Microsoft Boss Teases "Next Generation of Windows" Announcement "Very Soon"

[Caring1]

Grease up and grab your ankles ...

Like this?

 

[Deleted member 205776]

Love how people speak of LTSC like it's some magical FPS boost, yeah, if you're running Intel Atom probably

 

[bug]

I know it lost audio acceleration but I think you are overrating it.
I wouldn't be so sure that hardware acceleration would help with DPC latency.
Technically what is under the hood is great quality wise. Solved a lot of problems that acceleration had with crappy hardware and drivers.

DPC latency is not a problem in the actual audio stack. DPC latency is across drivers (it's usually the network driver that is crappy enough to ruin latency for everybody).
The problem is the audio stack lies on a base that doesn't guarantee latency. And it absolutely needs guaranteed latency.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Love how people speak of LTSC like it's some magical FPS boost, yeah, if you're running Intel Atom probably

Clearly you haven't used it. Try it sometime, then come back and comment some more...

 

[Deleted member 205776]

Clearly you haven't used it. Try it sometime, then come back and comment some more...

Yes I have, worse performance on my main rig due to LTSC still being on 1809 and having no Ryzen topology awareness, and performance improvements within margin of error on every lower end device I installed it on, including an Intel Atom laptop.

The marginal performance increases sure are worth sitting on an outdated edition which you'll have to do a completely clean install if you wanna upgrade it to the next edition when it comes out in 2094.

 

[lexluthermiester]

LTSC still being on 1809

That's on you. Install a newer version and try again...

 

[Octopuss]

I hope it won't be mandatory Windows as a service.
I'd fucking pirate the thing from then on.

Whatever it is, major announcements from Microsoft is usually bad news.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I hope it won't be mandatory Windows as a service.
I'd fucking pirate the thing from then on.

Whatever it is, major announcements from Microsoft is usually bad news.

It's pretty much already Windows as a Service. If you're worried MS will ask people to pay a monthly fee for it, I see that failing hard. Windows has already lost a ton of relevance in the consumer space. The smartphone is way more important and used the most everyday. Making people pay to use Windows would just accelerate the waning consumer interest. Most people don't care about OS updates and upgrades--I'd even bet that many people hate them, because now they have to relearn something that is just keeping them from doing what they actually want to do on the PC they are using. As it is now, I can live entirely without Windows for my personal needs. Work is another story, but my company is the one footing the bill for my work PC.

 

[lexluthermiester]

If you're worried MS will ask people to pay a monthly fee for it, I see that failing hard.

I don't know anyone who would be willing to pay on a monthly or even yearly basis for an OS. Subscription software is a tough enough sell as it is to make it happen with an OS. Just not a viable or marketable business model..

 

[ThrashZone]

Love how people speak of LTSC like it's some magical FPS boost, yeah, if you're running Intel Atom probably

Hi,
Fewer services so it should run leaner
But what urks me is the insistence win-10 is great when they aren't using the bloated/... win-10 pro or home like everyone one else is lol

 

[chrcoluk]

Yes I have, worse performance on my main rig due to LTSC still being on 1809 and having no Ryzen topology awareness, and performance improvements within margin of error on every lower end device I installed it on, including an Intel Atom laptop.

The marginal performance increases sure are worth sitting on an outdated edition which you'll have to do a completely clean install if you wanna upgrade it to the next edition when it comes out in 2094.

Well yeah.

I am using LTSC but have actually already decided I will be replacing it on my gaming rig. I am ok keeping it on my laptop.

My reason for using LTSC is I feel the upgrade policies for normal versions of windows are too frequent, its nothing to do with performance.

The next LTSC is coming out this year which I have been considering, it will be based on 21H2, the problem with 1809, is it "just missed" out on various new features that appeared in 1903 such as TLS 1.3 support, WPA3 support, RT 1.1 support, and tamper protection on defender. It does support directML but gpuz dev's seem uneasy in adding the tickbox for it in gpuz, so thats misleading (I think they checking win build instead of presence of directml libraries).

21H2 variant of LTSC should be DX12 ultimate complete feature wise, and I expect anyone using that build of LTSC will be fine for a few years at least as DX work should slow down now, but the concerns are going to be DirectIO which I think will come just after 21H2 as well as the store rehaul.

The good news is on the non LTSC of enterprise, and windows education each H2 release is now supported for 30 months, which I think is a lot more reasonable. Updating to a newer LTSC is about £300 (I feel like I am one of very few who actually paid for LTSC, the most popular forum of LTSC users hosts activation bypass apps), the non LTSC enterprise forget about buying it as an individual, however my sister is a student so I can get hold of an education license. It is a shame they dont offer pro users the education update policy.

 

[lexluthermiester]

and tamper protection on defender.

This means nothing if you WANT Defender removed, IE not present on the system.

(I feel like I am one of very few who actually paid for LTSC, the most popular forum of LTSC users hosts activation bypass apps)

I know at least a dozen people personally who have paid for an LTSC key.

 

[chrcoluk]

Except I want it on the system why would I want to remove it? you disable it or use it.

 

[bug]

Except I want it on the system why would I want to remove it? you disable it or use it.

Two reasons:
1. Reclaim disk space. But this is mostly a concern on mobile.
2. Microsoft has a weird tendency to update your disabled products which can lead to all sorts of weird behavior (e.g. Skype starting up all of a sudden).

Defender in particular is good to have around imho, because if some malware manages to take out your favorite AV, Windows will detect no AV is running and fire up Defender instead. It's a good second layer of defense.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Defender is just nagware if you change any of it's settings and telemetryware just to send your personal files as so called "samples" lol

 

[bug]

Hi,
Defender is just nagware if you change any of it's settings and telemetryware just to send your personal files as so called "samples" lol

Right. Educate me on how other AV software learns about unknown threats, without submitting files for analysis, please.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Right. Educate me on how other AV software learns about unknown threats, without submitting files for analysis, please.

Because companies who make Antivirus/AntiMalware software good LOOKING for samples themselves. That don't need to use the very lazy and ethically iffy method of using the general public as test subjects.

Except I want it on the system why would I want to remove it? you disable it or use it.

Because it's an irritating piece of garbage-ware that gets in the way more than it "protects" and even when disabled still gets in the way because the associated services don't stop running. When I disable something I expect it to actually stop running. This is akin to Microsoft installing a piece of behind-the-back-ware, along with all of the rest of the behind-the-back-ware, that is installed with every default install of Windows.. You want to use it and let that crap control your system and many aspects of your computing experience, go right ahead.

 

[bug]

Because companies who make Antivirus/AntiMalware software good LOOKING for samples themselves. That don't need to use the very lazy and ethically iffy method of using the general public as test subjects.

So... where would they source their samples?
This is not about using the public as test subjects, it's the only way to respond to new threats in a timely manner. AVs can detect malicious behavior and when they cannot match it to known threats, further analysis is required to turn that into a known threat. For that to happen, someone, somewhere must produce an infected file. Unless you believe AV makers simply create honeypots and then wait for malware to come to them

 

[lexluthermiester]

So... where would they source their samples?

Where would the general public of users get them?

 

[bug]

Where would the general public of users get them?

Opening emails seems to be popular.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Opening emails seems to be popular.

And how would a virus get into an email(other than crafting it directly in)?... From an infected PC. And where would that PC get infected?... That's right, some silly sod going to some website they shouldn't. So how would Antivirus makers find virus/malware samples? Yuppers, they go looking out on the net to "iffy" places and "IShouldNotBeHere.com".

Simply put, they use their brains for something more than a seat cushion and do their due diligence instead of waiting for nitwitted users to get infected and send "samples" back to them.

 

[bug]

And how would a virus get into an email?... From an infected PC. And where would that PC get infected?... That's right, some silly sod going to some website they shouldn't. So how would Antivirus makers find virus/malware samples? Yuppers, they go looking out on the net to "iffy" places and "IShouldNotBeHere.com".

Simply put, they use their brains for something more than a seat cushion and do their due diligence instead of waiting for nitwitted users to get infected and send "samples" back to them.

You seem to be assuming tracing a virus back to its source is always a trivial feat.

 

[Caring1]

And how would a virus get into an email?... From an infected PC. And where would that PC get infected?... That's right, some silly sod going to some website they shouldn't. So how would Antivirus makers find virus/malware samples? Yuppers, they go looking out on the net to "iffy" places and "IShouldNotBeHere.com".

Simply put, they use their brains for something more than a seat cushion and do their due diligence instead of waiting for nitwitted users to get infected and send "samples" back to them.

I have had a virus from MSN news previously, it only takes a site to be hacked or the virus injected into a link on those sites for it to happen.

 

[lexluthermiester]

You seem to be assuming tracing a virus back to its source is always a trivial feat.

No, I'm not making any assumptions at all. There is no need to trace it back to it's source. AV makers just need a sample. They couldn't give a toss about where it came from..

I have had a virus from MSN news previously, it only takes a site to be hacked or the virus injected into a link on those sites for it to happen.

Fair point, and there's a sample.

 

[bug]

No, I'm not making any assumptions at all. There is no need to trace it back to it's source. AV makers just need a sample. They couldn't give a toss about where it came from..

I meant to the web site where the "end-user" got it. If you detect some piece of software on someone's computer is regularly trying to contact suspicious servers, how do you go about tracing that back to to the source of the infection?
Come on, you're better than this, you know most truly damaging malware goes undetected for years.