time to replace components in wife's computer for dreaded Win10 to Win11

In order to get all possible games and wallpapers and screensavers, I installed Windows 95 on my Intel Pentium PC, then installed Plus! for Windows 95, upgraded to Windows 98 First Edition (aka Windows 98 Gold) and installed Plus! for Windows 98. It took me the whole day, but it was worth it, as I had everything. I later upgraded that to Windows ME (just in case I miss any features) before upgrading to Windows XP. I then installed SP1, SP2, SP3 and then dotNET 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 Some years later I installed Windows XP on my Intel Pentium 4 computer, then I upgraded to Vista and then to 7 32-bit. When I migrated to a Pentium D system I needed support for more than 4GB RAM, so I did a clean installation to Windows 7 64-bit (I didn't know the utility patchpae3 back then that enables a 32-bit system to see up to 128GB RAM). Windows 7 64-bit was migrated to my previously 3rd generation Intel Core-i3 (now 3rd generation Core-i7), upgraded to Windows 8, then 8.1, then 10. However due to some incompatibility I could not upgrade to Windows 11 21H2, so eventually I gave up my efforts and did a clean installation of Windows 11 21H2. I then upgraded it to 22H2, 23H2 and eventually to 24H2. Yes, I prefer to UPGRADE to a newer version than installing from scratch with all the pros and cons of doing so (I believe the benefits are more including doing it in half a day vs spending almost a week for a clean installation).

pseymour said:

Well that was an entertaining manifesto, but there are some problems with it.

No disrespect to spapakons, and I wasn't going to mention it, but there are some problems with that version number "math." The progression of OSes there mixes consumer lines with business lines. ME was that last of that old consumer or home version of Windows line, the typically single-user, permissions wide-open variant of Windows. The NT line that became 2000-XP-Vista-etc. is a different animal. They had some features in common, but each team had to port features over to their OS from the other. Dave Plummer actually talks about this here and there on his YouTubes.

Additionally, version numbers are not added together like that. Each component of the version number (major, minor, build, revision) is separate from the others. Saying version 6.3 is version 9 because 6+3=9 is no different from folks who see "33" everywhere and think it's a signal from some three-letter agency. Additionally, Windows 10 was never called 6.4, at least not in a released version. Might have been called that internally before release; I dunno.



It's not the OS they care about breaking; it's the apps on top. You do realize Windows is loaded with shims just to make specific applications work, because the product is poorly written and so old that no one's working on it anymore?



Source for that number? TPM 2 has been a thing for quite some time. Microsoft started requiring OEMS to include it on machines in the Windows 10 days.



A failed version check and the app not starting are not in the mind of the user. It's obvious you're not a coder, because it's not a matter of just opening some file and inserting a single character.



Again, what was purchased? If you had a valid license, 10 was a free upgrade.

I won't go on with your last post, because this is getting tedious. But your assertion earlier is also incorrect ("Windows 8 was such a complete and utter disaster that they had to replace it with an entirely different operating system.") 8.1 was not an entirely different operating system. There hasn't been a new OS in the NT line since, well, the first version. Each version of Windows builds on the last. Otherwise, you'd have all kinds of incompatibilties.

Click to expand...

My missive was never intended to be a manifesto but you can call it what you will. It is what it is.

Spapakons and I have had disagreements in the past but I am compelled to give credit where it is due and he is right. His math is impeccable in this regard. Win ME wasn't called the Mistake Edition for nothing. It was horrid and it was the first Windows OS that I actually purchased a license for and started my more dedicated approach to learning how to use Windows. Dave Plummer is a Canadian from my neck of the woods and in nowise do I discount what he says about Windows ME and NT.

The numbers don't have to be added together like that for the progression to make sense. I find it interesting however that they still add up that way. Really what the boys at HQ called it before release is immaterial. The numerical progression is indisputable.

For me, TPM2 and Win 10 wasn't that long ago. Just because the Consortium required it on hardware "ages" ago doesn't diminish my point about MS not caring about older architecture. They don't. They are in bed with the Consortium. What they care about is the bottom line.

What difference does it make if the OS is broken or not when it breaks all the apps on top? One may as well conclude that the OS is broken anyway as it certainly isn't working correctly. They can shim away all they wish but in the end those archaic systems have gone the way of the floppy.

You are asking for a source for a number that I have already put a question mark to? Seriously?? The fact remains that the majority of PCs that are still functional are NOT Windows 11 ready. Pardon my rhetoric. Just how accurate should I be concerning this number? Your point is moot and TPM is still a disaster.

Everything begins in the mind of the user and everything begins in the mind of the coder. I don't suggest that the fix for a failed version only requires the insertion of a single character. But who knows? One character in the wrong place can really mess things up. Why wouldn't one charter in the right place make something work correctly? I'll give you that point but I was being figurative. None of this takes away from the fact that if they really wanted to the OS could have been called Windows 9 and I doubt it would have affected the code.

For myself, I completely skipped Windows 10 with one small exception. I installed it only to immediately upgrade it to Win 11. This doesn't mean that I installed it on other machines for other people. I don't think I recall ever having to do so much surgery just to get a half decent operating system on a PC.

For me, long ago was the Windows 7 era. Here, in Canada, a legit version of Windows 7 Ultimate cost over $300. That was long ago. Three hundred bucks long ago was a considerable sum. I don't deny that Windows 10 was a free upgrade. So how then did Microsoft make any money from it? The answer should be obvious.

Win 8.1 was an entirely different operating system than Win 8. Appearances can be deceiving. The architecture required to put together 8.1 was more removed from Win 8 than VISTA was from Windows 7. That's a fact. Whatever shell one puts over it is an entirely different matter. It should stand to reason that what was available to Microsoft at the time in order to fix the horrendous Windows 8 disaster would be their prototype for Windows 9. That's what they used.

I truly mean no disrespect. Clearly you are light years ahead of me when it comes to the internal workings of code and software. Nonetheless I am compelled to agree with Spapakons on this matter. Please pardon my wanton use of figurative rhetoric but for me it is only too obvious what MS did here. To continue this discussion would only be flogging a dead horse. We are well beyond Windows 8.1 now whether we want to be or not. We got our Windows 9 and now we have to deal with Windows 11. Methinks it will be an interesting October this year.

The nickname of Windows Vista in Greek was "Svista" (delete them, uninstall them). This tells a lot about how "good" it was compared to XP and 7. I have downgraded many Vista laptops to XP because nobody liked it.bWe refer to Windows in plural because it is plural of window.

You say, "His math is impeccable in this regard" and "the numbers don't have to be added together like that for the progression to make sense," but what math are you talking about? The only math I saw was adding components of version numbers together, which is meaningless. And yes, the progression of version numbers makes sense, because they're version numbers.

Scannerman said:

For me, TPM2 and Win 10 wasn't that long ago. Just because the Consortium required it on hardware "ages" ago doesn't diminish my point about MS not caring about older architecture. (snip) You are asking for a source for a number that I have already put a question mark to? Seriously??

Click to expand...

Well yes. You implied 90%, which is quite a large number of PCs don't have TPM2. "They don't even care about screwing over people who don't have TPM2 and that's like what - 90% of the functioning PCs in the world??" If you're going to make exaggerated claims, be prepared to back them up. Less knowledgeable people may read that number and think it's right, and then go repeating it. Then we have another "Microsoft said Windows 10 was the last version of Windows ever" situation on our hands.

Scannerman said:

I don't suggest that the fix for a failed version only requires the insertion of a single character.

Click to expand...

"I'm not even a coder and even I know that the insertion of one single character could make that boogie man go away."

Scannerman said:

None of this takes away from the fact that if they really wanted to the OS could have been called Windows 9 and I doubt it would have affected the code.

Click to expand...

That's your opinion. As someone who's been writing code for Windows since the late 20th century, I disagree.

Scannerman said:

Win 8.1 was an entirely different operating system than Win 8.

Click to expand...

No. No matter how many times you say it, no.

spapakons said:

Windows 8.1 was an improved version of Windows 8.0 with some new features, much like Windows 11 is an improved version of Windows 10 with new skin and new features. Whether we like these new features, is another story.

Click to expand...

Would you not agree that Windows 11 is an entirely different operating system than Windows 10?

It might be easier to buy a MacBook for your wife.

Not entirely different. Its like comparing Windows 98 and 98 SE. Windows 10 and 11 use the same drivers, run the same applications and games and most features of Windows 11 are available in 10. Any application checking the version number sees 10.0.xxxx and assumes Windows 10. I haven't seen yet a single driver or application or game to exclusively demand Windows 11. All run in Windows 10 as well. How is that completely different?

Scannerman said:

Would you not agree that Windows 11 is an entirely different operating system than Windows 10?

Click to expand...

I would not. There's fresh lipstick on the pig, but the underlying OS is largely the same. You cannot have the backward compatibility that Windows has and release entirely new operating systems. I have software I created in 2003, still in use today, and I'm still supporting it (begrudgingly). Drivers are another example: if your thingy doesn't have Win11 drivers, you can often load the Win10 drivers and get away with it. That tells you that the underlying API from 10 is still there in 11.

I've been one of his subscribers since he first started posting on YouTube.

abactuon said:

It might be easier to buy a MacBook for your wife.

Click to expand...

You mentioned the forbidden M word. Wash your mouth with soap and I expect your guardian tomorrow at my office. You are lucky spanking is illegal. Also, I don't know about your area, but a crappy non-upgradable M costs twice as a good Windows laptop. You would be stupid to buy one, unless you use specific apps. Most apps are available in both Windows and M, performance is the same for same grade hardware, so there's no excuse.

Scannerman said:

Would you not agree that Windows 11 is an entirely different operating system than Windows 10?

Click to expand...

pseymour said:

I would not. There's fresh lipstick on the pig, but the underlying OS is largely the same.

Click to expand...

You can see that the underlying kernel is the same major version in W10 and W11 (10.0....) just by opening a command prompt....



...compare that to W7 or W8.1.

That's right. And really for apps, the changes with successive versions don't matter much. Apps ask the OS for things like "open this file" or "print that file you just opened," which stays pretty much the same across consecutive versions. Where you get in trouble usually is down lower, at or near the kernel, where MSFT has made significant changes over time. Not complaining about the changes; they've made Windows safer to use. I remember not-too-fondly the XP-to-Vista changes with Session 0, and the coding changes that were required for apps that had an accompanying service, and now their service was in Session 0 on Vista and isolated from the app in Session 1+. It stunk to have to make those changes, but we're safer now because apps and services are separated.

pseymour said:

I remember not-too-fondly the XP-to-Vista changes....

Click to expand...

Version 5 to version 6.0, the base version on which W7 then W8 were built....

Good point, and something I forgot to mention. Changing the major version number was a signal to developers, and everyone really, that this is a major change to Windows. "We broke some stuff, get ready." And I don't mean accidental bugs. I mean they intentionally separated things for security reasons, and you needed to be testing your old code thoroughly on Vista. I don't remember the names of the apps, but there were apps with services running, and every now and then the service would pop up a message box to the user, asking them to confirm something or alerting them to something. That always worked on XP and earlier. In Vista, the service ran in session 0, so the message box appeared in session 0, and the user was sitting in session 1 or higher. They never had the chance to click OK or Yes or whatever it was.

Windows 11 would be Windows 10X, that is Windows 10 with a new skin. Before releasing it Microsoft decided to call it Windows 11 instead, see here:

spapakons said:

Windows 11 would be Windows 10X, that is Windows 10 with a new skin. Before releasing it Microsoft decided to call it Windows 11 instead, see here:

Windows 10X - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

So. . . Windows 10.1 ?

Not really a 10.1. So, 10X didn't become 11. 10X was cancelled, and some of its parts were included in 11. 10X was based on Windows Core OS, which is a modular version of NT where you could add/remove different parts of the OS. It also didn't have the legacy UI stuff in it, and it separated user files, system files, and app files. That truly would be a new version of Windows, and I'm a little sad we haven't seen it yet.

Maybe in Windows 12? As long as it is a local version, I don't mind. I wouldn't like an internet dependant cloud version. I prefer the "traditional" full local version that can also work without internet access. If it is a modular version, I will probably install most modules. I remember preferably installing Windows 7 Ultimate instead of Home because I wanted all features, regardless if I use them or not. Many others think alike.

I do wonder which components the OP's wife thinks need to be updated or removed in the husband.

pseymour said:

That's your opinion. As someone who's been writing code for Windows since the late 20th century, I disagree.

Click to expand...

I'm not understanding how the name of an OS would effect the coding of the OS. Isn't a name just a name?