You LTSC people are like flat-earthers: what started as a meme, become gospel over time, and you've deafened yourselves to reasoning. Versions prior to 1903 are fundamentally flawed - their memory manager, scheduler, security features. LTSC more flawed than LTSB. Microsoft cannot fully patch them because it would require all OEMs to recompile their drivers, or OS breaking for whole series of hardware which goes against the long time supporting contracts. Instead they have to do small adjustments here and there to keep the OS afloat. All versions prior to 20H2 (.487) have usability issues that will never be implemented as Microsoft advertise them as features of the latest build. Who should run LTSB/LTSC? Those with actual potatoes that can't run newer versions due to legacy drivers. Offline PCs. Set-it-and-forget-it POSes. Asylums. If you can run 20H2, then f**king run it. It takes 1% of the effort you put into getting LTSC, to disable updates / apps / store and whatever other mad reason that got you into the flat-windows sect.
Dozens of Windows assemblies and they are all a complete imperfection. In production we have an old car still with Windows Vista. Taiwanese and Japanese medical equipment works just well.
In Scotland, UK there are tens of thousands PCs still running Windows XP. I've seen couple hundreds of them It helps being cheap and not technology-inclined, to run hardware until it dies. Then when you loose all the data for a large county, you can blame it on the weather / london / immigration, and give lots of smiles, "splendid" and "wonderful". People complaining will be sympathetic and the cycle resumes..
I upgraded some car PCs at work to LTSC 2019. Those are literal potatoes with Pentium dual core CPUs, but they do their work just fine. Maybe 20H2 would run even better on them, I have to test that.
We here have 2 policies. -PCs which have to be validated. They run on a special network and they get LTSC. Changing the OS by upgrades would lead to re-validation procedures which means lots of extra efforts. Such machines are used to control expensive scientific devices and are producing sensitive scientific data. -PCs which are running enterprise. We recently have upgraded from 1803 to 1909. (We do never go for the very latest...) All the PCs are not older than 2 years. I do not encounter 'issues' on LTSC, but I don't have a direct comparison. At home I decided to run LTSC on a first gen I7. I did not go for recent enterprise since I do not want a rolling OS. (Besides of that an inplace upgrade to enterprise would be no hassle at all.) Considering that no w10 version is perfect (or even 'completed') there is no reason not to go for LTSC. Anyway a new PC should run a new OS. I agree...
Contradictory statement. Hopefully you don't use the same line of thinking when exercising your constitutional rights If no version is perfect, it's still makes the most sense to go for the one least imperfect. And 1903 is technically proven to have proper memory management, scheduler, security mitigations, unlike every version after 1607, while 20H2 improves upon that, and adds much needed usability fixes. Well, it might seem baffling but even if you have an old PC like pre Haswell refresh intel, you need to skip 1703-1809 versions due to memory bugs (for example the infamous standby memory bug that has been partially fixed in 1803, or large memory pages and other AWE bugs that can lead to ssd wear, data loss or getting hacked even on the latest 1809, LTSC on not). I'm making a formal request to add the flat-windows-society™ tag to all LTSC thread titles!
in the last Night i have drink , i testing OO SHTUP i think ok. I've tried everything, nothing worked LTSC komplette no ok, dism, NO Logs, no more. Backup < no Problems
Can we try to keep the topic clean of telemetry posts? Post it in one of the conspiracy.... ehh... telemetry threads or where else it belongs.
The statement would be contradictory if there would be a chronological process from less perfect to more perfect... "If no version is perfect, it's still makes the most sense to go for the one least imperfect." That's right, but which one is it? MSFT fixes bugs and introduces new bugs...all the time.... LTSC is for those who cannot run / have rolling updates for whatever reason. And until LTSC 2019 has no successor companies run LTSC 2019 on validated systems. The question is how do those bugs appear in practical usage and how aware admins get by that that they would have to think about an upgrade.... LTS(B)C has been hyped as an OS without 'bloat' store cortana etc and configurable by policies and privacy level 0....but the individual attribute is: It is no rolling OS.
They should just have two branch lanes: 1. Rolling (WaaS) - Consumer versions, Home Pro plus their N and SingleLanguage abominations. Business as usual. 2. LTS (non-rolling) - One consumer (Pro LTS) and the business/industry-orientated SKUs, like Enterprise, Education etc. Support as it was with Windows 7. The LTS infrastructure is already in place for Enterprise LTSC, just needs to be extended. Linux has both types of distros and everyone can just select the type (s)he prefers.
Im on Windows Server 2021 Beta [ u can say its like LTSC 2021 more or less ] really liking it i think its the snappy os ever it just giving me flash back to those days with windows vista and how good was windows server 2008 beta its based on RS branding and im guessing it come with better hardware tuning iso name: Windows_InsiderPreview_Server_vNext_en-us_20201
1507-1607 never had them 1703-1709 probably have all the memory bugs still 1803-1809 have fixed standby memory issue but still suffer from large pages corruption on certain hardware (mostly intel before series 4xxx) 1903 have fixed all known memory bugs If it was just about performance it can easily be worked around, but there are some grave security implications that I can't ignore for PC's on the internet. Enthusiasts poking at 1703 on release were quick to discover such memory management flaws, and that lead to the discovery of similar flaws in the cpu itself. I guess, thanks Microsoft, now we know.