We have a user that was upgraded to Windows 10 v2004. After that upgrade, he is seeing performance issues with Epicor 10.2.500.17 MES. It can take up to 6 seconds to tab through a field where it used to be instantaneous. We are in the process of rolling him back to v1909 of Windows 10.
I’m wondering if anyone else experienced issues on Win 10 v2004 with Epicor and if anyone knows if v2004 should be fully supported for Epicor 10.2.500.
Thanks!
Jenn
First thing to try would be to clear the client cache manually.
With Epicor NOT running, delete the C:\ProgramData\Epicor*-808 folder.
Next would be to remove and re-install the Epicor client.
How is everything else running on their computer? I’ve seen Epicor blamed because they use it the most, but when you start asking more questions you find out that Outlook also takes 5 minutes to open.
I upgraded my PC to build 2004, and it was absolutely horrid to start with. Like @Carson suggested though, it wasn’t just Epicor it was everything. Outlook wouldn’t even open without crashing.
I cannot recall whether I reinstalled a driver, or whether a subsequent Windows update fixed it. I struggled through for about 4 days of trying to work out what was happening.
Network Admin chiming in here. For the LARGE majority of production machines in a business environment you should be two MAJOR releases behind. Right now I recommend 1903 while 1909 has proven safe so far. 2004 in a production network is asking for all sorts of goofy problems. I run the latest at home for several months, then hit my work PC with it, then hit a user or five with it, then deploy it once its AT LEAST not the latest release. Never run bleeding edge Windows in a corporate world. From an IT perspective you are asking for trouble.
Thanks everyone for your replies.
I will pass these posts on to our network admin.
Jenn
Do you have any legacy smb hanging around?
That goes totally against the requirement for being Cyber secure. Our Cyber Essentials accreditation in the UK which demonstrates our commitment to properly adhering to GDPR states that all updates to OS, firmware should be installed within 14 days of being published by the software manufacturer.
I see the logic behind this - once they’ve published a fix for a serious bug, hackers know that the bug exists and can actively start to target that vulnerability. BUT, software manufacturers haven’t given us confidence over the years to jump in and install the latest build and most of us like to let other people suffer any issues first and deploy once it’s mature.
Your stance on it is becoming outdated, and we must start changing our mindset and trusting providers more to deliver quality, secure, bug free software.
It’s the same with E10, lots of us with on-prem solutions wait for a while and let @Mark_Wonsil test the newest build in the cloud and find any issues. 
Do not misunderstand my statement. I am saying that the version should be 100% patched with AT LEAST monthly rollups. However the MAJOR versions can be a production RISK. The OS is still technically that major version. 1903, 1909, 2004 ARE OS Versions very much like Windows XP, 7, Vista. Just within the umbrella of the ‘Windows 10’ moniker. You should absolutely patch the 1903, 1909, 2004 versions just fully UPGRADING can be a risk. Going from 1903 to 1909 IS at some level equivalent to upgrading from 7 to 8.1 or 8.1 to 10. As for trusting providers to release quality software, particularly Microsoft of late, is not the best idea as they have a proven track record of FAILING miserably to provide that solid OS Major patch level.
You may have missed the memo but I switched employers and am in the Proud (On-Prem in the Cloud, Azure in this case.) You’ll notice in my signature that I’m not on .600 at the time of this post but will be looking into it after we launch this plant on next Thursday.
Yes, the Windows roll outs have been poor of late and one has to wonder with the movement to web apps everywhere, will Windows matter? Reducing the attack surface may someday mean moving everything to WebKit (Safari), Mozilla (FireFox) or Chromium (Chrome, Edge, Brave, etc.) and using virtual desktops for heavier loads. 
We saw and issue the the 2004 updated killing Solid Works and KeyCreator. Neither of them would open up.
I had to remove their user profiles from their pc and let windows create a new one when they logged in again. Then those two programs worked again.
Hi cyber essentials doesn’t determine 14 days. Iso 27001 doesn’t necessarily determine that.
Cyber Essentials clearly states “14 days in all circumstances” actually… it’s there in black and white.
The interpretation is key though I guess - my assessor has interpreted it that the latest Windows 10 build is what is required on this question, but the point raised here about build 1909 being fine as long as all patches for that version are applied also stands up to scrutiny in my eyes. With 20H2 build released, I would say that 1903 is now 3 versions old and therefore “too old” in my eyes.
It also applies to Mobile Phones - we primarily use iOS devices. The patching there is different. If you’re on iOS 13.7, the next thing that the software update client on the device will show you is iOS 14.0. So, you can’t still be “current” with all patches applied if you’re on iOS 13, the only option is iOS 14. But, installing a major release like that in the first 14 days of release by Apple could have issues.
It’s difficult isn’t it, balancing security with functionality and business continuity/disruption.
Hi mark, um. I think I will just leave as it is.
I’m interested to know what other people are doing, and I’m all ears. I’d appreciate your thoughts on the text above.
High Risk and Critical are the key words. That would be what @EarlGrei was alluding to. A major release is not considered a high risk or critical security update. MS will still shunt off critical updates even to older, supported versions, of Windows if they too exhibit a security vulnerability. Major release will come with feature and functionality updates specifically. Any security updates would be retroactive.