Windows 1803

[Googly Smythe]

As most windows updates are security hole fixes, surely you're not saying that you don't want those, that you would rather lay yourself open to the ravages of the internet that are out there rather than risk letting Microsoft have its way with your machine?
Good luck with that, if you think that is the right answer.
You can pause updates for up to 35 days, and put off installing new features for up to a year. Without group policy. After that, unless you have shopped for a new machine, they happen. And they should be able to happen without laying waste to the efforts to make something work.
What I'm trying to point out, is that the exotic licensing schemes for the exotic softwares we are using needs to be better behaved, in light of the fact of the life we now have to live with what semi-annual overall updates for windows now does.

+1 for that last paragraph.

As to updates - I think it is possible to download them piecemeal from MS and install them manually.
A bit of a pain, to put it mildly, to have to do that, though.







Pause for an irrelevance:
When I was entering the word "mildly", the keypad suggested "milf" - just sayin'!

[CapnLockheed]

Which is exactly why I run Win7 on my main DAW and never let it near the net unless I need to update a program or plugin....and don't do that a whole lot either. I'm a firm believer in "if it aint broke....don't "fix" it."

Heck....I still run a legacy XP machine to keep some older apps and hardware running.

Too many people buy into the "I must have the latest and greatest" mentality and spend money they don't have and lose still more due to to down time.

[T-CM11]

As most windows updates are security hole fixes, surely you're not saying that you don't want those, that you would rather lay yourself open to the ravages of the internet that are out there rather than risk letting Microsoft have its way with your machine?

How about the ravages of fear and ignorance?
No updates will protect you from that sweet Nigerian prince.

[chk071]

The moral:
People who have no problems with updates don't know how lucky they are. Also, they shouldn't be so hard on those who do. Have problems, that is.

From my experience, people encountering issues mostly have problematic software like system cleaners, tune up utilities, anti-spy software or similar installed. Apart from a couple of minor issues, i didn't really have problems with each of the big updates, on 3 different computers.
...

I know what you mean, but...
I have had not a single problem with iLok or e-Licenser, unlike some here. I had a problem, once, with Waves, just before the Waves Central thing, but it sorted itself out (never found the reason)(it would ask for the location of the Waves vst (?!)).
We all can only speak of own experiences.
Some guys have all the luck.

Yeah, but... why would it be different for the iLok or eLicenser issues. If a company had 50% customers which have issues with their copy protection, it would be a deep cut into their business, hence they wouldn't go on using it.

I can only repeat myself. In the vast majority of cases, it is user error. Whether that be due to inexperience, additional software you install, maybe even software you uninstall, like some of the system applications Windows 10 ships with. I'm frequenting some Windows 10 support forums, and you'd be horrified what some people do. In most cases, they blame Windows, but, when you take a look at their setup, it becomes pretty apparent what is really the issue.

The typical reply from a Mac person would be: "All that is not a problem on Mac OS". Well, surprise surprise, Mac users don't nearly install as much stuff on their system as Windows users. 2 people i know have about 2 or 3 third party applications installed on their Macs, the rest is pre-installed Apple software. You will have a hard time getting your Mac to act unstable that way. If every Windows user would act that way, it'd be a completely bullet proof system as well.

[PAK]

But maybe I am just lucky. Yes, these major updates may cause some headaches, but so are the new Mac OS versions (these are actually much worse).

Historically true. But I disagree in recent years, especially in comparison to Windows 10. Indeed, I moved to Mac OS as a result of it NOT being true (IMO) right now!

This isn't because of anything amazing Apple did. In fact, if they touch stuff lately there's a chance they break it. Nope. Apple's preoccupation, with iOS, means they've ignored their desktop OS. The bonus side-effect, of this abandonment, has been relative stability - since they haven't changed much! Conversely, Microsoft, with their Android / iOS envy, has decided they must move to a "cloud focus" and twice yearly release cycles (for a desktop OS!), with fun forced OS upgrades and frequent changes "under the hood".

In the last 3 years I've had much less annoyances with Mac OS than Windows 10 running on the same PC hardware and (mostly) same software, so I'm literally comparing Apples with Apples to reach this conclusion. If anything Mac OS should be at the theoretical disadvantage booted from Clover with a hodgepodge of third party drivers and kludge fixes. Overall the Mac side has been more stable, is more straight forward (Apple don't expect sheep to stray from their path, so let you get on with it, where Microsoft actively try to prevent users doing terrible things like turning off telemetry etc), and things like USB work better for me on the Mac OS side - even seeing less jitter on MIDI.

I would still say take the Linux route if you can, and ask devs to support it! But I'd tell anyone, unhappy with Windows 10, to certainly consider the Mac route if you can deal with the pricing (or Hackintosh, if you can deal with the configuration), because my own experience has been that it's currently a better platform, for audio, than Windows 10. At least if you're using RME

That said, the relative period of calm ends next year. 32 bit will be dropped and there will be a "period of transition", likely lasting far into the next decade, as Apple move to ARM. Low end laptops will likely move first, with a hybrid solution used for expensive "Pro" devices until their own ARM solutions can take over. Hackintosh users will likely be locked out at some point if ARM secure boot (included on the ARM T2 of newer Apple machines) is required. So hopefully Apple's 2018 2019 "desktop solution" will be a good one. Wouldn't want people going in that direction without their eyes open..

[fmr]

That said, the relative period of calm ends next year. 32 bit will be dropped and there will be a "period of transition", likely lasting far into the next decade, as Apple move to ARM. Low end laptops will likely move first, with a hybrid solution used for expensive "Pro" devices until their own ARM solutions can take over. Hackintosh users will likely be locked out at some point if ARM secure boot (included on the ARM T2 of newer Apple machines) is required. So hopefully Apple's 2018 2019 "desktop solution" will be a good one. Wouldn't want people going in that direction without their eyes open..

Well, if you changed from Sierra to High Sierra, you probably experienced some weird problems, just because Apple decided to change the way the OS orders items.

Also, people using SSDs may have experienced some problems too, due to format changes.

Anyway, I sincerely doubt that Apple would ever go 100% through the ARM path, unless they want to completely drop the professional market. ARM processors simply don't have the muscle, and it's not likely they ever will. But I may me wrong though. They may have discovered some secreat weapon we have not seen yet

[PAK]

The typical reply from a Mac person would be: "All that is not a problem on Mac OS". Well, surprise surprise, Mac users don't nearly install as much stuff on their system as Windows users. 2 people i know have about 2 or 3 third party applications installed on their Macs, the rest is pre-installed Apple software. You will have a hard time getting your Mac to act unstable that way. If every Windows user would act that way, it'd be a completely bullet proof system as well.

No, that's incorrect. The term "bit rot" is sometimes used to describe how a computer's performance can degrade over time, and it exists on many operating systems. However you're dead wrong in your assumption that others (including Mac OS) are impacted to the same degree as Windows. They're not.

The main reasons can be traced back to decisions Microsoft made long ago (early 1990's), related to shared system resources (which created the term "dll hell") and a single database point of failure, (aka "the registry").

Windows installers increase issues because of the amount of optional shared components they bundle, combined with a lack of version control, which means installers may update one resource but not another. So you end up with lots of mixtures of different file versions - some of which are interdependent on each other, but not tested against each other. That also leads to less stability in applications.

The registry then tends to exacerbate the issues for many reasons (one installer changes registry settings, another changes it back, new registry entries are created after install which won't be removed with an uninstall, one app might delete a key something else uses, or corrupt an entry etc etc). Fixing things also becomes harder as the size bloats up and entries become ever more cryptic.

Contrast MacOS - This "bit rot" does exist, and you can get one thing stepping on something else and causing issues. But to say it's not on the same level is a big understatement. For a start, often an app doesn't even have an installer! The reason is .app files are actually folders, and installation is usually a case of dragging it into the applications directory. Done. Where it does include an installer, much of the time all it's doing is copying the file over to applications and maybe setting some permissions.

Mac applications tend to be more self-contained within their own "app file" directory as a result, with less crapping over other system resources, and less reliance on resources outside of anything the .app file and OS already provides. Where they do require additional things it's more common for a readme to direct you to download it rather than bundle little bits of various components into the installer.

Apps often lack uninstallers too. It's expected you simply drag the app file to the trash. Where an uninstall is provided it's usually just deleting the app file! This can (and does) leave behind other junk files - usually XML configs and such, which is annoying - Though it's usually always in the same few directories, and a case of searching for the apps name and deleting the left overs.

Many Mac users don't bother with this (they'd need a file search app which can properly search system folders) because the extra config files left behind rarely interact with anything else. If they do, it's often just a case of deleting problem files, and allowing fresh ones to be generated by themselves. Some Windows users will complain about these junk files, as they are used to an uninstaller. What they forget is, on Windows, the junk left overs are frequently left out of sight in the registry instead, where you don't even know they're there and they eventually bloat up to many megabytes of dead, useless, and corrupt entries, impacting the whole system in ways you describe.

So, overall, in terms of impacting system performance, the Mac just doesn't have these issues to the same degree. There's annoyances to be sure, and it's always possible for any installer to junk up any system. But, no, installing the same amount of apps doesn't have the same performance impact, over time, on Mac OS. Honest

[whyterabbyt]

So, overall, in terms of impacting system performance, the Mac just doesn't have these issues to the same degree. There's annoyances to be sure, and it's always possible for any installer to junk up any system. But, no, installing the same amount of apps doesn't have the same performance impact, over time, on Mac OS.

evidence?

[PAK]

evidence?

Evidence that Mac OS doesn't have the registry, and isn't as reliant on installers? Thus creating less opportunities for things to crap on other things due to the installation process? Evidence that it sticks more to its own app file, rather than sprawl resources in multiple locations and then use registry pointers etc? Evidence that less "additional libraries", which expect to be installed into a common shared area like System32, rather than be contained in the application folder, are required by installers?

Your "evidence" would depend on what YOU install. As such, you would need to look for evidence specific to your situation. I'd suggest you use installation monitoring software, so you can look at the before and after install results, the amount of files, locations, pointers (registry etc), and what is left over after an uninstall process, including the registry, and any optional components it may have installed.. then compare to a Mac OS install of the same software.

I'd say it is highly likely, because of the way things are done on Mac OS, less will generally be changed and, as such, it creates less opportunities for things to go wrong. It is also my personal experience that there's less issues over time on Mac OS in this area.

[whyterabbyt]

evidence?

Evidence that Mac OS doesn't have the registry, and isn't as reliant on installers?

No. Evidence of the thing I specifically quoted you saying.

So, overall, in terms of impacting system performance, the Mac just doesn't have these issues to the same degree. There's annoyances to be sure, and it's always possible for any installer to junk up any system. But, no, installing the same amount of apps doesn't have the same performance impact, over time, on Mac OS.

You claimed an effect on the basis of a cause. I'm looking for evidence of the effect you claim, not the cause you ascribe it to.

[PAK]

Well, if you changed from Sierra to High Sierra, you probably experienced some wird thigs, just because Apple decided to change the way the OS orders items.

I never (ever) upgrade from one version of Mac OS to the next. Always clean install. It's also wise to hang back a while - particularly on "unsupported" configurations (for example, Nvidia's drivers weren't functioning as well as they might until 10.13.4), and there was indeed an additional config patch I had to add, specific to storage changes, on High Sierra.

I'll take that over being able to upgrade (or not) at my leisure, since at least Apple don't force the next OS on you (though they nag you to on iOS.. ).

Also, people using SSDs may have experienced some problems too.

No issues here. One irony is early builds of Windows 10 would eventually corrupt themselves on my Samsung SSD's (I don't use the newest builds enough to say if it still does it.. ) where the same hardware works without issue on Win7 and Mac OS. I went ahead and went with APFS and it's been working ok so far.. (Also another move towards making the desktop OS compatible with iOS ) Main downer has been that it seems the changes mean Hypersonic 2 can no longer see the config file to direct it to the content folder. It still works, just has to be pointed every time it launches now..

Anyway, I sincerely doubt that Apple would ever go 100% through the ARM path, unless they want to completely drop the professional market. ARM processor simply don't have the muscle, and it's not likely they ever will. But I may me wrong though.

Apple are going a route which tries to avoid an either / or situation.. testing simpler iOS apps in Mojave, and then allowing the iOS apps to be compiled to run on Intel hardware in the next OS after that.. So you will be able to run such apps on Intel without ARM emulation.

This creates a situation where developers (of which there are way more on iOS) stop thinking about one or the other. They'll write apps that run on both, which means it doesn't matter (so much) which CPU you use as long as it meets your needs.

Now consider the limited processing "power" of something like the Macbook and Air. Now add that Adobe has ported full Photoshop (not a cut down version) to iOS. Are they really doing that just to get iPad users, or have they been tipped off that some laptops will move to ARM, since the whole "less demanding laptop users should buy an iPad Pro" thing likely didn't quite pan out the way Apple wanted?

In terms of people like video (and audio) users, you're right that ARM is not going to cut it for a long time yet. So I don't see them dropping Intel/AMD, even medium term, for those products. That's why they're going a route which essentially avoids it.. and your choice will be based on processing needs since their apps will run on both iOS, ARM laptops, and Intel desktop / laptops.. AND avoids the emulation layer Microsoft are going to have to use for x86 on ARM, in order to run regular Windows apps.

The reason I'm so sure this is going to happen is because they want control of the entire supply chain. Right now they're at the mercy of Intel, and Intel have big problems with stalled size reduction etc (to the point they found "excuses" to ditch their CEO), and they can only throw more cores at things for so long.

Also, the new laptop and iMac are already offloading more functions onto an Arm T2, so they already have hybrid ARM/Intel machines. So all this isn't theoretical.. it's already happening. No doubt some T3 will be along in a year or two, which will take over even more functions..

But, for end users, it'll be fairly transparent. The main difference is they'll probably make the pro users pay through the nose for Intel versions (thus getting anyone with less needs, eg photographers, to move to the ARM versions), which they kinda already do anyway.. (I hope wish they'd switch to Threadripper for the desktop solution, rather than make people pay $$$ for Intel chips which support ECC).

[Jafo]

Create a file -- not a directory, a file -- named Windows10Upgrade in the root of your system directory (normally c:\). It has to be named exactly that, with no extension; if it has an extension, it won't work. Make it read-only. Watch as Windows gets as confused and complains that it can't create a file that already exists, then close the error box and carry on. Optionally, wonder why you're running Windows, then remember that games exist... maybe that's just me.

[Jafo]

Create a file -- not a directory, a file -- named Windows10Upgrade in the root of your system directory (normally c:\). It has to be named exactly that, with no extension; if it has an extension, it won't work. Make it read-only. Watch as Windows gets as confused and complains that it can't create a file that already exists, then close the error box and carry on. Optionally, wonder why you're running Windows, then remember that games exist... maybe that's just me.

[PAK]

No. Evidence of the thing I specifically quoted you saying.

Your reading comprehension appears selective, and of the overly literal variety. So let me point you to what I also wrote..

Your "evidence" would depend on what YOU install

When I wrote..

installing the same amount of apps doesn't have the same performance impact, over time, on Mac OS. Honest

I assume not only that people have the common sense to understand any experiences are based on that important variable, but also use the same common sense to understand I'm speaking from my own experience, which may not be reflected by theirs. The wink next to "honest" is a reflection of this understanding, with the expectation they may try for themselves and potentially see those results replicated due to the reasons outlined.

You claimed an effect on the basis of a cause. I'm looking for evidence of the effect you claim, not the cause you ascribe it to.

What I "claimed" can be summarized as thus: the less you change, the less opportunity you create for things to go wrong.

That's what I am claiming. Nothing more or less. Do you disagree with this?

If yes, then discussion over. If not, then we're discussing whether or not Windows installers change more things and (thus) create more chances for errors in comparison to Mac OS. Any "evidence" for this would have to be based around your own software usage, and I already provided a basic outline of how you could measure such changes. Maybe all you use on Windows are portable installs, which don't touch the registry, and do not require any additional third party libraries beyond those the default OS provides.

Does any of it necessarily lead to the 1000% inevitable conclusion that more installs, and more changes, make a system more unstable over time? No. If you read such implications in my remarks then, again, I'd suggest maybe taking casual internet forum posts a little less literal.

Still, if you look at the amount of people who claim such things on Windows (including the poster I responded to, who said Mac OS would "have the same issues") there's reasonable evidence beyond personal experience (at least for me, sorry if it doesn't rise to your own "personal" level) that there is a link between the number of applications installed and the likelihood of experiencing issues on Windows.

Once again: The less you change, the less opportunity you create for things to go wrong. That's all that's actually being stated.

[BertKoor]

Create a file -- not a directory, a file -- named Windows10Upgrade in the root of your system directory (normally c:\). It has to be named exactly that, with no extension; if it has an extension, it won't work. Make it read-only. Watch as Windows gets as confused and complains that it can't create a file that already exists, then close the error box and carry on. Optionally, wonder why you're running Windows, then remember that games exist... maybe that's just me.

Delete some font files you think are butt-ugly, then look & behold windows won't ever boot again.

Sabotage is always easy once you know the location of the achilles heal.