The installation went kind of clumbsy. Version is reported as 19044.1348.
Correct version?
--
<Bill>

Brought to you from Anchorage, Alaska

On 11/19/21 1:34 PM, Bill Bradshaw wrote:
> The installation went kind of clumbsy. Version is reported as 19044.1348.
> Correct version?
>

For some reason, it went smoothly for me. One of the fastest.

On 11/19/2021 2:34 PM, Bill Bradshaw wrote:
> The installation went kind of clumbsy. Version is reported as 19044.1348.
> Correct version?
>
That is the revision number of my install

I was surprised at the time that it took to do the install. It was
only a dozen games of Spider Solitaire. For other versions it has taken
several hours.

As with the last two version, it just added the information to the
Update History. So now I have 20H2, 21H1 and 21H2 showing in the
update list.

On 11/19/2021 2:34 PM, Bill Bradshaw wrote:
> The installation went kind of clumbsy. Version is reported as 19044.1348.
> Correct version?
>

I used downloaded media to do an install on a clean disk,
and there was nothing out of the ordinary in the process.

And yes, that was my version. 19044.1348.

*******

The GPU driver update process did not work, and I was
left with the MBSA driver after a few reboots/tries.
Going to the AMD site and grabbing what was supposed
to be an automated updater, eventually downloaded
something to make it look like a proper driver was there.

https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/134329-check-windows-display-driver-model-version-wddm-support-windows.html

Windows 10 version 2004 WDDM 2.7 and WDDM 2.8
Windows 10 version 20H2 WDDM 2.9

Windows 10 version 21H1 WDDM 3.0
Windows 11 WDDM 3.0

Dxdiag reports:

Driver Model: WDDM 2.7

and the AMD control panel update checker
says no more recent driver is available.

*******

22000.346

Dxdiag reports:

Driver Model: WDDM 3.0

Maybe there's some limitation as to what
driver model, runs where. The driver in that
case, is automatically installed by the actions
of the 22000 (Win11) installer DVD. I didn't have to
go to the AMD site.

Paul

Paul wrote:
> On 11/19/2021 2:34 PM, Bill Bradshaw wrote:
>> The installation went kind of clumbsy.  Version is reported as 19044.1348.
>> Correct version?
>>
>
> I used downloaded media to do an install on a clean disk,
> and there was nothing out of the ordinary in the process.
>
> And yes, that was my version. 19044.1348.

showing the same version here

but under settings/update history,no record of 21h2 itself, just the .net
cumulative update *for* 21h2

in control panel add/remove,
I do see feature update to win10 21h2 enablement package KB5003791
which claims it was installed on 6th october, rather than 16th november

> *******
>
> The GPU driver update process did not work, and I was
> left with the MBSA driver after a few reboots/tries.
> Going to the AMD site and grabbing what was supposed
> to be an automated updater, eventually downloaded
> something to make it look like a proper driver was there.
>
> https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/134329-check-windows-display-driver-model-version-wddm-support-windows.html
>
>
> Windows 10 version 2004   WDDM 2.7 and WDDM 2.8
> Windows 10 version 20H2   WDDM 2.9
>
> Windows 10 version 21H1   WDDM 3.0
> Windows 11                WDDM 3.0
>
> Dxdiag reports:
>
>    Driver Model: WDDM 2.7

same here for my intel HD620, using the DCH drivers

> and the AMD control panel update checker
> says no more recent driver is available.
>
> *******
>
> 22000.346
>
> Dxdiag reports:
>
>    Driver Model: WDDM 3.0
>
> Maybe there's some limitation as to what
> driver model, runs where. The driver in that
> case, is automatically installed by the actions
> of the 22000 (Win11) installer DVD. I didn't have to
> go to the AMD site.
>
>    Paul
>

Andy Burns wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>> On 11/19/2021 2:34 PM, Bill Bradshaw wrote:
>>> The installation went kind of clumbsy. Version is reported as
>>> 19044.1348. Correct version?
>>>
>>
>> I used downloaded media to do an install on a clean disk,
>> and there was nothing out of the ordinary in the process.
>>
>> And yes, that was my version. 19044.1348.
>
>
> showing the same version here
>
> but under settings/update history,no record of 21h2 itself, just the
> .net cumulative update *for* 21h2
>
> in control panel add/remove,
> I do see feature update to win10 21h2 enablement package KB5003791
> which claims it was installed on 6th october, rather than 16th
> november
>> *******

It shows under settings/history KB5003791 being installed on November 19
which would be correct. I dealt with 2 errors during the install,
0x800f0845 and 0x80070241, which I somehow got around. I somehow get by
this stuff but I am never really sure why Windows decided to do what I
wanted. I wish I was Paul.

<Bill>

Bill Bradshaw wrote:
> The installation went kind of clumbsy. Version is reported as 19044.1348.
> Correct version?
>
Via Windows Update on this Win10 Pro, i7 8th Gen 256GB SSD, 1 TB HDD, 12
GB RAM Acer Laptop, 180 Mbps internet connection speed.
Download, Install, Restart to Windows MSA logon - ~7 minutes(via the
Enablement Package KB5003791) - installed on Nov 18th.

Note: Device prior to update was 19043.1348 (updated on Nov 10, 2021)
Device was initially offered Windows 11('Upgrade to Windows 11 is
ready') but chose the alternative option to 'Stay on Windows 10 for
now'- doing so then offered the 21H2 Enablement Package.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

Bill Bradshaw wrote:
> The installation went kind of clumbsy. Version is reported as 19044.1348.
> Correct version?
>

The whole process (download, vet, install) set a new record here; about
a minute, if not less.
Version 19044.1348

No whisper of any problem. This PC, BTW, isn't Win11 compatible.

Ed

"knuttle" <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:sn91n4$t74$1@dont-email.me...
> On 11/19/2021 2:34 PM, Bill Bradshaw wrote:
>> The installation went kind of clumbsy. Version is reported as
>> 19044.1348.
>> Correct version?
>>
> That is the revision number of my install
>
> I was surprised at the time that it took to do the install. It was only
> a dozen games of Spider Solitaire. For other versions it has taken
> several hours.
>
> As with the last two version, it just added the information to the Update
> History. So now I have 20H2, 21H1 and 21H2 showing in the update list.

I upgraded my laptop to W10 21H2 (maybe from 21H1) last night and the
process was suspiciously fast - probably only 30 seconds to download (*) and
1 minute or so to install and present the "Reboot now?" message. And the
subsequent white-on-blue messages during first shutdown and startup were
fast too. I've had minor updates which have taken considerably longer than
that,

I checked the list of updates and the installation was reported as being
successful. No idea what the update affected - what it fixed or improved.

I wonder what control I will have against the laptop upgrading to W11 once
that it released? I've got the message saying that my laptop is capable of
running it, but I'm not sure whether I want it, give MS's usual habit of
changing the user interface. I wish someone would convince them that they
can change what's under the bonnet/hood if it improves things, but for
goodness sake leave the dashboard, pedals and gear lever untouched (or at
least, give the option of changing or leaving untouched).

(*) Though I suppose the update could have downloaded automatically earlier
on, without me being aware of it, only prompting for permission to install.

On 11/23/2021 3:32 PM, NY wrote:
> "knuttle" <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:sn91n4$t74$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 11/19/2021 2:34 PM, Bill Bradshaw wrote:
>>> The installation went kind of clumbsy.  Version is reported as 19044.1348.
>>> Correct version?
>>>
>> That is the revision number of my install
>>
>> I was surprised at the time that it took to do the install.   It was only a dozen games of Spider Solitaire.  For other versions it has taken several hours.
>>
>> As with the last two version, it just added the information to the Update History.   So now I have 20H2, 21H1 and 21H2 showing in the update list.
>
> I upgraded my laptop to W10 21H2 (maybe from 21H1) last night and the process was suspiciously fast - probably only 30 seconds to download (*) and 1 minute or so to install and present the "Reboot now?" message. And the subsequent white-on-blue messages during first shutdown and startup were fast too. I've had minor updates which have taken considerably longer than that,
>
> I checked the list of updates and the installation was reported as being successful. No idea what the update affected - what it fixed or improved.
>
> I wonder what control I will have against the laptop upgrading to W11 once that it released? I've got the message saying that my laptop is capable of running it, but I'm not sure whether I want it, give MS's usual habit of changing the user interface. I wish someone would convince them that they can change what's under the bonnet/hood if it improves things, but for goodness sake leave the dashboard, pedals and gear lever untouched (or at least, give the option of changing or leaving untouched).
>
>
> (*) Though I suppose the update could have downloaded automatically earlier on, without me being aware of it, only prompting for permission to install.

Detrimental parts of W11:

1) Two level menu will drive you crazy, as you always
want context menu items in the second level, not the
first level, making you wonder why the first level is
first. After a while, you'll notice your blood pressure
rising.

2) Line spacing in File Explorer can be off-putting.

3) On W11 Home, encrypting your C: drive based on your MSA
account info, that would annoy me. The "best practice" for
crypto, is always to have "recovery key in hand" before usage,
so you always know and are ready, for "trouble". The MSFT
idea of "lets play patty cakes with crypto", is for the birds.
So far, to the best of my knowledge, no attempts have been made
to mess about with my W11 Pro installs. But Home users, beware.
The TPM requirement plays into this (pull W11 Home disk from tray,
pop into another machine, no access).

*******

W11 gives you access to WSLg and WSA. WSLg would allow you to
see a Linux version of Firefox on your Task Bar. WSA, I'm not
sure what noteworthy achievement we could expect there. The
Android environment needs a Store hookup, presumably the Store
content makes the Android environment attractive. While a beta
of WSA has been released, I'm not sure what noteworthy thing
I could even use as a success metric :-/ What would be an
"accomplishment" with Android capability ? Dunno. With WSLg at
least, putting Linux Firefox on the Task Bar, was an easy
success metric.

Paul

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote in message
news:snk2j3$226$1@dont-email.me...
> Detrimental parts of W11:
>
> 1) Two level menu will drive you crazy, as you always
> want context menu items in the second level, not the
> first level, making you wonder why the first level is
> first. After a while, you'll notice your blood pressure
> rising.

Sounds like another of those Microsoft "we think we know better than you
what you want" issues, like the Windows 8/10 "mess of tiles" start menu,
where icons are monochrome and don't stay in the same place on the menu from
one day to the next. At least Classic Shell and other similar programs
restore proper start menus used by Windows 7 and earlier. Why do computer
companies try to impose change on users instead of letting the user choose?
Fine if they can make improvements, but every new feature needs to have the
ability to turn it *off* and leave the legacy UI.

On any Windows 8 or 10 PC, there are several tweaks that I would say are
essential to make the PC usable by anyone who has developed muscle memory
for using Windows 7 and earlier:

- install Classic Shell
- turn off Cortana
- turn off combining of multiple instances of a program into a single
taskbar icon
- remove all shortcuts to apps from the taskbar (W10 mixes up shortcuts to
not-yet-started apps and instances of running apps on the same taskbar
icons) and instead enable the Quick Launch bar to keep the taskbar shortcuts
*separate* from the running-instance icons.

> 2) Line spacing in File Explorer can be off-putting.
>
> 3) On W11 Home, encrypting your C: drive based on your MSA
> account info, that would annoy me. The "best practice" for
> crypto, is always to have "recovery key in hand" before usage,
> so you always know and are ready, for "trouble". The MSFT
> idea of "lets play patty cakes with crypto", is for the birds.
> So far, to the best of my knowledge, no attempts have been made
> to mess about with my W11 Pro installs. But Home users, beware.
> The TPM requirement plays into this (pull W11 Home disk from tray,
> pop into another machine, no access).

That would be a major problem if a PC failed to boot or the user had
forgotten their password. With an unencrypted disk, you can remove the HDD
(assuming the case has an access door for the HDD, and some nowadays have
the case *glued* shut) and connect it in a caddy to another PC to copy off
the user files. Done that many times for people. You just need to allow time
for Windows to gain recursive access to all files/folders below
c:\users\<username>

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 10:16:31, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
>"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote in message
>news:snk2j3$226$1@dont-email.me...
>> Detrimental parts of W11:
>>
>> 1) Two level menu will drive you crazy, as you always
>> want context menu items in the second level, not the
>> first level, making you wonder why the first level is
>> first. After a while, you'll notice your blood pressure
>> rising.
>
>Sounds like another of those Microsoft "we think we know better than
[]
>earlier. Why do computer companies try to impose change on users
>instead of letting the user choose? Fine if they can make improvements,
>but every new feature needs to have the ability to turn it *off* and
>leave the legacy UI.

Because (read all this and the next paragraph before your reflex
response!) if something _is_ an improvement, but is _different_, and
they provide an option to switch back to the old way, most people - if
the switch is made easy - will do that, rather than learn the new way;
on the whole, people do not like change, and in some cases say they
haven't _time_ to learn a new way (not a valid thing to say in the long
run, if the new way would actually save them time). Thus, the majority
of people would continue using the old way, and new ways - even if they
are improvements - would wither, and the incentive to develop them would
decline.

I too hate change, and tend to use go-back utilities! _Sometimes_, I do
try to give the new way a chance, to see if I can live with it, in case
it actually is an improvement. When I moved from XP to 7, I did for a
while - cant remember how long, a few weeks I think; then there was a
point where I wanted to do something in a hurry, and _couldn't_ (within
a reasonable time) figure out how to do it - so installed Classic Shell.
And I admit I haven't gone back to the new way, and probably won't now.
(I forget what it was I actually wanted to do.)

So that's _why_ they do it that way.

Of course, sometimes the new way genuinely _isn't_ better; then (though
often very slowly, because it _does_ mean admitting they were wrong)
they back off somewhat. A case in point is indeed Windows 8's "tiles"
interface: I think it's generally accepted that that was not a good
idea, at least for (which was [still is I think] the majority of)
machines that _don't_ have touch screens, and arguably even for those
that do, because of the size difference from 'phones (and that PCs have
real keyboards and mice).
>
>On any Windows 8 or 10 PC, there are several tweaks that I would say
>are essential to make the PC usable by anyone who has developed muscle
>memory for using Windows 7 and earlier:
>
>- install Classic Shell

(I've seen the one people push as the later equivalent to Classic; it
didn't seem to give the same experience on 10 as Classic did on 7. I
haven't tried Classic on 10.)

>- turn off Cortana

If there was some way to make it less in-your-face, it could still be
useful (basically, as an Alexa clone).

>- turn off combining of multiple instances of a program into a single
>taskbar icon

(I've done that, certainly.)

>- remove all shortcuts to apps from the taskbar (W10 mixes up shortcuts
>to not-yet-started apps and instances of running apps on the same
>taskbar icons) and instead enable the Quick Launch bar to keep the
>taskbar shortcuts *separate* from the running-instance icons.
>
(On the 10 machines I've seen it's easy to tell which are not-started -
"pinned" in 7-speak - and which are running - for example,
pinned-but-not-started are just icon, running have text next to the
icon; but that may be a setting.)
>
>> 2) Line spacing in File Explorer can be off-putting.

I like the lines and [+]/[-] in the tree view of Explorer (Classic shell
[I think it is] brings them back).
>>
>> 3) On W11 Home, encrypting your C: drive based on your MSA
>> account info, that would annoy me. The "best practice" for
[]
>> The TPM requirement plays into this (pull W11 Home disk from tray,
>> pop into another machine, no access).
>
>That would be a major problem if a PC failed to boot or the user had
>forgotten their password. With an unencrypted disk, you can remove the

Yes, I'd not use a system with
encryption-at-hardware-level-with-no-option.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

> > Won't you come into the garden? I would like my roses to see you. -Richard

On 11/24/2021 8:13 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 10:16:31, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>>
>> That would be a major problem if a PC failed to boot or
>> the user had forgotten their password. With an unencrypted disk,
>> you can remove the
>
> Yes, I'd not use a system with encryption-at-hardware-level-with-no-option.
> []

You can install Window 11 and be pseudo hardware compliant.

VMWare Workstation (16?) has a vTPM.

It would help to have a machine which is Win11 ready, at least
the first time you try it.

I was instructed by VMWare Workstation, to disable some Hyper-V
related stuff, because my AMD did not have some software finished
for nested VMs on Win11. I was doing a W11 Guest on a W11 Host.

To make it all work, there is a site on the web offering an
"encrypted container". That's a virtual machine container,
doesn't need a file system, which is already encrypted and
the password is 12345 or so. And you can boot the W11 DVD
in the VM environment and install Windows into the encrypted
container. This solved a chicken versus egg issue, when
Skybuck was trying to install something. Workstation 15 had a
settings control, making the acquisition of an empty encrypted
container unnecessary. I was lucky to find this.

The materials are there if you want to attempt it.

MID <sl77ll$4mu$1@gioia.aioe.org>

http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Csl77ll%244mu%241%40gioia.aioe.org%3E

If I had purchased an Intel system, instead of an AMD one, perhaps
VMWare workestation 16 usage would be transparent. But as it was,
I had to tear out this project, so that Win11 could have the
normal feature set enabled. Like being able to test WSLg.

When I do projects like this, all I get to keep is the picture.

https://i.postimg.cc/cL1fgwzC/VMWare-W11-via-Template.gif

If the picture is blank, right click the blank picture and select "Reload Image".

Hacking the DVD and making it ignore the hardware requirements,
is the other way to do it. But in theory, I could run the
W11 Guest forever with the Workstation method. Because it
thinks all the tests have been passed.

The other thing that is potentially possible, is running a
W11 Guest in the W11 Guest. That's what the Nesting is supposed
to support. But I'd had enough at that point, and really could
not care about nesting "something useless".

*******

This picture shows the two level menu. The W11 menu has the
wide spacing, the lower level menu still has W10 spacing. Part
of why this causes the blood pressure to rise. They went out of
their way, to make this doubly-insulting. It would take a
behavioral scientist in their special studies department to
think this up.

https://i.postimg.cc/fTXQNGKv/W11-two-level-menu.gif

Paul

Bill Bradshaw wrote:
> The installation went kind of clumbsy. Version is reported as 19044.1348.
> Correct version?
>

Everything's correct. 19044.1348 also matches Windows 10 LTSC 2021.