Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alexandertnt]

I must be the only person on the planet that didn't have an issue with Vista...

[Elvang]

Followup to previous posts¹: It seems instead of losing power and cycling back on, the keyboard will simply stop responding now and I'll have to unplug/plugin to get it working again. The lights stay on, just doesn't react to anything. I either didn't notice before, or its started recently but my USB WiFi is doing the same thing. Continues to receive power but stops responding to anything until I unplug/plugin. Device manager shows its on a separate hub (keyboard, mouse, and WiFi are all plugged into the back), which I had also disabled the power saving on.

[BigD145]

There's usually at least one setting in the bios having to do with keyboards. Aside from that go buy a $5 keyboard and see if that fixes your problems.

[Thief^]

XP would top out that list if it was still being updated.

Actually I also recall 95 and 98 running better than Vista or 8 ever did.

It probably ran about the same on period hardware, but 95 and 98 also blue screened all the damn time.

Vista only had some issues with poor graphics drivers on release, but otherwise is actually about as good as 7. 7 is only version 6.1 (to Vista's 6.0) after all. But like XP was 5.1 to Win 2000's 5.0, Vista was 100% obsoleted by 7.

As for 8, it's screaming fast (especially in boot times) and much improved compared to 7. The only thing that killed it for people is the new start "screen". With an alternative start menu, I'd actually rate it above 7. The new apps are mildly annoying but mostly optional, the old equivalents from 7 are all still there.

Speaking of "alternative start menu", it should come as no surprise that I rank Windows 10 above 7. I do wish they'd get on with unifying the old and new apps though, it's a pain to have two of everything (especially settings!).

[Aklyon]

As for 8, it's screaming fast (especially in boot times) and much improved compared to 7. The only thing that killed it for people is the new start "screen". With an alternative start menu, I'd actually rate it above 7. The new apps are mildly annoying but mostly optional, the old equivalents from 7 are all still there.

Looks are important if you want to sell it to a lot of people. Changing a very (perhaps overly, now) popular piece of software to an entirely new look? Its either good (in which case you did amazingly) or people will hate it because its much too different to the one they had before, which was just fine (in which case either you fucked up or you're trying to change too much at once). And all you're getting with the new look (or with an alternate start menu you have to go and retrieve from the internet) is more boot speed, a completely useless store, and mostly optional apps that do things you could do before?
Thats not an amazing deal there Thief.

And they had the bloody settings unified. Everything of importance that I know of was in control panel, or administrative tools (which itself is in control panel)

And then they add a useless settings menu which has done nothing to support it being split off in my experience, and is actively worse in web browsers case (Oh, you want to switch primary web browsers because the user broke one of them and it would be simpler to install another one/import bookmarks and fix it later? And you want to use the button that has long existed for that purpose? Fuck that, do it in the settings menu we added!)

[Amperzand]

I have certainly noticed that the Win10 settings menu is a worthless pile of junk. Is there a more comprehensive menu easily available?

[CABL]

As i said in "Fuck you, Microsoft" thread, Borderlands 2 didn't run very well on Win8/Win10, while in Win7 it runs on max settings like charm. Main problem is that ASUS will not provide support for my notebook, if i, well, use Win7 (or any other OS) instead of Win8. It sucks. A lot.

[BigD145]

As for 8, it's screaming fast (especially in boot times) and much improved compared to 7. The only thing that killed it for people is the new start "screen". With an alternative start menu, I'd actually rate it above 7. The new apps are mildly annoying but mostly optional, the old equivalents from 7 are all still there.

Looks are important if you want to sell it to a lot of people. Changing a very (perhaps overly, now) popular piece of software to an entirely new look? Its either good (in which case you did amazingly) or people will hate it because its much too different to the one they had before, which was just fine (in which case either you fucked up or you're trying to change too much at once). And all you're getting with the new look (or with an alternate start menu you have to go and retrieve from the internet) is more boot speed, a completely useless store, and mostly optional apps that do things you could do before?
Thats not an amazing deal there Thief.

And they had the bloody settings unified. Everything of importance that I know of was in control panel, or administrative tools (which itself is in control panel)

And then they add a useless settings menu which has done nothing to support it being split off in my experience, and is actively worse in web browsers case (Oh, you want to switch primary web browsers because the user broke one of them and it would be simpler to install another one/import bookmarks and fix it later? And you want to use the button that has long existed for that purpose? Fuck that, do it in the settings menu we added!)

I broke the Calculator in Windows 10 on a work computer. Not sure how. It just never opened again from the start menu. Good job, MS. My advice? Keep it simple. Once you have signed software BS and/or DRM you can actually break your simplest and oldest in-house software that fits on a floppy disk.

[milo christiansen]

Does anyone know of a good alternative to windows backup?

Currently windows backup runs at random times during the day (you can set "once per day" but not when during the day you want it to run). This wouldn't be a huge deal, but backups go to my NAS... Which also holds all my projects, my non-volatile documents (such as music and ebooks), my humongous archive of almost everything I have ever downloaded, etc. All that stuff on different partitions of a massively redundant ZFS array. You can always tell when a backup is running, the drive activity lights on the NAS aren't flickering, but all reads take 5-10 minutes to succeed. Needless to say, all work grinds to a halt until the backup is done. Somehow windows backup hammers the NAS, without actually doing many reads or writes...

In related news: Why does it take 6 minutes and 30 seconds to delete a certain directory when I select it and press "shift+del", but only 2 seconds when I open cmd.exe and type "rmdir /q /s directory_to_delete"?

I hate Windows 10.

[wierd]

Win 10 has subsys for Linux, which can run rsync.

If the nas can do NFS instead of smb, rsync with proper flags is the way to go.  It can check if files changed or not before trying to overwrite, and does a better job IMO.

It is CLI based, but a script to call it should be schedulable from task scheduler.

[TheBiggerFish]

I have certainly noticed that the Win10 settings menu is a worthless pile of junk. Is there a more comprehensive menu easily available?

Control Panel still works.  There are even options in Settings that run into it.

[wierd]

Scratch the prior suggestion. Somebody made a Foss GUI wrapper for rsync for windows.

http://www.aboutmyip.com/AboutMyXApp/DeltaCopy.jsp

Has scheduler options and all that. No need to set up subsys for Linux and all that.

If you read the fine print, it says it can connect to Linux rsync daemons, meaning you don't have to run the "server" side. You can point it at your NAS after you enable rsync, then just run the client on the windows box.

[milo christiansen]

I don't really want to use rsync, but I suppose it is probably better than what I have now. I'll just configure the dedicated backup "partition" to be shared under NSF, and leave the stuff I use directly under samba.

Installing stuff on the NAS is out of the question (as it is a special BSD install that I really don't want to break), so that precludes most special backup system that claim to be "better"...

Scratch the prior suggestion. Somebody made a Foss GUI wrapper for rsync for windows.

http://www.aboutmyip.com/AboutMyXApp/DeltaCopy.jsp

Has scheduler options and all that. No need to set up subsys for Linux and all that.

If you read the fine print, it says it can connect to Linux rsync daemons, meaning you don't have to run the "server" side. You can point it at your NAS after you enable rsync, then just run the client on the windows box.

Nice find!

[wierd]

Check to see if rsync is already installed on the NAS.  If so, just configure it and turn it on. Given the purpose of a NAS, it may even have a web GUI option to turn it on.

If so, just point the deltacopy client at it, and go.

Out of curiosity, what NAS do you have?

[milo christiansen]

Well, it was a keyscan KSNAS 120 (the cheap one) I got total fed up with the default horrid web interface running on ubuntu (on what amounted to a minimum spec machine meant to run headless no less!), so I installed FreeNAS on it (despite the fact that it is under spec for FreeNAS, not enough memory). It works fine now that I have fixed all the loose SATA cables (never buy a NAS from keyscan!). The only issue is windows backup hammering it, always right when I am in the middle of working on something important... The worst part is that, network usage isn't high, CPU usage isn't high, memory is free, disks aren't working hard, there is no visible reason why NAS access should be so slow. Considering that it suddenly stops being a problem if you click "backup now" in the settings menu I think it's just windows brain damage.

I am quite sure rsync is installed, as FreeNAS is intended to be a drop-in-and-go NAS solution for any network, I certainly supports everything else you could ever want... Well, almost everything