Microsoft Will Offer Extended Support For Windows 10 IF YOU PAY

[Kenrou]

Microsoft is now offering extended support options for Windows 10 PCs, for a price. When the end-of-support deadline rolls around in October 2025, you'll need to pay to keep receiving security updates for your Windows 10 PC. But Microsoft won't say how much those updates will cost.

Plan for Windows 10 EOS with Windows 11, Windows 365, and ESU

End of support for Windows 10 coming in less than two years. Here are your options.

techcommunity.microsoft.com

 

[EarthDog]

Haven't checked the vid, but... thats great, right? For those who want/need to hold onto the platform and want/need it supported.

 

[Kenrou]

I suppose, but to be fair, most people moved up to Win10 because they were forced to, and they stuck around because Win11 has been technically worse at least for gaming, so not sure if there's going to be much demand for it? Maybe on the industrial level?

 

[EarthDog]

I don't expect it to be a cash cow either.

We can't help the reasons why ('bad' for gaming? that's a new one for me) people are on 10... but at least there is support after EOL.

 

[Kenrou]

('bad' for gaming? that's a new one for me)

I clearly said that it has been technically worse than Win10, not sure where you got "bad for gaming" from, but that's the usual upgrade to a new OS trope (and let's not forget the e-cores debacle) Assuming M$ doesn't start focusing only on Win12/Win14/Win15 and keeps up with some level of optimizations it might actually become better, but that would also mean cutting down 50%+ of the telem... I mean, TOTALLY IMPORTANT BACKGROUND PROCESSES, and I stopped getting my hopes up a long time ago

 

[EarthDog]

Me neither, lol.... feels like hyperbole...LOL!

'Technically worse' sounds like nobody would know the difference unless they saw it in a benchmark. So, who cares (is my take).

Not jumping on the (deserved, lol) poo on Windows train though.

 

[Woomack]

All this "Win11 is worse" is somehow pushed by the current community. In most cases, it wasn't really proven, but people still complain. There were problems with Win11 just after release, but it's pretty much Win10 with additional stuff ... additional stuff which sometimes gives new features but usually is just annoying. It doesn't mean that Win11 is bad, and most updates are expected only for Win11, so no matter if we like it or not, we have to live with it. Soon will be Win12, and we will see a flood of complaints again.
For me, Vista and Win8 were simply bad. Everything else was like lesser evil and usually improvements.

I still don't get how they want to limit updates only to paying customers. Their Windows Update isn't so smart.

 

[Kenrou]

Again, no one said Win11 is bad, I said worse than Win10 for gaming, what am I dealing with here, fanboys Just because it has better scheduling doesn't mean the rest of the system doesn't drag it down. On that note, agreed, Vista was meh, Win8 was insanely buggy, but in my experience Win8.1 (even lacking dx12) still beats Win10 today, so there's a little fanboy here as well

 

[Woomack]

I didn't say directly that you said it's bad (even though you clearly aren't a Win11 fan ). I said, in general, that many people say it's bad Win10 has better storage performance in random operations, but besides that, I haven't seen anything else that is significantly faster. +/- 1% isn't really an advantage, but extreme overclockers use Win10 for that "advantage". I dislike how many services run in Win11. In Win10, it was ridiculous, but in Win11, it's just stupid.
Win10 in everything that I tested on modern hardware, was faster than Win7/8. Win 7 was faster than Win8/8.1, and it was used for competitive benchmarking until some tests were not available for Win7. Then, most overclockers moved to Win10 and still use it.
The main problem is that Win10 isn't so much different than Win11, but because of its age, the software is optimized almost only for Win11, and Microsoft is not investing in "old" products, so they force-skip all updates that aren't really required. It's quite normal that you want to make money on new products, not keep alive old stuff.

 

[EarthDog]

Windows 11 - "Technically Worse"

Not attacking/poking at you or that thought... just sounds funny!!

 

[Kenrou]

And that's the issue, bloat. It's a typical M$ pattern, every Windows so far has more bloat than the last one, hence why I don't "like it" until there's a few tried and tested tools to remove all the crap so we can see its real performance. So far, even debloated, Win11 hasn't impressed, but like I said earlier, that's normal for a "new" OS, it still has to mature assuming M$ doesn't lose track of it for the newer models.

BTW, I asked this before, what happened to the M$ line that "Windows 10 will be the last OS you will ever use"?

 

[EarthDog]

so we can see its real performance.

I would contend that its real performance is untouched/unmodified/out of the factory. 99.9% of users aren't stripping down W11 (any windows). That's one off type-stuff. Like, a modified car. What people do after the fact, I wouldn't consider 'native' performance, I guess. And even with the bloat, performance differences are negligible with many cases, W11 faster due to said scheduling (even in the face of the bloat).

Genuine question....how does the bloat affect you (users - anyone here, please answer) directly? I don't disagree there is bloat, note. It's there, but, it doesn't bother me... like, I can't think of how it gets in the way or hinders my work/use of the PC... at least enough to avoid an entire OS.

W11 has been out for over 2 years now... I wouldn't hold my breath for notable improvements.

BTW, I asked this before, what happened to the M$ line that "Windows 10 will be the last OS you will ever use"?

LOL, I must be desensitized to marketing speak after all these years! That line never set the hook on this fish.

 

[Kenrou]

I was always of the mind that advertising and unwanted telemetry will always be extras, therefore, not real performance meters, a good example of this would be adblocking in browsers. Personally, it irritates my OCD in that the system simply isn't responsive/snappy and/or using too many resources that could be put to good use for other things, debloating usually fixes that and more, and depending on how well it's done, it will usually give better FPS in gaming (granted not by a huge margin to my knowledge, but enough on the max and 1% to make it noticeable).

 

[EarthDog]

Advertising? Sheesh, I must really be under a rock/unconscious... what advertising are they doing in Windows (outside of O365, lol)?

it irritates my OCD in that the system simply isn't responsive/snappy and/or using too many resources that could be put to good use for other things,

So, butt-dyno-type stuff for the most part? The feels? At some point, will you link a review/vid (please review so I can page to the good parts, lol). I'm having trouble actually quantifying the difference in my feeble brain.

It's been generations since there was an actual 'need', and that was mostly due to lack of horsepower on the processors (no?). With today's systems and 'mangi' core/thread processors, it seems different from the XP/7 days when you only had 2c/4t, 4c/4t CPUs and backround stuff made a tangible difference.

 

[Woomack]

W11 has been out for over 2 years now... I wouldn't hold my breath for notable improvements.

Especially when Win12 is expected next year. Then MS will make the same as they did with Win10 - some features and updates will be available only for Win12 to force OS sales.

They promised no more new OS but one OS with updates for many years. It didn't last long.

 

[Kenrou]

Advertising? Sheesh, I must really be under a rock/unconscious... what advertising are they doing in Windows (outside of O365, lol)?

So, butt-dyno-type stuff for the most part? The feels? At some point, will you link a review/vid (please review so I can page to the good parts, lol). I'm having trouble actually quantifying the difference in my feeble brain.

It's been generations since there was an actual 'need', and that was mostly due to lack of horsepower on the processors (no?). With today's systems and 'mangi' core/thread processors, it seems different from the XP/7 days when you only had 2c/4t, 4c/4t CPUs and backround stuff made a tangible difference.

If you can't see it now there's no point in it, this is like gaming at 60fps Vs 144fps +, some people hardly notice the difference and don't see the point in going higher, some can't go back down to 60fps, which is my case. To me there's is an obvious gap that just annoys the hell out of me, a slowing down, a stuttering of sorts, and debloating windows properly mostly removes that gap. Another example was going from an iPhone to an android, iPhone (at least at the time) was remarkably more fluid even on a 60hz screen. Like everything else, it's a personal thing

 

[EarthDog]

.........if Windows debloat was actually like the move from 60Hz to 144Hz + .....................

...but I get your point, LOL!

Like everything else, it's a personal thing

There we go...


Anyhoo, I see this as a positive.... offering paid extended support for an EOL OS..... aren't they applying the business model to the consumer with it? Like there are XP POS (point of sale, not piece of ****, lol) boxes supported still (by contract/paid), right?


EDIT: Found some benchmarks from TPU (note this is from 2021, when W11 was a wee little jit). Am I reading this right W10 is slower (negligibly, that 1% +/- Woomack was saying) than W11 in the games tested here?

Windows 10 & Intel Core i9-12900K Alder Lake Performance Review - E-Cores Causing Any Trouble?

Intel made it clear that their 12th Gen Alder Lake Hybrid processor architecture works best with Windows 11. We wanted to see what happens when you run the new Core i9-12900K processor on Windows 10 and tested 37 applications and 10 games at 720p, 1080p, 1440p, and 4K.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Kenrou]

Tom's Hardware disagrees:

"Across our 14-game test suite, the overall performance difference between Windows 10 and Windows 11 at three resolutions was less than one percent. There was one instance where Win10 was 4% faster (RTX 3080 Ti in Far Cry 6), and Assassin's Creed Valhalla was consistently 3% faster, but a few minor anomalies are to be expected. Sometimes Windows 10 was a bit faster and sometimes Windows 11 came out ahead, but in practice there wasn't any significant change."

Windows 11 vs Windows 10 GPUs Tested: Which Games Faster?

A head-to-head with the fastest AMD and Nvidia GPUs.

www.tomshardware.com

So if statement's need changing it would be to it's the same ON AVERAGE instead of being slower or faster, with more games being faster on Win10 (at the time), which technically still made Win10 better for gaming that Win11, ofc depending on what reviews you check and what games they tested

 

[EarthDog]

Tom's Hardware disagrees:

Do they? Seems like the same conclusion to me..........

If you were looking for yet another reason to hate on Windows 11, this is obviously disappointing. For those who are more open-minded, though, this is good news. Windows 11 may not be any faster at games than Windows 10, but neither is it any slower.

Sometimes Windows 10 was a bit faster and sometimes Windows 11 came out ahead, but in practice there wasn't any significant change."

1% isn't squat/negligible and the same value TPU came up with (look at the chart).
(I'm not trying to be argumentative...really trying to get down to brass tacks )

So if statement's need changing it would be to it's the same ON AVERAGE instead of being slower or faster

There you go. After seeing TPU and Tom's reviews, can we say that it's 'technically worse' at gaming without trolling?

 

[Kenrou]

...with more games being faster on Win10 (at the time), which technically still made Win10 better for gaming that Win11, ofc depending on what reviews you check and what games they tested

You forgot this bit

Point is that you were complaining (or trying to understand my point of view) because I said Win11 is technically worse for gaming, and I'm saying it was, based on my experience and on what reviews you go by. Outlier results are still results and IMO should always be a part of the equation. Sum them all up and it's still a negative result. Add the e-cores debacle and it's still a negative result. Add the non-stop bugs not being fixed like installation boot loop failures and it's still a negative result. This is why I said on my 1st post that it still needs more time to mature (or needed before we got wind of new Windows versions)

Regardless, we are way off track, more than happy to continue arguing this on private if you want, but I found the original link more interesting than Win11 itself. Would rather have a revamp of Win8.1 with DX12 but beggars can't be choosers