past Windows history & the current Build

[mauricen]

Here is a interesting read about Windows, especially for enthusiasts. The article is at Techrepublic
"Windows 10, three years later: Why this is as good as it gets"
Windows 10, three years later: Why this is as good as it gets

the top 2 paragraphs are a trip down memory lane.
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/windows-10-three-years-later-why-this-is-as-good-as-it-gets/

 

[niemiro]

Meh. I am unconvinced. The major release vs biannual release schedules are totally different and mean that this three year "rule" probably doesn't translate anymore.

Microsoft have also somewhat recently had a failed release and have at least learned some things from those mistakes - the current release, and next release, and next-next release are likely to be additionally cautious, and probably better.

And the bold statement "If you don't like Windows 10 now, you're not going to like it in the future."...I see no reason or any truth in this. Satisfaction with Windows 10 is the highest it's ever been and growing.

I think Windows 10 gets better from here.

 

[Sysnative Windows Update]

I have to agree with Richard. Windows 10 makes everything so much easier. Back in the day, malware had been so sophisticated that we often had to reinstall. Vista Service pack installs often crippled the system completely because there was no options to revert. that was introduced with Windows 7, which has brought about a variety of new errors for us to diagnose, but in reality, it has made the process much smoother for the end users, because themachine did not crash. It only reverted and now with Win10, there is very little to do to be honest. Corrupt files or some kind of third-party (most likely AV) software interference. Also, when looking at it from a security standpoint, Windows 10 has almost eradicated malware. I have been a BC trainee for ages now, most cases are Win10 and there is really very little malware. Sure an extension here and there, but I'm talking real malware, as in rootkits, trojans and stuff. As much as it is better for the end users, it's not so good for us, the people who truly enjoy a good challenge and I can only hope that there will still be a need for high-quality analysts down the road. If nothing else, we'll end up troubleshooting Server machines.

 

[Digerati]

Thanks for creating this thread and providing an opportunity to discuss it. I saw that article too and quickly came to the same conclusion as Richard. I felt the author (I refuse to call him a journalist!) is just trying to gain attention for himself by bashing Microsoft. I mean right from the start, he cites a 17 year old 2002 article about XP and W98/95, NT and 2000 suggesting W10 and Microsoft will surely follow the same path! Come on!

W10 is not W7 and especially is not XP. People, especially those in the IT press need to stop spewing nonsense that compares them. The entire development and upgrade process/methodology with W10 has be totally revised with W10.

I am reminded of the brand new 2020 Chevy Corvette. While it may look like a Corvette, for the first in its history, the production models for 2020 will put the engine behind the driver. This totally changes just about everything how that car handles and will perform. It would be unfair to conclude the 2020 model (and 2021 and so on) will handle sharp curvesThe Mid-Engined 2020 Chevy Corvette Is Here in the same manner as the 2002 Corvette handled sharp curves.

Windows 10 makes everything so much easier.

It really is not that W10 makes it so much easier (though it does). IMO, it is the fact that virtually everyone has relatively high-speed Internet access these days. This allows Microsoft to regularly tweak and refine W10 and continually improve it. This is not about adding features (that's another issue), but tweaking, fixing and improving W10.

The author talks about a sweet spot. It seems he doesn't know the definition of a sweet spot. The sweet spot does NOT designate a point where something can get no better. The sweet spot indicates where performance degrades on either side of that spot. So his analogy of "sweet spot" would suggest W10 is currently the best it will ever be AND it will go downhill with performance, security, and ease of use getting worse from here. Not buying that at all.

 

[Will]

Thanks for posting Maurice! Interesting article.

And the bold statement "If you don't like Windows 10 now, you're not going to like it in the future."...I see no reason or any truth in this. Satisfaction with Windows 10 is the highest it's ever been and growing.

Do you see Windows 10 as having radically changed since launch? From the perspective of an end user, I don't think a huge amount has visibly changed, and probably not enough to convince someone who didn't like Win 10 at launch that they would like it now.

I've posted this before, but Peter Bright is very well respected, and I think the article has a valid point:
Microsoft’s problem isn’t how often it updates Windows—it’s how it develops it

They're definitely a lot more cautious in development from last year, and hopefully carrying out more testing, but the overall development process hasn't much changed as far as I've heard. I'm not sure how willing they are to update their development process, but improving the process on something the size of Windows will take years at minimum.

I have been a BC trainee for ages now, most cases are Win10 and there is really very little malware. Sure an extension here and there, but I'm talking real malware, as in rootkits, trojans and stuff.

I think we can safely assume Maurice has a fair amount of knowledge of malware.

 

[Sysnative Windows Update]

Maurice definitely is an expert on malware.

 

[Digerati]

@Will Watts - I note you must have an account at BC to see the "knowledge of malware" link.

Personally, I think Microsoft has vast knowledge of malware and the global security "picture" in the "day-to-day" real world scenario - perhaps more so than any other security entity out there simply because of Microsoft's exposure. Sure, Symantec, Kaspersky and others have great exposure too. But Norton or Kaspersky (as popular examples) are NOT installed on every Windows machine out there. But of course, Windows is. And unless the [paranoid] users blocked the telemetry, this is some of the "anonymous" data MS collects and uses in their day-to-day operations to protect all of us from the badguys.

And I think it is important to quickly point out that Microsoft shares that information with other trusted security organizations too. A very good thing.

Speaking of W10 visibly changing - Live Tiles may be going away: Windows 10 might be getting rid of controversial Live Tiles

 

[Corrine]

Speaking of W10 visibly changing - Live Tiles may be going away

Fine with me. I always disable Live Tiles since I only have apps I want easy access to pinned to Start.

 

[Digerati]

Fine with me. I always disable Live Tiles

Me too!

I only have apps I want easy access to pinned to Start.

Well, on this computer, I use Start 10 which allows me to use the old Quick Launch Toolbar, in addition to the Window Taskbar. So I have some stuff pinned to the Taskbar, then lessor used apps and shortcuts to my every day sites are on the Quick Launch Toolbar under the TaskBar. I have increased the height of the bottom taskbar area to give me a 3-line clock (Time, Day, Date) and 2 lines of System Tray icons.

I just counted and I have 56 shortcuts (with room for more) in my Quick Launch toolbar. That may should like a lot, but it really is not. I even have a divider icon used to sort the shortcuts by their type to keep them organized. This lets me keep the number of shortcuts on my actual desktop to a minimum and maintain an uncluttered appearance there. :)

 

[Will]

@Will Watts - I note you must have an account at BC to see the "knowledge of malware" link.

Of course - I was a security analyst on TSF for a while, before Sysnative started. I haven't posted in malware threads for years though.

Malware threats still exist, although fortunately they've been seeing a decline. The ones on the rise though are typically much harder to remove ransomware.

And unless the [paranoid] users blocked the telemetry, this is some of the "anonymous" data MS collects and uses in their day-to-day operations to protect all of us from the badguys.

...and also used for advertising.

 

[PeterJ]

Windows 10 makes everything so much easier.

Not everything IMO. The ever-increasing windows updates (KBs), the delta compression or the lack of undoing the delta compression, and the lack of a proper release database of all available updates is unfortunately a decline rather than an improvement. Not everyone has a high-speed fiber internet connection.

 

[Digerati]

Well, you certainly don't need high-speed "fiber". I don't have it. Most users don't as it cost too much to go in and replace existing copper, or add fiber to existing neighborhoods. So fiber tends to go into new developments, if at all. See What Happened to Google Fiber?

As to your other complaints, I can't speak to delta compression - I don't know enough about it. But to Windows Update, those seem more Microsoft policy issues rather than Windows 10, the OS itself.

 

[Sysnative Windows Update]

Not everything IMO. The ever-increasing windows updates (KBs), the delta compression or the lack of undoing the delta compression, and the lack of a proper release database of all available updates is unfortunately a decline rather than an improvement. Not everyone has a high-speed fiber internet connection.

Actually, MS has addressed that and now they do not make users download the whole update, but just the updated components making the updates much smaller and therefore more accessible to users.

Fiber, lol

Up until two years ago, I had 4 MB/s internet... Now I have 40. I can only dream of fiber in my neighbourhood.

Delta compression can be a good thing for users with small SSDs with limited space, so it's not bad. As a bonus, I believe that we can even decompress the files compressed using DCD, DCH, DCM, DCN, DCS or DCX compression using KBExtractor v2.3 which Richard updated in February.

 

[PeterJ]

Up until two years ago, I had 4 MB/s internet... Now I have 40. I can only dream of fiber in my neighbourhood.

I'm currently at 2.3 MB/s or less. In about 2 years we get fiber up to 500MB/s.

 

[Sysnative Windows Update]

Lucky you, haha.

 

[jcgriff2]

Well, you certainly don't need high-speed "fiber". I don't have it. Most users don't as it cost too much to go in and replace existing copper, or add fiber to existing neighborhoods. So fiber tends to go into new developments, if at all. See What Happened to Google Fiber?

As to your other complaints, I can't speak to delta compression - I don't know enough about it. But to Windows Update, those seem more Microsoft policy issues rather than Windows 10, the OS itself.

I agree that you don't need it, but I'd like it because we only have one game in town - the monopolistic Optimum Cable Company, who raise rates every year+

The only current competition, if you want to call it that, is Verizon DSL, on which you cannot video stream (at least the DSL offered around here). Then you have to go with DirectTV or competitor, who make customers pay when problems ensue. We recently had a tornado in the area and many reported that their satellite TV no longer worked. All that needed to be done was the realignment of the satellite dishes. But for that, DirectTV was charging hundreds of dollars to their customers. The cable company on the other hand will come out and fix anything and everything for free.

From that Google Fiber article -

When a new provider wants to attach their wires [to an existing telephone pole], each provider with wires already on the pole has to send a technician to move its wires to make way for the new one.

Imagine what that costs! But I don't understand why wires have to be moved to make a space for Google Fiber's wires. There seems to be plenty of free space on telephone poles already (at least the ones around here) or the wires are buried underground.

Per the article, it seems well worth Google (Alphabet, Inc.) acquiring wireless companies in the cities they wish to go in to. The cost to Alphabet for Google Fiber really increases when wiring from the main roads to the local housing development streets, then to each house itself. If all of that could be wireless with very little data loss, I think that Google Fiber would come out the sure winner and cost less than the competition.

A cost of nearly $300 per month for TV and Internet (and landline phone, which most people don't use) from the cable company is absurd. It's all because the cable company is a monopoly. Verizon FIOS said that they would come in and wire our nearly 500 unit townhouse and condo development, but demands EVERY home to accept FIOS service. 100% promised market share for FIOS will unfortunately never happen here.

 

[Digerati]

I agree that you don't need it, but I'd like it because we only have one game in town

There's a big difference between like/want and "need". And for sure, if fiber were available in my area, and the price compared to my current cable provider was competitive, I sure would go for it.

We have both cable and DSL available here, but personally, I think they conspire to keep prices ridiculous and constantly rising. Of course I can't prove that. My cable service includes TV (but not VoIP) too. My bill keeps going up too and is now $233/month. I do not have any premium channels but in order for me to get BBC America, and the Smithsonian channel, I have to get the optional "Variety Pak" that includes 50+ other channels, including over 25 kid's, shopping and Spanish speaking channels I never watch. And BTW, every single one of those channels, in particular, the channels I do watch and am willing to pay for, force me to endure an endless barrage of commercials too - often the exact same commercial several times each hour! Why do I have to pay to watch ads?

The good news is my ISP, Cox, regularly raises my bandwidth too.

My current service agreement says "up to" 150Mbps and I get this:

So I can't complain about that except how they do it. They always come out with some big, "We have wonderful news" announcement telling us we are getting a "free" service upgrade. And that's true - until two month later when the bill comes in and it too has gone up too, announced in some tiny print somewhere in the previous bill.

It's all because the cable company is a monopoly. Verizon FIOS said that they would come in and wire our nearly 500 unit townhouse and condo development, but demands EVERY home to accept FIOS service. 100% promised market share for FIOS will unfortunately never happen here.

I can see them demanding they be allowed to string fiber to every unit. From an installation standpoint, it makes sense to be able to sweep through the complex in one fell swoop. But to demand 100% market share for the connecting service - in other words, to demand they have a total monopoly? No!

I don't like big government but this is where government oversight and regulatory laws and commissions are needed - to keep these "utilities" from monopolizing communities and running roughshod over their trapped customers, or rather innocent "citizens".

 

[Will]

One of the reasons Google Fiber launched in the first place was to incentivise ISPs to provide better speeds. It wasn't uncommon in 2010 for ISPs to be supplying 1mbps internet to urban areas, and calling it high speed broadband. It's similar to the launch of Gmail (which launched with 1gb storage space, Vs the 20mb storage space most providers were offering at the time).

Legally "high speed" was defined in 2010 as 5mbps in the US.

Your 170mbps download will be using Fibre somewhere along the line to deliver that speed.

$233 / month is an insane price though - the most expensive I can find a comparable UK provider is £99/month (£139 after 12 months) for 500mbps broadband, 270+ channels, unlimited landline phone calls, plus mobile phone with unlimited calls/texts and data.

 

[Digerati]

$233 / month is an insane price though

I totally agree. And I feel it is a total racket. Here, you must rent ($2.99/month) a mini box for every "extra" TV you want to see cable channels on. I have just one of those. On the main TV, you must have a regular cable box. But on my main TV, I like having a DVR. So I have to rent a DVR cable box from them too, at $10.00/per month. But does that get me DVR service? Nope! That's another $12.99 per month just for the service!

My actual Internet cost is $74.99. TV is $138.47. Then city sales tax, FCC Fee, Franchise fee (?) and State sales tax adds another $19.23 per month for a grand total of $232.69 per month! That's $2,792.28 per year! I really feel sorry for those who only have Social Security or a very limited fixed income and can't afford those costs.

Here's what frustrates me more. I have lived in this house since I bought it 1989. It had a cable drop when I bought it. Just once in 30 years have I needed them to come out when a tree branch took out that cable drop. All internal cable wiring I did myself. When they offered DVR, I went to the Cox store, picked up the box and installed it myself. I ordered the mini-box on line and installed it myself. It is my cable modem, I installed. Everything else they did in a couple minutes at a keyboard from their central office. How hard can that be?

Why don't I just use OTA TV? Location, location, location. I live about just 10 miles south of Omaha, Nebraska. Omaha has lots of broadcast channels I could receive with a simple antenna. I could receive, that is, if I did not live on the south side of the highest hill in all of Eastern Nebraska! I can see miles into Iowa from my front porch, but cannot get good reception from any Omaha based TV or radio station in my home because this hill blocks them as those signals are "line of sight". So I need cable if I want to watch any TV - or I would need a very tall antenna tower. But I also live about 1/2 mile from Offutt Air Force Base. And tall towers near any airport (military or civilian) need special (and costly) permits. And then of course, HLN, BBC America, and other cable channels don't broadcast over the air. I need cable if I want to watch them. So again, it's a racket.

 

[jcgriff2]

$2.99/month for extra cable TV boxes? What a bargain, Bill.

Here they charge $10.99/month each.

Also recently, they quietly started charging $15/month for the wifi router. There had never been a charge for it before. I say "quiet" because they announced it in very fine print and it took on average 4 months before people started to notice/find out what the charge was actually for, then the entire town erupted at a meeting of the committee that sets cable/Internet prices.

This now reminds me of the days when you HAD TO "lease" your Western Electric phones from Ma Bell. My grandparents lived in the same house from ~1938-1988 (50 years) - so, do you think that Ma Bell recovered the cost of the phone through 50 years of monthly lease charges?

Same with the cable boxes. I have 6 extra boxes and desperately want to buy my own, but. . .

John