A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Windows 10. Horrible!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 31st 17, 05:06 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 444
Default 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  
Old October 31st 17, 05:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default 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  
Old October 31st 17, 06:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 444
Default 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  
Old October 31st 17, 06:52 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old October 31st 17, 10:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default 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  
Old November 1st 17, 12:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 444
Default 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  
Old November 1st 17, 03:10 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default 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  
Old November 1st 17, 03:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old November 1st 17, 08:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
David Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,146
Default 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  
Old November 1st 17, 02:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.