My Acer 32 gig is now on 21H1

Topic

New Reply

What is that and why is this significant? This is my ancient Acer 32 gig hard drive – never should have been sold with Windows 10 in the first place –
[See the full post at: My Acer 32 gig is now on 21H1]

Susan Bradley Patch Lady/Prudent patcher

2 users thanked author for this post.

Morty, GreatAndPowerfulTech

Reply | Quote

Replies

I think that is amazing, Susan. But I don’t think that there have been only minor upgrades since 2004. I believe that XP was a major upgrade, in 2005, and Windows 7, in turn, was not just a minor upgrade of Windows XP, in my opinion, based on my own experience. In particular, both the Win 7 Professional software and the then new PC hardware (such as my HP Pavillion that came with what had been just a few years earlier an unthinkable 0.75 TB HD and 8 GB RAM with a 2 GHz CPU) that I bought to replace my trusty IBM/Lenovo “Think” XP laptop that had, same as yours, 32 GB of HD, brought along a major change for the better in the way I could get things done and also use the Internet to get information, news and entertainment. And it was not just because of the larger memory capacity or faster  CPU and GPU. Both XP and 7 run on the same NT “chassis”, but the performance of 7 was significantly better, thanks to a combination of better hardware, applications software and peripherals becoming available for use with the new, improved OS — again in my opinion.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

I think Susan was speaking of Windows 10 version 2004 (2020 April).

Image or Clone often! Backup, backup, backup, backup......
- - - - -
Home Built: Windows 10 Home 64-bit, AMD Athlon II X3 435 CPU, 16GB RAM, ASUSTeK M4A89GTD-PRO/USB3 (AM3) motherboard, 512GB SanDisk SSD, 3 TB WD HDD, 1024MB ATI AMD RADEON HD 6450 video, ASUS VE278 (1920x1080) display, ATAPI iHAS224 Optical Drive, integrated Realtek HD Audio

1 user thanked author for this post.

OscarCP

Reply | Quote

Both interpretations of “2004” are plausible, the way Susan’s blog is written …

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

Perhaps only to you.

Reply | Quote

No.

1 user thanked author for this post.

OscarCP

Reply | Quote

Of course, the real culprit in this situation is Microsoft, who couldn’t come up with a decent, unambiguous convention for labeling their updates. Or realize that their system would arrive at a a confusing “2004”  version. Do they not remember the Y2K problem?

Win 7 Pro, 64-Bit, Group B ESU,Ivy Bridge i3-3110M, 2.4GHz, 4GB, XP Mode VM, WordPerfect

1 user thanked author for this post.

ve2mrx

Reply | Quote

Yes, I mean feature release 2004, not the year 2004 🙂

Susan Bradley Patch Lady/Prudent patcher

1 user thanked author for this post.

OscarCP

Reply | Quote

I think you forgot the much maligned Windows Vista version that was the forerunner of Windows 7.

Reply | Quote

I don’t want to take much more space in this thread, that had turned out to be, among other things, on Windows 10 v2004, for example to remind everyone who may need a reminder, that one should be aware that this is not a site only for Windows 10 issues and users, and also to try not to write in 2010-ease assuming everyone will understand, to avoid unnecessary confusions and also as a matter of good form.

On Vista: I skipped it mainly because it was reviewed and commented unfavorably in articles written by known computer experts, and I do pay attention to what reputable experts say about things I need to know to make an important practical decision and disburse a significant amount of cash, along with the usual hassle of migrating to a new OS, and probably also to a new computer capable of running it. So it was then and still is my understanding, because later information has not changed it, that probably Vista was, at best, a mediocre version sandwiched between XP and 7 that, with first-hand knowledge of both, I can state were two of the best ones. On 8 and 10, having avoided these for the same reasons as I skipped Vista, I’d rather not comment.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

The reason I mentioned Vista was because the transition from XP to Vista was a much more extreme change for users than the transition from Vista to Win7.

 

Reply | Quote

ErikB: “Vista was a much more extreme change for users than the transition from Vista to Win7”

In terms of the graphical user interface, there is no question about that — although there may be a question about the quality of this transition. But I think the really big substantial transition was not from XP to Vista, but in my case, for example, it manifested itself as going from my previous PC running 98 to my next one running XP, because for Windows users the really big change happened between both (not counting the mediocre ME), with the coming out of NT-5 as Windows 2000 and the irreversible move away from DOS.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

Good luck next year 🙁
21H1 is just enablement package (from 2004), thats why its so swift and small and even chromebooks can make it. I understand your excitement.

Dell Latitude 3420, Intel Core i7 @ 2.8 GHz, 16GB RAM, W10 22H2 Enterprise

HAL3000, AMD Athlon 200GE @ 3,4 GHz, 8GB RAM, Fedora 29

PRUSA i3 MK3S+

Reply | Quote

This would have been much clearer to some people if the letter v was put before “2004”. Most of us know that Susan was referring to Windows 10 v.2004, not the year 2004, since the subject was feature updates of Windows 10.

GreatAndPowerfulTech

1 user thanked author for this post.

OscarCP

Reply | Quote

GreatAndPowerfulTech: “Most of us know that Susan was referring to Windows 10 v.2004, not the year 2004, since the subject was feature updates of Windows 10.”

To me her referring to “2004” seemed like an understandable digression, to indicate a time when major changes in the Windows OS were taking place, as compared to relatively minor ones since then. And did “most of us” understood that she was talking about Windows 10? And not about an “ancient” computer that surprised her by doing something unexpected?

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

Susan, are you recommending 21H1 for most users at this time?

Reply | Quote

Correct, 21H1 is now considered stable.

Susan Bradley Patch Lady/Prudent patcher

3 users thanked author for this post.

ae123, Morty, CyGuy

Reply | Quote

Second that motion.  Stable on six, I think computers in our home since April or so.  I did two with an ISO, the others used Susan’s Magical Method.

Reply | Quote

SallyBrown wrote:

used Susan’s Magical Method.

And what method would that be?

Ready for 21H1 on the weekend.

Reply | Quote

See post #2381841 below.

cheers, Paul

Reply | Quote

I can find no compelling reason to move from 20H2 to 21H1 at this time.  Even Susan Bradley’s post here – https://www.askwoody.com/2021/21h1-is-getting-closer/ said “The updated features included in it are underwhelming even for businesses.”  As for lifecycle, it extends 7 months beyond the end date for 20H2; 12/13/2022 vs. 5/10/2022.  So I’ll stick with 20H2 for now.

Reply | Quote

I never said it was compelling for any other reason that pushing the supported window down the road.  Since 2004 there is not much – and you can see why – they are focusing on Windows 11.  But truly if you are on 20H2, the feature release process is a nothingburger and takes little time.

Susan Bradley Patch Lady/Prudent patcher

Reply | Quote

Susan,

I don’t believe that I misquoted you, implied that your opinion is that the 21H1 Feature update is compelling or misstated 21H1’s longer  lifecycle.

So there’s nothing in my post to refute.

Reply | Quote

I can find no compelling reason to move from 20H2 to 21H1 at this time.

7 months of extra support? 🙂 Apart that, there is no need to update from 20H2 to 21H1 right now. Im talking about Home and Pro.

Also: Id like to show the fact, that with Enterprise and Education, nobody should move to 21H1 from 20H2, because you lose one year of support, thus forcing you to upgrade sooner.

Id like to share this fact with AW readers.

Dell Latitude 3420, Intel Core i7 @ 2.8 GHz, 16GB RAM, W10 22H2 Enterprise

HAL3000, AMD Athlon 200GE @ 3,4 GHz, 8GB RAM, Fedora 29

PRUSA i3 MK3S+

1 user thanked author for this post.

Melvin

Reply | Quote

My Lenovo updated unbidden to 21H1 as well. I foresee a time in the near future when updates of any kind are no longer controlled by the user.

Reply | Quote

Mine didn’t do it unbidden, I had clicked on ‘get updates’ weeks ago in the assumption it would fail.  I walked away from it and just assumed it did and forgot to go back and review that it actually succeeded.

Susan Bradley Patch Lady/Prudent patcher

Reply | Quote

Home user, installed 21H1 no problem.

Reply | Quote

I just updated to 20H2 from 2004. Does anyone have any idea where it got this weird date for installed on? It should read 8/4/2021. Ahh….is it showing the date I installed v 2004 since the files for 20H2 were included with v 2004 but kept dormant until now? That’s confusing!

Edition Windows 10 Pro
Version 20H2
Installed on ‎11/‎26/‎2020
OS build 19042.1110
Experience Windows Feature Experience Pack 120.2212.3530.0

It was a very fast update with only one reboot. The About page is the only one I’ve seen so far that is different from v 2004.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Melvin

Reply | Quote

You are correct. 2004 to 20H2 is just enablement package

and according to the Microsoft webpage, it brings new Edge. I think thats the most significant change from 2004 to 21H1 😁 Oh no, here we go again! Its kinda funny. This Windows update is totally expendable nonsense. I have rarely seen a home computer broken, because it lacks updates. But I have seen tens or hundreds of broken home computers, because updates. Thats fact.

Dell Latitude 3420, Intel Core i7 @ 2.8 GHz, 16GB RAM, W10 22H2 Enterprise

HAL3000, AMD Athlon 200GE @ 3,4 GHz, 8GB RAM, Fedora 29

PRUSA i3 MK3S+

2 users thanked author for this post.

Melvin, Mele20

Reply | Quote

 

It seems odd to me that enabling something requires a 100MB+ package.

Reply | Quote

I consider 100MB Windows update as a very slim. There is much “worse” going on usually.

Whats new?

Dell Latitude 3420, Intel Core i7 @ 2.8 GHz, 16GB RAM, W10 22H2 Enterprise

HAL3000, AMD Athlon 200GE @ 3,4 GHz, 8GB RAM, Fedora 29

PRUSA i3 MK3S+

Reply | Quote

Since I retired and don’t “need” a computer for work but just the little, simple low-end HP I got about four years ago to do things at home and keeping up with all the updates has become a “do it when I have to” task.  With that, I did do the 21H1 update yesterday.

It took some considerable time (about 6-7 hours?) to finish but seems to be working just fine after the install.  I use the ‘Classic Start’ by IVOSoft and didn’t have to re-set anything with it after the install which I found interesting.  Everything else seems to be just the same and all my custom settings etc. appear to have come over without a glitch too.  I also checked to see if I could use Windows 11 and (not a shock) my little old box won’t go there.  I figure this upgrade gives me a little bit more time before I have to figure out what to do next come 11.

Reply | Quote

 

When I followed these directions, the program was taking quite a lot longer than my update to 20H2. I timed how long it took to increase by 1% point, looked in Task Manager to see how fast the connection was, and my conclusion is that it was downloading the full 3.5 GB version, rather than just the update, which should be closer to 100 MB.

So I stopped it, and instead went to Windows Update Settings, and got it to download. And it went much faster.

So I don’t think it makes sense to use the Upgrade Assistant over the standard method of changing the Group Policy setting and forcing an update.

Reply | Quote

anonymous wrote:

So I don’t think it makes sense to use the Upgrade Assistant

Upgrade Assistant downloads the full Windows OS not updates.

Reply | Quote

When you upgrade from 20H2 to 21H1 are “good-for-10-days” rollback folder(s)/files created at c:\?  I know that this involves the ‘enablement package,’  but wondering whether to expect a rollback folder, too?

Reply | Quote

GOOD question that deserves a truthful, non-speculative, answer!

I’m not sure myself, as I’ve never had to roll back from one version to an earlier one. I’ve been lucky enough to have had no problems with the updates from 2004 to 20H2 and from 20H2 to 21H1. They happened just like the normal monthly updates have…taking about 10 minutes or so.

Because of that, I’ve never looked for the folder that’s supposed to be called “Windows.old” or something similar.

Reply | Quote

WCHS wrote:

When you upgrade from 20H2 to 21H1 are “good-for-10-days” rollback folder(s)/files created at c:\?

No. 2004 > 20H2 > 21H1 doesn’t create Windows.old file so no 10-days-rollback.
The only rollback options are your full image backups.

1 user thanked author for this post.

doriel

Reply | Quote

How to roll back from 20h2 to 2004

This is how to roll back to 2004 if something is not working as intended.

Dell Latitude 3420, Intel Core i7 @ 2.8 GHz, 16GB RAM, W10 22H2 Enterprise

HAL3000, AMD Athlon 200GE @ 3,4 GHz, 8GB RAM, Fedora 29

PRUSA i3 MK3S+

1 user thanked author for this post.

PKCano

Reply | Quote