Status of 1809?

On 1/18/2019 6:41 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Chris
wrote:


Previously, with specific releases they could set minimum requirements
which you'd check and decide whether your machine was compatible with it.
Now it's all the same, but at some point older machines are going to be
intolerably slow after an update that you may not have been expecting.

or they decide to not release further updates for some hardware, which
i think has begun to happen...

That's not a new practice. My Win10 machines are from different
manufacturers and have had different updates installed for well over a
year.

--
best regards,

Neil

Neil wrote:
On 1/18/2019 6:41 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Chris
wrote:


Previously, with specific releases they could set minimum requirements
which you'd check and decide whether your machine was compatible with
it.
Now it's all the same, but at some point older machines are going to be
intolerably slow after an update that you may not have been expecting.

or they decide to not release further updates for some hardware, which
i think has begun to happen...

That's not a new practice. My Win10 machines are from different
manufacturers and have had different updates installed for well over a
year.


I suspect those are driver updates for hardware.

There's a setting where you can disable that.

What's left then, is going to be security updates
or OS Upgrade installs. And the machines should match
a bit closer on what they get after that.

When the machines don't have the same hardware, the
driver updates that come in, won't be the same on
the two machines.

And to top it off, inappropriate drivers can come
in that way. Such as a touchpad filter driver that
"bound" to every HID. That's the main reason I'm interested
in turning it off, because of the history of what's on
offer.

Paul

On 1/18/2019 11:36 PM, Paul wrote:
Neil wrote:
On 1/18/2019 6:41 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Chris
wrote:


Previously, with specific releases they could set minimum requirements
which you'd check and decide whether your machine was compatible
with it.
Now it's all the same, but at some point older machines are going to be
intolerably slow after an update that you may not have been expecting.

or they decide to not release further updates for some hardware, which
i think has begun to happen...

That's not a new practice. My Win10 machines are from different
manufacturers and have had different updates installed for well over a
year.


I suspect those are driver updates for hardware.

There's a setting where you can disable that.

Why would I want to stop things from working correctly, as they do now?

What's left then, is going to be security updates
or OS Upgrade installs. And the machines should match
a bit closer on what they get after that.

When the machines don't have the same hardware, the
driver updates that come in, won't be the same on
the two machines.

And to top it off, inappropriate drivers can come
in that way. Such as a touchpad filter driver that
"bound" to every HID. That's the main reason I'm interested
in turning it off, because of the history of what's on
offer.

Well, I've not had any of those kinds of issues on any of my Win10
machines for close to 2 years. People can play around with their systems
any way they wish, I'm just not interested in playing with them at all.

--
best regards,

Neil

nospam wrote:
In article , Chris
wrote:


Previously, with specific releases they could set minimum requirements
which you'd check and decide whether your machine was compatible with it.
Now it's all the same, but at some point older machines are going to be
intolerably slow after an update that you may not have been expecting.

or they decide to not release further updates for some hardware, which
i think has begun to happen...

That's just speculation. They haven't come out and said they're not
upgrading some machines nor given specifics. Have they?

Neil wrote:
On 1/18/2019 6:10 PM, Chris wrote:
mechanic wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 08:37:20 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

Makes me wonder about the future for older machines. How and when
will MS stop supporting them? Or will it just keep pushing
updates and features Willy nilly and it'll be users who will be
forced to rollback or upgrade their machines after an update
tanks their performance?

It's called progress, mate. And at the edges of such changes there
will be business opportunities for those who will support such
historic machines.

I get progress part and I'm not complaining about that. I just wonder how
MS will manage it, now that win10 has rolling releases?

Previously, with specific releases they could set minimum requirements
which you'd check and decide whether your machine was compatible with it.
Now it's all the same, but at some point older machines are going to be
intolerably slow after an update that you may not have been expecting.

As has always been the case, there will come a time when hardware no
longer meets the minimum requirements for an OS. The thing is, with
Win10 users are not in a good position to determine when that time comes.

Exactly my point.

Service packs and updates for earlier versions of Windows had more
available information about what was in them and what was required than
for any version since Vista.

I think the best option for Win10 is to avoid participating in IDK

What's IDK?

let the hardware and firmware determine what works by "calling home to
MS", which seems to prevent incompatible updates on all of my Win10
machines.

How do you know that is what it's doing?

On 01/18/2019 10:36 PM, Paul wrote:
Neil wrote:
On 1/18/2019 6:41 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Chris
wrote:


Previously, with specific releases they could set minimum requirements
which you'd check and decide whether your machine was compatible
with it.
Now it's all the same, but at some point older machines are going to be
intolerably slow after an update that you may not have been expecting.

or they decide to not release further updates for some hardware, which
i think has begun to happen...

That's not a new practice. My Win10 machines are from different
manufacturers and have had different updates installed for well over a
year.


I suspect those are driver updates for hardware.

There's a setting where you can disable that.

What's left then, is going to be security updates
or OS Upgrade installs. And the machines should match
a bit closer on what they get after that.

When the machines don't have the same hardware, the
driver updates that come in, won't be the same on
the two machines.

And to top it off, inappropriate drivers can come
in that way. Such as a touchpad filter driver that
"bound" to every HID. That's the main reason I'm interested
in turning it off, because of the history of what's on
offer.

Â*Â* Paul

Yes, AMD driver update kept bugging me to install the latest and
greatest video card drivers which I do not want as they do not work well
with my older HD 5850 card, I have to stay with the okder 15.12 drivers
so I turned that feature off also in control panel, System.

Rene

In article , Chris
wrote:

Previously, with specific releases they could set minimum requirements
which you'd check and decide whether your machine was compatible with it.
Now it's all the same, but at some point older machines are going to be
intolerably slow after an update that you may not have been expecting.

or they decide to not release further updates for some hardware, which
i think has begun to happen...

That's just speculation. They haven't come out and said they're not
upgrading some machines nor given specifics. Have they?

it's not speculation. at some point, they are going to need to drop
support for older hardware. every company does. nothing lasts forever.

i think they already have. i remember paul thurrott commenting on it,
but i don't remember the specifics. probably the devices with 16 gig
which can't be upgraded to a larger capacity.

nospam wrote:
In article , Chris
wrote:

Previously, with specific releases they could set minimum requirements
which you'd check and decide whether your machine was compatible with it.
Now it's all the same, but at some point older machines are going to be
intolerably slow after an update that you may not have been expecting.
or they decide to not release further updates for some hardware, which
i think has begun to happen...
That's just speculation. They haven't come out and said they're not
upgrading some machines nor given specifics. Have they?

it's not speculation. at some point, they are going to need to drop
support for older hardware. every company does. nothing lasts forever.

i think they already have. i remember paul thurrott commenting on it,
but i don't remember the specifics. probably the devices with 16 gig
which can't be upgraded to a larger capacity.

Microsoft has a plan afoot, to *support* tablets with 16GB eMMC
storage. This is an attempt to allow the WinPC ecosystem to
compete on price with other ecosystems. This means the
next Windows release has to take less space.

The smallest you can make the OS, is to keep the file set compressed
in the WIM (3.5GB) and then just do deltas. They tried that
already and in the fullness of time, that wasn't "scalable"
so they stopped. But that won't stop them from trying. You
can make a virtual file system, like a "squashfs" to make
it appear WinSXS is populated or whatever.

I think the idea is hella-foolish and a waste of developer time.
Instead, we should be encouraging 64GB eMMC on tablets, so
that users won't keep throwing them in the trash.

Paul

On 1/19/2019 8:43 AM, Chris wrote:
Neil wrote:
On 1/18/2019 6:10 PM, Chris wrote:
mechanic wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 08:37:20 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

Makes me wonder about the future for older machines. How and when
will MS stop supporting them? Or will it just keep pushing
updates and features Willy nilly and it'll be users who will be
forced to rollback or upgrade their machines after an update
tanks their performance?

It's called progress, mate. And at the edges of such changes there
will be business opportunities for those who will support such
historic machines.

I get progress part and I'm not complaining about that. I just wonder how
MS will manage it, now that win10 has rolling releases?

Previously, with specific releases they could set minimum requirements
which you'd check and decide whether your machine was compatible with it.
Now it's all the same, but at some point older machines are going to be
intolerably slow after an update that you may not have been expecting.

As has always been the case, there will come a time when hardware no
longer meets the minimum requirements for an OS. The thing is, with
Win10 users are not in a good position to determine when that time comes.

Exactly my point.

Service packs and updates for earlier versions of Windows had more
available information about what was in them and what was required than
for any version since Vista.

I think the best option for Win10 is to avoid participating in IDK

What's IDK?

Willing participants as beta testers.

let the hardware and firmware determine what works by "calling home to
MS", which seems to prevent incompatible updates on all of my Win10
machines.

How do you know that is what it's doing?

Mainly, experience. This practice started with Win8.x, and is fully
implemented in Win10. There were options in Win8.x to prevent updates,
and now there are options to delay but not prevent them except for the
corporate versions of Win10.

--
best regards,

Neil

On 1/19/2019 9:31 AM, Paul wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , Chris
wrote:

Previously, with specific releases they could set minimum requirements
which you'd check and decide whether your machine was compatible
with it.
Now it's all the same, but at some point older machines are going
to be
intolerably slow after an update that you may not have been expecting.
or they decide to not release further updates for some hardware, which
i think has begun to happen...
That's just speculation. They haven't come out and said they're not
upgrading some machines nor given specifics. Have they?

it's not speculation. at some point, they are going to need to drop
support for older hardware. every company does. nothing lasts forever.

i think they already have. i remember paul thurrott commenting on it,
but i don't remember the specifics. probably the devices with 16 gig
which can't be upgraded to a larger capacity.

Microsoft has a plan afoot, to *support* tablets with 16GB eMMC
storage. This is an attempt to allow the WinPC ecosystem to
compete on price with other ecosystems. This means the
next Windows release has to take less space.

The smallest you can make the OS, is to keep the file set compressed
in the WIM (3.5GB) and then just do deltas. They tried that
already and in the fullness of time, that wasn't "scalable"
so they stopped. But that won't stop them from trying. You
can make a virtual file system, like a "squashfs" to make
it appear WinSXS is populated or whatever.

I think the idea is hella-foolish and a waste of developer time.
Instead, we should be encouraging 64GB eMMC on tablets, so
that users won't keep throwing them in the trash.

Â*Â* Paul
I'm in favor of bigger is better.
If you stay a couple of iterations behind the curve, computers
are approximately free. Throw 'em my way. Thanks.

nospam wrote:
In article , Chris
wrote:

Previously, with specific releases they could set minimum requirements
which you'd check and decide whether your machine was compatible with it.
Now it's all the same, but at some point older machines are going to be
intolerably slow after an update that you may not have been expecting.

or they decide to not release further updates for some hardware, which
i think has begun to happen...

That's just speculation. They haven't come out and said they're not
upgrading some machines nor given specifics. Have they?

it's not speculation. at some point, they are going to need to drop
support for older hardware. every company does. nothing lasts forever.

i think they already have. i remember paul thurrott commenting on it,
but i don't remember the specifics. probably the devices with 16 gig
which can't be upgraded to a larger capacity.


"at some point", "I think", "I remember" are far from concrete terms.

I don't disagree with you, but without specifics from Redmond we're all
just speculating.

They need to do something and soon, probably, but what that is is not
clear.

Neil wrote:
On 1/19/2019 8:43 AM, Chris wrote:
Neil wrote:
On 1/18/2019 6:10 PM, Chris wrote:
mechanic wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 08:37:20 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

Makes me wonder about the future for older machines. How and when
will MS stop supporting them? Or will it just keep pushing
updates and features Willy nilly and it'll be users who will be
forced to rollback or upgrade their machines after an update
tanks their performance?

It's called progress, mate. And at the edges of such changes there
will be business opportunities for those who will support such
historic machines.

I get progress part and I'm not complaining about that. I just wonder how
MS will manage it, now that win10 has rolling releases?

Previously, with specific releases they could set minimum requirements
which you'd check and decide whether your machine was compatible with it.
Now it's all the same, but at some point older machines are going to be
intolerably slow after an update that you may not have been expecting.

As has always been the case, there will come a time when hardware no
longer meets the minimum requirements for an OS. The thing is, with
Win10 users are not in a good position to determine when that time comes.

Exactly my point.

Service packs and updates for earlier versions of Windows had more
available information about what was in them and what was required than
for any version since Vista.

I think the best option for Win10 is to avoid participating in IDK

What's IDK?

Willing participants as beta testers.

Does IDK stand for something?

I'm aware of the windows insider program with their fast and show rings.
Just never heard of IDK.

let the hardware and firmware determine what works by "calling home to
MS", which seems to prevent incompatible updates on all of my Win10
machines.

How do you know that is what it's doing?

Mainly, experience. This practice started with Win8.x, and is fully
implemented in Win10. There were options in Win8.x to prevent updates,
and now there are options to delay but not prevent them except for the
corporate versions of Win10.

That's the user taking control, not Microsoft making decisions on
compatibility or not of updates.

In article , Chris
wrote:

Previously, with specific releases they could set minimum requirements
which you'd check and decide whether your machine was compatible with it.
Now it's all the same, but at some point older machines are going to be
intolerably slow after an update that you may not have been expecting.

or they decide to not release further updates for some hardware, which
i think has begun to happen...

That's just speculation. They haven't come out and said they're not
upgrading some machines nor given specifics. Have they?

it's not speculation. at some point, they are going to need to drop
support for older hardware. every company does. nothing lasts forever.

i think they already have. i remember paul thurrott commenting on it,
but i don't remember the specifics. probably the devices with 16 gig
which can't be upgraded to a larger capacity.

"at some point", "I think", "I remember" are far from concrete terms.

i don't keep a list of which machines are no longer getting updates.
however, i *do* remember hearing that some no longer do.

I don't disagree with you, but without specifics from Redmond we're all
just speculating.

They need to do something and soon, probably, but what that is is not
clear.

what do you want them to do?

if the machine in question can't run the latest version, it won't be
pushed. at least that's how it's supposed to work...

nospam wrote:
In article , Chris
wrote:

Previously, with specific releases they could set minimum requirements
which you'd check and decide whether your machine was compatible with it.
Now it's all the same, but at some point older machines are going to be
intolerably slow after an update that you may not have been expecting.

or they decide to not release further updates for some hardware, which
i think has begun to happen...

That's just speculation. They haven't come out and said they're not
upgrading some machines nor given specifics. Have they?

it's not speculation. at some point, they are going to need to drop
support for older hardware. every company does. nothing lasts forever.

i think they already have. i remember paul thurrott commenting on it,
but i don't remember the specifics. probably the devices with 16 gig
which can't be upgraded to a larger capacity.

"at some point", "I think", "I remember" are far from concrete terms.

i don't keep a list of which machines are no longer getting updates.
however, i *do* remember hearing that some no longer do.

I don't disagree with you, but without specifics from Redmond we're all
just speculating.

They need to do something and soon, probably, but what that is is not
clear.

what do you want them to do?

Generate a knowledgebase which lists detailed minimum hardware requirements
for the latest version of win 10 and notable unsupported hardware. Current
specs are ridiculously optimistic: 1GHz cpu, 1GB RAM and 16GB HDD. I dare
anyone with that kind of spec to run windows 10.

Then inform users when their hardware is no longer supported.

if the machine in question can't run the latest version, it won't be
pushed. at least that's how it's supposed to work...

Except it doesn't. Three pcs I manage haven't been updated to 1809: one is
old and is possibly unsupported, the other two are new (one OEM and one
retail). How are we supposed to know what's going on?