Just one thing left to make it good
Get rid of the failed new user interface and API and instead concentrate on proper windows and we're good to go again :)
Take a deep breath. This is it, the big one: Microsoft has released Windows 10, which will make everything good again after Windows 8. Windows 10 is distinctive for several reasons. First, it introduces the "Windows as a service" concept, in which most users will automatically receive incremental updates with both feature and …
Speaking of new UI, why is everyone pushing things down a "You need to search for everything" route?
Is it that hard to remember that Visual Studio is in Programs->Visual Studio 2013? Is it hard to remember that you saved your spreadsheet in My Documents?
The problem I always had with the old start menu was down to the fact that every manufacturer laid out their directories differently, and a lot of suppliers aren't even consistent within their own application, Microsoft included.
Once you've got a decent amount of applications installed, it soon became a mess. I always ended up manually organising it myself in to categories, but this had its own downside when you came to uninstalling or upgrading things.
I never used Search before Windows 8 as it was just too slow. While it still isn't 100% perfect, it works for me now 99% of the time and it is definitely lower maintenance than organising things myself.
Search isn't a silver bullet, but for day to day use, I find it serves me pretty well these days.
"Speaking of new UI, why is everyone pushing things down a "You need to search for everything" route?"
The old XP search worked well. Its parameters were explicit about what you wanted to search for and where.
The one on W7 looks simpler but needs double-guessing as it usually says it can't find the specified thing. Annoyingly I still haven't discovered how to make it search a directory for all files containing a specific text string.
"You kids and your love for traversing menus, Is it really that hard to open cmd and type "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\Common7\IDE\devenv.exe"?"
I normally just press the windows key and type "visu" by the time thats in there VS is top of the list ready for me to hit enter and it to load... who needs a menu?
"I normally just press the windows key and type "visu" by the time thats in there VS is top of the list ready for me to hit enter and it to load... who needs a menu?"
...And here I was thinking I was clever for opening Visual Studio by clicking on a shortcut...Whatever I use frequently enough I have shortcuts for, for all the rest there is search
"And here I was thinking I was clever for opening Visual Studio by clicking on a shortcut"
Clicking a shortcut means taking my hands from the keyboard, its quicker to hit 5 keys (win V I S ENTER) than it is to grab the mouse, navigate to the start menu and then click the link.
Maybe that's just me - I prefer to do things with the keyboard where possible, if theres a keyboard shortcut its going to be faster than the mouse (In VS for example commenting a line using the mouse means taking your hand from the keyboard, selecting the line(s) then moving the mouse to the top of the screen and clicking on the button (if you can find it, there are loads of them!) as opposed to CTRL + K + C 3 keys, done.
I'm not here to get into a debate about keyboard navigation vs mouse etc.
Of course not. I never came across a smarter TAB-completion than Windows'. They must have copied it from Amazon. It makes suggestions along the lines of "People who reckon this would've been a nice path also tried something totally unrelated". Why always follow the beaten track?
You kids and your love for traversing menus, Is it really that hard to open cmd and type "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\Common7\IDE\devenv.exe"?
On the rare occasions when I must use the accursed thing, I generally start Venomous Studio by typing "devenv" in a Cygwin bash window, yes. Of course I have PATH set properly, so I don't need to enter the complete path explicitly.
That said, I don't know why some people are so opposed to using the search function. When I want to run something not in $PATH, I hit Ctrl-Esc and type the appropriate prefix, then hit Enter. It's the desktop analogue of $PATH, and I find it works pretty well.
For some people it is that hard to remember. You need to try supporting some elderly users. They just tend to save everything wherever they feel like - I found one users important home finance spreadsheet tucked all away in a windows system folder once.
"For some people it is that hard to remember. You need to try supporting some elderly users. They just tend to save everything wherever they feel like..."
Some (not the majority) teenagers are quite into random saving as well. Always fun sorting them out.
I personally use search to cross reference archived stuff.
I have a folder for each academic year/course/week as the year progresses. File names include topic and level of difficulty.
If I need an extra worksheet/presentation quickly, I can just do a file name search on topic and level. The results show the last few years' worth of resources for level/topic.
Works at work (Win7) and at home (Linux). I always have to click around a bit to get the win7 search to return results but it does work.
Most of my colleagues have a filing system something like this but a surprising number are not familiar with file search or Ctrl-F for long pages/lists.
I'm assuming filename search will be possible/easier in the new Windows?
I'm also assuming there is a content search available in some way as well? Perhaps with local indexing software? Any suggestions?
"I'm also assuming there is a content search available in some way as well? "
How do you do that on W7? It is something I really miss from XP days.
Just did an RTFM - seems you have to change a setting even for specific folder searches. BUT it seems a global solution that is less user friendly than using the old XP explicit parameters for each search.
It's generally easier on a Mac to find various utilities using spotlight. "Net<return>" for network utility for example (a much used diagnostic) That works. Why I can't do the same for windows I don't know. On the Mac search for applications just works, on Windows, it's painful.
Plenty of people have difficulty with working out where stuff is. This is mostly because:-
- They have been discouraged from understanding disks and directory layouts
- Microsoft have had Sooooooo many different default places to put stuff over the years
- Libraries just confuse people that have no idea they are virtual collections
There is an argument to be made that trying to get devices to work down to the lowest level of knowledge and/or stupidity is not necessarily the best way to advance the state of mankind.
"Is it that hard to remember that Visual Studio is in Programs->Visual Studio 2013? Is it hard to remember that you saved your spreadsheet in My Documents?"
Yes, I could remember that. But why should I have to when there's no need? I can still remember memory maps from 8 bit micros and yet I can't remember to pick up the shopping list before I leave. I would like my brain to delete the useless memories and reallocate the storage to tasks that matter. Since the brain doesn't apparently work like that, I don't want to be filling it up with ever more clutter when the computer can remember for me.
We need an icon for "old fogey's post". :/
"Yes, I could remember that. But why should I have to when there's no need?"
Funnily enough that exact reason is why I have zero use for "searching" for programs. I simply have no idea what they're called - what was that again, "fruityfoglia"...? Ah, no, "Piriform defraggler" - and I would have found it even in my sleep right in the "System Tools" start menu folder where I keep such things. Yes, I can remember "Visual Studio", but I can't remember the names of 90% of the tools I use - I just know to hit up everything I find under "Recovery Tools" whenever something gets deleted that should not have been. Same for various media conversion tools. Or audio editors. Or esoteric CAD format viewers. Or hex viewers. Or CPU fan speed / temperature testers. Or whatever else. I have no idea what any of those are called, so I CAN'T search for them. But I sure CAN browse, and let me assure you, my first-level start menu is a single column wide. I can reach anything I have within 2-3 levels, tops. But search is NOT discoverable - and Windows is welcome to shove it where the sun don't shine just as much as Ubuntu is, as far as I'm concerned.
I wish they would put Quick Launch back in fully - it takes up far less room than the "pin to task bar" crap. It's still possible to use it (even on Windows 10) though attempting to get some of the "modern apps" to live in it is a bit fraught - shoving Edge in it will lose the icon on the next reboot.
> Since the brain doesn't apparently work like that, I don't want to be filling it up with ever more clutter when the computer can remember for me.
The brain works like a muscle. If you don't use it, it "prunes" that capability. If you play dumb, you become dumber.
Is it just me who uses keystrokes with menus? That rather requires fixed menus, not some search system which may reorganise the menu because someone has saved another document with a similar name. Really chaps, I know you'd love Bing to be successful, but can't I use alt-s for the W7-style start menu (with search box) and ctrl-alt-s for your new-fangled search?
I've also been shaped on my internet connection after busting my download limit this month. Would my desktop PC now become a bit rubbish at finding local data because its taking ages to reach bing? How do the search results come back? First-found at the top? alphabetical? Docs/Apps/Web? Does these re-order as more results come in? Hands up who wants to tell Bing about their local pr0n collection every time they try to find something, even if its just a mis-type? Does MS feel any sense of irony in desperately trying to get rid of the "personal" part of the PC?
Sorry MS, must try harder.
12% extra for DX12 might be cool, but I see many games moving away from MS-only which means open-gl. I look for speed bumps every 5 years or so, when I upgrade the hardware. Nice though it is, Indie games rarely need raw power anyway.
As pretty much the last remaining OS I can pay for, I expect to be protected from privacy-invaders. If you can run cortana on my local PC and upload relevant (voice recognition etc) data to my local PC rather than taking it off my PC then great. Otherwise, I'm not interested. Yeah, I'm one of those weird people who does naughty things like download youtube videos locally because I hate people prying on my activities over time.
Give me a new OS design. Its time that we stopped pretending there are only users, not programs on the system. Give applications a security manifest not just a user to execute as. As a user I may want to execute a screen-saver or "run-as" to elevate my privileges. I may also want to run Flash videos from the web. (I know, I'm perverse). Both systems need to run as me. However, how often do I need Flash to be able to write anything to disk or access *any* executable outside of its own directory? How about if *at installation time* there is installed a *read-only* list of libraries it can access. Likewise with screen-savers. Is there any requirement for a screen-saver to ever have a child-process running as a different user, or indeed, be able to spawn cmd.ex? Can't we get the OS to control what software can access based on install-time manifests rather than mere user-rights? No Flash, you may not spawn any child processes, access anything other than your approved list of dlls, nor write to disk. I don't care what the executable is trying to do, I've told the OS to step in and prevent access to those resources. Word doesn't need to access the web, why let it just have all the user's privileges?
So Windows has more flexible access-control than unix. Well done. We have some sort of hybrid of Unix and Netware. Can we not move a little further forward than that? Can we not have some sort of BSD Jail / inbound-outbound proxy firewall running at an application level? Have it as a "high-security execution mode" option. Would it be slower? Yes. Would it sell? I think so.
Fine-grained permissions for applications are not new, and they do exist in iOS/Android and even more so in later versions of the Symbian OS. But frankly, they are a pain in the rear to manage as a developer, unless you are writing very tightly-defined function.
The designed-in inflexibility of fine-grained permissions means that there is a significant management burden needed to deal with the way application behaviour is typically extended over time, and limits the dynamic or personalized behaviours that can be accessed. If a developer shifts this management burden onto the user ( by making them continually fiddle with permissions ), they typically will not retain that user for long.
The result is developers simply install applications with as many permissions as they can get, which rather reduces the value of fine-grained permissions in the first place, and OS makers like Apple and Symbian try to become arbiters of what you can and cannot develop, reducing the role of both developers and users in deciding how devices are used.
Something better is needed, I agree, but probably not fixed fine-grained permissions for code objects.
My experience of your average user is that they click 'Save', but haven't got a clue where they saved it to and don't know how to find it again.
Personally, yes, I can remember where I saved the last thing I worked on, but I have a heck of a job finding anything even a few months old...
IME once you get into the habit of finding everything by typing the first few letters into a search box and accepting what is usually the top hit, you never go back, especially when the box can be opened with a key combo instead of a mouse click, which makes it even faster than hunting with a mouse (hate the things anyway).
Even though I usually can remember where it is, this approach removes the need to have to bother to remember, so after a while you do forget through lack of use of the knowledge, which is either a vicious circle or a self-fulfilling prophecy depending on your POV. Jury's out IMO as I suppose I have the capacity to remember other stuff instead.
Actually you don't have the failed UI, what they have done is tacked the hated Play School style icons to the right of the Start menu, right click each app icon and select "Detach" and it's gone, repeat for the rest and you're left with the normal menu. I've had the preview edition for a while and it was the first thing I did, after that it's pretty good, if you still want the app style icons there's an icon on the right of the taskbar with a "Tablet Mode" switch, once done you're pretty much back with Windows 7, the menu for apps is in alphabetical order which took some getting used to but on balance thats a benefit.
I use Windows 8 too and I much prefer the Windows 10 UI, it still retains some of the wording and feel of the Windows 8 menus (stuff like "All Programs" has become "All Apps"), but overall I think it's better.
The screenshot of the two control panels illustrates the problems with the Win 8/8.1/10 GUI.
The new settings app has flat, abstract, monochrome icons. The Win7 control panel has 3D, multicolor icons with transparency. I can glance at the Win7 one and see which icon I want, instead of looking at all the icons in the new settings app.
Why? because I'm used to it, or ---- because <b>making icons look like real things makes it easier for the brain to recognize them maybe?<b> A colored, 3D world with continents vs a circle with a few curves...
Abstraction makes the GUI HARDER to use.
I remember reading something funny about how Visual Studio 2015 will let me use Hi-Res icons
"Yes," I thought, "super hi-res! - as long as they only have two colours".
Elmer Phud has hit the nail on the head here.
Assuming someone has bought an external hard drive, what is the backup software like for backing up content (images, music, documents &c) locally?
Anything like MacOS Timemachine built in or available that can be recommended to civilian users?
> Anything like MacOS Timemachine built in or available that can be recommended to civilian users?
Yup, it has the same (or similar, I haven't checked the backups for differences so maybe an algorithm has changed, who knows) invisible incremental file backup as Win8.x
Some things are just unknowns...and others.. who knows.
1) Author says this will not be a subscription service. Is this just for the first year or forever?
2) The App Store... I've not seen anything on costs yet. It would be nice to be able to figure out the cost of ownership including apps.
3) Updates from other PC's on the Internet. Now this is truly scary. What's to stop this from being an attack surface?
Personally, I'm not seeing any compelling reason to jump to Win 10 unless it's for "hey, guess what I've got" bragging rights. Corporate issued out a statement here that "in due time, but not yet" so any corporate devices will not be upgraded and nor will IT support Wn10 on BYOD for at least 6 months. They will let us run a PC's for testing and learning.. so I guess I get to fire one up in the next month or so.
"3) Updates from other PC's on the Internet. Now this is truly scary. What's to stop this from being an attack surface?"
Not really, provided it's done properly. Linux package managers have been happily using "untrusted" mirrors all over the globe since forever. Packages are signed by the distro, you retrieve the package from an untrusted source, compare the keys with the distro keys, if they match and the package hasn't been modified, happy days, otherwise discard the package and get it from somewhere else.
So long as there are enough sources with the legitimate package, there's no problem.
@Anonymous Coward - "Linux package managers have been happily using "untrusted" mirrors all over the globe since forever"
I've used a number of distros, but I've never used a free one where you didn't choose what mirror you wanted as part of the installation process, except perhaps Ubuntu which simply defaults to Canonical's own servers.
The mirrors are "untrusted" in the sense that the distro doesn't vouch for them. It's up to the individual users to decide who they trust. If I decide that I would rather trust a mirror run by my local university and to not trust one run by the NSA, that's up to me.
I do remember when it was common for initial Linux distro ISOs to be distributed by P2P networks, but I haven't seen anyone doing that in years, although it's possible some of the hobby distros might still be doing it. Package updates though, including security fixes, always came direct from a public mirror you had to select.
"I've used a number of distros, but I've never used a free one where you didn't choose what mirror you wanted as part of the installation process, except perhaps Ubuntu which simply defaults to Canonical's own servers."
On the RPM side of the pond (CentOS/Fedora) I've never had an option to choose mirrors, you can provide a URL for a net install, but for the package manager, it goes off and gets a list of mirrors that are all over the place. As far as I'm concerned, untrusted = not in the control of the distro itself - i.e. any rogue admin can replace packages. But as I say, that's not a problem because packages are signed and checked after downloading.
"2) The App Store... I've not seen anything on costs yet. It would be nice to be able to figure out the cost of ownership including apps."
The cost of ownership has been zero for me on Windows 8 PCs and my smart phones over the years. I have installed several free programs on my smart phone, and tried it a couple of times with the PCs. The App Store is just an additional way of installing software and Windows 10 will runs all your previous Windows software, although compatibility is going to be a problem just like with Windows 8, 7, Vista and so on...
"3) Updates from other PC's on the Internet. Now this is truly scary. What's to stop this from being an attack surface?"
This sounds very much like how BitTorrent works - is BT (and other decentralized methods of distributing software) somehow compromised? I've downloaded all the Linux distros with BT and I'm not worried at all.
"They will let us run a PC's for testing and learning.. so I guess I get to fire one up in the next month or so."
I'm not that interested in Win10, but I'll be updating some computer(s) just to see how it works since I believe a few hundred million ordinary people out there is going to do the update anyway.
What advantages does Windows 10 *actually* bring to the average power-user? Windows 8 had some performance improvements, native mounting of VHD/VHDX/ISO files, improved File History. Enough for me to use Win8 (with Start8, of course).
But what does Windows 10 bring? Live Tiles - not interested. Cortana - not interested. Edge browser - not interested (Firefox). Multiple desktops - not interested (I use dual monitors soI have enough screen space without needing Jekyll and Hyde options).
Are there really any compelling reasons to use it?
I'm currently downloading from MSDN anyway, but I've yet to see any reason to install it.
Performance and multiple desktops mostly, in my experience.
And while there seems to be widespread distaste for having a Microsoft account (it's odd how there is no such distaste for a Google account or an Apple account, isn't it?), the synchronization over multiple machines is worthwhile as is the fact that a Universal app, once "owned" by the account, can be installed on anything else the user owns without extra cost.
Apart from the occasional "we're stealing even more of your personal information" emails I don't recall getting any spam from Google to my Android account.
Microsoft, on the other hand, are deluging the account I attached to Windows 8 with marketing email. So I'm back to a plain old username.
When you find yourself on Windows 10, have a play with multiple desktops, they're more useful than you'd think.
I too have dual monitors but still use multiple desktops. For e.g. when on a good nerd, I'll commonly have:
Desktop 1: General stuff, IM, IRC, email client, el'reg
Desktop 2: development IDE, multiple browser windows for testing/documentation, CLI for running/git
Desktop 3: database related stuff (MySQL workbench etc.)
Desktop 4: remote server connections (SSH/RDP) / or graphics applications if I need to work on resources
Everything is running ready, your taskbar isn't cluttered, and there's a nice separation of work tasks.
What, Windows has multiple desktops? Really. Wow...
Wait, wait WAIT!!!
I've just checked my old Linux machine, which is donkeys years old. It appears that has multiple desktops too.
Can somebody please answer me this question. Why on earth would you want to *pay* for an OS that keeps changing its spots every few years (meaning you have to relearn everything you knew because some twat in a large corporation wants more money off you) when you can get a perfectly good one for FREE?
> I've just checked my old Linux machine, which is donkeys years old. It appears that has multiple desktops too.
It probably has a media player too and you know what? Windows had one before any linux distro. Does this mean that linux should not have bothered to implement a media player? Your logic could use some work.
Short version - just because a feature exists in a different OS doesn't mean it's a bad feature.
And yes, the release copy of Win10 I've been testing this morning was indeed free, your concern is noted, now go away.
Perhaps the answer is because we Windows users don't have to be subjected to arrogant, smug, patronizing dicks like you every time we want to add a program or use a "feature" on our PC?
Linux changes the whole UI with almost EVERY distribution (thus meaning your have to "relearn" everything), has a far longer learning cycle, has had more bugs than Windows, requires much manual intervention and overall feature/driver development lags behind Windows in almost every case. It's backwards compatibility with older programs is worse than Windows. Linux security isn't any better than Windows. Linux is a developer cluster f@&k of massive proportions that has never gained any real momentum in the retail world, even the Walmart Ubuntu experiment failed and it is primarily used only as a server OS. Android is not the same as desktop Linux so don't even try to confuse the issue.
Just because it's "free" or you say so, doesn't make it any better than Windows or make it a candidate to replace Windows.
Everything bad you say about Windows can be said about Linux. The Windows ecosystem has lined the pockets of IT for a long time. If you don't like that, stop taking peoples money for supporting it.
Somehow, I don't think you can get over your hypocrisy.
>> Perhaps the answer is because we Windows users don't have to be subjected to arrogant, smug, patronizing dicks like you
..and here you are exactly being one. What is your point again?
>> Linux changes the whole UI with almost EVERY distribution
Firstly, that is pretty much the whole point of alternative distributions. Its called freedom of choice. Apparently something Microsoft users don't understand.
>> has a far longer learning cycle
Nope. Many studies have been done on people that have not used a computer before, they almost all universally show people get up to speed quicker with Linux than Windows. If you've already been brainwashed into the Microsoft way of doing things they yes you will have to relearn that things aren;t all in the same place as in Windows. Mostly as a result of conscious decisions to do it better because the Microsoft way of doing things sucks. Suck it up, its really not that hard to learn new things.
>> has had more bugs than Windows,
Please quote your actual sources or is this just unsubstantiated ranting? Hmm.. given about 95% of all supercomputers, web servers, routers etc are Linux-based do you REALLY think thats true?
Its a hard fact that Linux bugs are found and fixed far faster than Windows bugs are, because there is a community of literally millions of people looking at its source code every day.
>> Linux security isn't any better than Windows.
This is so NOT true its laughable. See earlier answers.
>> Linux is a developer cluster f@&k of massive proportions that has never gained any real momentum in the retail world,
Again more outright lies and unsubstantiated ranting, About 95% of all the internet servers and mainframe computers in the world use Linux, but corporate drones and fanbois like you that have already sold their soul to Microsoft live in denial of actual facts/figures from the world around them and just keep sticking their heads in the sand and drinking the Microsoft koolaid.
>>has had more bugs than Windows,
Please quote your actual sources or is this just unsubstantiated ranting?
Pick a year - any year. Its ok, we'll wait.
>> Its a hard fact that Linux bugs are found and fixed far faster than Windows bugs are, because there is a community of literally millions of people looking at its source code every day.
Staggering that in 2015 some people still believe this. Search for big OSS vulns in the last 2 years, and look at whole long these have sat hidden in plain site. The "many eyes" myth is well busted - find some other nonsense to cling to.
>Why on earth would you want to *pay* for an OS ... when you can get a perfectly good one for FREE?
Few people care about the OS. What you are really paying for is access to Windows-only apps.
MS use the OS-upgrade to drive application upgrades on a OS-Server-Client treadmill, but if you want the applications, you have to go with the whole ecosystem.
I actually use Linux more than Windows, but I can't say the experience is any more exhilarating.
Yes, Microsoft are copying good ideas from Xerox PARC in the 1980s, just as Apple and various versions of UNIX/Linux have. Yes, the desktop interfaces of Windows, Mac and UNIX/Linux all ape each other, and no, none of them are particularly good.
And if you think Linux distributions are static, you haven't been paying attention. Subsystems get argued about and changed on a regular basis, and there just as many ( if not more ) bizarre ways to write application as under Windows.
The truth is that all modern OSs are roughly comparable, and very few people actually make a conscious buying decision. Apple Macs/Macbooks comes with MacOS X installed, most commercial PCs/Laptops come with Windows installed, usually at no direct cost to the purchaser. People that build their own PCs often choose Linux or a free UNIX.
Outside of the PC/Laptop arena, the Microsoft technology ( which is mostly business focussed ) is just ignored, as there are so many better options for device makers, none of whom want to be controlled by Microsoft in the new markets.
Microsoft have gone from a position of market control in personal computer devices, to a position of near irrelevance, which was the cause of the Windows 8 panic/design mess. Their business model has always revolved around tying all hardware together with Windows whilst ignoring/excluding other software platforms, so Windows 10 needs to do everything that any other platform is doing, just in case it proves popular.
Personally, I think they need to accept their position has changed, just as IBM had to when they lost dominance, but it is a hard sell to shareholders when it will clearly result in a short-term destruction of revenue. But until they do have a re-think, I can't see them really doing anything other than fire-fighting, which is really what Windows 10 represents.
Are indeed a very useful thing... I use them all the time in linux , but I also used them all the time in win XP and still use them in W7.
I use a free (for private use) app called Dexpot. I'm sure even though MS finally realised the utility of multiple desktops I'm sure they will have done it half arsed anyway, Dexpot has tons of configuration options, plus some 'bling' options (cube, windows roll ups, transparency etc...) inspired by compiz
So even if you do go for w10 (not for me thanks) you might still want to check it out...
I'm surprised. You could have them with Microsoft PowerToys on Windows XP. With Windows 7 and 8 you had the choice of registry hacks (the underlying software was there since Windows NT) or third party apps.
So maybe they are a new thing but only to users with minimal IT knowledge and no geek friends.
This review reads like an apology (no disrespect to the author intended) and like other posters I'm left wondering "why upgrade?". Perhaps it's just that El Reg readers tend to be more tech savvy and look deeper, while for the average user (again, no disrespect intended) the improved security and ease of buying programs from The Store will be of sufficient benefit to upgrade.
Thanks to Tim for a critical review too. I've read a few of the depressing "reviews" in the broadsheet press and their enthusiasm and similarity leads me to conclude that good old cut 'n paste hasn't been dropped from 10.
I'm left wondering "why upgrade?"
Agreed. The subtitle says "it is worth upgrading", but for the life of me I can't find anything in the article to justify that. Another thread above says "performance and multiple desktops", but - as any number of people have pointed out - the latter are easily available for Win7 (I have them on both my Win7 machines); and the former is Good Enough (particularly once various bits of cruft, like all the predefined tasks in the Windows Scheduler, have been disabled), given the annoyance of upgrading, tweaking, and learning the new OS.
I just can't see any reason why I'd want Windows 10. Nothing I've read about it, including this review, sounds at all appealing.
In case anyone actually says this stuff for realz, you can always just open an elevated command prompt and type
That should trigger the update.
Or of course, you can download the ISOs so many commentards told us would not be available.
Then you can do a clean install and proceed to hate it for not being something else from there.
"Or of course, you can download the ISOs so many commentards told us would not be available."
Excellent. The page suggests that I need to run the 'media creation tool' (a 17mb executable) that will, in turn, manage the download and burn the media.
Is there actually a link to an .iso file that I can just burn to a DVD or is that not how it is done?
Whawhazat? Having to use a command line, let alone an elevated one (that's the one above the current one, right? Oops, no history. Or did you mean become administrator for whatever command you blindly copy/paste there from the internet when Windows needs a nappy change?), is the single most regurgitated no-go bigotry held up against Linux. Proudly so.
Many Linux users value the console for productive work, hence its refinement over the clunky excuse in your favourite operating system. It is in no way meant as a last resort to keep the beast going, one short of not booting at all, as in Windows. A "normal" user will never see it or feel the need to.
The head on MS UK was on Radio 5 earlier today.
My only impression from the interview was that he was talking a load of balls (the Ed kind)
He was very enthusiastic about the auto-updating 'feature'. I have to wonder if his words will come to haunt him ans MS in general. All it takes is one dodgy update and they are on the hook for an awful lot of money despite what it says in their EULA.
I have it running in a VM and on an old ThinkPad T420 Laptop. I will be seeing for myself how this auto-update works especially on the T420 because it needs a couple of drivers from Lenovo to make everything function.
As they say, watch this space. (or is it spade as W10 gets buried by W11 in 6 months)
I totally agree.
The one thing business want above all is stability. Patching is already a nightmare to do in a managed fashion, and now MS wants to go in and basically say : you're entire user base is going to change at least every 8 months ?
Oh sure, I read the part where businesses can pay extra for not having the latest Angry Birds demo package installed on their users' PCs. Does anyone really think MS has the required professionalism to not cock this up big time ?
I'm stocking up on popcorn, I'm telling you. Buy stock now.
I'm sorry I just don't get why anyone thinks typing to get an app is better. If I dont't know the exact name of say, a control panel applet in Windows 7, I click Start, Control Panel and I look. I don't want to have to click Start, or press Windows-R, type what I think might be the name and hope bloody Windows knows what I want.
Even on a home edition I DO NOT WANT UNCONTROLLED UPDATES. I want to be able to research them a little so when the INEVITABLE buggy update appears I can choose not to install it.
Cortana can quite literally get fecked, along with Siri and fecking Google Now and all the other activity trackers, er I mean assistants.
Cross device gaming could be mildy cool. I guess
And hell, at least it's not Windows 8
"I don't want to have to click Start, or press Windows-R, type what I think might be the name and hope bloody Windows knows what I want"
MS say "Get to Settings by going to Start > Settings"
I read this review with a growing sense of meh regarding the whole thing.
There are no killer features which I personally need.
Then I got to this bit, and experienced a growing feeling of absolute dread:
"The Xbox app delivered with Windows 10 supports Xbox Live Streaming, letting you connect to an Xbox One console and play games on your PC."
Every single teenager in the world (including mine) will be updating to Windows 10 this month, whether they are told to avoid it like the plague or not :-(
"Windows 3.11 did that admirably."
You must have been using a different Windows 3.11, it only looked good by comparison to Win 3.1. It failed miserably in comparison to any of it's contemporaries at the time - and it didn't get better with age either. Yeah, I spent a too much time fixing 3.1 & 3.11 machines - most of which was a total waste of time because the users would have managed to break them again within an hour. ;)
Ah, the usual two usual down-voters. By your down-votes I take it that you believe that 8.3 file names and 260 character path limits make it easier to manage files than all those crusty old OSes that supported > 11 char file names and deeply nested directories back in 1994.
> " Every single teenager in the (XBOX) world..."
Good point. Absolutely no teenagers want to play Halo anymore and M$ are throwing billions away on a console which, despite its probable nine-year+ lifespan has already irrevocably lost the Great Console War to Sony, with its magnificent PS4 which is so fantabulous that you can't even play a DVD on it.
And I hear the PS4 is getting some awesome games! In Q4 2016.
M$ should just give up everything and declare bankruptcy at everything because they make no sales and no worthwhile products and no decent platforms and no good hardware and they smell.
I'm cool for writing that, yeah?
There's another way. Just upgrade. It's just completed on my Surface Pro and I do find it less offensive than W8. While W8 had its issues it had some major advantages over W7 (File History, improved Task manager etc), and W10 is a step back in the right direction UI-wise.
I might not feel the need to install a third-party Start Menu, we'll see.
All this coming from a Linux sysadmin....
If Microsoft, for whatever reason, want to play around with the way that the user interface works, then why don;t they either
(a) just release the new UI as an add-on that you can buy, retaining the ability to switch between the previous UI and the new one. This means no-ones forced to work with a UI they don;t like.
(b) release the new thing under a name other than Windows, eg, Doors. Make it clear (insofar as one can) to what extent Doors is compatible with Windows, but also that it is, in fact, a new OS and so won;t be liek Windows used to be. Simultaneously, keep Windows going much as ever, with bug-fixes and only minor refinements for as long as is sensible.
Trying to force wholesale replacement of what users are comfy with is just, well, mad. And even as someone who really, seriously, dislikes MS, it's getting uncomfortable watching MS self-harm so often. Please note - much as I'm no keen on Windows as is and has been, I also don't particularly want Windows to disappear because a multiplicity of OS's would, IMO, be healthier, and help make things tougher for cybercrims. God knows MS have the resources to do things right - I just wish they would for a change!
I think his fundamental point is sound though.
MS should completely separate the GUI from the underlying functionality and then they could sell (consistent) Desktop Environments for different use cases.
Or allow 3rd party developers to create Desktop Environments for specialist cases.
This allows businesses (amongst others) to take advantage of underlying improvements to security & speed without having to keep reluctantly retraining staff at vast expense.
Soft. Eng. best practice has been to (generally) separate out the interface from the functionality from the data for 30 years. This has worked exceptionally well in all the massive modelling / optimiser projects I worked on over the years.
Methinks you missed the point, friend. I didn't say that Windows doesn't do windowing. I merely suggested that a change in the way that the UI works be accompanied by a change in the brand name for the UI. ANd Metro IS different to the XP UI, which is what a ginormous number of people cut their teeth on and to this day feel comfortable with.
I've made the point before - because to most people the UI IS, effectively, the OS, people tend to expect Windows (or Gnome or KDE) to work the same way, pretty much, forever. they really do not like the thing that they've got used to working with to change radically. Linux has the benefit of multiple UI's to choose from, Gnome, KDE, Cinnamon, Mate, Xfce, LXDE etc etc. It's relatively easy to try different UIs in Linux until you find one that you like. But look what happened when KDE and later Gnome made changes that users weren't happy with! Or when Ubuntu pushed the Unity UI on users. In each case, they lost a lot of users who switched to other UIs, or in Ubuntus case, distros, as Linux Mint gained where Ubuntu lost users.
In a nutshell, if MS wants to muck about creating new UI's that's fine - but psychologically it makes more sense to offer the new UIs as options from a range that one can choose from, not an enforced change fropm a UI you've come to like (or at least dont want to change from).
(laughing at the suggestion elsewhere that it be called cupboardds) I had no idea, and that was just a name to differentiate it from Windows. You could call it Fred Bloggs' Old Peculiar if you wish. The core idea is that it's the kernel that does the heavy lifting, but it's the UI that differentiates things so far as most users are concerned. Most people associate Windows with the XP GUI. So a UI that doesn;t work like that is something other than Windows (or should be, logically). This is the kind of logic we apply to physical objects. If it looks and feels and 'works' different, then it IS different. So why does it have the same name? WHy should software be any different to teh rest of the world?
The way MS have been going about things, they've left many disgruntled that they've mucked about with 'Windows', whereas if they'd offered the revised UI's as options, folk would be more likely to think MS wonderful for offering them new Ui's to try every few years, without having to ditch their beloved Windows UI if they don;t want to. In short, I contend that MS have been getting the psychology wrong with what they;re doing, and if I didn;t know better, I;d say they seem to be actively trying to piss people off. But I do know better, and so I put it down to a degree of blindness where user psychology is concerned on their part rather than malice. I honestly would rather that MS produced an OS we could all trust and like. They came closets with XP and Win7 IMO, but seem to have lost the plot at the moment.
If Windows buckled, it'd be one OS less. Shrug.
Did you care as much when Microsoft killed off DRDOS with the nastiest of tricks and bribery? They eventually had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation, but by then it was way to late for recovery - and MS had meticulously planned for this outcome) It was a far superior, less expensive, fully compatible alternative to flonking MS-DOS. That "cyber crime" set us back at least five years back then, and staying on the "major", yet third class OS, we're falling behind with every single day.
On another note, out of all conceivable choices, is WINDOWS the one you'd want to keep because it scares off the hackers and crackers of the world? see icon.
Ummm, I think it was the other way round. MSDOS/PCDOS were designed to be DRDOS compatible. I think Microsoft would call it IP theft these days ( at least when others do it ). It was my understanding that the court compensation was for the IP theft, but I might not be remembering correctly.
The current Windows has nothing to do with that, of course, as it is based on NT, which was designed by someone hired from DEC with a background in more serious computing. Although I suspect W10 is now more of a mess internally than when NT was first designed.
Ummm, I think it was the other way round. MSDOS/PCDOS were designed to be DRDOS compatible
Wildly incorrect, I'm afraid. MS-DOS started as rebranded 86-DOS (formerly QDOS) from Seattle Computer Products. 86-DOS took1 a number of aspects of CP/M - not DR DOS, which didn't exist at the time - particularly in its internals. But while it also copied a number of CP/M conventions, such as drive letters, its user interface (a bunch of built-in and external command) was substantially different in many respects, even for simple operations like copying a file.
PC DOS was IBM's rebranded MS-DOS with a handful of minor changes and some additions, such as BASICA.
Around the same time, DRI created CP/M-86, the first 16-bit version of CP/M. The story of how it failed to become IBM's preferred OS for the PC is widely and generally incorrectly reported; somewhere there's an interview with Dorothy Kildall where she explains what actually went down (disagreements over licensing, primarily). CP/M-86 remained a distant competitor to MS-DOS and PC DOS on IBM PCs and compatibles for years.
Much later (1988) DRI came out with DR DOS, a new OS compatible with MS-DOS and PC DOS. While it had some technical advantages over MS-DOS and some users felt it was better, it was never more than moderately successful.
In short: the QDOS family was never "designed to be compatible" with any other existing OS, but borrowed heavily from CP/M. DR DOS, on the other hand, was created as an improved MS-DOS.
1Or borrowed, stole, copied, paid homage - take your pick.
"That "cyber crime" set us back at least five years back then, and staying on the "major", yet third class OS, we're falling behind with every single day."
I lament the demise of Digital Research, and DR-DOS was indeed better than MS-DOS, but it was still very basic in comparison to other OSes out at the time. Jerry Pournelle running DR-DOS wouldn't have made the Chaos Manor articles in Byte less painful to read for folks who had tried alternatives to PCs running *DOS.
Case in point I remember being astounded by the stuff students were doing with UNIX workstations (Apollo Domain, Sun etc) in the late 80s - PCs running DOS weren't even at the races. I think nearly everyone knew that 386s were wasted running DOS, but it didn't actually become real for me until I got to try out an '88 vintage Sun 386i... It pissed all over faster, newer and more expensive DOS boxes in every department, but the best bit was I didn't have to screw about with HIMEM.SYS or memory expanders, extenders, TSRs or reboot the machine everytime an app went off the rails. If you *really* missed DOS PC experience you could run multiple DOS sessions, and it could even take ISA cards too. As lovely as it may have been DR-DOS really was not in the same league as SunOS on x86 hardware. :(
So what? 12months or 18 months from now they will be releasing another Metro/ModernUI crap OS after this Windows10 failure and call it Windows11 ?
So Windows8.3 = Windows11 ?
Windows10 doesn't exist. This huge mess of an unusable flawed buggy OS is just Windows8.2
Odd idea, considering it's tied to a device.
"Windows as an appliance"?
def: appliance: (in IT) something you pay for ostensibly yours but with a lifespan determined by a third-party, which is never actually yours or designed to work for you. (See, "Vendor thoughts: oh @#$%^ they've bought a license and are never going to buy another one in the next two years", also, "Why don't IT departments want to do any technical IT work anymore?")
Sorry, I'm using a local account and not a Microsoft account. The Microsoft 'ecosystem' is irrelevant to me.
Microsoft Edge will be used to download Chrome or Firefox. I don't fancy doodling on web pages. Maybe your toddler does.
All I want from Windows is:
1) Detects my older and newer hardware flawlessly.
2) Compatible with my win32 software.
Xbox streaming? Not interested. If you like console gaming get a PS4.
Not interested in your App Store or your mobile devices.
Essentially, Windows 10 is Windows 8 SP2 (8.1 was SP1). The only significant upgrade is DirectX 12, but it'll take a while for the game developers and graphics card manufacturers to catch up. It has always been like that.
So there's no hurry to upgrade. Wait till the Christmas period at least. Let the useful idiots of early adopters and 'Insiders' take the plunge and participate in what is really a crowdsourced testing phase for RC builds of Windows 10.
So where does all this leave users whose computer isn't connected to the Internet?
...and those who don't want their computer randomly consuming internet resources (when running on a dongle, for example)?
...and those who don't want anything fiddling with their (working) computer until they've finished some critical task?
Probably the most exciting thing about this launch of a major OS from one of the worlds largest OS producers is just how unexciting it is. MS might still be huge, but they are looking increasingly like a spent force. The question now is if they will go quietly, a la DEC, or kicking and screaming and dragging the rest of the industry down with them, a la SCO?
Streaming games from Xbox One to PC works just fine at 1080p / 60fps too. Lag really isn't noticeable on a wired network at least. The Xbox One has full on chip hardware video encoders (unlike the PS4), so there is a minimal CPU / GFX / latency impact for streaming.
As the Xbox One is 4K capable in hardware, and as Microsoft are now apparently working on streaming from PC to Xbox One, hopefully greater than 1080p resolutions will be supported!
Windows 8 was offensive from a design point of view, godawful ideas for the UI.
It was also offensive in the 'trying to force you onto Microsoft services' point of view, wanting you to have a Microsoft account instead of a login by making the local account options more difficult to find etc. For me that kind of thing was far more offensive than the UI.
Windows 10 doesn't back out on any of that, it pushes it further, especially with things like the forced updates. The Windows 10 nagware that got installed on my box was also offensive and if that's any indication of the type of garbage that will forcefully thrust upon Windows 10 users when Microsoft has new products to sell then they can do one.
An apology is meaningless when the same and worse is still being forced down our throats, the UI was the least of the problems, the thinking behind how that got forced upon us was, and that thinking hasn't changed one bit, if anything it's more toxic than ever.
This post has been deleted by its author
I was on the fence about installing it, and was considering yesterday. However I did some more research and read some new to me information today and decided not to. First reason was that I heard that there are problems with getting the Cisco VPN to work. I have to have that to remote on to work to fix problems. The other are privacy issues. Microsoft stores your private bitlocker key on onedrive if you have that running, and the other is that they reserve the right to have carte-blanche access to everything on your machine. “We will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including your content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary to”, for example, “protect their customers” or “enforce the terms governing the use of the services”. I uninstalled and blocked the KB3035583 update from the 3 machines that were candidates.
But the interesting thing is that the interface for the iPad - the "successful" tablet according to the article* - uses a conventional desktop icon array as the way into the thing, whereas Windows 8-> uses asymmetrical splats of odd-shaped bug-ugly tiles that use too much real-estate in order to add functionality no-one in their right mind would want on a desktop.
One might ponder that the iPad designers, who have indisputably "got it right", didn't think the blotchy windows uckfup display was a Good Idea when they were inventing the device that would cause the Windows 8 GUI to happen.
Windows designers: Give me a switch to put the icons back and send the tiles into the hell in which they were conceived and you might, might I say, get me to consider buying one more iteration of your increasingly too-much-trouble OS.
For someone else. I'm going Linux next time, assuming I can get two critical programs in compatible versions. If not I'll stay on Win7 and hide it behind a defensive linux proxy when it talks to the WuhWuhWuh.
* - but it is doing so in the context of a replacement for a PC and I take strong and strident issue with that thesis
... Pinning does work well though, as a way of organizing the apps you use most. You can drag them around and form named groups as you would expect.
Am I the only one who is reminded of the Windows 3.* / NT 3.* "program manager" by this? (For youngsters: it was a window that contained the icons for starting apps, before the "Start" menu was introduced in Windows 95. Yes, you could arrange the icons to named groups.)
(We need an icon for old fogey).
DirectX 12, and XBone streaming... Much less PC gaming in general don't appeal to my senses, what will? MicroSoft's intrusive spyware *cough* Cortina? *cough* Funny thing that... Not only is my PC NON-TOUCH... It also doesn't come with a Mic.... Well not since the days I've given up on Creative Labs, in the early '00's IIRC they usually packed in a Mic in back then. So probably just as useful. Cloud Storage? Outside of non-critical crap like my MP3 Collection that otherwise on my Local NAS... Um no... But, the lose of control one faces in moving to Windows X is really for me the final nail here. Presented with a choice of Windows (H)8, with manual updates... Or Windows X without that option... I'd have to use (H)8.x here. I suppose it could be worse I could be coming of a Home version of 7, instead of the Ultimate version, and therefore have lost the WSUS option as well....
I have no clue in how MicroSoft want to see themselves in say five years, from now. I myself see a migration to Linux Mint before long.
What a shame that them Boy's at Valve are too slow, to press SteamOS w/Half-Life 3 right now... MicroSoft would be so reckt in the "Home Market". Hopefully we'll get to see Windows X Enterprise enter the OEM Market... LTSB.... This is not just for Corporates! I'm sure lots of us all like long term stability.... Which probably explains why XP is still a thing.
I don't see any attempt to bring up the system from cold and use it sans Internet connection. It seems an awful lot of the new OS predicates on persistence of webbiness.
As for Windows as a Service not being a subscription model, I strongly suspect this is a frog-boiler, a way of desensitizing the community to increasing levels of MS presence in the business of using your computer to the point that a subscription service for one's OS is "acceptable".
It's what I would be shooting for if I were looking for a way of increasing revenue stream in the OS game. I mean, it works for X Box, dunnit?
"Given the complexity of navigating Windows though, basing Start menu navigation on search is not a bad idea."
I'd love to know what the author finds so difficult about Start menu navigation; it's been consistent across several versions of Windows since W95 (which simply described the Win3 desktop in menu form).
The complexity of navigating recent versions of Windows is wholly down to the incompetence of developers, especially at MS...
Any one know if the Windows Style Guide has been updated?
Tech and enthusiast community seam to be gravitating towards the clean install disc image. Problem is they won't have device id to activate their shiny new system. Only way to get it seams to be going through the update process then extracting it from the upgraded OS.
Wonder how all these people will feel when they realize they need to reinstall their previous OS, update it, wait in que for upgrade, then upgrade to windows 10. Knowing how people react inconvenience I am sure this wont be an issue ;)
So I'm a member of the Insider program and also eligible for a free upgrade to Windows 10. Good news indeed. A few weeks ago we could download the ISO file but nowadays we need to use a tool which conveniently does all of these steps for us: it can either upgrade our current system (Win7/Win8) to Windows 10 or it can create the installation media for us.
Referring to MediaCreationTool.exe by the way. It is truly amazing!
I start it and tell it that I want to install on another computer. I get to select the version I want, it allows me to point it to a download directory and I click ok. Then it shows the 'windows 8' round hourglass-like animation for 5 or so seconds and then it stops without a message what so ever. Even the task manager shows me that it isn't running anymore.
If it can't even manage to create the ISO installation media, do you really think I'd trust it enough to upgrade my PC to a new version? Microsoft sure has been smoking some weird stuff as of late....
Sure Microsoft want its share of touch thingys, but by focusing on that to the exclusion of everything else in win 8 and refusing to listen to more or less every single person that tested it they ended up with a os about as liked as malaria.
Now for pr reasons they for some reason stay on numbered releases but skip 9 and jump straight to 10 and yet another desktop that give me headaches by using to high contrast and saturation by default and all those 90 degree sharp corners with no (well at least inconsistent) shadows etc. To me the desktop still looks like it has moved back more or less to what it looked like in the late 80s early 90s just in higher resolution, that is not the desktop I want to go back to.
Why microsoft refuses to give people what they want (mostly an updated win 7) that they would easily push out to everyone but forces out what to me still seems to be a product that needs at least a year more of development to be consistent is beyond me. Touch and desktop usage are so fundamentally different that trying to force one single interface for both will just not be a good experience for either so just give me my nice looking updated aero desktop with all it's performance hogging transparency and rounded corners and add a touch mode that is then actually touch friendly instead.
Mines the one with the windows 7 install media.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020