If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
On 10/30/2017 02:17 AM, Rich A wrote:
Wow! Didn't know it had so many issues! Made a horrific mess of running multiple different displays (even with specific video card drivers), hides tons of stuff that I normally use (like control panel). Boxes the active desktop into a frame INSIDE the main computer screen, so it's smaller. I'm sure there is a way around it, but I couldn't be bothered. There are myriad issues with it, which I found out looking up problems online. Windows 8.1 is FAR better, IMO. I have two , secondary use machines that I've upgrade to Win10, both work fine. My wife is the one who does the real, photo-processing work and I'm keeping it at Win7. It works perfectly and I do not want to take a chance with that machine. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
On 10/31/2017 12:06 PM, philo wrote:
On 10/30/2017 02:17 AM, Rich A wrote: Wow!Â* Didn't know it had so many issues!Â* Made a horrific mess of running multiple different displays (even with specific video card drivers), hides tons of stuff that I normally use (like control panel). Boxes the active desktop into a frame INSIDE the main computer screen, so it's smaller.Â* I'm sure there is a way around it, but I couldn't be bothered. There are myriad issues with it, which I found out looking up problems online.Â* Windows 8.1 is FAR better, IMO. I have two , secondary use machines that I've upgrade to Win10, both work fine. My wife is the one who does the real, photo-processing work and I'm keeping it at Win7. It works perfectly and I do not want to take a chance with that machine. My Win 10 machine works fine with Photoshop CC, Corel Painter 17, and a slew of PS plugins. My younger daughter, who is a heavy graphics user, (creative director,) uses Win 10. It works fine with the entire CC suite. She had her choice of machines and decided on Win 10. In the interest of fairness, may main machine is Win 7. -- PeterN |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
On 10/31/2017 11:56 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 10/31/2017 12:06 PM, philo wrote: On 10/30/2017 02:17 AM, Rich A wrote: Wow!Â* Didn't know it had so many issues!Â* Made a horrific mess of running multiple different displays (even with specific video card drivers), hides tons of stuff that I normally use (like control panel). Boxes the active desktop into a frame INSIDE the main computer screen, so it's smaller.Â* I'm sure there is a way around it, but I couldn't be bothered. There are myriad issues with it, which I found out looking up problems online.Â* Windows 8.1 is FAR better, IMO. I have two , secondary use machines that I've upgrade to Win10, both work fine. My wife is the one who does the real, photo-processing work and I'm keeping it at Win7. It works perfectly and I do not want to take a chance with that machine. My Win 10 machine works fine with Photoshop CC, Corel Painter 17, and a slew of PS plugins. My younger daughter, who is a heavy graphics user, (creative director,) uses Win 10. It works fine with the entire CC suite. She had her choice of machines and decided on Win 10. In the interest of fairness, may main machine is Win 7. I'm a Linux user and GIMP is the photo editor I use. It has a lot of features but really I don't do much with my images. When I do want a print though I give it to my wife... she will use Photoshop and is a lot better at that than I am. I build and repair the computers and she is the one to actually use them. She relies heavily on her Wacom tablet . It's an older one and they do not have Win10 drivers. I did try it on my own Win10 machine and it functions but probably does not have all the features she needs. If her tablet someday dies, then we will look at upgrading the machine to Win10 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
In article , philo
wrote: I build and repair the computers and she is the one to actually use them. She relies heavily on her Wacom tablet . It's an older one and they do not have Win10 drivers. I did try it on my own Win10 machine and it functions but probably does not have all the features she needs. it should have the same features it does with win8. why don't you let *her* try it on your win10 machine to decide if it does what *she* needs, rather than you deciding for her, especially since you readily admit you don't do much with photo apps. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
In article , PeterN says...
In the interest of fairness, may main machine is Win 7. I'm using 8.1 here. It has a horrible reputation, but with the classic shell it works perfectly smoothly without any problems. Before I was using Vista, another of those supposedly terrible OSs. Worked fine for me as well. I skipped Win 7. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
On 10/31/2017 04:41 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , PeterN says... In the interest of fairness, may main machine is Win 7. I'm using 8.1 here. It has a horrible reputation, but with the classic shell it works perfectly smoothly without any problems. Before I was using Vista, another of those supposedly terrible OSs. Worked fine for me as well. I skipped Win 7. Once SP1 was applied, Vista was just fine. I think MS just released it before it was quite ready. As to Win8 Every single machine I've worked on had to have Classic Shell installed. No one liked it the way it was. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
"Alfred Molon" wrote
| I'm using 8.1 here. It has a horrible reputation, but with the classic | shell it works perfectly smoothly without any problems. | | Before I was using Vista, another of those supposedly terrible OSs. | Worked fine for me as well. I skipped Win 7. I think a lot of the lemon version reputation is somewhat arbitrary and supported discreetly by Microsoft. Sacrificing an older version to sell a new one works for them. It's the only company I know with a marketing strategy of: "You should buy our newest product because the last one was junk and is no longer safe." ME, Vista, 8.... They stop mentioning the alleged lemons while a lot of people are still using them. ME was almost identical to 98. The former was a lemon while the latter was the best ever. Vista is pretty much the same thing as 7. But with 7 the hardware had a chance to catch up. Vista was also rushed out. They wasted several years trying to make a .Net version of Windows -- something like Metro. But in 2005, 4 years after XP, they had to give up that plan ("Longhorn") and start over cold. Their own explanation was that it was simply too bloated to run on any existing hardware. ..Net, after all, was a superfluous, Java-esque wrapper on top of Windows itself. It was simply too much junk to float. At that poont they were already 1 year over schedule to release a new version, so they rushed out something- or-other in 2 years. On top of that was the Intel scandal. MS wanted all the OEMs to have hardware ready for Aero by the time Vista came out. Then Intel told them they needed to dump a very large number of 915 chipsets, which couldn't handle the load of Aero. So at the last minute there was Vista Basic. A whole category of Vista to run on computers with 915 chipsets or similar that were not actually capable of handling the unprecedented bloat of Vista. No Aero on Vista Basic. People were very confused. Why did I buy a new computer if I'm not getting the new techno-kitsch? Without those clever transparent windows, what's the point? Most people buy a computer by looks, after all. I haven't used 10 to speak of. Like 10-4.call above, I'd expect to be paid if I'm going to waste my time using spyware that changes itself willy nilly, without warning. And so far, to my surprise, Mr. Ballmer has not sent me a check. Nor has Mr. Nadella. Apparently they still think they're going to be able to spread Win10 by giving it away for free. But I suspect 8/10 is similar to Vista/7. 10 provides a bit of straightening up. Most notably, Metro is not in-your-face. That doesn't really matter to you using Classic Shell, but most people use the product as it comes installed. For them 8 and 10 will be very different animals. When it comes down to it, aside from the gradually increasing bloat and restrictions, and now adware/ spyware with Win10, there's not a whole lot of difference in general. The whole point is that the OS is supposed to be a platform for software. Most software will run on most versions, because MS maintains good compatibility. If your software runs then your version is adequate. I can write a program today that will run on every running Windows version without needing any extra files installed. The only really notable change in the past 15 years has been the gradual shift to 64-bit. And even that only applies to resource-intensive software. You need 7+ for Photoshop. You need 64-bit for very demanding work like video editing. What else? Not much. I'm running PSP, Firefox, Libre Office, etc on XP. Almost all software still supports XP. But all that really matters is whether the software you want/need will run on your computer. There was a time when I would have updated just to be on top of things. But new updates has not necessarily meant better software for a long time. Developers got addicted to a steady schedule of updates and new features, never able to admit when a product was actually finished. The chatter about older versions being unsafe is also, for the most part, only chatter. Malware rarely attacks through Windows. It attacks through software like browsers, Java, Flash, etc. Or it attacks via unsafe network functionality like DCOM, RPC, etc. Someone allowing filesharing or remote desktop, or allowing script, ads and Flash, in the very latest version of Win10, is far more vulnerable than a cautious person running Vista, XP, or 98. And of course, no one's targetting those systems anymore, anyway. But the lapdog media never fails to market for Microsoft by trying to scare everyone into thinking that the last Windows version became dangerous on the day the new version came out. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
In article , Mayayana
wrote: The chatter about older versions being unsafe is also, for the most part, only chatter. nonsense. Malware rarely attacks through Windows. where 'rarely' is all the time. It attacks through software like browsers, Java, Flash, etc. Or it attacks via unsafe network functionality like DCOM, RPC, etc. that's in addition to, not instead of. however, malware only needs to trick the user into downloading something and running it. game over. the payload will almost always be windows code. Someone allowing filesharing or remote desktop, or allowing script, ads and Flash, in the very latest version of Win10, is far more vulnerable than a cautious person running Vista, XP, or 98. nonsense. the very latest version of win10 is the *most* secure, with known exploits patched and includes up to date malware definitions. And of course, no one's targetting those systems anymore, anyway. oh yes they are. from this past june: https://arstechnica.com/information-...n-xp-patched-t o-avert-new-outbreaks-spawned-by-nsa-leaking-shadow-brokers/ On Tuesday, Microsoft took the highly unusual step of issuing security patches for XP and other unsupported versions of Windows. The company did this in a bid to protect the OSes against a series of "destructive" exploits developed by, and later stolen from, the National Security Agency. By Ars' count, Tuesday is only the third time in Microsoft history that the company has issued free security updates for a decommissioned product. One of those came one day after last month's outbreak of the highly virulent "WCry" ransom worm, which repurposed NSA-developed exploits. The exploits were leaked by the Shadow Brokers, a mysterious group that somehow got hold of weaponized NSA hacking tools. (WCry is also known as "WannaCry" and "WannaCrypt.") .... The only other time in recent memory Microsoft has patched an unsupported version of Windows was in 2014, when it issued a critical update for Windows XP during the same week it decommissioned the version. Tuesday's move suggests Microsoft may have good reason to believe attackers are planning to use EsteemAudit, ExplodingCan, and EnglishmanDentist in attacks against older systems. Company officials are showing that, as much as they don't want to set a precedent for patching unsupported Windows versions, they vastly prefer that option to a potential replay of the WCry outbreak. that's *two* updates for unsupported versions of windows in the past six months alone. those older systems are absolutely being targeted. But the lapdog media never fails to market for Microsoft by trying to scare everyone into thinking that the last Windows version became dangerous on the day the new version came out. it didn't become dangerous. it's that the latest version patches known exploits, making the latest version safer than the previous versions. fall creators update now includes a very useful anti-ransomware tool. since you're still using xp, be sure you save up enough bitcoins, just in case you need it. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
On 01/11/2017 02:10, Mayayana wrote:
[] The chatter about older versions being unsafe is also, for the most part, only chatter. [] Try telling that to the UK's NHS and others: https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ruption-breach -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
"David Taylor" wrote
| The chatter about older versions being unsafe is | also, for the most part, only chatter. | [] | | Try telling that to the UK's NHS and others: | | https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ruption-breach | ?? You don't seem to realize that you're illustrating my point for me. You clipped my explanation of why the version is of little importance. The example you noted, WannaCry ransomware, uses SMB to infect. SMB should only be functional on networked machines, and of course those should not be connected to the Internet. The port should be blocked and the related services should be disabled. (That's the same idea as RPC and DCOM. On most computers those should not be enabled. When they are enabled, any Internet connection should be treated as extremely high risk because the connected machines have compromised security.) The infected hospitals suffered because they had risky networking enabled, didn't have backup, and somehow allowed an unknown, foreign executable to run. Maybe an email attachment. Maybe a driveby download enabled by allowing script in the browser. Were employees allowed to go online? If so, why? What about not running as Admin? Somehow that didn't prevent the executable running. Color me surprised. My dentist doesn't even network, or provide an Internet connection to, computers where he keeps customer data. And he knows nothing about computers. He's just worried about legal issues. So how do police depts and hospitals manage to be such seat- of-the-pants operations? Partly because, like everyone else, they trade security for convenience at home and naively believe Microsoft marketing about how safe their latest product is. In the particular case you linked to, Win10 with forced updates would have been protected. But that's not always the case. A large number of attacks are 0-day, which is to say Microsoft have not yet made a patch and may not even know about the vulnerability. And I don't know about you, but I don't consider forced, potentially destabilizing updates to be a good tradeoff for a small improvement in security. There's a reason that corporate IT people don't allow auto-updating. They want to thoroughly test the updates first, before allowing them onto the "fleet". And how do we know there's not another bug in SMB, waiting to be exploited, and not covered by Win10? Who will suffer from that one? Probably people who insist on enabling unsafe networking protocols, because they're convenient. Do you enable file sharing? Not block port 445? Enable the Server service? COM+? Other remote network functionality? Maybe you want all that because you want to be able to network computers in your house. That makes sense, but you also need to be aware that it's very high risk and Win10 is not going to be a panacea. You're at far more risk than I am on XP. I have an old house with smoke alarms, a fire extinguisher, and I'm careful about my use of appliances. You have a new house, with all the latest safety equipment. But you regularly leave the house with the dryer running, the toaster on, or a pan heating on the stove. Who's at greater risk of fire? How do you know your new appliances won't have safety recalls down the road? (There were a number of fires caused by Bosch dishwashers at one point. And, of course, they were all in houses owned by wealthy people who insisted on only the newest and best appliances. Bosch is "top of the line".) It's interesting that ransomware has especially targetted hospitals and police depts. I haven't seen any explanation of why that is. My guess is that it's because 1) they're public services that have a lot to lose 2) they may be notoriously inept in terms of IT and 3) they generally have public-facing networks. Unlike a corporation that may have valuable business secrets to guard, police dept and hospital IT people probably don't have much reason to expect they might be targets... At least not up until now. But it's increasingly surprising that these institutions are caught without any backup. It would be more understandable if they were hacked and data stolen. But ransomware? There's just no excuse for not having their records backed up. *** I have a favorite story about this. In January, 2005 Bill Gates was asked in an interview why people were dropping IE. (I have a link but can't find the article now, even at archive.org: http://news.com.com/Gates+taking+a+s...3-5514121.html ) Gates's quote: "Well, no one invests more in security of their browser than what we do on IE. The key message we have for people is they should turn on auto update because if you turn on auto update....you can know that there are hundreds of very smart people who are constantly improving your browser and making sure that you're safe. And so with auto update and IE, you're getting the top security team and the quickest response team that there is anywhere." At the moment he was saying that, IE was being attacked by merely visiting a webpage, on computers with the very latest updates installed. http://www.techworld.com/news/index.cfm?newsID=2897 That's not an anomaly. It's business as usual. As the link explains, that particular bug had been known for 2 months, but Bill Gates's "hundreds of very smart people" somehow hadn't got around to fixing it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|