god286 wrote:

bedrock mobile compatibility = good for youtubers/streamers with fanbases mostly on mobile

Then it should support all desktop platforms – Education Edition (which is based on Bedrock) does.
(Also, Minecraft isn't primarily designed for youtubers/streamers.)

Maximouse wrote:

Boomer001 wrote:

If you're using Windows 7 or below, you should upgrade your device (to Windows 8.1 or 10. Microsoft recommends Windows 10).

I believe users would recommend it too.

Burgher1679 wrote:

my dad are still using seven because the photo wiewer in windows 10 sucks

It isn't hard to install a different photo viewer.

CatsUnited wrote:

imo macOS does image viewing the best - just press space on the image you want to view in Finder and a preview window pops out

Windows does have something like that (View → Preview pane).

potatophant wrote:

Minecraft bedrock should be Win32, not UWP

I don't think Bedrock for Windows should even exist because most people use Java anyway.

Maybe we should continue this on the Minecraft topic, but all my friends play on tablet/console so i kinda have to play bedrock when im playing with them

Maximouse wrote:

god286 wrote:

bedrock mobile compatibility = good for youtubers/streamers with fanbases mostly on mobile

Then it should support all desktop platforms – Education Edition (which is based on Bedrock) does.
(Also, Minecraft isn't primarily designed for youtubers/streamers.)

They probably wont put it on all desktop platforms soon, theyre only putting it on windows, probably to make people buy windows (their os)

Maximouse wrote:

Burgher1679 wrote:

my dad are still using seven because the photo wiewer in windows 10 sucks

It isn't hard to install a different photo viewer.

on the home computer uses win7 and on the work one uses 10

and on the work computer (with windows10)instaled gimp but it takes 1000000000000000000000000 billions of years to load

I open up scratch every 30min or so, and i keep getting “new posts on whatcomputer topic 10 seconds ago” lol

bump.exe has stppd workng

windows.exe has gone on strike

windows 7

potatophant wrote:

windows.exe has gone on strike

ntoskrnl.exe

bluescrenofdeath_management-kernel.js.exe.dll has stoped working

Maximouse wrote:

potatophant wrote:

windows.exe has gone on strike

ntoskrnl.exe

the windows kernel management

potatophant wrote:

Maximouse wrote:

Boomer001 wrote:

If you're using Windows 7 or below, you should upgrade your device (to Windows 8.1 or 10. Microsoft recommends Windows 10).

I believe users would recommend it too.

Burgher1679 wrote:

my dad are still using seven because the photo wiewer in windows 10 sucks

It isn't hard to install a different photo viewer.

CatsUnited wrote:

imo macOS does image viewing the best - just press space on the image you want to view in Finder and a preview window pops out

Windows does have something like that (View → Preview pane).

potatophant wrote:

Minecraft bedrock should be Win32, not UWP

I don't think Bedrock for Windows should even exist because most people use Java anyway.

Maybe we should continue this on the Minecraft topic, but all my friends play on tablet/console so i kinda have to play bedrock when im playing with them

I think some of the computers in our house are so old they can’t even update to a higher one. And the computers in school are all Windows 7

Maximouse wrote:

potatophant wrote:

windows.exe has gone on strike

ntoskrnl.exe

i said windows cos some people might not understand it

Burgher1679 wrote:

Maximouse wrote:

Burgher1679 wrote:

my dad are still using seven because the photo wiewer in windows 10 sucks

It isn't hard to install a different photo viewer.

on the home computer uses win7 and on the work one uses 10

and on the work computer (with windows10)instaled gimp but it takes 1000000000000000000000000 billions of years to load

gimp used to take aggggggeeeeessssssssss to load, its quite quick now, try updating it, or if its on an hdd, put it on an ssd

Maximouse wrote:

potatophant wrote:

windows.exe has gone on strike

ntoskrnl.exe

They give stupid names to their binaries.

It could just be called kernel-management.exe or something
Task manager could be task-manager.exe
etc etc



It would take longer to type in the command line, but then, not many people use the command line *much* in windows, and the ones who do can generally type quickly

potatophant wrote:

They give stupid names to their binaries.

It could just be called kernel-management.exe or something
Task manager could be task-manager.exe
etc etc

Now I gotta explain something as to why file names for Windows system files are always so obscure and weird (incoming wall of text warning):

A very, very long time ago, back in 1981, Microsoft sold an operating system called MS-DOS, an operating system for IBM 8088/8086 computers. It was a clone of an earlier operating system called CP/M, which was a similar operating system originally written 8080 processor computers. (Over time, CP/M got more advanced, supporting multiple users, multitasking, and 8086 computers, but that's beside the point. I'm also glossing over some details of its origins, but again, beside the point.)

The FAT12 file system of the time, an extension of the FAT8 file system (which was designed in an era where 360k floppy disks {that's about ~370,000 bytes, or probably less than a single JPEG image} were the common data storage medium and hard drives were limited to enterprise usage only), supported a type of file name called an 8.3 file name. These were case-insensitive file names that gave you 8 characters for the file name, a dot, and three characters for the extension. That was it - and in a time where computers were mostly limited to business use and were usually used by fairly competent operators, this was perfectly adequate.

It wasn't until 14 years later, when Windows 95 came out, that we saw change. A staggering amount of change had happened in 14 years - 200+ MB hard drives and color video displays had become common (as opposed to the monochrome text displays of those 1981 PCs), enthusiast machines would use 120 MHz Pentium processors, as opposed to the 4.77 MHz 8088 that wasn't very cutting-edge in 1981, and computers had become a lot more popular in the home - with this, there was a push for more user-friendliness. And Windows 95 did this in a number of ways - one of the smaller details was its support for long file names via the VFAT file system, an extension to the FAT16 file system, making it the first Windows version to officially support it. You could now give your files mixed-case names up to 250ish characters long - you could even include spaces or other characters that weren't valid in file names before.

There's just one problem, however: Compatibility. Compatibility has been a major design decision for pretty much as long as Windows has existed (Windows 2.x could run Windows 1.x applications, as an example), and Windows 95 wasn't about to break that trend. Windows 95 had to pretty much run any DOS or Windows application you could throw at it and run it without too much trouble - and all of these old applications did not support long file names. Thus, every file on your machine had an 8.3 file name, and, if it needed one, a long file name. Of course, this version of Windows was still DOS-based, and the underlying DOS was needed while Windows loaded, so all the system files were given 8.3 file names so the underlying DOS could work with them without issues.

But what about Windows NT? Those aren't DOS-based, right? You are right that Windows NT family operating systems are independent of DOS - but NT didn't support long file names until 1996's Windows NT 4.0. NT 3.1 and 3.5 still used 8.3 file names everywhere. But now, we have an operating system that supports long file names, right? And we don't need DOS, but instead we have this new NTFS file system that natively supports long file names, right? That would be nice, but that one word again: Compatibility. All of those old business applications from Windows 3.x, and to a limited extent, MS-DOS, still had to work on NT-based operating systems, and for this reason, these operating systems still generate and store 8.3 filenames. And this trend continued, all the way up to modern Windows 10. Although it may no longer be technically necessary at this point (Windows 3.1 apps can't even run on 64-bit Windows 10, and indeed, you can dig around in the system folders and find plenty of system files with long file names) - perhaps it's just a matter of tradition at this point, or due to applications expecting certain files to be named certain ways - but many critical system files retain their 8.3 file names.

The decisions made for the sake of compatibility with older programs rear their ugly head in a number of other ways, too - for example, you can't name files things like CON, AUX, COM1, or several other “device file names” - there's a Tom Scott video on the subject that you may or may not have seen.

But back on topic, since I'm posting here I may as well tell you about my computer (please don't laugh too hard, very little money was spent on this and it's all spare parts except for the case, storage, and CPU cooler):

OS: Windows 10 x64 (version 1903)
CPU: AMD FX-8350 (4C/8T, 4.0 GHz)
GPU: NVidia GeForce GT 740, 2 GB (yes, I know that's a bad match for my CPU)
RAM: 8 GiB DDR3, 800 MHz
Storage: 1TB hard drive (+2TB backup hard drive {yes, I know I'm not following the 3-2-1 rule but that's expensive and this is better than nothing})
Display: 1280x1024@60Hz, TN LCD (somebody please end my pain) (I had a CRT that could do resolutions up to 2048x1536@60Hz or refresh rates up to 160 Hz but after an attempted repair I have no idea if it still works and I haven't touched it for months)
Internet: VDSL2, 40/3 Mbps

Flowermanvista wrote:

potatophant wrote:

They give stupid names to their binaries.

It could just be called kernel-management.exe or something
Task manager could be task-manager.exe
etc etc

Now I gotta explain something as to why file names for Windows system files are always so obscure and weird (incoming wall of text warning):

A very, very long time ago, back in 1981, Microsoft sold an operating system called MS-DOS, an operating system for IBM 8088/8086 computers. It was a clone of an earlier operating system called CP/M, which was a similar operating system originally written 8080 processor computers. (Over time, CP/M got more advanced, supporting multiple users, multitasking, and 8086 computers, but that's beside the point. I'm also glossing over some details of its origins, but again, beside the point.)

The FAT12 file system of the time, an extension of the FAT8 file system (which was designed in an era where 360k floppy disks {that's about ~370,000 bytes, or probably less than a single JPEG image} were the common data storage medium and hard drives were limited to enterprise usage only), supported a type of file name called an 8.3 file name. These were case-insensitive file names that gave you 8 characters for the file name, a dot, and three characters for the extension. That was it - and in a time where computers were mostly limited to business use and were usually used by fairly competent operators, this was perfectly adequate.

It wasn't until 14 years later, when Windows 95 came out, that we saw change. A staggering amount of change had happened in 14 years - 200+ MB hard drives and color video displays had become common (as opposed to the monochrome text displays of those 1981 PCs), enthusiast machines would use 120 MHz Pentium processors, as opposed to the 4.77 MHz 8088 that wasn't very cutting-edge in 1981, and computers had become a lot more popular in the home - with this, there was a push for more user-friendliness. And Windows 95 did this in a number of ways - one of the smaller details was its support for long file names via the VFAT file system, an extension to the FAT16 file system, making it the first Windows version to officially support it. You could now give your files mixed-case names up to 250ish characters long - you could even include spaces or other characters that weren't valid in file names before.

There's just one problem, however: Compatibility. Compatibility has been a major design decision for pretty much as long as Windows has existed (Windows 2.x could run Windows 1.x applications, as an example), and Windows 95 wasn't about to break that trend. Windows 95 had to pretty much run any DOS or Windows application you could throw at it and run it without too much trouble - and all of these old applications did not support long file names. Thus, every file on your machine had an 8.3 file name, and, if it needed one, a long file name. Of course, this version of Windows was still DOS-based, and the underlying DOS was needed while Windows loaded, so all the system files were given 8.3 file names so the underlying DOS could work with them without issues.

But what about Windows NT? Those aren't DOS-based, right? You are right that Windows NT family operating systems are independent of DOS - but NT didn't support long file names until 1996's Windows NT 4.0. NT 3.1 and 3.5 still used 8.3 file names everywhere. But now, we have an operating system that supports long file names, right? And we don't need DOS, but instead we have this new NTFS file system that natively supports long file names, right? That would be nice, but that one word again: Compatibility. All of those old business applications from Windows 3.x, and to a limited extent, MS-DOS, still had to work on NT-based operating systems, and for this reason, these operating systems still generate and store 8.3 filenames. And this trend continued, all the way up to modern Windows 10. Although it may no longer be technically necessary at this point (Windows 3.1 apps can't even run on 64-bit Windows 10, and indeed, you can dig around in the system folders and find plenty of system files with long file names) - perhaps it's just a matter of tradition at this point, or due to applications expecting certain files to be named certain ways - but many critical system files retain their 8.3 file names.

The decisions made for the sake of compatibility with older programs rear their ugly head in a number of other ways, too - for example, you can't name files things like CON, AUX, COM1, or several other “device file names” - there's a Tom Scott video on the subject that you may or may not have seen.

But back on topic, since I'm posting here I may as well tell you about my computer (please don't laugh too hard, very little money was spent on this and it's all spare parts except for the case, storage, and CPU cooler):

OS: Windows 10 x64 (version 1903)
CPU: AMD FX-8350 (4C/8T, 4.0 GHz)
GPU: NVidia GeForce GT 740, 2 GB (yes, I know that's a bad match for my CPU)
RAM: 8 GiB DDR3, 800 MHz
Storage: 1TB hard drive (+2TB backup hard drive {yes, I know I'm not following the 3-2-1 rule but that's expensive and this is better than nothing})
Display: 1280x1024@60Hz, TN LCD (somebody please end my pain) (I had a CRT that could do resolutions up to 2048x1536@60Hz or refresh rates up to 160 Hz but after an attempted repair I have no idea if it still works and I haven't touched it for months)
Internet: VDSL2, 40/3 Mbps

Forgot about that, brilliant explanation though.

potatophant wrote:

uwv wrote:

i wanna get a build done by next year, with decent specs
cpu: Ryzen 7 3700x @ 3.6GHz
ram: 64gb ddr4-3200
storage: 1tb nvme ssd and 2tb 7200rpm hhd
gpu: rtx 3080
display: 2x 2560 x 1440 @ 144hz
os: win10/arch

“decent”



btw, is this really what ur getting?



64gb of ram… rtx 3080… ryzen 7…

yes

abcdefg-_ wrote:

potatophant wrote:

Maximouse wrote:

Boomer001 wrote:

If you're using Windows 7 or below, you should upgrade your device (to Windows 8.1 or 10. Microsoft recommends Windows 10).

I believe users would recommend it too.

Burgher1679 wrote:

my dad are still using seven because the photo wiewer in windows 10 sucks

It isn't hard to install a different photo viewer.

CatsUnited wrote:

imo macOS does image viewing the best - just press space on the image you want to view in Finder and a preview window pops out

Windows does have something like that (View → Preview pane).

potatophant wrote:

Minecraft bedrock should be Win32, not UWP

I don't think Bedrock for Windows should even exist because most people use Java anyway.

Maybe we should continue this on the Minecraft topic, but all my friends play on tablet/console so i kinda have to play bedrock when im playing with them

I think some of the computers in our house are so old they can’t even update to a higher one. And the computers in school are all Windows 7

my dad computer has windowas seven
and is more powerful than that hp pc that i use





Windows
7
Wimdowss NT
Intel pentium something
6 gb ddridontknow
19" acer display in 1K or 1080p
2 TB hdd
intel HD Graphics something
ethernet

Desktop:
OS: Windows/InstantOS (Arch)
OS Version: NT 10/Kernel 5.8
Platform: Windows/Linux
CPU: Ryzen 9 3900x
RAM: 32GB
Internet Type: Wifi 6/AX
Display(s): 2, FHD on both
Primary Language: English
GPU: RX 590
GPU: GTX 1050
GPU: Quadro FX 1800
(I have three because I'm trying to get VFIO working so then I can just run both Windows and MacOS in a VM D

Everyday Laptop:
OS: Windows
OS Version: NT 10
Platform: Windows
CPU: i5 10th Gen
RAM: 16 GB
Internet Type: Wifi 6/AX
Display(s): 1
Primary Language: English

Workstation Laptop (for gaming/soon-to-be VR/programming on the go):
OS: Windows
OS Version: NT 10
Platform: Windows
CPU: i5 7th Gen HQ
RAM: 32GB
Internet Type: Wifi 5
Display(s): 1
Primary Language: English
GPU: GTX 1050 Mobile

Server(s) (Have 5 servers atm, need to fix 2 but this is the average configuration):
OS: Red Hat Enterprise Linux
OS Version: 8
Platform: Red Hat
CPU: 2xE5-2640 V2s
RAM: 128GB
Internet Type: Ethernet
Display(s): 0
Primary Language: English
GPU: Quadro FX 1800