If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid 10 !
Ilya Chernykh wrote:
wrote in message ... 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 have a few reasons to upgrade from Win7 to Win8.1. They apply to Win10 as well. On the other hand I see no reason to upgrade from Win8.1 to Win10. The reasons to upgrade from Win7 to Win8.1 include: * On Win8.1 one can use Classic theme with DWM enabled, on Win7 one cannot. * A few bugs/glitches in the theme were fixed in Win8, such as a black pixel on the leftmost tab in tabbed dialogs and garbage on the window corner after resizing. * Quick start. Also the fact it keeps AMD Overdrive settings unlike full reboot. * Boot menu on the external monitor (I use laptop in the role of desktop, with external monitor). * Better hardware support, more universal printer drivers, newer driver model, USB 3.0 support out of the box. * Seems working faster for me. ------------------------ Win10 on the other hand, has tons of disadvantages compared to Win8.1. When I tested 7 versus 8.1 versus 10, the 7 OS won by a small amount. The difference between the three was not important. If I "needed more horsepower", I would not waste the time rebooting to use another OS. That's how tiny the difference is. Now that Meltdown/Spectre patches are issued, that will change a bit, and the results will vary more with application type. Now, it will be harder to devise a test plan for a benchmark that is fair. Paul |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid 10 !
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid 10 !
"GS" wrote
| I don't know all the details. I just made sure | none of my software would work until I'd got | around to updating and testing. | | Keep in mind that since Vista is v6.0, that Win7 (v6.1) is really just a Vista | Service Pack. (IMO) | I'd agree with that. That's why I often refer to Vista/7. I think of them as pretty much the same. I think Vista got a bad rap because the hardware wasn't ready for the bloat, and it was rushed out after Longhorn failed. What I meant was that I had written a number of ActiveX components, mostly for scripting, on XP. With Vista I didn't want them to run until I'd tested them, but it turned out Windows was lying about what version they were running on with Vista! I got one email from an angry man who seemed to think I'd cheated him by not yet supporting Vista. He spitefully pointed out that he'd got around the limitation. I realized someone like that would probably also blame me if he was managing to run my components on Vista and something didn't work. Eventually I rewrote/tested many of the components, but in the meantime I added code to each one to bypass Windows lying and find the real version, then block functionality if it was later than XP. I suspect the systematic Windows lying and "virtualization" boondoggle are connected with the mixed results people have using compat mode. Microsoft figured they'd just trick older software into thinking it could write to the Registry and save files on restricted paths, using "virtualization", and that would magically create compatibility. But it was really more like an unofficial, half-baked sandboxing, in which Microsoft were really overstepping their responsibilities in providing a software platform, in order to make the new product look good. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid 10 !
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:28:37 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
wrote: Windows 10 in its default, out-of-the-box state is obnoxious as hell. You're saying it much more strongly than I would, but I generally agree. But as far as I'm concerned, much the same is true of most software. Lots of major configuration improvements can be made to their out-of-the-box states. If you were to look at my computer, running Windows 10, you might have a hard time even recognizing it as Windows 10, since it's very far from its out-of-the-box state. That stuff should be opt-in rather than opt-out. Yes. Again, I feel much the same way about most software. And what's most important to me is that if I can configure a piece of software to be the way I like it, I really don't care what its out-of-the-box state was. If I like it when it's in the state I configure it to, then it's a product I like. Here's an example of what I mean by the paragraph above: I greatly dislike FireFox, Chrome, and Edge in their out-of-the-box states. But I can configure FireFox (and have configured it) to be in a state I like very much. Since I can't configure Chrome or Edge the same way, I like FireFox and I hate Chrome and Edge. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid 10 !
"GS" wrote
I don't know all the details. I just made sure none of my software would work until I'd got around to updating and testing. Keep in mind that since Vista is v6.0, that Win7 (v6.1) is really just a Vista Service Pack. (IMO) I'd agree with that. That's why I often refer to Vista/7. I think of them as pretty much the same. I think Vista got a bad rap because the hardware wasn't ready for the bloat, and it was rushed out after Longhorn failed. What I meant was that I had written a number of ActiveX components, mostly for scripting, on XP. With Vista I didn't want them to run until I'd tested them, but it turned out Windows was lying about what version they were running on with Vista! I got one email from an angry man who seemed to think I'd cheated him by not yet supporting Vista. He spitefully pointed out that he'd got around the limitation. I realized someone like that would probably also blame me if he was managing to run my components on Vista and something didn't work. Eventually I rewrote/tested many of the components, but in the meantime I added code to each one to bypass Windows lying and find the real version, then block functionality if it was later than XP. I suspect the systematic Windows lying and "virtualization" boondoggle are connected with the mixed results people have using compat mode. Microsoft figured they'd just trick older software into thinking it could write to the Registry and save files on restricted paths, using "virtualization", and that would magically create compatibility. But it was really more like an unofficial, half-baked sandboxing, in which Microsoft were really overstepping their responsibilities in providing a software platform, in order to make the new product look good. I don't follow this stuff as a rule, but your brand of thoroughness in your posts makes for very interesting reading. I really appreciate you sharing you knowledge! -- Garry Free usenet access at http://www.eternal-september.org Classic VB Users Regroup! comp.lang.basic.visual.misc microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid 10 !
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:17:00 -0800, Freely wrote:
Oh please. Most Win 10 users do not know what they are doing and use the very minimal capability of this overly complicated OS. With the exception of maybe corporate users that have IT folks down the hall. MS keeps changing the user interface as an example of poor ergonomics. You have to relearn the OS all over again each time a now major release comes out. Although some deep components might not change much, they way you get to them are totally different. We should all go back to CP/M !!! 80 or 86? |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid 10 !
On 1/13/2018 3:05 AM, Paul wrote:
When I tested 7 versus 8.1 versus 10, the 7 OS won by a small amount. The difference between the three was not important. If I "needed more horsepower", I would not waste the time rebooting to use another OS. That's how tiny the difference is. Now that Meltdown/Spectre patches are issued, that will change a bit, and the results will vary more with application type. Now, it will be harder to devise a test plan for a benchmark that is fair. Â*Â* Paul As I see it, the problem with this kind of "testing" is that you have to restrict the apps to those which run on Win7. That is awfully presumptuous about what users are doing these days. -- best regards, Neil |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid 10 !
On 13/01/2018 13:21, KenW wrote:
Another troll that never tried 10. It can be tamed and works great. Not another troll!! It is the same SteveGG and Windows10Hater. The name keeps changing but the spots remains the same. It's very difficult to change the spots. Black people can try all the bleaches in the world but the skin reverts to blackness when the bleach effect has died out. -- With over 600 million devices now running Windows 10, customer satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid 10 !
"GS" wrote
| I don't follow this stuff as a rule, but your brand of thoroughness in your | posts makes for very interesting reading. I really appreciate you sharing you | knowledge! | Thank you. It's nice to know I'm not straining *everyone's* patience. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid 10 !
Neil wrote:
On 1/13/2018 3:05 AM, Paul wrote: When I tested 7 versus 8.1 versus 10, the 7 OS won by a small amount. The difference between the three was not important. If I "needed more horsepower", I would not waste the time rebooting to use another OS. That's how tiny the difference is. Now that Meltdown/Spectre patches are issued, that will change a bit, and the results will vary more with application type. Now, it will be harder to devise a test plan for a benchmark that is fair. Paul As I see it, the problem with this kind of "testing" is that you have to restrict the apps to those which run on Win7. That is awfully presumptuous about what users are doing these days. Are you talking about Store Apps (Metro flavor) ? Of course they don't run on Win7. But, on the other hand, they're not worth owning, either :-) Who would need to benchmark a piece of glitzy graphical trash written in HTML/Javascript ? I don't. Can we benchmark "Groove" or "Skype" ? What would that even mean ? A Win32 executable is "close to the iron" and shows what the main engine (kernel and process/thread scheduler) can do. I can run 7ZIP on the three platforms, and get to see scheduling, page table handling for large memory arrays, and what percentage of CPU the OS is willing to give up, all in one run. I'm suffering no loss here, by not visiting the App Store. If I want Angry Birds, my back yard is full of them. Paul |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid 10 !
On 1/13/2018 4:49 PM, Paul wrote:
Neil wrote: On 1/13/2018 3:05 AM, Paul wrote: When I tested 7 versus 8.1 versus 10, the 7 OS won by a small amount. The difference between the three was not important. If I "needed more horsepower", I would not waste the time rebooting to use another OS. That's how tiny the difference is. Now that Meltdown/Spectre patches are issued, that will change a bit, and the results will vary more with application type. Now, it will be harder to devise a test plan for a benchmark that is fair. Â*Â*Â* Paul As I see it, the problem with this kind of "testing" is that you have to restrict the apps to those which run on Win7. That is awfully presumptuous about what users are doing these days. Are you talking about Store Apps (Metro flavor) ? Of course they don't run on Win7. No, not necessarily, but those also won't run on Win7. But, on the other hand, they're not worth owning, either :-) Who would need to benchmark a piece of glitzy graphical trash written in HTML/Javascript ? I don't. Can we benchmark "Groove" or "Skype" ? What would that even mean ? I see. What people in the world are doing only matters if it matches your opinion of what is worth doing. That's a ****-poor test design. -- best regards, Neil |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid 10 !
On 01/12/2018 10:21 PM, GS wrote:
[snip] Keep in mind that since Vista is v6.0, that Win7 (v6.1) is really just a Vista Service Pack. (IMO) Some of the early (prerelease) versions of 10 identified it as v6.4, which has since changed to 10. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "The beating of humanity's heart cannot be felt by placing the finger on the church's pulse." [Lemuel K. Washburn, _Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other Essays_] |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid 10 !
Neil wrote:
I see. What people in the world are doing only matters if it matches your opinion of what is worth doing. That's a ****-poor test design. Bud, if you add too many layers to a software stack, what are you testing exactly ? Which layer is broken ? Which layer sucks ? Let's take an absurd example. I drive to your company at work Dec.2016 and ask how many widgets you made that year. I drive up Dec.2017 and ask how many widget you made that year. Now, I compare. Can I draw any conclusions ? Have I controlled for the economic conditions ? How many variables could account for more or fewer widgets. Fewer staff ? Union trouble ? Bad government tax scheme ? High interest rates ? How do we isolate for just productivity issues on your plant floor ? The deeper a stack of stuff you're looking at, the harder it is to draw any conclusions. The "speed of an OS" is pretty simple. On a compute bound process, how many cycles did it get ? How many cycles did the OS waste ? It's that simple. The DE that rests on top of it is irrelevant. Does it "compute" or doesn't it ? Now, if you wanted to say something like "the Win10 DE is 79% faster than the Win7 DE", then that would be a proper "statement-in-isolation". But, when you make that statement, you're going to have to demonstrate to people, how you isolated for only that one factor. Which would be difficult to do. If I'd thought of a simple way to do that by now, I would have impressed you with facts and figures about Win7 DE versus Win10 DE. As long as "DE isolation" remains illusive, I can only report the stuff that is easy to test, and also actually aligns with the operating system proper. Which is the underneath part. If I did say "the Win10 DE is 79% faster than the Win7 DE", people would proceed to tell me I was full of ****, and pick apart the experimental design. That would be my reward for such an effort. "Prove it" would be the response I'd get. In Linux, I'd have more flexibility. I could move a DE from the Linux equivalent of Win7 versus Win10. *But*, the subsystems the OS provide, change with time. DBUS appears and disappears. The DE I want to test, might be making DBUS calls. Then I'm screwed. So Linux comes closer to making such testing possible, but without any guarantees. You might not get very far trying that. And even without doing such experiments, I can tell you that running a Compiz based DE on top of ancient hardware, is *dreadfully slow*. For some things, I don't even need to present a test case, as the user will have no trouble spotting just how bad it is. And now that I've thought of the Compiz example, let's consider Windows 10 running on top of an FX5200 with the Microsoft Basic Display Adapter. There's no video card acceleration. If you watch the animations (I have), the animations in Windows 10 are perceptibly slower than for video cards where the OS has a Nvidia/AMD driver. But I don't have nice numbers for you, and of course you're free to reject hardware that isn't convenient in a discussion. Paul |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid 10 !
wrote in message ...
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 ! ... Ha ha ha ha. Please stay in the appro NG, or perhaps you are thinking of upgrading to 10 for better security etc and, and ,and. Go bitch to your other half. -- Buffalo |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Avoid 10 !
On 01/13/2018 7:54 PM, Buffalo wrote:
wrote in message ... 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 ! ... Ha ha ha ha. Please stay in the appro NG, or perhaps you are thinking of upgrading to 10 for better security etc and, and ,and. Go bitch to your other half. Didn't the OP say he only had half a brain in his first post? Rene |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|