4 CPU's - That's a lot!
The Linux kernel can handle 4096 CPU's and is much better for workstation use all round.
Microsoft is reviving Windows Workstations with a new cut of Windows titled “Windows 10 Pro for Workstations”. The last time your vultures heard "Windows for Workstations" was the 1990s when Redmond used that moniker to market flavors of 16-bit Windows 3 with networking stacks. Then along came the 32-bit NT Workstation …
Windows kernel can handle a lot more too. And I'm sure you realize it is 4 socket not 4 cpu.
Though hard for me to imagine if you needed ao many sockets and TBs of memory just get the server version of the OS. The cost of the software will be a rounding error on such a system anyway.
Just checked redhat workstation and it seems to top out at 2 sockets. That would be perhaps the closest comparable product in the linux world.
(Linux user on server+desktop+laptop mostly debian since 1996)
That might be an artificial limit to the 'as supplied' Kernel.
Don't forget that you have full access to the Kernel sources (and is a simple yum install away) and there is nothing to stop you building a custom kernel. :) :) :)
I'm waiting (not!) for MS to implement a per core subscription fee for Windows 10. HT would naturally be counted as a full core by the beancounters. I'm sure it is there somewhere in their plans.
> Don't forget that you have full access to the Kernel sources (and is a simple yum install away) and there is nothing to stop you building a custom kernel. :) :) :)
Nothing, except the fact that RH won't support you if it breaks.
if you're in a RH environment you're there for the support. _EVERYTHING_ on a redhat system is RH customsed, including the version numbers, which bear almost no relationship to what XYZ package version might have backported to it from XYN+nn
> it is 4 socket not 4 cpu.
Yes very interesting, just thinking about those new Xeon E7's especially the one with 24 cores and threading, giving as far as old versions of Windows are concerned 48 cpu's per physical socket.
However, I suspect just as with XP x64, most workstations will be 2 socket Xeon configurations.
>... just get the server version of the OS.
I think this version is simply reproducing what MS did for XP x64: take the Standard edition of Server - hence the 4 cpu/socket limit and strip out the server functions and add in some of the desktop tools and accessories not normally shipped with the server version.
"In say trading environments Excel often needs to do significant number and data crunching..."
The moment you try to do that with Excel, you're using the wrong tool.
That doesn't stop people doing it, but i've seen large enterprises using Excel for their accounting system and not noticing $50million discrepencies as a result.
Excuse for not using a proper accounting system? "It costs too much and our developers have been working on this for years"
"The Linux kernel"
Meanwhile on boxes we can actually buy, the current version of Windows does tend to scale better than Linux for many common uses:
https://cloudbase.it/openstack-newton-benchmarking-part-5/
www.rootusers.com/linux-vs-windows-web-server-benchmarks/
That's the real question here. A workstation that hangs up and/or reboots for updates regularly is useless. So they can't expect many sales if they keep the mandatory update schedule.
But on the other hand, if the mandatory updates are lifted, then people and businesses may start to use this version for everything... depending on the price.
A workstation computer that hangs up and/or reboots for updates regularly is useless.
FTFY
P.S. I am a bit ornery today, sind the blessed W10 decided to install a totally unwanted "feature update" on my work laptop yesterday night, and haven't managed to finish so far. God knows when it will, and how much damage will it do by the time it's done.
Well, I have dev system, Windows 10 that starts once a week to do stuff (builds some crap) ... sadly, every now and then, it would fail because it installed updates and then simply rebooted ... solution ? Start it the day before and leave it running overnight ... I know, should have asked for server for this ... I had asked for Windows 7 and they gave me 10 ....
On an admittedly older laptop connectivity grinds to a halt when Windows 10 decides to update. That's why the first thing l ended up checking for updates as so as I boot up.
Still doesn't get rid of the problem of frequent connectivity slowdowns which can only be resolved by a reboot
Not all of us are obviously as adept as 'fixing' Windows 10 (or using WSUS...) as you are.
Why not help us instead of appearing be a knowit all. How did you get your systems to NOT update like the rest of us are experiencing on a regular basis. I'm sure you would get more upvotes than downvotes it you did...
All you needed to appear a bit less of a 'smug git' with your post was to add
YMMV
to your post.
Windows 10 updates about once per month, so for my work PC, that's about one day out of twenty workdays. Mine's a fairly low/middle spec (i5-4440, 12GB RAM, SSD etc) and it seems to add about 20s onto the boot time (dunno about shutdown, I'm on my way out the door by then).
An extra twenty seconds per month, is less than I spend making tea per day.
Am I just being very forgiving, or does everyone else have much worse problems?
I don't even notice Win 10 updates happening, I assume they do since it claims to be up to date when I check.
But Visual Studio on the other hand takes forever. I don't know how an application update can run for hours. I do multi-GB updates to Unity and Unreal that are done in 5 minutes, including the download.
I don't know how an application update can run for hours...
The application update takes around 15 minutes - 5 minutes to download, 10 minutes to get through decade-old hoary hacked up NTFS code; the rest of the time is spent by Windows sweeping through every attached disk uploading all files it finds to Microsoft servers (aka 'telemetry'). This is for your own good. It improves your experience. You can always watch the targeted ads in Explorer whilst you wait.
"we have far, far more issues on our site updating the 70 or so Red Hat boxes compared to the 230 Windows boxes."
Yes linux requires administrators who can do more than just click buttons but since you bought redhat perhaps they can talk your "admin" through it.
"Yes linux requires administrators who can do more than just click buttons"
RHEL has siginificant remote management and centralised update facilities. if it's taking that long to do things then someone's either not paying attention or is deliberatly making it hard.
"i5-4440, 12GB RAM, SSD etc"
Just what sort of business sector do you work in if you think that's a low/mid-spec PC???
Since having W10 foisted on us at work here, there have been several instances where I've switched my PC on in the morning, and half an hour later it's still not finished chuntering through whatever the hell it's decided to update this time...
And random reboots, oh yes, those too. Despite having my active hours set such that Windows shouldn't be doing anything during the times when I'm in the office, I recently left the PC running a data capture session while I popped out to grab some lunch. Half an hour later I got back to the office to find the bloody thing had done an update & reboot about 5 minutes after I walked out the door. There were a few barely concealed expletives hurled in the direction of the W10 development team at that point.
At work, we were in a meeting on Skype business with people presenting and all the windows 10 machines started rebooting one by one with people getting kicked out of the meeting. There was no warning other that "Windows is rebooting now" and no choice. The Windows 7 users were spared. It took about two hours before all the machines were done "finishing updates".
Updates - Home, Pro, Enterprise whatever - ought to be done when the user is idle, and also should complete whatever "finishing updates" step it needs to do as well. The worst bit on my Windows 10 Pro machine at home is to come back to my machine looking to do something quickly, only to find the unwelcome "finishing updates" screen. No update is so critical that it can take Microsoft a month to develop but requires immediate deployment no matter what.
Also Windows 10 is releasing stuff half done and well before their prime, meaning it has to update more frequently as updates are fixing bugs while introducing new ones at the same time. This is very visible to end users. This is being sold off as a "feature" of Windows 10. The comment earlier about Home users refusing updates shows this is not well received.
My Macbook Pro in three years in comparison has done it's best to restore things post update, and is intelligent enough to not do this while I typically work on it, and certainly "finishes" it without being an intrusion. I never come back to the machine telling me "f*** you user, I'm doing shit"
What other tools you use in life getting away with this kind of "Finishing can't use me now" shit when you reach out to use them..
"At work, we were in a meeting on Skype business with people presenting and all the windows 10 machines started rebooting one by one with people getting kicked out of the meeting. "
In an enterprise / work situation that's fully controllable. Blame your IT team.
So start with a BS implementation, and give enterprise knobs to make it less shit, is what we can look forward to from Windows 10?
That's like someone leaving a pile of shit on your front door, with a free toilet paper roll.... Hey you didnt use the paper, so don't blame the poo for stinking!
The point is not to reboot when the user is active to begin with.. A good enterprise product shouldn't need IT teams to have to use the free toilet roll....
"An extra twenty seconds per month, is less than I spend making tea per day.The Gitling gave his mother a Le Novo X1 Carbon Wednesday and a few hours ago I started setting it up for her. Decided to stick with w10 Pro since the only spare w7 licence is 32 bit Home. The Gitling had already installed Classic Shell so installed Office 2010. W10 decided to update itself immediately the Office install finished and the machine hanged. Restarting, it took ~10 minutes, rather more than 20 seconds to finish the update.Am I just being very forgiving, or does everyone else have much worse problems?"
Seems like a nice machine. If it was mine it would definitely be freshly Minted.
"Why not help us instead of appearing be a knowit all. How did you get your systems to NOT update like the rest of us are experiencing"
Goto Settings > Update & Security > Windows Update > Change Active Hours
And set say 7:00am-1:00am
And then W10 wont ever install updates during that period...
>What about auto-updates?
Windows update is the biggest pile of shit out there. I have dual boot with Linux and I'm sick to death of every time I switch to Windows is a bloody circle going round saying getting ready with updates then when I shut down yet again it's bloody well doing something with updates. FFS Microsoft can't you look how Linux does it without all the tedious boot and shutdown delays, It's like having to drive on the road at 4mph with a bloke stood in front of you carrying a red flag.
Trying to restart a nuclear rector after Xenon poisoning is faster.
"Isn't that a vicarious experience?"Friend who was an English teacher at a secondary school reported having a very bad day with a very bored and listless class. "Haven't any of you had a vicarious experience with a novel?" he asked. Girl at the back said: "No. But I once had a very novel experience with the vicar!"
The Home versions of Windows 10 handle updates completely different to the Professional versions. The home versions force updates on users, which I believe is the correct approach (everyone I know who runs Windows but isn't an IT professional never lets their PCs update if given the choice).
The scenario you describe should not occur in a business.
The Home versions of Windows 10 handle updates completely different to the Professional versions. The home versions force updates on users, ... everyone I know who runs Windows but isn't an IT professional never lets their PCs update if given the choice
So does the Pro. The only concession it makes is that it allows you not to join the involuntary beta-testing program by "deferring" the "feature upgrades". By "up to a several months". Boo-hoo.
You still can't selectively block the updates. You still are forced to reboot and reboot and reboot - at the times you can only partially influence. It will still ignore many choices made through GPE. It will still keep disabling software it considers incompatible. It will still keep reinstalling stuff from the windows store you have explicitly removed. And sooner or later, it will still force those "feature updates" on you - even if you do not want or need any new stinking features, as your computer is already doing what you want the way you want it.
As far as people resisting Windows updates - ask yourself: why is that? Perhaps these people were burned by an update gone awry before, and are now more afraid of the O/S vendor than of viruses and ransomware. That's not a pretty thought, is it?
As far as people resisting Windows updates - ask yourself: why is that? Perhaps these people were burned by an update gone awry before, and are now more afraid of the O/S vendor than of viruses and ransomware. That's not a pretty thought, is it?
How do I upvote something multiple times? When my Mac or my Linuxes boxes have updates, I never hesitate. Windows updates scare the crap out of me. We had an entire set of Lenovo "Made for Windows 10" laptops go belly up when Microsoft release their stupid Anniversary Update. All the users lost at least half a day trying to recover their machines, which for most of them involved rolling back the update. One user's laptop needed to be reimaged completely. Thanks to that little episode, I have outright banned Windows 10 at our workplace. I am going out of my way to find non-Win10 boxes and will continue to do so until I have no other choice. At which point I'm going to start calling Microsoft support frequently and demanding free support.
*I* am the sysadmin here. *I* am responsible for these machines, that means *I demand* control of them. If Microsoft wants to control my computers, then they damn well have to take responsibility for them too. They don't get to have their cake and eat it too.
At this point I use Windows 10 for exactly one purpose: To run a gaming laptop, because that's all Windows 10 is good for. Any time I need to do real work, I switch to a Mac or Linux box.
"The Home versions of Windows 10 handle updates completely different to the Professional versions."
Funny, I read that as:
'The Home Office' versions of Windows 10 handle updates completely different to the Professional versions. (I'm sure there is some truth in this too).
I think Amber Rudd's clueless vision of an lovely happy Authoritarian State is starting to get to me.
"Welcome to Britains' Open Prison,
Best Amber"
I want to know 1) how telemetry controls work in this version, 2) can I pick and choose updates and when they are applied, 3) does it have Linux Subsystem, 4) can I disable Cortana and all Store Apps (per user), 5) does it have any stupid limitations compared to Pro version, 6) what's the price for an upgrade from Pro, 7) is free trial available. Will consider buying if (and only if) I like the answers.
My take:
1) As in the Enterprise, given what workstation are usually used for.
2) See 1). If you're in a domain with WSUS, you can control updates anyway,
3) Yes, but if you need to run heavy Linux workloads IMHO that's not for you.
4) See 1)
5) It will be positioned above the Pro, given the target users
6) Ask MS
7) Do you have a four socket workstation with a lot of RAM to try it? Otherwise, the Pro/Ent won't be much different, but the ReFS file system. Don't know if it will come with MSDN as well, probably so.
>Why are there so many different versions of Windows 10?
"I believe any device connected to the internet should forcibly update itself."
As a default setting, absolutely. As a forced setting, not so much.
Sometimes it's not such a good idea: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/11/lockstate_bricks_smart_locks_with_dumb_firmware_upgrade
I have laptops here at home with both Pro and Enterprise on.
I allow them to get updates automatically, 'cos they're connected to the web (yes, not directly but still).
Honestly, I don't recognise this reboot, update, reboot, update...cycle.
Once a month I get a bunch of updates. My machines either reboot at 3am give or take or I can do it manually. Yeah if there's been a bunch of updates, it can be a bit of a PITA waiting for the whole boot cycle to finish but it does it once and then on wtih working.
Some updates - defender, for example, don't need reboots at all.
Just updated a Debian desktop I have in a VM and a Kali install on another laptop and both required reboots - granted they were much faster, but they still needed reboots.
Honestly a reboot once a month that takes a bit longer is hardly a royal PITA to most people.
And frankly, given the shite I've had to dig neighbours out of in the past because they'd either turned off updates or had a hooky copy of say XP that didn't get them, I'd say any home system shouldn't have the option to defer or turn off updates.
"The moniker “Windows for Workstations” was used for the cut of Windows NT 3.5.1 and 4.0 intended for use as desktops for the power-hungry, as opposed to the version of Windows NT intended to power servers. Windows for Workstations was rather more reliable than either Windows 3.x or Windows 95,"
This is nonsense.
There were versions of Windows 3.1 and Windows 3.11 that had networking included, optionally TCP/IP as well as Novell, not just NetBEUI that were marked as "Windows For Workstations". It was intended for peer to peer, or as a client on Novell, MS Lanmanager based servers (IBM or MS OS/2) or as a client to an NT based server.
There was a Workstation version of NT3.5, NT3.51 and NT4.0 called "Workstation" which simply had the client connections to its server features limited to 10 and some changes to easily visible default settings. NT3.1 only had one version.
The NT4.0 moved GDI to Kernel and had a CHOICE of Program Manager or the Win95 style Explorer Shell. You could still run the earlier standalone File Manager, which unlike Explorer could have dual windows.
This was continued with NT 5.0, better known as Windows 2000, with again essentially the "Workstation" and "Server" versions differing in number of Client connections.
NT5.1 was a Workstation only version, called XP
NT5.2 was a Server only version called Windows 2003 Server.
There was never ever an NT marketed as "Windows For Workstations", but there were "Server" and "Workstation" versions (difference was price and artificial limit to number of client connection when the "Workstation" was used as a Server.
The NT 4.0 Enterprise Server allowed clustering and use of PAE to access more than 4G RAM, as did Windows 2000 Advanced Server.
"Windows For Workstations" was only ever the 16 bit Windows 3.x that loaded from DOS.
From after XP, in 2003, the server versions of NT were differentiated by being called Server <year>
2003
2008
2011
2012
2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Releases
I remember NT 4 as being very reliable and so fast and snappy. It was lovely. A weird student version of some dinosaur CAD software required it.
Alas, I still needed to have 98 installed, for NTL internet, USB support, and a couple of other things. I also bought a copy of John Romero's Daiktana because it supported OpenGL and thus NT 4... hmm, not a wise move in my part.
I had Macs and WinNT4 machines at that time. Win95/8/ME was banished to the Outer Darkness. NT4 on a good Pentium or Pentium II CPU (up to 450 glorious MHz! The speed, the incredible unbelievable speed!) was very nice, almost as nice as OS 8.x or OS 9 on a up to 300 MHz (still more glorious speed!) PowerPC G3.
I still have an old beige G3 desktop. 266 MHz. 768 MB RAM (yes, Apple said that it topped out at 192. Apple was wrong). The extra VRAM for the video card. The internal IDE 6GB (no, that's not a typo, that's six whole gigabytes, who could ever use up that much storage?) hard drive replaced by 20 GB UltraSCSI drive. The internal Zip drive ripped out and used for its finest purpose, a paperweight. A PCI card with USB 2 and FireWire 400 ports. And a floppy drive which STILL WORKS. My old WinNT4 machines are all dead, dead, dead now... If I want to do something like play old games (Harpoon! There is no finer game ever created! The Red Banner Northern Fleet rules the Atlantic! Soiuz nerushimyj respublik svobodnykh!) I either have to boot up my Win98 (ick) VM or boot the beige G3.
"I remember NT 4 as being very reliable and so fast and snappy. It was lovely....It was indeed. Well and truly cured my MacEnvy at the time. Journalling file system, virtual memory...Alas, I still needed to have 98 installed, for NTL internet, USB support,"
I recall having an external cartridge hdd back in the day and that had a scsi to USB converter. The scsi card in my PC was incompatible. Maybe the manufacturer provided a driver; I can't recall. I do remember my colleague back in those days fixing some Dell machines that ran NT4 and had USB support.
"10 locks up a few times a day, something to do with NTDLL.DLL"
If by lock up, you mean Explorer hangs or crashes there are 2 likely causes I know of:. 1) You have a network drive mapped with a path length of over 260 characters, if so unmap it, or 2) you have previously had one mapped.
If it might be 2, try this: File Explorer > View > Options > Change Folder and search options > Privacy >Clear File Explorer History
Also check your graphics driver is up to date. Especially if it's from Nvidia...
"But the 7 PCs just keep working reliably."
The issue you have is not normal / common. In general W10 is more robust than W7...
Suggest trying the following in order
CHKDSK /F /R
(reboot)
SFC /scannow
DISM /online /cleanup-image /checkhealth
"Tried those no difference unfortunately."
Then you need to look at the crash dumps and see what was causing the problem. Most likely it's not Windows itself.
See https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/2082-install-configure-windbg-bsod-analysis.html
This latest update is hanging reliable software, so why down vote someone having genuine issues with Windows 10?
4 PCs we have seen have issue All latest update Windows 10.
I suppose downvoting someone with issues is easier than fixing it.
As before all OK XP to 8.1 and before we used some newer libraries was OK on 2000 and NT as well.
And yes we are looking at a rewrite to go platform neutral.
This post has been deleted by its author
So will Win X 4 Workstations still contain a few of MocroSoft's favorite things, or will they allow this version to work more like the Enterprise Edition? Really the only winning move is One to Linux, or BSD. But, since there are times you just have to use Windows there is thankfully still 7. But, in about Three more Years, even that won't be much of an option anymore.