|
"no!" I agree, I feel the same thing about windows 10. 
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: Those numbers follow a very easy pattern YYMM of the release...
Except nobody considered what would happen with the release next March.
Windows 2003, anybody?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Except nobody considered what would happen
Or nobody cares anymore? 
(It still will be W10 Build 2003)
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
I understand what you're saying, but as a developer, if you want to support Windows 10, then as long as you target the lowest common denominator, it's easier to do so than including any previous mix of 8.1/7/Vista/XP/etc.
Is there really any feature in Windows 10 that a dev is relying on that wasn't in the first release?
|
|
|
|
|
It isnt about that, it is about clarity, simplicity.
Moving the OS number from the major to the minor number, and than saying "Look, we dont produce any new OSs, they are all Windows 10!!!!!!" Isnt fooling anyone!
|
|
|
|
|
What you're describing is hardly what MS is doing these days. They're no longer producing huge, monolithic upgrades that take 3 years between releases. They're no longer trashing/redesigning whole areas from scratch. And that's the point Terry Myerson was trying to make. You don't agree with that?
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think two new versions a year is more or less fragmentation than the three versions, 2JK, Xp, 7, that spanned what, 10 years?
|
|
|
|
|
The way I see it, yes, it's less of a headache.
If you're writing a .NET app and want to target Windows 10 (any version), which version of .NET should you be using to allow the most people to run it without having to update their runtime first?
Apply the same question to previous Windows versions. I suspect you'll have to do a lot more research. And your installer's requirements list will become a lot more difficult to put together.
Now repeat with PowerShell. And any other technologies you can just take for granted exists on 10.
|
|
|
|
|
To me it is more management, more to think about.
From my side old windows apps always ran on later ones, so no problem there, the issue is which is the oldest you support.
Is that so hard a decision?
So I had a 10.1511 and tried to install an 1806 HLK client, it said 'get stuffed'.
So clearly it isnt working as well as intended.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: From my side old windows apps always ran on later ones, so no problem there, the issue is which is the oldest you support.
Is that so hard a decision?
Ok, let's take again my .NET example. Newer versions of Windows (not just 10) no longer have 2.0/3.5 pre-installed out of the box, so you may as well commit to 4.[something]. 4.0? 4.5? Newer? 4.0 is out of support. I'm not so sure about 4.5. A quick Google search shows that you're guaranteed that all Windows 10 versions will have at least 4.6, so I'd say it's a good starting point and should remain in support for a good while still.
Munchies_Matt wrote: So I had a 10.1511 and tried to install an 1806 HLK client, it said 'get stuffed'.
Had to look up HLK (Windows Hardware Lab Kit?), but it seems obvious to me that it works like a Windows SDK or a DDK and is tied to an OS release. There was a Windows SDK for Windows 7, and a separate one for 7 + SP1. Installing the newer SDK on the original (pre-SP1) 7 would fail. No surprise then, and no surprise now.
I dunno, just continuing to play devil's advocate here. As much as I'd rather pretend 8/8.1/10 never happened, if I had the choice to support 7/8/8.1 OR "all versions of 10", I'd rather pick 10 as it's a lot closer to being a single, unified OS than 7/8/8.1 are, relative to each other.
All of that said, I can't say I'm terribly happy with the number of Win10 versions there could be out there. I wouldn't mind if they reduced the pace.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: ike a Windows SDK or a DDK and is tied to an OS release
The server is, well, has to be a 2012 or later server, but the client side, the bit you install on the test machine, *should* be capable of supporting any previous version of windows 10. This is what the docs say, this is what I was told on the driver forum group. But when I tried it...
'get stuffed, your not having that'
My gripe is that there are more versions to get your head around. Have you seen the help on the net to do various things? Each version has its own GUI, its own way of doing it. It is getting silly. In five years we will have 20 versions of windows 10!
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: This is what the docs say, this is what I was told on the driver forum group. But when I tried it...
'get stuffed, your not having that'
So then that's a bug (it's supposed to work) and somebody needs to fix it.
I think sticking to the lowest common denominator (the oldest version of Windows 10 still supported) is viable for now, unless you're really on the cutting edge and using things that only exist on the later builds. I'm not seeing any compelling feature that I must integrate with my apps.
That brings it down to a single OS target, despite the build sprawl. I treat all those builds as one and the same, and so far it's been working out just fine for me. Obviously YMMV.
|
|
|
|
|
If it works for you, OK.
Another annoyance is the subtle changes in the GUI, such that to do something, you have to know five ways of doing it , and the help on the net is starting to get very bloated.
|
|
|
|
|
On the bright side...these sorts of subtle changes are generally for the better. And they're not the sorts of things that affect most developers, in terms of coding.
|
|
|
|
|
If they had labeled it OSwX, they probably could have gotten away with it with far less critical comments whenever there was an OSwX update.
|
|
|
|
|
Pig at a monarch's assembly appears deceptive (14)
modified 12-Mar-19 5:51am.
|
|
|
|
|
PHANTASMAGORIC
Never heard of this word but the clue was quite easy. 
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
I completely missed that it was an anagram!
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe because it was deceptive.
|
|
|
|
|
Tut tut... you of all people should know an anagram clue when you see them, I believe you use them more than most.
Then again you set more clues than most, so might just be a numbers game.
|
|
|
|
|
Correct - over to you for tomorrow!
I hadn't heard the word either but I was searching for inspiration and it looked worthy.
I guess it's the length of the word that makes them easier?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does this mean we can't trust it any more? : :
|
|
|
|
|
sure you can trust it,
just getting too old to get a job.
|
|
|
|
|
You haven't been able to trust it since the early 80s.
...and yes, I know.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
