have them!

Apple has always gone their own way with ports... which has pros and
cons. For the most part it has not been a problem for me -- but there
have been times. And even when the ports work, they drop support for
things, like their own modems. Not a huge deal for me but not ideal.

I stick to PCs for 4 reasons.

1) The interface is way easier.
2) They're half the price due to competition.
3) Way more software and hardware available.
4) They don't look like something a woman would buy.

The only thing I like about Macs is they put OK and Cancel the right way
round in the dialog boxes.

I tend to like Macs -- but to each their own. I certainly do not get the
religious wars as to which is better. I also use Windows and Linux, and
each has pros and cons.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 22:53:48 +0100, Snit wrote:

On 7/10/20 2:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
...
It's a pity Apple don't do compatibility any more. Every time a new
connector comes out, they ditch the old one. I remember having to throw
away or donate printers etc when we changed to Macs with USB on them
instead of serial ports. PCs however kept the serial and parallel
ports, and some made now still have them!

Apple has always gone their own way with ports... which has pros and
cons. For the most part it has not been a problem for me -- but there
have been times. And even when the ports work, they drop support for
things, like their own modems. Not a huge deal for me but not ideal.

I stick to PCs for 4 reasons.

1) The interface is way easier.
2) They're half the price due to competition.
3) Way more software and hardware available.
4) They don't look like something a woman would buy.

The only thing I like about Macs is they put OK and Cancel the right way
round in the dialog boxes.

I tend to like Macs -- but to each their own. I certainly do not get the
religious wars as to which is better. I also use Windows and Linux, and
each has pros and cons.

I see Macs as a childish interface, it's too dumbed down, suited more for Americans.
You can't argue about the cost, they're very expensive!
Same goes for lack of software.
And I don't want glittery shiny objects, I want a useful object.
So er what is it you like about macs?

As for Linux, I used it once a few weeks ago. I was told that a certain scientific program would run 3 times faster on Linux due to "better memory management". I think it was more that the program had been compiled better for Linux. I run several scientific programs, and tested them all on the same machine (well two identical ones), one under Linux and one under Windows. One of the programs out of 7 was much faster, 2 were slightly slower, and the other 4 were identical. But what made me stick with windows was the first hurdle - installing the program. So I download the program, but Linux opens it in a text editor (or tries to, it was too big) when I double click it. After googling the problem, I find I have to go to the properties of the file and allow it run as a program. Now I have to right click and select "run as a program", which isn't in my menu. So I tried running it from a command prompt. Despite being in the directory I had placed it, it couldn't see it!
Apparently I have to prefix it with ./ to indicate it should look in front of it's nose and not in the system folder. Anyway I gave up and used some installer program that comes with the OS, similar to the Android Google Play thingy.

On 7/10/20 3:32 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 22:53:48 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On 7/10/20 2:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
...
It's a pity Apple don't do compatibility any more.* Every time a new
connector comes out, they ditch the old one.* I remember having to
throw
away or donate printers etc when we changed to Macs with USB on them
instead of serial ports.* PCs however kept the serial and parallel
ports, and some made now still have them!

Apple has always gone their own way with ports... which has pros and
cons. For the most part it has not been a problem for me -- but there
have been times. And even when the ports work, they drop support for
things, like their own modems. Not a huge deal for me but not ideal.

I stick to PCs for 4 reasons.

1) The interface is way easier.
2) They're half the price due to competition.
3) Way more software and hardware available.
4) They don't look like something a woman would buy.

The only thing I like about Macs is they put OK and Cancel the right way
round in the dialog boxes.

I tend to like Macs -- but to each their own. I certainly do not get the
religious wars as to which is better. I also use Windows and Linux, and
each has pros and cons.

I see Macs as a childish interface, it's too dumbed down, suited more
for Americans.

Do you have examples. One of the things I like is the integration and
focus on usability. But, again, to each their own.

You can't argue about the cost, they're very expensive!

Yes and no. For comparable machines they are about the same, but you
have FAR less choice and no low end models.

Same goes for lack of software.

There may be less, but some of the best software is Mac only. And
software that runs on both often has features on the Mac lacking on
Windows. Take Photoshop -- you can tap into the macOS color pickers and
have swatches and palettes you share with other software. It makes a
difference.

And I don't want glittery shiny objects, I want a useful object.
So er what is it you like about macs?

I list some above, but mostly it is about getting things done. I am
focused on task completion more than most.

As for Linux, I used it once a few weeks ago.* I was told that a certain
scientific program would run 3 times faster on Linux due to "better
memory management".* I think it was more that the program had been
compiled better for Linux.* I run several scientific programs, and
tested them all on the same machine (well two identical ones), one under
Linux and one under Windows.* One of the programs out of 7 was much
faster, 2 were slightly slower, and the other 4 were identical.* But
what made me stick with windows was the first hurdle - installing the
program.* So I download the program, but Linux opens it in a text editor
(or tries to, it was too big) when I double click it.* After googling
the problem, I find I have to go to the properties of the file and allow
it run as a program.* Now I have to right click and select "run as a
program", which isn't in my menu.* So I tried running it from a command
prompt.* Despite being in the directory I had placed it, it couldn't see
it!* Apparently I have to prefix it with ./ to indicate it should look
in front of it's nose and not in the system folder.* Anyway I gave up
and used some installer program that comes with the OS, similar to the
Android Google Play thingy.

Linux is good as long as you know it well before you use it.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 07:29:07 -0400, Wolffan
wrote:

On 10 Jul 2020, Apd wrote
(in article ):

"Commander Kinsey" wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 01:30:22 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2020 23:51:43 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" wrote:

Just found this beauty: Windows 1.0 ran from 1985 until 2001!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0

"Windows 1.0 was released on November 20, 1985"

"On December 31, 2001, Windows 1.0 was declared obsolete and
Microsoft stopped providing support and updates for the system."

Those who used it regarded Windows 1.0 as obsolete almost from the
beginning.

I never even heard of it and wondered why Windows 2 was the first
one. When I looked up that query, I found there was a windows 1.

But it's very odd they supported it until 2001, by which times we'd
had Windows 2, 3, 95, 98, NT 4 (and 1, 2, 3?) 2000.

That 2001 date was also the time they stopped supporting MSDOS 6 as
well as Win 2 & 3 which depended on it or lower versions. Win95& 98
ran on MSDOS 7+.

95/98/98SE/ME were actual OSes. Win 1/2/3.x were applications running on DOS.

And Windows 2000 was actually NT5. It was where Windows started to
properly grow up.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 7/10/20 8:29 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 07:29:07 -0400, Wolffan
wrote:

On 10 Jul 2020, Apd wrote
(in article ):

"Commander Kinsey" wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 01:30:22 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2020 23:51:43 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" wrote:

Just found this beauty: Windows 1.0 ran from 1985 until 2001!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0

"Windows 1.0 was released on November 20, 1985"

"On December 31, 2001, Windows 1.0 was declared obsolete and
Microsoft stopped providing support and updates for the system."

Those who used it regarded Windows 1.0 as obsolete almost from the
beginning.

I never even heard of it and wondered why Windows 2 was the first
one. When I looked up that query, I found there was a windows 1.

But it's very odd they supported it until 2001, by which times we'd
had Windows 2, 3, 95, 98, NT 4 (and 1, 2, 3?) 2000.

That 2001 date was also the time they stopped supporting MSDOS 6 as
well as Win 2 & 3 which depended on it or lower versions. Win95& 98
ran on MSDOS 7+.

95/98/98SE/ME were actual OSes. Win 1/2/3.x were applications running on DOS.

And Windows 2000 was actually NT5. It was where Windows started to
properly grow up.


Windows naming was weird back then.

For the home it went from 3.1 to 95 to 98 to ME

And for the pros it went from NT to 2000

Why have the numbers and two-letter combos switch?

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.