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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft end of support dates
Wolffan
rnews.com Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:29:07 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, 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. Umm, not quite. They were 32bit extensions still running on top of MSDOS 7. You could still load TSRS and such before the windows interface loaded. Windows 3x/9x weren't their own OS yet. Technically, win3.1 and 3.11 (.11 was geared more for networking, not home users) introduced the 32bit extensions which would later become exclusive in the form of the PE format exe, to replace the old style NE format windows 3x was using. But, windows3x/9x by themselves was not an OS anymore so than win3x was. No DOS, No Windows for any of them. -- Bad or missing mouse. Spank the cat [Y/N]? |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft end of support dates
Snit
Sat, 11 Jul 2020 04:42:47 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 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 No, it didn't. Windows 3.11 wasn't really meant for home users. That was for business networking. And for the pros it went from NT to 2000 Not necessarily. The token ring network I discussed previously were all hd less windows3.11 machines, powered by a novell server. Some pros went for Novell back then, Snit. It was (and still is) a very reliable, server OS. -- Things only *appear* to get lost -- they're actually waiting for you in next week. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft end of support dates
Joel news:km4kgfh6l8v2u94nb666eiobc1p926osoo@
4ax.com Sat, 11 Jul 2020 19:30:43 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: "Apd" wrote: "Snit" wrote: And for the pros it went from NT to 2000 This, a completely different OS from the earlier Wins, went from NT 4.0 to NT 5.0 (2000). 2000 and XP, and Server 2003, were built on the NT 4 code, but they intended 2000 to be the first unified version for business and home use, and even when it wasn't, it would be supported long after 9x/Me, and with service packs was more or less equivalent to XP, so it made sense to name it 2000. Umm, no. 2000 is NT4 base code. XP and above is NT5 to NT6 base code. 2000 started life as a business OS, and, MS made some attempts to give it some user options in the sense of better gaming support. XP however is what 2000 wasn't able to do for the business and home users. The XP and 2000 service packs weren't that much alike either, 2000 officially had four of them, XP has three, technically. -- Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft end of support dates
Joel
Sat, 11 Jul 2020 20:54:38 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: Snit wrote: 2000 and XP, and Server 2003, were built on the NT 4 code, but they intended 2000 to be the first unified version for business and home use, and even when it wasn't, it would be supported long after 9x/Me, and with service packs was more or less equivalent to XP, so it made sense to name it 2000. I think that is more to the point than just marketing... they wanted 2000 to be more than it was. That was the plan, yeah, but there were issues with running DOS games, drivers, etc., that made them realize that they hadn't yet achieved what XP ultimately became. Umm, no. They knew perfectly well it would have issues with some DOS based software since it was emulating the entire DOS environment for them and had no actual DOS under it's hood, unlike the windows 3x/9x family. They had to release 2000 as kind of an interim version. 2000 wasn't released as a stop gap between NT4 and XP, no. But the second service pack for 2000, released around the same time as XP, corrected that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000 Windows 2000 is a business-oriented operating system that was produced by Microsoft in the United States and was released as part of the Windows NT family of operating systems. It was succeeded by Windows XP in 2001, releasing to manufacturing on December 15, 1999 [2] and being officially released to retail on February 17, 2000.[3] It is the successor to Windows NT 4.0. Four editions of Windows 2000 were released: Professional, Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server;[6] the latter was both released to manufacturing and launched months after the other editions.[7] While each edition of Windows 2000 was targeted at a different market, they shared a core set of features, including many system utilities such as the Microsoft Management Console and standard system administration applications. Windows 2000 introduces NTFS 3.0,[8] Encrypting File System,[9] as well as basic and dynamic disk storage.[10] Support for people with disabilities was improved over Windows NT 4.0 with a number of new assistive technologies,[11] and Microsoft increased support for different languages[12] and locale information.[13] The Windows 2000 Server family has additional features, most notably the introduction of Active Directory,[14] which in the years following became a widely used directory service in business environments. Microsoft marketed Windows 2000 as the most secure Windows version ever at the time;[15] however, it became the target of a number of high-profile virus attacks such as Code Red[16] and Nimda.[17] For ten years after its release, it continued to receive patches for security vulnerabilities nearly every month until reaching the end of its lifecycle on July 13, 2010.[5] Windows 2000 is the last version of Microsoft Windows to display the "Windows NT" designation, and the last version where the desktop and server versions of Windows shared the same name. It is succeeded by Windows XP (released in October 2001) and Windows Server 2003 (released in April 2003). I got a custom built computer a couple months after the release of 2000 with it preinstalled, and it was wonderful, coming from Win98. The new machine was faster and had more RAM, sure, but the difference in terms of using it was that I was running a "real" OS. There was a bit more than that in the differences between them, but, if you didn't notice, no real biggie. -- Get thee down. Be thou funky. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft end of support dates
Mark Lloyd
Fri, 10 Jul 2020 20:22:27 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: [snip] I never could find that "worst" version of ME. What I had was slightly better than 98, but only slightly. Actually, the issues that showed up with ME were mostly due to faulty ram, and/or ram that barely made spec requirements and was otherwise shoddy. ME used a higher range in the upper ram area, and if you had ****/low quality ram, or the wrong stuff outright for your board but it posted, ME was unforgiving. A lot of the blame on ME instability can be squarely placed on the **** poor matched hardware, specifically the ram and mainboard. In 90% of all Me systems I observed with problems, especially when they ran fine win 98 but turned to **** with Me was ram issues. 98 would tolerate the user ****up, but Me wouldn't. Mostly clones that people would build them selves, but compaq with their low end home user junk would pull the same **** as well as Dell and various other big name companies at the time. Use cheap ram, get bad results if MS makes some changes in the OS; which is what they did with Me. 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. Me still has the same issue as the other win9x family though, it cannot physically run non stop without a reset/restart for longer than 43.2 (I think it is) days in a row. It'll hard lock. -- Do you have such a thing? |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft end of support dates
Joel
Fri, 10 Jul 2020 17:55:38 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, 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. With ME, it wasn't ms update issues borking the machines nearly as much as it was machines that ran a previous copy of windows, with mismatched/poor quality ram than were upgraded or clean installed to windows ME. those systems would give you problems, because the ram was ****, and ME wasn't as forgiving with **** hardware as windows98/98se was. -- Cats must hide in the kitchen drawers and jump out at Mom. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft end of support dates
Diesel wrote:
Joel Sat, 11 Jul 2020 20:54:38 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: Snit wrote: 2000 and XP, and Server 2003, were built on the NT 4 code, but they intended 2000 to be the first unified version for business and home use, and even when it wasn't, it would be supported long after 9x/Me, and with service packs was more or less equivalent to XP, so it made sense to name it 2000. I think that is more to the point than just marketing... they wanted 2000 to be more than it was. That was the plan, yeah, but there were issues with running DOS games, drivers, etc., that made them realize that they hadn't yet achieved what XP ultimately became. Umm, no. They knew perfectly well it would have issues with some DOS based software since it was emulating the entire DOS environment for them and had no actual DOS under it's hood, unlike the windows 3x/9x family. You're a ****ing idiot, you know that? Do you not realize that when XP was released they *had* developed a way to support the legacy software necessary for it to replace Win9x/Me? And that they backported it to 2000 via the second service pack? Before you get smart-mouthed, learn what the **** you're talking about, punk. They had to release 2000 as kind of an interim version. 2000 wasn't released as a stop gap between NT4 and XP, no. That isn't what I said, bitch. I know that it was released as an upgrade to NT, duh. But it had not achieved what they initially intended it to, that XP ultimately did. Grow a ****ing brain. But the second service pack for 2000, released around the same time as XP, corrected that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000 snip irrelevancy So just copying and pasting Wikipedia qualifies as a response to what i wrote? Man are you a moron. I got a custom built computer a couple months after the release of 2000 with it preinstalled, and it was wonderful, coming from Win98. The new machine was faster and had more RAM, sure, but the difference in terms of using it was that I was running a "real" OS. There was a bit more than that in the differences between them, but, if you didn't notice, no real biggie. Read what the **** I said, you imbecile. I didn't go into *detail* about the differences, that doesn't mean I didn't "notice" them, you reject. -- Joel Crump |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft end of support dates
Diesel wrote:
2000 and XP, and Server 2003, were built on the NT 4 code, but they intended 2000 to be the first unified version for business and home use, and even when it wasn't, it would be supported long after 9x/Me, and with service packs was more or less equivalent to XP, so it made sense to name it 2000. Umm, no. 2000 is NT4 base code. XP and above is NT5 to NT6 base code. Hahahaha, you are lost, fool. 2000 was numbered 5.0, XP 5.1. That isn't relevant to the fact that they were built on the codebase of NT 4. After Server 2003, they scrapped the entire codebase, leading to Vista being essentially a beta when it was released. 2000 started life as a business OS, and, MS made some attempts to give it some user options in the sense of better gaming support. XP however is what 2000 wasn't able to do for the business and home users. The XP and 2000 service packs weren't that much alike either, 2000 officially had four of them, XP has three, technically. Heh, you are clueless. -- Joel Crump |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft end of support dates
Diesel wrote:
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. With ME, it wasn't ms update issues borking the machines nearly as much as it was machines that ran a previous copy of windows, with mismatched/poor quality ram than were upgraded or clean installed to windows ME. those systems would give you problems, because the ram was ****, and ME wasn't as forgiving with **** hardware as windows98/98se was. That makes little to no sense, because nearly every WinMe machine came with Me preinstalled. I literally knew zero people who upgraded from 98 to Me. And I would love to hear you explain how "poor quality RAM" would be OK under one OS but not another. Very bizarre claim. -- Joel Crump |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft end of support dates
On 12/07/2020 13.12, Joel wrote:
Diesel wrote: .... You're a ****ing idiot, you know that? Do you not realize that when ..... Before you get smart-mouthed, learn what the **** you're talking about, punk. .... That isn't what I said, bitch. I know that it was released as an .... Read what the **** I said, you imbecile. I didn't go into *detail* Sorry, but with that foul language I have to ignore your post and flag your mails for the future. You may have interesting things to say, but I do not want to read that sort of language. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft end of support dates
"Carlos E.R." wrote:
Sorry, but with that foul language I have to ignore your post and flag your mails for the future. You may have interesting things to say, but I do not want to read that sort of language. I'm sorry for that, but Diesel really was trying to get smart, while not actually being smart. I don't take kindly to being talked down to when I was correct, and he isn't. -- Joel Crump |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft end of support dates
"Joel" wrote
| That makes little to no sense, because nearly every WinMe machine came | with Me preinstalled. I literally knew zero people who upgraded from | 98 to Me. I did. They were selling upgrades for $10. I don't remember big problems with ME. The only instability I saw was with Explorer. Once in awhile the desktop would go white with a warning in red. Once in awhile items in a folder window seemed to slide off to the side. But no big deal. It was just typical MS design. They change lots of little things with each system, for no good reason. Some of those changes break things. Apparently there was a new Active Desktop "team" and they wanted to reaarange the chairs. The same happened with NT6: Same basic Explorer but lots of tiny, meaningless changes. Personally I think the idea of lemons and peaches is overblown. MS needed to come out with new systems periodically, to sell more product and satisfy their hardware partners. ME was fine, but irrelevant. It was also fatally cute, with the "Me" marketing theme. Whether they called it "Windows Me" or "Millennium Edition", both were embarassingly silly themes. Vista was too bloated for the hardware, and it introduced "lackey mode" file restrictions as default, difficult to bypass. That's what gave it a bad name. 8 introduced Metro madness, again making it difficult to bypass. The sheer irrelevance of Metro was maddening. So 8 got a bad name. Much of the reputation problem comes from MS themselves. They're the only company I know that markets new product by saying their last product was junk and needs to be thrown away. And in many cases they've actually left those alleged lemon systems out of OS listings and update announcements, leaving their paying customers holding the bag. I'm glad I don't use Vista, only because of file restrictions and bloat. I rarely use 7, for the same reason. Why is 7 better? Mainly because UAC makes it a bit smoother. And because by the time 7 came out there was hardware that could handle such a pig. It's not really different from Vista. I'm writing this on XP. Why? Because it's the last version that does what I tell it to do without arguing. It's not spyware. It supports all the software I want. And the whole system, with software installed, is less than 2 GB, making backup easy. Though to be fair, XP needs a lot of fixing to be such a smooth running peach. Like getting rid of the GUI skins and removing system file protection. To my mind, the big changes in Windows over the years have been mostly from MS marketing and strategy. Win10 brought in the idea that renting software and not controlling your device is normal. And each version usually brings in some new hardware support, some new system functions, some new API wrappers for convenience. But the main point of Windows is to be a *platform* for software. In most cases, the version is not so important for that. The biggest differences have been in Microsoft's somewhat whimsical decisions about what "paradigm" Windows should represent. And since Win98 with Active Desktop, they've been trying to figure a way to sell out their customers, on top of the software cost. For more than 20 years they haven't been happy to just sell a decent product and have a monopoly. They keep tweaking the paradigm to steal money. Bill Gates "brilliantly" foresaw the sleaze possibilities the Internet would bring and raced to cash in. But it's never quite worked. Apple vacuums out their customers' wallets by making irrestistible products that anyone can use. Google vacuums out everyone's wallet by making very simple, functional products for free. That's why everyone uses gmail. It's just so easy. And the unprecedented sleaze of Google is mostly invisible to the average person. Microsoft always start out with their plan to vacuum out wallets. The product seems to be an afterthought. So it often fails. Gates's "brilliance" gave us Active Desktop ads, Passport spyware, Hailstorm idiocy (who thought of that name?!), pointless SPOT watches, useless Metro trinket apps, and the similar Windows Store apps. All of them were interesting scams, many were ahead of their time, but they were all only scams intended to vacuum out wallets. So they all failed. Microsoft were not thinking of what their customers needed with any of those efforts. Their main product for years -- their only profit driver -- was the dual monopoly of Windows and MS Office. Today, surpisingly, they're getting a lot of profit from Azure web hosting. But I suspect that internally the Microsofties are seeing it differently. They see the landscape changing and feel they have to keep up. It's not enough to make billions creating a solid OS for productivity computers running productivity software. Like Google and Apple, they're always driven to make yet another buck, by hook or by crook. So they're trying to cash in on the massively profitable app scam that's been so good to Apple and Google. But once again, they were so busy designing their wallet vacuum that they neglected to notice that they didn't actually have any venue for their apps! |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft end of support dates
On 12/07/2020 12:59, Joel wrote:
"Carlos E.R." wrote: Sorry, but with that foul language I have to ignore your post and flag your mails for the future. You may have interesting things to say, but I do not want to read that sort of language. I'm sorry for that, but Diesel really was trying to get smart, while not actually being smart. I don't take kindly to being talked down to when I was correct, and he isn't. I very much hope that Carlos will accept your apology, Joel. The poster to whom you responded did rather provoke you! Stay safe. :-) |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft end of support dates
David_B wrote:
On 12/07/2020 12:59, Joel wrote: "Carlos E.R." wrote: Sorry, but with that foul language I have to ignore your post and flag your mails for the future. You may have interesting things to say, but I do not want to read that sort of language. I'm sorry for that, but Diesel really was trying to get smart, while not actually being smart. I don't take kindly to being talked down to when I was correct, and he isn't. I very much hope that Carlos will accept your apology, Joel. I wouldn't blame someone for feeling that way about the language, it is something people can be sensitive to, and I understand that. The poster to whom you responded did rather provoke you! Yeah, what little I've read in the endless threads where he trolls made me not really want to hear his condescending crap in this thread. Stay safe. :-) I'm glad that you are doing well! -- Joel Crump |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft end of support dates
"Mayayana" wrote:
| That makes little to no sense, because nearly every WinMe machine came | with Me preinstalled. I literally knew zero people who upgraded from | 98 to Me. I did. They were selling upgrades for $10. I already had Win2000 when Me was released, but I did know multiple people who were sticking with 98, having heard bad things about Me. I don't remember big problems with ME. The only instability I saw was with Explorer. Once in awhile the desktop would go white with a warning in red. Once in awhile items in a folder window seemed to slide off to the side. But no big deal. It was just typical MS design. They change lots of little things with each system, for no good reason. Some of those changes break things. Apparently there was a new Active Desktop "team" and they wanted to reaarange the chairs. Interesting. I had very little firsthand experience with Me, my mom did buy a laptop that came with it, but I avoided touching it before it was upgraded to XP. snip I'm writing this on XP. Why? Because it's the last version that does what I tell it to do without arguing. It's not spyware. It supports all the software I want. And the whole system, with software installed, is less than 2 GB, making backup easy. Though to be fair, XP needs a lot of fixing to be such a smooth running peach. Like getting rid of the GUI skins and removing system file protection. Yeah, XP in classic theme mode was a really lean and mean system. I moved on to 7 when it was released, but XP served me well before it. -- Joel Crump |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|