Microsoft has announced that it will cease providing support for Microsoft 365 applications on the Windows 10 operating system after October 14, 2025. This means that after this date, users who continue to utilize Windows 10 will no longer receive security updates, bug fixes, or technical support for their Microsoft 365 apps, which include popular productivity software like Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, and Teams. This effectively ends the functional lifespan of Microsoft 365 on Windows 10, although the applications may continue to operate for a period afterward, albeit with increasing security risks and potential compatibility issues.
This decision aligns with Microsoft's broader strategy of encouraging users to migrate to Windows 11, the company's latest operating system. While Microsoft will continue to support Windows 10 with security updates until October 14, 2025, the lack of support for crucial productivity applications like Microsoft 365 effectively makes Windows 10 a less desirable platform for businesses and individuals who rely on these applications for their daily workflow. This move underscores the importance of staying up-to-date with software updates and operating system upgrades to ensure ongoing compatibility and security. Users who wish to continue using Microsoft 365 with full support after the October 2025 deadline will need to upgrade their systems to Windows 11. Failing to do so could expose users to potential security vulnerabilities and limit their access to the latest features and functionalities offered by Microsoft 365. This effectively deprecates Windows 10 as a viable platform for continued use of the Microsoft 365 suite, pushing users towards the newer Windows 11 ecosystem.
Raymond Chen's blog post, "Why did Windows 95 setup use three operating systems?", delves into the intricate, multi-stage booting process employed by the Windows 95 installation procedure. Rather than a straightforward transition, installing Windows 95 involved a complex choreography of three distinct operating systems, each with a specific role in preparing the system for the final Windows 95 environment.
The initial stage utilized the existing operating system, be it DOS or Windows 3.1. This familiar environment provided a stable launching point for the installation process, allowing users to initiate the setup program from a known and functional system. Crucially, this initial OS handled the preliminary steps, such as checking system requirements, gathering user input regarding installation options, and initiating the transfer of files to the target hard drive. This ensured that the subsequent stages had the necessary foundation upon which to build.
The second operating system introduced in the Windows 95 installation was a minimalist DOS-based environment specifically designed for setup. This stripped-down DOS lacked the complexities and potential conflicts of a full-fledged DOS installation, providing a predictable and controlled environment for the core installation tasks. This specialized DOS environment executed directly from the installation media, circumventing potential issues arising from the existing operating system and allowing for low-level access to the hardware necessary for partitioning and formatting the hard drive, as well as copying the essential Windows 95 system files. It operated independently of the pre-existing operating system, ensuring a clean and controlled installation environment.
Finally, the third operating system involved was the actual Windows 95 operating system itself. Once the setup-specific DOS environment completed the file transfer and preliminary configuration, the system rebooted, this time loading the newly installed Windows 95. This first boot of Windows 95 was not merely a functional test, but an integral part of the installation process. During this initial boot, Windows 95 performed crucial configuration tasks, including detecting and installing hardware drivers, finalizing registry settings, and completing any remaining setup procedures. This final stage transitioned the system from the installation environment to a fully operational Windows 95 system ready for user interaction.
In essence, the Windows 95 installation process leveraged a tiered approach, employing the existing OS for initial setup, a specialized DOS environment for core file transfer and low-level configuration, and finally the Windows 95 OS itself for final configuration and driver installation. This multi-stage process ensured a robust and reliable installation, mitigating potential conflicts and providing a clean transition to the new operating system. This complexity, while perhaps not immediately apparent to the end user, was a key factor in the successful deployment of Windows 95.
The Hacker News post "Why did Windows 95 setup use three operating systems?" generated several comments discussing the complexities of the Windows 95 installation process and the technical reasons behind using MS-DOS, a 16-bit preinstallation environment, and the 32-bit Windows 95 itself.
Several commenters focused on the bootstrapping problem inherent in installing a new operating system. They pointed out that a simpler OS is required to launch the installation of a more complex one. MS-DOS served this purpose in the Windows 95 setup, providing a familiar and readily available platform to begin the process. The discussion included how the initial boot from floppy disk would load a basic DOS environment, which would then launch the next stage of the installation.
The role of the 16-bit preinstallation environment was also discussed. Commenters explained that this environment, distinct from both MS-DOS and the final Windows 95 system, was crucial for tasks that couldn't be handled by the limited DOS environment, such as accessing CD-ROM drives and managing more complex hardware configurations. This intermediary step allowed the setup to gather information about the system, prepare the hard drive, and begin copying the necessary Windows 95 files.
Some commenters delved into the technical limitations of MS-DOS, highlighting its 16-bit architecture and inability to directly handle the 32-bit components of Windows 95. The preinstallation environment bridged this gap, providing the necessary functionality to transition to the 32-bit world. This discussion touched upon the complexities of real-mode and protected-mode memory addressing, which were relevant to the transition between these different environments.
The specific use of three separate systems was a point of interest. Some commenters speculated about alternative approaches, but acknowledged the practical constraints of the time. The existing familiarity with MS-DOS made it a logical starting point. The distinct preinstallation environment provided a dedicated space for setup-specific tasks without interfering with the final Windows 95 installation.
A few comments also touched on the nostalgia associated with the Windows 95 installation process and the challenges of managing hardware configurations in that era. The need to manually configure drivers and settings was highlighted, contrasting sharply with the more automated installation processes of modern operating systems.
Summary of Comments ( 55 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42712807
HN commenters largely discuss the implications of Microsoft ending support for Office apps on Windows 10. Several express frustration with Microsoft's push to upgrade to Windows 11, viewing it as a forced upgrade and an attempt to increase Microsoft 365 subscriptions. Some highlight the inconvenience this poses for users with older hardware incompatible with Windows 11. Others note the potential security risks of using unsupported software and the eventual necessity of upgrading. A few commenters point out the continuing support for Office 2019, although with limited functionality updates, and discuss the alternative of using web-based Office apps or open-source office suites like LibreOffice. Some speculate this is a move to bolster Microsoft 365 subscriptions, making offline productivity increasingly dependent on the service.
The Hacker News post titled "Microsoft won't support Office apps on Windows 10 after October 14th" has generated a number of comments discussing the implications of Microsoft's decision. Several commenters express frustration and cynicism regarding Microsoft's perceived strategy of pushing users towards newer operating systems and subscription services.
One highly upvoted comment points out the confusion this creates for users, especially given that Windows 10 is still supported until 2025. They highlight the discrepancy between supporting the OS but not the core productivity suite on that OS, questioning the logic behind this move. The commenter suggests this is a tactic to force upgrades to Windows 11, even if users are content with their current setup.
Another commenter echoes this sentiment, expressing annoyance at the constant pressure to upgrade, particularly when they are satisfied with the performance and stability of their existing software. They feel this is a blatant attempt by Microsoft to increase revenue through forced upgrades and subscriptions.
The theme of planned obsolescence is also raised, with one user arguing that this is a classic example of a company artificially limiting the lifespan of perfectly functional software to drive sales. They express disappointment in this practice and the lack of consideration for users who prefer stability over constant updates.
Some commenters discuss the technical implications, questioning the specific reasons why Office apps wouldn't function on a supported OS. They speculate about potential security concerns or underlying changes in the software architecture that necessitate the change. However, there's a general skepticism towards these explanations, with many believing it's primarily a business decision rather than a technical necessity.
A few users offer practical advice, suggesting alternatives like LibreOffice or using older, perpetual license versions of Microsoft Office. They also discuss the possibility of using virtual machines to run Windows 11 if necessary.
Several comments mention the security implications, with some suggesting that this move might actually improve security by forcing users onto a more modern and regularly updated platform. However, this is countered by others who argue that forced upgrades can disrupt workflows and create vulnerabilities if not handled properly.
Overall, the comments reflect a general sentiment of frustration and skepticism towards Microsoft's decision. Many users perceive it as a manipulative tactic to drive revenue and force upgrades, rather than a move based on genuine technical necessity or user benefit. The discussion highlights the ongoing tension between software companies' desire for continuous updates and users' preference for stability and control over their systems.