# When Will Programs move Away from Windows 7?



## theFOoL (Mar 13, 2018)

Hey GUYs,

So It's come to me that most Programs still support W7+ but when will those programs like Plex, Emby, Ccleaner, Opera, Etc. Move to Windows 10? I mean YES you can install these but What IF Windows 10 created a new .Net Framework? (That W7 doesn't support/Update to)



​


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 13, 2018)

We've seen a few move away from Vista once the security updates stopped(Google Chrome comes to mind) so I would say we can expect it around 2020 when Windows 7 loses it's security updates.


----------



## Gasaraki (Mar 13, 2018)

When? Who knows, but mostly likely by 2019 since extended support for Win 7 ends in 2020. There are more and more apps that don't support Win 7 anymore.


----------



## qubit (Mar 13, 2018)

Lots of programs still support XP, so it's gonna be a real long time. There's no exact end date for something like this either.


----------



## theFOoL (Mar 13, 2018)

I'm shocked that FF is still supported with Xp or am I missing the V57 Rumor? Liking Emby though with my Video Server (All the Finding Features is a Joy) and the Last version of Opera for Xp V36 is still workable


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 13, 2018)

I think your find these Days there is  More interest in Programs MOVING TO LINUX than WIN 10


----------



## windwhirl (Mar 13, 2018)

rk3066 said:


> I'm shocked that FF is still supported with Xp or am I missing the V57 Rumor? Liking Emby though with my Video Server (All the Finding Features is a Joy) and the Last version of Opera for Xp V36 is still workable


Yeah. I'm counting on Firefox to finally stop supporting WinXP to convince my boss of the need to upgrade to Win7... He's a penny-pinching guy. And since all the apps I need work out of the box with Seven or can do so with a workaround... That'd be the final nail in the coffin for our XP setups...


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 13, 2018)

Too many businesses use 7 Enterprise etc for it to happen too soon,


----------



## Final_Fighter (Mar 13, 2018)

its beneficial to Microsoft because it shows the consumer they will purchase a product that will endure as time goes on. its especially good for older folks who have a hard time with upgrades. younger people will always want the latest and greatest plus most computers sold come with their software preloaded. developers also like the long lifespan so they are not having to learn a ton of new stuff so they can optimize whatever it is they are working on.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 13, 2018)

Most already have.  Remember, Vista-10 all run on the Windows NT 6.# kernel.  If it works on Vista, it will likely work on 10.  The only reason it doesn't is if it touches things like WDDM which has changed between those minor versions of the kernel.

When software says it requires Anniversary Update, it's because it targets WDDM 2.1.  This is popular because it's the beginning of HDR support which Windows 7 will never have.

Windows 7 will fall off of requirements specs as more an more features like HDR move from niche to mainstream.


----------



## Shihab (Mar 13, 2018)

It isn't necessarily a "new .Net Framework," but UWP practically does that, locking software developed on it to Windows 10+ only. Adoption has been/is so slow though that I don't think it'll be much of an issue in the foreseeable future.

The EoL of Win7 is a sane estimate to when big names "might" start dropping Win7 support, but that also depends on how long its marketshare well remain high. I don't think we'll see it losing much support as long as it remains above 10%. 




rk3066 said:


> programs like Plex, Emby, *Ccleaner*, Opera, Etc.


IMVHO, Ccleaner can become exclusive to Gentoo and the Windows-running world won't lose a thing (except one more bloatware).



Final_Fighter said:


> its beneficial to Microsoft because it shows the consumer they will purchase a product that will endure as time goes on. its especially good for older folks who have a hard time with upgrades. younger people will always want the latest and greatest plus most computers sold come with their software preloaded. developers also like the long lifespan so they are not having to learn a ton of new stuff so they can optimize whatever it is they are working on.



Lol! Au contraire, "long lasting" is bad for Microsoft, specially in its current form. There are practically no revenue streams from old OS's save for selling the actual binaries (or a license to use it). Microsoft's best interest is to push new software that is geared towards monetizing every last drop of data their users have or need or who or what they are giving MS more options to work with. >_>

The wants and needs of the consumer are different, and the masses are often gullible or apathetic differentiating between them. Sure, from a purely Engineering point of view, a lasting tool that continues to serve its purpose efficiently is a great tool, from the market's perspective, though, not quite. And unfortunately, the consumers are trained (or naturally leaning towards) falling for towards the latter's lap, especially with electronics and related stuff. Just look at the average smartphone replacement cycle!


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 13, 2018)

Shihabyooo said:


> Lol! Au contraire, "long lasting" is bad for Microsoft, specially in its current form. There are practically no revenue streams from old OS's save for selling the actual binaries (or a license to use it). Microsoft's best interest is to push new software that is geared towards monetizing every last drop of data their users have or need or who or what they are giving MS more options to work with. >_>


Lol & Kissess 
Have you not Heard
Windows Plans for the Future IS

WINDOWS AS A SERVICE


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 13, 2018)

Shihabyooo said:


> IMVHO, Ccleaner can become exclusive to Gentoo and the Windows-running world won't lose a thing (except one more bloatware).



Nah, you guys can keep it.


----------



## windwhirl (Mar 13, 2018)

dorsetknob said:


> Lol & Kissess
> Have you not Heard
> Windows Plans for the Future IS
> 
> WINDOWS AS A SERVICE



"Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" came to my mind...


----------



## Bill_Bright (Mar 13, 2018)

rk3066 said:


> but when will those programs like Plex, Emby, Ccleaner, Opera, Etc. Move to Windows 10?


When their developers code those programs to run on hardware only supported by W10.


----------



## Shihab (Mar 13, 2018)

dorsetknob said:


> WINDOWS AS A SERVICE



Waa[F]S: Windows as a Feudal Society*



R-T-B said:


> Nah, you guys can keep it.



Can't be a 1337 hax0rz if you don't delete random /etc config files every once in a while...


----------



## Final_Fighter (Mar 13, 2018)

Lol! Au contraire, "long lasting" is bad for Microsoft, specially in its current form. There are practically no revenue streams from old OS's save for selling the actual binaries (or a license to use it). Microsoft's best interest is to push new software that is geared towards monetizing every last drop of data their users have or need or who or what they are giving MS more options to work with. >_>

Microsoft  is a very large and far reaching company with MILLIONS of users. if it takes 5-10 years for them to get you to upgrade it does not bother them. if they keep these millions (maybe billions) of customers happy they are more likely to come back and they dont have to fight with others for market share. one of Microsofts biggest sources of revenue is from oems selling pcs with their software preloaded. hardware becomes outdated as time goes on so people will eventually have to upgrade and here comes the money. there are also more consumers being introduced into the market place everyday witch provide a steady source of income. not to mention the economies around the world that are emerging. its not in Microsofts best interests to update there software so fast that developers start going to other platforms and take away from what could have been an exclusive Microsoft experience. People also use their pc for making money and a living. if my company had to redo its software every other year id be pissed. They have gotten to a point were they balanced the average consumer upgrade time with the relaese of a new os. when a company gets as big as microsoft its important to keep market share and consumers happy.

When Will Programs move Away from Windows 7? After extended support is over and a security threat appears that scares everyone.


----------



## Shihab (Mar 13, 2018)

You say Microsoft aren't bothered with long upgrade cycles, yet Microsoft has been so aggressive to push towards its "1 billion Window 10 installs," that they have done everything from offering it for free (completely robbing them the direct "sales" revenue), to pushing it to consumers without consent (a thing I like to label and will always label as borderline malware-like).
Indeed, rapidly and frequently "updating" your software and changing it can be problematic, and the thing is, Microsoft _*has*_ been doing that and is *committed *to do that. "Major updates every 6 months" ring a bell?

I agree that OEM sales was Windows biggest market back in the day, but that's not Microsoft's idea for the future. as Dorsetknob mentioned, MS is aiming to turn Windows into as close to a service as possible. Licensing local software isn't as lucrative as it was back in late 90s and early 2000s (compared to other strategies), this is the age of data monetizing and services renting (and the latter mostly because it leads to the former).

Settling for "Hey, sales are steady, let's just remain the way we are!" is a mentality for a content, small time, neighborhood shop, not a multi-billions dollar worth corporations! Growth is what drives those entities.


----------



## windwhirl (Mar 13, 2018)

Final_Fighter said:


> Lol! Au contraire, "long lasting" is bad for Microsoft, specially in its current form. There are practically no revenue streams from old OS's save for selling the actual binaries (or a license to use it). Microsoft's best interest is to push new software that is geared towards monetizing every last drop of data their users have or need or who or what they are giving MS more options to work with. >_>
> 
> Microsoft  is a very large and far reaching company with MILLIONS of users. if it takes 5-10 years for them to get you to upgrade it does not bother them. if they keep these millions (maybe billions) of customers happy they are more likely to come back and they dont have to fight with others for market share. one of Microsofts biggest sources of revenue is from oems selling pcs with their software preloaded. hardware becomes outdated as time goes on so people will eventually have to upgrade and here comes the money. there are also more consumers being introduced into the market place everyday witch provide a steady source of income. not to mention the economies around the world that are emerging. its not in Microsofts best interests to update there software so fast that developers start going to other platforms and take away from what could have been an exclusive Microsoft experience. People also use their pc for making money and a living. if my company had to redo its software every other year id be pissed. They have gotten to a point were they balanced the average consumer upgrade time with the relaese of a new os. when a company gets as big as microsoft its important to keep market share and consumers happy.
> 
> When Will Programs move Away from Windows 7? After extended support is over and a security threat appears that scares everyone.


Spot-on. Though I would add that they also get a lot of their revenue from cloud related businesses and services


----------



## Final_Fighter (Mar 13, 2018)

Shihabyooo said:


> You say Microsoft aren't bothered with long upgrade cycles, yet Microsoft has been so aggressive to push towards its "1 billion Window 10 installs," that they have done everything from offering it for free (completely robbing them the direct "sales" revenue), to pushing it to consumers without consent (a thing I like to label and will always label as borderline malware-like).
> Indeed, rapidly and frequently "updating" your software and changing it can be problematic, and the thing is, Microsoft _*has*_ been doing that and is *committed *to do that. "Major updates every 6 months" ring a bell?
> 
> I agree that OEM sales was Windows biggest market back in the day, but that's not Microsoft's idea for the future. as Dorsetknob mentioned, MS is aiming to turn Windows into as close to a service as possible. Licensing local software isn't as lucrative as it was back in late 90s and early 2000s (compared to other strategies), this is the age of data monetizing and services renting (and the latter mostly because it leads to the former).
> ...



1.) the reason they pushed windows 10 was for market share. THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, its so they can transform windows into more of a service people believe they need. they were willing to loose some sales in order to enter into a new kind of market. the catch is in order for them to make this successful they need people to be using windows 10.

2.) the updates being too fast can be debated, we were talking about Major functionality changes not individual updates with small changes.

3.) as long as there is old hardware being replaced there is ALWAYS going to be oem sales. this is an avenue for revenue and Microsoft is not going to let this slip. i dont think you actually understand how important this is to Microsoft by downplaying it, this is how they introduce first time buyers to their software and get them hooked. once they have them now they need to keep them. its very important in emerging markets. this is how they grow and become well known.

4.) if they were settling for what you say as a small shop views then they would not care about the emerging markets, they would not have offered win10 to those who have windows 7,8,8.1 and they would have not been pushing as many updates as you say they are. the fact is Microsoft is extremely busy trying to maintain its image and keep with the times. Microsoft is not perfect but they like money and they like good PR. A functional product that is recognizable, keeps with the times and gives you exclusive functionality is why a lot of people use windows or its all they know becasue microsoft did a good job making them think its there only option.

5.) Microsoft cant bring certain changes to quick as they learned with windows 8, they have to balance what they do.

im not really sure how much more i can elaborate.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Mar 13, 2018)

Final_Fighter said:


> 1.) the reason they pushed windows 10 was for market share. THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, its so they can transform windows into more of a service people believe they need. they were willing to loose some sales in order to enter into a new kind of market. the catch is in order for them to make this successful they need people to be using windows 10.


Sorry but that is not correct at all. 

The reason they pushed and are still pushing Windows 10 is because it is a total waste of resources with $0.00 in return to maintain development on multiple operating systems (W10, W8 and W7). So they want everyone on W10 so they can concentrate all their efforts and manpower on just one OS. And that just make good business sense. And THAT is why they offered W10 for free to W7 and W8.1 users - that and a PR attempt to get back in good graces. And that was a good long term business decision too.



Final_Fighter said:


> 5.) Microsoft cant bring certain changes to quick as they learned with windows 8, they have to balance what they do.


This was one of Microsoft's biggest marketing blunders. And it was just plain stupid. They clearly did no user surveys and instead, just assumed everyone would blindly follow them. This mistake is still hurting them as too many people are still hesitant to believe what MS says, even when it makes total sense. 

It should be noted Microsoft tried to shove the W8 UI/desktop down our throats solely for marketing purposes - for Windows Phone marketing purposes! They were convinced of two things. (1) That everyone would automatically fall in love with the new W8 UI/desktop. And (2) because everyone would automatically love the new W8 UI, the next time they went shopping for a smart phone, they would pick up a Windows Phone and automatically be in love with it too - and buy it over an iPhone or Android. 

They were wrong on both counts.


----------



## mouacyk (Mar 13, 2018)

When IT freezes over...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 13, 2018)

qubit said:


> Lots of programs still support XP, so it's gonna be a real long time. There's no exact end date for something like this either.


Exactly. And while Windows 7 is still used by a solid third of the PC's on the planet, few devs will want to alienate themselves from potential customers that will happily give them the finger for not supporting their favorite platform, which most people and experts still agree is more secure when properly configured.


dorsetknob said:


> I think your find these Days there is  More interest in Programs MOVING TO LINUX than WIN 10


While this statement seems optimistic, there is that trend going on. A very large part of the populous are getting very tired of Microsoft's BS and are looking for, or are already using, an alternative. Microsoft is killing the PC slowly with all of their "do what we say and like it" crap.


----------



## Final_Fighter (Mar 13, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> Sorry but that is not correct at all.
> 
> The reason they pushed and are still pushing Windows 10 is because it is a total waste of resources with $0.00 in return to maintain development on multiple operating systems (W10, W8 and W7). So they want everyone on W10 so they can concentrate all their efforts and manpower on just one OS. And that just make good business sense. And THAT is why they offered W10 for free to W7 and W8.1 users - that and a PR attempt to get back in good graces. And that was a good long term business decision too.



what you are pointing out is true. but i dont think you really understand what i said. in order for windows 10 to work they needed to pull from the millions of people who would have no reason to update unless it was appealing. windows 7 was a really good operating system when windows 10 came out and in order for Microsoft to get the number of users to migrate they had to offer it the way they did or people would have held out more so then they are now. windows 10 is a turning point in how Microsoft wants to make extra cash. they wanted windows 10 to be adopted quickly so that it could receive development at a quick rate. developers are not going to waste there time for a platform that does not have a lot of users initially. windows 10 needed a large portion of the market share from windows 7 in order to get off the ground. 10 could have been like 8 if Microsoft marketed it the same way. if microsoft was burdened by windows 7, 8, 8.1 then they would shorten the life span. they are not making money off people holding out but the day will come when they will be looking to upgrade the hardware they have. getting people to use the ms store and services windows 10 has does not happen overnight but it sure does help if you can get millions of people looking at it daily.


----------



## theFOoL (Mar 13, 2018)

When they remove "Go back to Windows 7" option in the Control Panel what will happen and how Windows 10 will be like in that year 2020...


----------



## windwhirl (Mar 13, 2018)

rk3066 said:


> When they remove "Go back to Windows 7" option in the Control Panel what will happen and how Windows 10 will be like in that year 2020...



It's unlikely that Windows 10 will be very different from what it is today. Sure, you will get new features and enhancements, but you will still keep the taskbar, the Start button, the desktop and UX that have remained relatively unchanged since the Windows 9x era... Though I'm kinda expecting that Microsoft's Fluent Design Language will be all over the GUI.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Mar 13, 2018)

MS is the biggest player in the PC market, they have like 80% to apples 10-15% and all the others including Linux. Many people on here moan about Windows but in reality for the last 20 years everyone and their dog have been brought up using Windows and will likely to continue to do so for the foreseeable future, the only real alternative is apple, which is even more of a ballache and yet again something new to learn. MS won't be giving up their PC/desktop dominance anytime soon, and let's face it, who would want them to when the alternatives are even worse?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 14, 2018)

rk3066 said:


> When they remove "Go back to Windows 7" option in the Control Panel


That only applies if you upgrade from 7 to 10 and that option disappears after 30 days.


----------



## Melvis (Mar 14, 2018)

Already have, Office 2019 is meant to only work on Windows 10 and tbh thats a big load of BS right there, sad days ahead.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 14, 2018)

Tatty_One said:


> Too many businesses use 7 Enterprise etc for it to happen too soon,



Correct but I do see many companies (esp big ones) making the move to 10 these days. We are in fact in the middle of such a transition at a customer. MS is pushing it more readily than they did with earlier versions, they use O365 alongside it for some neat package deals: company saves money, MS wins...



Final_Fighter said:


> what you are pointing out is true. but i dont think you really understand what i said. in order for windows 10 to work they needed to pull from the millions of people who would have no reason to update unless it was appealing. windows 7 was a really good operating system when windows 10 came out and in order for Microsoft to get the number of users to migrate they had to offer it the way they did or people would have held out more so then they are now. windows 10 is a turning point in how Microsoft wants to make extra cash. they wanted windows 10 to be adopted quickly so that it could receive development at a quick rate. developers are not going to waste there time for a platform that does not have a lot of users initially. windows 10 needed a large portion of the market share from windows 7 in order to get off the ground. 10 could have been like 8 if Microsoft marketed it the same way. if microsoft was burdened by windows 7, 8, 8.1 then they would shorten the life span. they are not making money off people holding out but the day will come when they will be looking to upgrade the hardware they have. getting people to use the ms store and services windows 10 has does not happen overnight but it sure does help if you can get millions of people looking at it daily.



I think the real strategy for Windows 10 and MS pushing it hard is _survival of the OS_. Microsoft really doesn't give a flying hoot about those OS licenses, that's an old way of thinking. Why do you think they gave it away for free? They want market share, and they want to maintain that share against the surge of mobile OS's that are now live and steadily taking over. Windows 10 is a *necessary* thing because the OS is revamped to be more unified across different devices / form factors and 7 or 8 missed that boat. Whether or not that strategy is going to really catch on (One Windows, Continuum, etc.) remains to be seen but any users still on the older OS versions will never even consider it in the first place, while now MS can slowly slide it in with the userbase.

The additional software they bundle is also non-existant, its a big difference. Yes, the Store, but I think a much greater effect is the overall user experience between devices. Don't forget that a vast majority of its users ALSO use Windows at work, at school, etc. etc. And the OS has now gained traction even against Apple's OSX in terms of professional apps, both in availability and performance. I think MS knows that the mobile OS's really don't serve any productivity tasks well and that is still where Windows shines. OSX is in fact rapidly losing its unique selling points right now; and other competitors like Chromebooks are too cloud-based and unknown to really be called a workstation any time soon. Linux is and always will be that black box to most people, unless it makes a huge transition to user friendliness (ie Android).

And in the enterprise space, Windows can carry mass adoption of Microsoft's cloud solutions, Azure; but also Office 365 in mass licensing deals; a much bigger cash cow than the OS or some sad UWP apps from the Store.


Bottom line: I think we may find Windows 7 specific legacy stuff to vanish faster than we'd like.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 14, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Bottom line: I think we may find Windows 7 specific legacy stuff to vanish faster than we'd like.


I hope you're wrong. Just not liking 10.


----------



## StrayKAT (Mar 14, 2018)

I don't want them to move away. I wish they could just shelve the whole idea of 8/10 apps. Especially now that Phone failed (unfortunately! because the market definitely needed more competition). As it is now, I just find the old Windows paradigm better for my uses (desktop applications).


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 14, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> I don't want them to move away. I wish they could just shelve the whole idea of 8/10 apps. Especially now that Phone failed (unfortunately! because the market definitely needed more competition). As it is now, I just find the old Windows paradigm better for my uses (desktop applications).



But how is that impossible now with 10 then? I look at this OS as more of a swiss knife. It can do most/all of it. Have yet to find useful apps or devices that won't run on 10. I mean compare it to Vista...


----------



## las (Mar 14, 2018)

They already did. Windows 7 is dying. No focus from dev's and only gets secuity updates for 1½ years more. January 2020 and it's dead -> Unsecure and zero support.


----------



## StrayKAT (Mar 14, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> But how is that impossible now with 10 then? I look at this OS as more of a swiss knife. It can do most/all of it. Have yet to find useful apps or devices that won't run on 10. I mean compare it to Vista...



Yeah, it's all possible, but the sheer dominance of Windows applications died out after 8... it doesn't give developers much confidence when there isn't much uniformity. Google and Apple also chipped into this, but I think much of Windows loss was self-induced.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 14, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> But how is that impossible now with 10 then? I look at this OS as more of a swiss knife. It can do most/all of it. Have yet to find useful apps or devices that won't run on 10.* I mean compare it to Vista*...



Good point but I think that's as much about the evolution of apps as it is Windows.


----------



## StrayKAT (Mar 14, 2018)

Vista was kind of in it's own transition at the time with Microsoft juggling 32/64 and pushing NET, and an overall different strategy when Gates was still around.


----------



## erocker (Mar 14, 2018)

Maybe when Microsoft decides to completely rewrite their O/S? Not much difference between 7 and 10 in terms of how it uses "apps".


----------



## StrayKAT (Mar 14, 2018)

erocker said:


> Maybe when Microsoft decides to completely rewrite their O/S? Not much difference between 7 and 10 in terms of how it uses "apps".



I just think having two APIs (or what have you) had the net effect of slimming the pool of total applications. Or if not that, it caused confusion and delayed the regular updating of programs.

Take the ubiquitous Adobe Reader, for example. For years, it was always the standard Windows .exe we all know. Then when Windows 8 came, Adobe released the Reader Touch version. The regular version took a backseat... then when Windows 8 failed, the Touch version took a backseat itself and hasn't been updated in like 5 years. And now the regular version is the main one again.

This is a large corporation that can do this crap, but smaller programs are in limbo at times. Or some just become discontinued.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Mar 14, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> which most people and experts still agree is more secure when properly configured.


Most "people" may, but most "experts" don't agree - as a simple Bing Google search would show.  Windows 10 is inherently more secure than W7 right out of the gate. So "_when properly configured_" at best, you might be able to say W7 is equally (and certainly adequately) secure as W10, but definitely not "more secure". The problem with "people" (assuming you are referring to most "normal" users) is many don't understand the difference between "privacy" can "security". The difference is HUGE and should not be confused - but often is!  And sadly this misconception is often perpetuated by MS haters rumormongering and the ill-informed parroting those haters in forums and elsewhere.

Also sad is many "normal" users and many of those who pretend to be experts believe W10's telemetry features are security weaknesses when that is absolutely not true. Google, Facebook, ISPs and cell phone carriers are MUCH GREATER threats to our privacy than W10 ever was or ever will be and those threats are the same regardless if using W10 or W7 (or Linux for that matter).



lexluthermiester said:


> Microsoft is killing the PC slowly with all of their "do what we say and like it" crap.


Microsoft sure dealt a catastrophic blow to the PC with that totally ill-conceived, misguided and mismanaged  "you will love our way" attitude and W8. But PC sales had already been in decline and that is simply because millennials and early Gen Z'ers  are buying handheld "mobile" devices instead of fixed, "desktop-bound" PCs. The smart phone (with the help of tablets and "the cloud") is killing the PC, not Microsoft.

Of course, these facts are easy to verify too with our friend, Bing Google. See this 5 year old ZDNet article, Who's killing the PC? Blame the cloud which talks about PC sales in decline for at least two before the article was written. And note Windows 8 came out just 6 months before the article.

That said, Microsoft's free W10 offer for W7 and W8.1 users sure didn't help PC sales either as it has allowed users to keep using their trusty old hardware longer. But that should (hopefully) turn around somewhat as that older hardware ages and dies off.

The good news is gaming PC sales continue to rise and of course, new gaming PCs typically come with W10.



Final_Fighter said:


> what you are pointing out is true. but i dont think you really understand what i said.


I understand exactly what you said. I am just saying what you said about Windows as a service was incorrect.

And what you said before is NOT what you are saying now. I agree with your last post. But what you said before, which you even emphasized with ALL UPPER CASE LETTERS was, "_THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, its so they can transform windows into more of a service_". That was incorrect. The reason Microsoft pushed and is stilling pushing users to W10 is as I said before, and what you seem to be agreeing with now, and that is so the development team and all of Microsoft's OS resources can concentrate on just one OS, W10, and not have to waste resources (lots of $$$$ with $0.00 in return) on W7 and W8.x.


Vayra86 said:


> But how is that impossible now with 10 then? I look at this OS as more of a swiss knife. It can do most/all of it. Have yet to find useful apps or devices that won't run on 10. I mean compare it to Vista...


Vista was actually a pretty decent OS - just poorly marketed. Vista suffered from the same ill-fate as W8. did. Their predecessors (XP and W7) were just too good to entice users to switch. I, like many, never migrated any of my systems to Vista.



Tatty_One said:


> Good point but I think that's as much about the evolution of apps as it is Windows.


I agree 100%. But I also think it is about the evolution and advances in the state-of-the-art in hardware technologies too. They keep advancing (often way ahead of software development) regardless what Microsoft and the software industry in general are doing. So operating systems have to evolve too to take advantage of new hardware technologies.

And of course, it is up to the hardware makers - not Microsoft - to develop drivers for their legacy hardware to run on the latest operating systems. But with no financial incentive to do so (they would rather we be their latest hardware models), legacy hardware support is often a challenge. Same goes with legacy software.



erocker said:


> Maybe when Microsoft decides to completely rewrite their O/S? Not much difference between 7 and 10 in terms of how it uses "apps".


Yeah, and then the haters will come out in droves as legacy hardware and software will no longer run on that new platform. I don't think (hope - fingers and toes crossed) Microsoft will make that mistake again without the hardware 3rd party software industry totally on-board.

What I think will be interesting is if (when?) Windows goes open source.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 14, 2018)

las said:


> January 2020 and it's dead -> Unsecure and zero support.


That is a myth that is not supported by practice. XP is still in use to this day and is being run securely with access to the internet 4 years after it recieved it's last security update. Doing so requires an understanding of actual good security practices. When entire governments confidently still use it because they know how to run it securely, saying it's unsafe only reveals that fact that the issuer of said statement doesn't understand what it takes to run an OS securely.

Windows 7 will carry on in very much the same way. Windows 7 can be secured using similar methods. Done right it will have no problems. The real problem is that the common user doesn't understand what is needed to do so. If that understanding was more common people would be less worried/freaked out by older OS's and software. Hell, DOS can still be secured enough to use on the net. Older software is not inherently insecure. Just requires a bit of TLC.


----------



## Final_Fighter (Mar 14, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> I understand exactly what you said. I am just saying what you said about Windows as a service was incorrect.
> 
> And what you said before is NOT what you are saying now. I agree with your last post. But what you said before, which you even emphasized with ALL UPPER CASE LETTERS was, "_THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, its so they can transform windows into more of a service_". That was incorrect. The reason Microsoft pushed and is stilling pushing users to W10 is as I said before, and what you seem to be agreeing with now, and that is so the development team and all of Microsoft's OS resources can concentrate on just one OS, W10, and not have to waste resources (lots of $$$$ with $0.00 in return) on W7 and W8.x.



im talking about the market share windows 7 had witch cannot be denied and if microsoft did not win this over to 10 how much longer it would have taken for whatever they are trying to do. as far as not believing Microsoft trying to have windows perform like a service im not going to debate that anymore because its getting off track and and the information can be found. eberybody will have their own views. the reason i agree with what you said is because thats common knowledge that a company such as Microsoft would rather push a newer os so they dont have to keep up with their older ones as much. but this is also only effective if you can get people off the older system and onto the newer one. this never fully happens and microsoft is aware but it helps with less people using it until all support ends. Microsoft has many intents with pushing windows 10 and i did not cover all of them, just the one i believed was most important. its not a one reason show with a company this big.


----------



## Easo (Mar 14, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> That is a myth that is not supported by practice. XP is still in use to this day and is being run securely with access to the internet 4 years after it recieved it's last security update. Doing so requires an understanding of actual good security practices. When entire governments confidently still use it because they know how to run it securely, saying it's unsafe only reveals that fact that the issuer of said statement doesn't understand what it takes to run an OS securely.
> 
> Windows 7 will carry on in very much the same way. Windows 7 can be secured using similar methods. Done right it will have no problems. The real problem is that the common user doesn't understand what is needed to do so. If that understanding was more common people would be less worried/freaked out by older OS's and software. Hell, DOS can still be secured enough to use on the net. Older software is not inherently insecure. Just requires a bit of TLC.



XP is being run securely while connected to internet? I... No, I don't even wan't to talk about it. 
Are you aware that goverments and enterprises have the option (and actually do that) to pay Microsoft for XP support? It costs millions at big enough size. They would not do that if there wasn't a need to update it after the support was dropped.


----------



## theFOoL (Mar 14, 2018)

Just when MS had to go back and update XP for that virus at one point...


----------



## StrayKAT (Mar 14, 2018)

Someone mentioned Vista, and now I'm reminded of this article. It's not all that related to this topic specifically, but I think many of you will find it a great read, and illustrates some of MS' lack of direction (and I think they're still struggling with it a bit):

https://hackernoon.com/what-really-happened-with-vista-4ca7ffb5a1a


----------



## windwhirl (Mar 14, 2018)

Easo said:


> XP is being run securely while connected to internet? I... No, I don't even wan't to talk about it.
> Are you aware that goverments and enterprises have the option (and actually do that) to pay Microsoft for XP support? It costs millions at big enough size. They would not do that if there wasn't a need to update it after the support was dropped.



Run XP securely while connected to the Internet? We (my co-workers and me) actually do that, because our boss won't pay for Win7 licenses (forget about paying for XP support). Of course, our work setups are hardened through Group Policy, the antimalware software is set to paranoid and we do bother to follow basic IT security guidelines. So it's not like we're running it without a care in the world (running an accounting firm and filling tax returns every day, so we're rather careful all the time, considering the delicate information that we handle.)

But I'd still prefer to run Windows 7 or, even better, Windows 10. The most ancient apps I use at work were built using Visual Basic 5.0, and they still work fine on Windows 10. The computers use Ivy-Bridge Core i3s with 4 GB of RAM, so it's not like I'd be pushing them to their limits (and we only use the standard Office apps and the browser most of the time). But try telling that to my boss. I still haven't been able to convince him of getting a new carpet for the main office, and the current one has holes the size of an E-ATX case...


----------



## theFOoL (Mar 15, 2018)

So sad many companies *Still use XP.... (though I still would but... Many apps don't support it)


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 15, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> Someone mentioned Vista, and now I'm reminded of this article. It's not all that related to this topic specifically, but I think many of you will find it a great read, and illustrates some of MS' lack of direction (and I think they're still struggling with it a bit): https://hackernoon.com/what-really-happened-with-vista-4ca7ffb5a1a


I think it's related to this thread because Vista lead to and became the version of Windows we know and love, 7. That was an interesting read. I both agree with and disagree with some of those points. Vista, IMHO was not the disater that the article claims.

It's well known that there was a lot of infighting at MS, but the idea that Vista was a disaster is a bit of an over statement. With Vista, Microsoft was shooting for the stars. They wanted to usher in a new era of high end PC's and marginalize the economy market. And that soon followed, so in a way Vista succeeded but was poorly received. Vista had a ton of great idea's that needed refinement. 7 was that refinement. Windows 7 is what the OS devs at MS had envisioned for Vista.

The problem they still have is the idea of exclusive feature sets. DirectX 10 not being available for Xp, DX12 only for 10. The Windows store not being available for 7. It's all rubbish and only serves to alienate a good percentage of it's users. Windows 10, and 8/8.1 before it, on the other hand was to-little-to-late approach made to play "catch-up" to the mobile market, which was little more than a fools errand. They effectively dumbed Windows down for the masses instead of making real progress and refining what was well loved and motivating more people to become tech savvy.


----------



## johnspack (Mar 15, 2018)

They need to port more apps to linux.  Been using ms stuff since dos 3.1,  and I'm done.  Pure linux now.  Windows 10 is just a no go for me,  so to move on I have no choice.
Win10 is an example of an os gone wrong,  badly.  It's too dam commercial,  it focuses on sending user data out to be collected,  and it has a friggin store.  If I buy an os,  I want it to 
leave me alone after that.  This thing doesn't,  even if you try to block the crap in it.   Almost 20 years of ms,  and I'm out!  (Drops mic)


----------



## windwhirl (Mar 15, 2018)

johnspack said:


> They need to port more apps to linux.  Been using ms stuff since dos 3.1,  and I'm done.  Pure linux now.  Windows 10 is just a no go for me,  so to move on I have no choice.
> Win10 is an example of an os gone wrong,  badly.  It's too dam commercial,  it focuses on sending user data out to be collected,  and it has a friggin store.  If I buy an os,  I want it to
> leave me alone after that.  This thing doesn't,  even if you try to block the crap in it.   Almost 20 years of ms,  and I'm out!  (Drops mic)



Yeah, but not many bother with Linux because there are too many distros for starters. And small and medium sized business won't even bother with it either, because of the lack of support for their apps, unless they have IT teams, which help a lot to fix or workaround that kind of situation. Even so, with most users knowing how to work with Windows (which tends to be a similar experience, regardless of the version and the machine it's installed on) but downright whining about anything on Linux, don't expect this to change soon.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Mar 15, 2018)

johnspack said:


> it focuses on sending user data out to be collected, and it has a friggin store.


It does not focus on that and the store can be ignored. Neither are reasons to dismiss it.


johnspack said:


> If I buy an os, I want it to
> leave me alone after that. This thing doesn't, even if you try to block the crap in it.


Sure it does. You just didn't spend any time with it to get it the way you like it. 

And I note Microsoft is feeling all the heat about people's privacy concerns. They are much more transparent about what is being sent and really, you need to be more concerned about your ISP, cell phone carrier and Google than you do with Microsoft. And Microsoft is giving users more control over that too. I never see anything about the Microsoft Store on my systems. You might check out Start10.

If Linux does everything you need, then that's great - I wish it did meet the needs of more users. It would put more pressure on Microsoft and Apple. But as you and windwhirl noted, they need to port more apps over. There does not seem to be enough incentive for that. 

I hope that Steam for Linux continues to bring more interest to Linux. That does look promising.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 15, 2018)

windwhirl said:


> Yeah, but not many bother with Linux because there are too many distros for starters.


Most people who investigate Linux end up defaulting to Ubuntu or one of the variants, which are all easy learn how to use, actually use and support just about every example of hardware out there. It is a growing trend and for a good reason.


windwhirl said:


> And small and medium sized business won't even bother with it either


That's not true. There are plenty of businesses than have completely switched over to Linux after having tried it out. They've learned how to use Google and realized that the money spent of Microsofts product would be better spent elsewhere and take time to convert over. Most of those that do keep one Windows machine around just in case they need it.


windwhirl said:


> Even so, with most users knowing how to work with Windows (which tends to be a similar experience, regardless of the version


Have you used Windows 8, 8.1 or 10? Sorry, but those experiences are radically different from everything 7 back.

People are tired of Microsoft's BS and are looking for change.


----------



## windwhirl (Mar 16, 2018)

_*Apologies in advance if what I wrote gets confusing at one point or another. Translating my thoughts from Spanish to English it's a little hard sometimes (although it's good practice). Also, I only refer to my experience on PC platforms. I don't really follow as much regarding mobile devices.*_



lexluthermiester said:


> Most people who investigate Linux end up defaulting to Ubuntu or one of the variants, which are all easy learn how to use, actually use and support just about every example of hardware out there. It is a growing trend and for a good reason.



I was not referring to users, but software developers. I should clarify, however, since it came to my mind because of your comment, that it is also limited to my experience in a developing country, where almost everyone, from the government to the guy that just wants to play solitaire on his computer, uses Windows. So, in general, software development for other platforms is rather strange, and when it happens it tends to be for a specific, well-known distro (for example, Ubuntu 12.04) or for something that the end-user won't really see (the back-end of a client-server based accounting software, for example).

Regarding users, there is some interest in using other platforms, but lack of apps & games development and porting make it a disappointing experience sometimes, so some users don't really do a permanent switch. At best, they keep a dual boot setup, just in case.



lexluthermiester said:


> That's not true. There are plenty of businesses than have completely switched over to Linux after having tried it out. They've learned how to use Google and realized that the money spent of Microsofts product would be better spent elsewhere and take time to convert over. Most of those that do keep one Windows machine around just in case they need it.



Well, here in Argentina, most of them (around 69%, according to a 2016 study from the BSA) don't bother paying for Windows licenses. They just pirate them (there was even a Supreme Court ruling twenty years ago that kinda allowed that, since at the time there was no law regarding software piracy). Of course, it's illegal (now) and dangerous (I got tired of telling that to my friends and classmates), but nobody cares until there is a problem or someone comes knocking, with an order from a judge to check for software piracy at work (due to our Constitution, nobody can do anything about software piracy at home, unless there is a profitable activity involved and someone gets caught doing it). And because of how slow the legal system can get, the BSA only goes after the big companies, who are actually smart most of the time and pay for their licenses.

Also, almost all software issued by the government works only on Windows (the few exceptions are all Internet-based, so they're cross-platform). That takes out any line of work related to accounting and taxes, legal professions and customs. Because of that, there is less incentive to build software for other platforms, if the target market for that software are businesses (although there are exceptions), since almost all businesses here end up filing forms and "doing work for the bureaucracy" quite often. 

I have seen, however, an increasing amount of people replacing MS Office with Google Docs or LibreOffice. And already most (if not all) Internet-related service providers (web hosting, email accounts, etc.) prefer using open-source software. Although you may find Windows Server as an alternative.



lexluthermiester said:


> Have you used Windows 8, 8.1 or 10? Sorry, but those experiences are radically different from everything 7 back.
> 
> People are tired of Microsoft's BS and are looking for change.



I used all three. My own experience tells me that almost anyone that had Windows 8 or 8.1 automatically went and and begged for Windows 7 or XP (I got that request more than once). And since Windows 10 has an actual Start menu, sometimes it surprises me how little most people could care about everything else (gamers are an exception to this, mostly because of performance and compatibility issues that may arise). Power users and IT-related workers are way more aware of any change in the UX, and they either take advantage of it or hate it. 

Regarding Windows 10 specifically, there isn't much of a care for privacy issues, even less now that there are settings that at least seem to control how much data goes to Microsoft and third parties. Although I hear some people getting worried about it from time to time.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 16, 2018)

windwhirl said:


> Apologies in advance if what I wrote gets confusing at one point or another. Translating my thoughts from Spanish to English it's a little hard sometimes (although it's good practice). Also, I only refer to my experience on PC platforms. I don't really follow as much regarding mobile devices.


Oh man, I meant no offense to you at all. The quotation and remarks were offered only as perspective and insight based on observations and experiences I've had. Additionally, your english is very good. So no worries, really.


windwhirl said:


> Regarding Windows 10 specifically, there isn't much of a care for privacy issues, even less now that there are settings that at least seem to control how much data goes to Microsoft and third parties. Although I hear some people getting worried about it from time to time.


That might be a cultural thing. Generally, a good portion of the populace here in North America know that identity theft is a problem(and can be a huge mess to sort through) and are very protective of their privacy as a result. Not only that but common place information can be used against people in malicious ways people don't often see coming. Being very strict about privacy and digital security is always better than being sorry later. Argentinians may not have the same risks due to the way things work there and thus not needing to have the same concerns.


----------



## windwhirl (Mar 16, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> Oh man, I meant no offense to you at all. The quotation and remarks were offered only as perspective and insight based on observations and experiences I've had. Additionally, your english is very good. So no worries, really.
> 
> That might be a cultural thing. Generally, a good portion of the populace here in North America know that identity theft is a problem(and can be a huge mess to sort through) and are very protective of their privacy as a result. No only that but common place information can but used against people in malicious ways people don't often see coming. Being very strict about privacy and digital security is always better than being sorry later. Argentinians may not have the same risks due to the way things work there and thus not needing to have the same concerns.



**EDIT: No offense taken. I figured that I had to explain why our points of view showed such difference, since I took for granted that it was all the same everywhere, which is not the case. Also, I still remember my English teacher drilling in my head that a single sentence could change it's meaning completely just by swapping one word for another. And sometimes, an alternative meaning or possible implication of what I'm writing completely goes over my head.
END EDIT.**

Thankfully, this whole "I-don't-care-about-privacy-stuff" is changing for the better here, although it's a really slow process.

Regarding identity theft, it's really rare for such a thing to happen outside situations such as your passwords getting stolen or discovered by someone else (with all the possible consequences of such thing happening). The IDs we use "in real-life" for legal procedures and formalities these days are specially made to be unique and hard to fake or copy (they're digitalized, although they don't have any chips or NFC technology, only a barcode; they have the usual array of anti-counterfeiting feaures, like optically variable ink, holograms and the like; if you get a new one because you lost the original ID or changed your home address, it shows it is a new one and the original is marked as unusable in the databases; and they are made only by the government, they're not crafted by third parties).

Besides, unless there is something other than money involved, most criminals prefer to just go rob someone or take you by surprise when you walk out of the ATM (people here don't really trust the banks much, after what happened during the years 2001-2003, and prefer to keep the money "under the mattress")... faking your identity in the bank is nearly impossible if you want to take lots of money (they check your ID, they have to receive authorization from the manager and they know who owns which account, sometimes by heart, without looking at the papers).

In USA you use your Social Security number as ID and don't really show any paper or card, right? Or it was like that until sometime ago? And that's why anyone there gets paranoid about telling it to someone. That may have caused people to be more wary of giving any information at all to someone else.


----------



## StrayKAT (Mar 16, 2018)

I've had my credit card numbers stolen 3 times.

No, it's not because I go to pr0n sites or anything else out of the ordinary


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 16, 2018)

windwhirl said:


> In USA you use your Social Security number as ID and don't really show any paper or card, right? Or it was like that until sometime ago?


While this is off-topic, it is interesting. SSN's are not used as common ID's anymore. Drivers licenses are used for that generally. I personally use my passport as it's good everywhere, for nearly everything, is difficult to commit fraud with and very difficult to counterfeit.


StrayKAT said:


> I've had my credit card numbers stolen 3 times.


Back on topic, this is why privacy and digital security are so important, that has happened to me as well. It's why I will not trust Windows 10 until I can find a method to fully secure it on an ongoing basis. Right now it's "iffy" and I will not trust "iffy".  Some people don't care. I'm one of the people talked about earlier in the thread who, for the reasons of privacy and security will likely be moving to Linux permanently in regards to online presence. It's not coming yet. Will make the final choice when 2020 rolls around. Until then I'll continue to enjoy Windows 7 because it can be secured.


----------



## natr0n (Mar 16, 2018)

Don't know if anyone mentioned this. Hospitals and doctors offices use windows 7 and some equipment still uses xp or earlier. I'm pretty sure support wont end for many more years.

As for firefox it uses ESR on WindowsXP. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/


----------



## Easo (Mar 16, 2018)

windwhirl said:


> Run XP securely while connected to the Internet? We (my co-workers and me) actually do that, because our boss won't pay for Win7 licenses (forget about paying for XP support). Of course, our work setups are hardened through Group Policy, the antimalware software is set to paranoid and we do bother to follow basic IT security guidelines. So it's not like we're running it without a care in the world (running an accounting firm and filling tax returns every day, so we're rather careful all the time, considering the delicate information that we handle.)
> 
> But I'd still prefer to run Windows 7 or, even better, Windows 10. The most ancient apps I use at work were built using Visual Basic 5.0, and they still work fine on Windows 10. The computers use Ivy-Bridge Core i3s with 4 GB of RAM, so it's not like I'd be pushing them to their limits (and we only use the standard Office apps and the browser most of the time). But try telling that to my boss. I still haven't been able to convince him of getting a new carpet for the main office, and the current one has holes the size of an E-ATX case...



It will bite your boss sooner or later (moneypinching is understandable and common, of course). Do understand this - anything similar to WannaCry, using unpatched attack vectors will be your end. You cannot avoid everything by hardening.
P.S.
I hope you are not EU based, or the GDPR will screw you hard.


----------



## windwhirl (Mar 16, 2018)

Easo said:


> It will bite your boss sooner or later (moneypinching is understandable and common, of course). Do understand this - anything similar to WannaCry, using unpatched attack vectors will be your end. You cannot avoid everything by hardening.
> P.S.
> I hope you are not EU based, or the GDPR will screw you hard.



Oh, no. Argentina doesn't have anything like that yet. I mean, there is an agency for Personal Data Protection, but unless you're a big company and your clients are well informed about it, it doesn't really affect you. Besides, in my line of work you need to access personal data kept on the tax office servers, so for accounting and tax filing and returns you need to have such access. Still, I'll keep trying to scare my boss away from WinXP...


----------



## Bill_Bright (Mar 16, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> That's not true. There are plenty of businesses than have completely switched over to Linux after having tried it out.


I agree. And note many have migrated to Chromebooks with Chrome-OS, which is Linux based too.





windwhirl said:


> My own experience tells me that almost anyone that had Windows 8 or 8.1 automatically went and and begged for Windows 7



And that was a knee-jerk mistake. Windows 8.x is actually a great OS if we properly define a operating system's primary job as, "_facilitating communications between the various hardware components in order to run our required software safely and securely._" 

*IF* W8.x had looked and felt more like W7 (or even W10), it would have been much more favorably received. If Start8 or ClassicShell had been readily available the same day W8 was released, many, if not most W8 users who failed to give W8 an honest chance would have stuck with it. 

The W8 developers actually did a great job. Their work, sadly, was demolished by blundering marketing weenies and poor executive decisions to shove a totally foreign and unwanted UI down users throats - with no easy way (without 3rd party help) to bring back the familiar Start menu and W7 desktop UI.



Easo said:


> I hope you are not EU based, or the GDPR will screw you hard.





windwhirl said:


> Oh, no. Argentina doesn't have anything like that yet.


It should be noted that all member countries of the United Nations are required by UN Charter to protect and respect the IP Rights of other member countries. So the laws are there. Whether a country chooses to fund the resources to enforce those laws in another issue altogether.


----------



## windwhirl (Mar 16, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> I agree. And note many have migrated to Chromebooks with Chrome-OS, which is Linux based too.
> 
> And that was a knee-jerk mistake. Windows 8.x is actually a great OS if we properly define a operating system's primary job as, "_facilitating communications between the various hardware components in order to run our required software safely and securely._"
> 
> ...



Indeed, Windows 8 was a failure because of the UI (except perhaps on tablets). Internally, it was an improvement over Windows 7, and, what's most important for me, I felt that the Store was a way to finally keep almost all my apps up to date. Of course, that also failed, due to most games devs preferring Steam, and other developers using their own update channels and methodologies. 

Then again, Microsoft has followed tradition here. Windows ME (fail), Windows XP (success), Windows Vista (fail), Windows 7 (success), Windows 8.x (fail), Windows 10 (success? not completely sure, but a failure it is not)...

Regarding IP rights, if you mean copyrighted software, there are laws now that protect them (the Arg. Supreme Court ruling allowed piracy because there was no law for that at the moment, after the law was approved, the ruling was corrected in favor of copyright holders), along with updates to the Codes that punish cybercrime and related offenses specifically. However, the enforcement of copyright law is mostly up to the copyright holders, if they have the patience to go through all the legal procedures and formalities (which could take years at worst).


----------



## Bill_Bright (Mar 17, 2018)

windwhirl said:


> Regarding IP rights, if you mean copyrighted software...


By IP (intellectual property) rights, it is not just about copyrighted software but also songs, movies/videos, works of art, and other "published" materials. 

And yes, W10 is definitely a success - though not near the "quick" success Microsoft was hoping for. Depending on which statistics site you believe, W10 has surpassed W7 in market share, or is not too far behind and slowly gaining. 

I suspect one of the biggest reasons W10's gains in market share has been so slow is simply because W8 left a bitter taste in many users mouths.


----------



## windwhirl (Mar 17, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> By IP (intellectual property) rights, it is not just about copyrighted software but also songs, movies/videos, works of art, and other "published" materials.
> 
> And yes, W10 is definitely a success - though not near the "quick" success Microsoft was hoping for. Depending on which statistics site you believe, W10 has surpassed W7 in market share, or is not too far behind and slowly gaining.
> 
> I suspect one of the biggest reasons W10's gains in market share has been so slow is simply because W8 left a bitter taste in many users mouths.



Oh, I thought you meant specifically software. In general, we have had copyright laws for nearly a century (since 1933, with some patents law from 1896 as predecessor). However, only at the end of the year 1998 the law was updated to include software.

And yes, Windows 8's reputation kinda made things difficult for Windows 10.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 18, 2018)

windwhirl said:


> Windows 10 (success? not completely sure, but a failure it is not)...


It's not been the success Microsoft was hoping for. Windows 10 adoption rates are abysmal in comparison to much more successful versions of Windows. While not a complete failure, it can hardly be classified as a success.


----------



## theFOoL (Mar 18, 2018)

To this Day I still prefer Windows 7 on most of my Computers since most Apps run on it but I have Windows 10 on my main Computer. Just that for now games are mostly developed for DirectX 11 and not 12 yet but only a Few


----------



## windwhirl (Mar 18, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> It's not been the success Microsoft was hoping for. Windows 10 adoption rates are abysmal in comparison to much more successful versions of Windows. While not a complete failure, it can hardly be classified as a success.



People are happy with Windows 7 (dare I say XP?), and after what happened with Windows 8, they won't upgrade just because they can. Also, there isn't yet something exclusive to Windows 10 that can make anyone think "OK, I'm upgrading and to h*ll with Windows 7".

Businesses are even more careful about this, so they won't upgrade until the IT staff say that everything will work fine.

It could take around three to four more years for Windows 10 to reach XP's peak (around 80%), but may not get there ever, depending on how the mobile market evolves and if macOS or Linux change the trend somehow (?).


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 18, 2018)

I'm really surprised this is still a thing


----------



## theFOoL (Mar 18, 2018)

windwhirl said:


> People are happy with Windows 7 (dare I say XP?)


Well HA If they made it where the DirectX Version was Upgradeable then there'd be no Windows but XP

Was it where Windows 98 had a Downloadable version of DirectX 9 at one point? like just a small update pack if I recall...


----------



## windwhirl (Mar 18, 2018)

rk3066 said:


> Well HA If they made it where the DirectX Version was Upgradeable then there'd be no Windows but XP
> 
> Was it where Windows 98 had a Downloadable version of DirectX 9 at one point? like just a small update pack if I recall...



I think Win98 received a DX 9.0c update (?) during 2006... Heck, Microsoft gave that OS two or three more years of support than originally planned because a lot of people didn't stop using it. Same with Windows XP, but it doesn't seem likely that it will happen again for Windows 7. The upgrade from 7 to 10 is less complicated (privacy issues and UX annoyances aside) than it was from Windows 9x to XP (a 16/32 bit hybrid with pieces of DOS and Windows 3.1 code to a full 32-bit NT-style OS) or from Windows XP to Vista/7 (lots of changes in Windows internals).


----------



## Solaris17 (Mar 18, 2018)

windwhirl said:


> Run XP securely while connected to the Internet? We (my co-workers and me) actually do that, because our boss won't pay for Win7 licenses (forget about paying for XP support).



Just incase you simply arent aware, but even the millions companies spend for MS to come out with reactive (read not proactive) security fixes to XP and even best practice like you are doing will not stop the vulnerabilities XP has simply based off of how the OS works on a core level. What you are doing in the industry is called reducing the attack surface but that is not to be confused with "I made it safe now".

The landscape has changed and XP simply is not viable. Anyone that preaches otherwise is mis directed. It does not simply boil down to profit margins and program compatibility. Tools of all kinds good and bad evolve. People, companies and teams that use outdated OSs are jaded and should put there votes into changing current technology instead of taking the stubborn route and remaining behind because it is convenient if they dont like something new.

XP was created in a world where the personal computer didn't do much and most couldn't even afford one. The world revolves around technology now and its not a stretch to say it is legitimately dangerous to the lively hood of those connected to those systems to run it.


----------



## theFOoL (Mar 18, 2018)

If SEE here you could install XP programs in 98 










Oh wait here's the video I watched a few months ago. Windows 2000!










Windows ME?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What.....THE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 18, 2018)

windwhirl said:


> I think Win98 received a DX 9.0c update (?) during 2006... Heck, Microsoft gave that OS two or three more years of support than originally planned because a lot of people didn't stop using it. Same with Windows XP, but it doesn't seem likely that it will happen again for Windows 7. The upgrade from 7 to 10 is less complicated (privacy issues and UX annoyances aside) than it was from Windows 9x to XP (a 16/32 bit hybrid with pieces of DOS and Windows 3.1 code to a full 32-bit NT-style OS) or from Windows XP to Vista/7 (lots of changes in Windows internals).



They made direct X integrated like how internet explorer was and received a class action suit by the EU for ie integration.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 18, 2018)

Solaris17 said:


> Just incase you simply arent aware, but even the millions companies spend for MS to come out with reactive (read not proactive) security fixes to XP and even best practice like you are doing will not stop the vulnerabilities XP has simply based off of how the OS works on a core level. What you are doing in the industry is called reducing the attack surface but that is not to be confused with "I made it safe now".


This is so completely incorrect I simply don't know where to start. Let's all just agree to disagree on that one.



Solaris17 said:


> The landscape has changed and XP simply is not viable. Anyone that preaches otherwise is misdirected.


Same as above..


----------



## Bill_Bright (Mar 18, 2018)

I agree in part with Solaris on his first point, and completely on his second. 

Microsoft can make XP secure for everyone if they had any incentive to do so. But they don't and why should they? That OS has been superseded 4 times now. Microsoft is a company that needs revenue and profits to pay its employees and invest in R&D to stay alive. There's no profit is maintaining XP - in fact, any money spent on it is a loss. Any organization (for profit, non-profit, charity, government, etc.) leader who directs resources at avoidable money pits would be fired - if not criminally charged for fiduciary mismanagement.

And he is correct when he says anyone who preaches XP is viable is misdirected and is misdirecting - at best only fooling himself. At worse, putting others in jeopardy. The ONLY exceptions are (1) if the XP box is used as a stand-alone computer (not connected to any network) or (2), the XP box is totally isolated on the network or only connected to a "closed" (no Internet access) network, and where no user is able to attach any external devices (infected thumb drives, for example) to that system that were exposed (directly or indirectly) to the Internet. 

If securing XP was still as easy as suggested, those governments and organizations who were misdirected by their IT people and failed to upgrade from XP would not be stuck paying Microsoft $millions every year for "Custom Support" to keep their legacy XP systems secure (and note that was back in 2014 with the prices going up each year!). 

Anyone claiming they can easily secure XP and make it safe for Internet use is either fooling themselves, or a total fool for not marketing their solution - for they surely would be multimillionaires overnight.

If you still have an old XP system that refuses to die and you don't want to put Linux on it, I say turn it into a NAS. That's what I did. Isolate it from the Internet in your router and restrict access to and from it for your other connected devices.


----------



## Shihab (Mar 18, 2018)

eidairaman1 said:


> They made direct X integrated like how internet explorer was and received a class action suit by the EU for ie integration.



Comparing an application to an API is a slippery slope, imo...

And honestly, the IE drama (and that N-variant mess) is one thing I couldn't agree with the EU on, at least, from my viewpoint of how a computer should run. And I did so more after Windows 10 was released. Compared to many features 10 has; One Drive, Cortana, Marketplace, etc, the features the EU moaned about back then, IE and the media player, those were completely disable-able by the end user. [/nag]




rk3066 said:


> Well HA If they made it where the DirectX Version was Upgradeable then there'd be no Windows but XP



Windows 7 overtook XP long before D3d11 adoption reached a figure worth mentioning. And even after that, it took a long time before D3d10/11 exclusives started to pop up in abundance. Those days were the days of 7th gen consoles, i.e. console ports that didn't bother going above 9c. Poor D3d 10 couldn't get much spotlight.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 18, 2018)

Shihabyooo said:


> Comparing an application to an API is a slippery slope, imo...
> 
> And honestly, the IE drama (and that N-variant mess) is one thing I couldn't agree with the EU on, at least, from my viewpoint of how a computer should run. And I did so more after Windows 10 was released. Compared to many features 10 has; One Drive, Cortana, Marketplace, etc, the features the EU moaned about back then, IE and the media player, those were completely disable-able by the end user. [/nag]
> 
> ...



Game makers got lazy too.

If and when I go to 10 it will be LTSB version only, I have no need for Cortana or these major build updates that break the OS.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Mar 18, 2018)

eidairaman1 said:


> If and when I go to 10 it will be LTSB version only, I have no need for Cortana or these major build updates that break the OS.


I'm with you on Cortana though I admit I have not given it a fair chance. I resist to even try simply because of the big push for "voice" interaction which I see as a HUGE invasion of privacy in the same way I see the Amazon Alexa and Google Home "personal assistants" devices as MUCH BIGGER threats to our privacy than Windows 10 itself can ever be, simply because they are always listening to everything going on within earshot.

But I totally disagree with your comment about major build updates breaking the OS. Does it happen? Of course! But those are extremely rare exceptions to the norm when you look at the big picture and real numbers.  The real numbers are way less than 1%. If the problem were as big as some would have us believe, forums like TPU would be inundated with user complaining of broken machines. But typically the number can be counted on one hand.

The problem is with 600 million Windows 10 users out there, even if just 1/10th of 1% fail, that is still 600,000 upset users and 600,000 upset users can make a lot of noise - especially when amplified by the IT press seeking headlines and bashers parroting haters. 

FTR, I have 6 computers here running W10. There have been 4 major build updates since W10 came out and countless other updates. None "broke" Windows. One  machine appeared broken after a major update but a simple reboot fixed that. The worse problem was an intermittent problem where my secondary monitor on this computer was blank after the update. There were reports some other users had the same problem. But that was soon cleared by another update.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 18, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> I'm with you on Cortana though I admit I have not given it a fair chance. I resist to even try simply because of the big push for "voice" interaction which I see as a HUGE invasion of privacy in the same way I see the Amazon Alexa and Google Home "personal assistants" devices as MUCH BIGGER threats to our privacy than Windows 10 itself can ever be, simply because they are always listening to everything going on within earshot.
> 
> But I totally disagree with your comment about major build updates breaking the OS. Does it happen? Of course! But those are extremely rare exceptions to the norm when you look at the big picture and real numbers.  The real numbers are way less than 1%. If the problem were as big as some would have us believe, forums like TPU would be inundated with user complaining of broken machines. But typically the number can be counted on one hand.
> 
> ...



I dont use S Voice either, the only thing I need to figure out is how to train speech to text for my dialect.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 19, 2018)

@Bill_Bright
I think what he was referring to was that Microsoft makes change frequently that break compatibility with other software. Example; starting somewhere inbetween 1607 and 1703, the Start Menu replacement "Classic Shell" stopped working. The dev for same decided to end the project and opened the source. This is not an isolated example. Microsoft seems to be either reckless or deliberately doing these kinds of things. Thus the problems many are having.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Mar 19, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> I think what he was referring to was that Microsoft makes change frequently that break compatibility with other software.


He said updates that "break the OS". That is much different from small 3rd party apps no longer working.



lexluthermiester said:


> Microsoft seems to be either reckless or deliberately doing these kinds of things.


 It seems it is always just too easy for some to blame Microsoft for everything. I don't get it (and I am not pointing fingers at you or anyone specific).

I really like the grill on the new Chevy Silverado trucks. But they don't fit on my Ford F150. Chevy is just being reckless and deliberately trying to pi$$ me off.  I am not trying to be argumentative. I am being sarcastic to illustrate a point. We are not talking about productivity or application software, or games or other programs that run under Windows. If the new Chevy truck could no longer tow my boat because they changed tow hitches or electrical hook ups to something proprietary, that would be reckless and deliberate and worthy of wrath and criticism.

Classic Shell is designed to "modify" or even totally replace the Windows user interface. That is a big difference from running an application. Yes, it would be nice if Microsoft made the Windows10 UI that easy to modify or totally change out. But I think that is asking too much to "expect".

If Chrome, FF, Pale Moon, OpenOffice, Malwarebytes, CCleaner, Call of Duty, GTA, and other "mainstream" programs broke every 6 months after a major Windows Update, then your point would be 100% valid - that would be totally "reckless" (perhaps even criminal!). But that is not happening.

And if it was "deliberate", why aren't these updates breaking Start10 and StartIsBack too?

Let's not forget, none of these big updates are suddenly dropped on users or 3rd party program developers out of the blue. Anybody (developers or you and me) can enroll in the Windows Insider program to learn of (and play with) upcoming changes BEFORE they are released to mainstream consumers.

No, the ClassicShell developer made it clear why he is no longer maintaining Classic Shell. He is moving on to other interests. I suspect if ClassicShell were not free, he would have more incentive to keep it going - or hire someone to keep it going for him.



lexluthermiester said:


> This is not an isolated example


*Then what other (preferably popular/mainstream) programs are regularly breaking - for all users! - when Microsoft pushes out a new update? *

Steve Ballmer reported several years ago that there were approximately 4 million programs out there supported by Windows 7.

4 million! 

Assume he exaggerated and blew that WAY out proportion and it is really 1 million. Or even just 100,000. Is it really reasonable to expect Microsoft must deliberately ensure each and every one (remember, these are programs Microsoft has no control over!) will remain compatible through each and every Windows update?

How do you expect them to do that? What kind of resources do you expect them to put into testing 100s of 1000s of programs before releasing every Windows Update to ensure none will break??? What would you expect that will do to the cost of a new Windows license?


----------

