Windows 10 versions no longer supported

[Tony1044]

I know some of you don't like to let MS manage updates and/or be on later versions of OS, but were you aware that some versions of Windows 10 are End of Life (EOL) and will no longer receive even security updates?

If you're on build 1607 or below, you are one of the ones not getting them.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/help/13853/windows-lifecycle-fact-sheet

I won't argue the pro's of updating/patching in a timely fashion.

 

[ubuysa]

Thanks for the heads-up Tony, it's as well for users to remember to upgrade at some point.

Oh, and it's great to see you back.

 

[Tony1044]

Thanks for the heads-up Tony, it's as well for users to remember to upgrade at some point.

Oh, and it's great to see you back.

Thanks ubuysa...didn't really leave, per se (though I did come close to asking for my account to be deleted), just went back to loitering (and sulking) for a time

I don't really get the whole not patching/not upgrading perspective for home users. I've had to sort out more issues caused by people using cracked versions of Windows (mostly XP) that couldn't get updates and subsequently ended up compromised than I've ever had to sort out borked updates.

I've even worked for some seriously large establishments that have been 2+ years behind with their updates. Then one day the inevitable problem arises and the software vendors won't help because "hey we patched this 17 revisions back...."

 

[ubuysa]

Thanks ubuysa...didn't really leave, per se (though I did come close to asking for my account to be deleted), just went back to loitering (and sulking) for a time

I don't really get the whole not patching/not upgrading perspective for home users. I've had to sort out more issues caused by people using cracked versions of Windows (mostly XP) that couldn't get updates and subsequently ended up compromised than I've ever had to sort out borked updates.

I've even worked for some seriously large establishments that have been 2+ years behind with their updates. Then one day the inevitable problem arises and the software vendors won't help because "hey we patched this 17 revisions back...."

Agreed. For home users patching early is by far the best option. I always apply all updates automatically. When a new upgrade is available I clean install it. That said, I take a full disk image of my system drive on a schedule every night (and keep the last 28 images). My user data is also backed up on a schedule every night. Though since I'm talking to you, I confess the backup drive is on-site. I understand your position that to be a true backup it should be offsite, in my mainframe days they were of course. I'm compromising and understand the risk.

I am so far removed from business computer system support now that I can't in all honesty comment. I understand that so many corporate systems now are a mish-mash of systems ported from different platforms and lashed together with in-house code that OS updates can be a real nightmare. But as you rightly say, there is a big price down the line to be paid for that....

When I was in large mainframe system support where our two IBM mainframes supported about 5000 concurrent users each you couldn't afford to foul up - and the organisation couldn't afford a testing mainframe either - so the tech support staff would take one of the mainframes down at close of business Friday and switch all the load to the other. We'd then spend a manic 'burning the midnight oil' weekend to install the next major upgrade on the offline mainframe and then run stress testing software developed by our application programmers to test it. Even then, for major upgrades or ones we were worried about, we'd do a full backup of that newly installed system and restore the original OS for first thing Monday. Then come next weekend we'd switch over again, restore the newly updated system and hammer with the test applications some more. Sometimes we'd be at that for three or four weekends in a row (and with no time off in the week). In those days a full restore (from cartridge tapes) and an IPL (initial program load - a boot) was a two hour operation, and that's assuming we had the backup cartridges back on site.

Back in those days, when the mainframe was the only computer, you simply could not have an unscheduled outage. Had one ever happened when I was the senior system programmer (and it never did) my job would probably have been on the line. That's what they paid us for.....

 

[Devlin]

Because of such cases I use Vidovs 7.

 

[ubuysa]

Because of such cases I use Vidovs 7.

Do you mean Windows 7? You're seriously suggesting that using Windows 7, bearing in mind that it's now a very back-level operating system and support for it ends in 2020, is a better solution than Windows 10 updated properly? And do you patch Windows 7 regularly - I sure hope so?

 

[Maleper]

To be honest, I prefer Windows 7, even if they're from the same company, and even say Windows 10 is an update to Windows 7/8

 

[ubuysa]

To be honest, I prefer Windows 7, even if they're from the same company, and even say Windows 10 is an update to Windows 7/8

In which case you'd be wrong. Even Windows 8 was not a simple upgrade of Windows 7 and Windows 10 is a different beast altogether. You are I suspect making the classic mistake of assuming that the user interface that you see IS the operating system, when in fact the user interface is just the visible part of a much more complex software suite. Windows 7 is as similar to Windows 10 as a mark 1 Ford Fiesta is to a 2018 Ford Fiesta. Under the covers Windows 10 contains better memory management, a secure execution environment, support for modern hardware, integrated and greatly improved security, VPN support, better authentication, hundreds of new APIs, multiple desktops, boot time improvements, the list just goes on and on.

You are of course entitled to prefer the user interface of Windows 7, though Windows 10 is so flexible that you can have a pure text based start menu in Windows 10 if you want, but don't make the mistake of thinking that the user interface is all there is to an operating system.

 

[Tony1044]

Ubuysa hits the nail on the head.

So many times, people will say they prefer Windows 7 when what they really mean is they prefer the GUI in Windows 7.

I get it - I prefer it myself, too, to be honest. However, that said, I'd take Windows 10 over 8.1 and 8.1 over 8 any day of the week.

It was a huge mistake for MS to try and force a tablet-based GUI onto a desktop.

But even with that all said, Windows 8.x was a better OS than 7. It tended to be more secure and even faster in many use cases.

And in terms of management - let me tell you from a corporate perspective that Windows 10 has far more configuration settings that can be centrally managed than any previous OS and many of the newer settings are around security.

Edit - not to mention Windows 7 won a lot of people over because one of THE killer problems with Vista was its requirement for increased hardware performance combined with that crazy "Vista ready" sticker that was put onto so many machines that were actually only capable of running the very basic, cut-down version of Vista (I forget what it was now). This caused a LOT of vitriol for people who had upgraded. Windows 7 could and would run on much lower specification hardware (although fair to say in the intervening time, hardware had improved as well, of course).

Vista - especially after SP1 - when combined with hardware powerful enough to run it was a very nice OS.

Like with 8, MS made a number of missteps. I will never forgive them, for example, for guaranteeing people who paid the premium for "Ultimate" would get free perks...and then only released 3 new shoddy games.