• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

So how are you liking Win10 so far?

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Underclocked said:
How many of you are using a fat old box now? (Or fat new box)
Click to expand...

My entire company, 465+ employees, has been on a typical PC (win7) up until recently. We started migrating to touchscreen laptops/tablets/hybrids. Windows 10 on a Surface Pro 3 or Yoga type machine will be the final destination for everyone. 8.1 had to many critics to make the switch already so we're going all in with Win10. We briefly toyed with the idea of going all IOS but that died quickly. Probably end up with 90% SP3's w\docking stations.

My IT department has been working on Win10 machines since the preview was first released with only positive results so far.
One Drive seems to be a reoccurring concern I keep hearing from them but I haven't had the time to understand what it was yet.

Windows 7 was/is an amazing OS but its time has passed.
 
OneDrive to me seems to be the 'We can store your data (and settings) in the cloud for you, never lose another file' (but we're going to sell it to the Nxx for Natio*** Sec*****.) </conspiracy theory>
 
Last edited:
I just installed this today,will say that this is how 8.1 should have been released.I never cared much for 8.1 so went back to 7 but out of the box 10 is a good replacement for 7 that is for sure.

Windows Update gave me version 9841,guessing this build is a bit out of date. Anything major really missing in the newer builds?

The upgrade and install was painless,did have to reinstall my nvidia drivers but not a big deal really.
 
skipsneeky2 said:
Windows Update gave me version 9841,guessing this build is a bit out of date. Anything major really missing in the newer builds?
Click to expand...

In PC Settings->Update and Recovery->Preview Builds you can update to 9879, a bunch of changes, not directly visible except for new icons and ability to remove search and task view.

If you happen to update to 9860 first then 9879, let me know the size that windows has grown to.
 
Cleaning was done through Disc properties, Disk cleanup, Clean up system files. It was 3GB and 2GB cleanup IIRC. Nothing manual and I don't see a Windows.old folder.
Edit. RecoveryImage folder is 2.58GB.
 
Last edited:
ArisVer said:
15.8GB after cleaning the update files, on a VM, both updates.
Click to expand...

Skaendo said:
Wow. I did a clean install of 9879 and it is at 11.5GB.
Files cleaned up include Windows.old & RecoveryImage?
Click to expand...

This of course assumes you're measuring in the same way - are you looking at raw disk usage numbers? If so, are you both disabling hibernation/suspend, swap file, deleting the Windows Update DL cache, and starting otherwise with a system that has either all or no pre-installed apps, and no user installed apps or data? 😉

Or are you just looking at C:\windows? (because that isn't fair either - the best way it to likely look at Windows, Program Files & Program Files x86 (with no user apps migrated or installed.)
 
Windows 10TP programmers/engineers/MVPs are actively blocking Classic Shell from being installed, and when a workaround has been revealed they are actively suppressing the threads that users are posting the workaround.

The argument has come up:
Dude if you are going to Install the technical preview WHY install a **** third party start menu?
Why install a preview if you just hide the new features it brings?
Click to expand...
and the arguement to that is:
Maybe a Microsoft programmer should read this question, and then question it himself.

Why indeed would someone want to install a third party Start Menu replacement?

Possibly the user wants some level of control or customization or features that the current build does not offer. Microsoft engineers need to see that people want to install this 3rd party program not just outright block users from installing it, and take a cue from it as in, maybe we need to look at this 3rd party program and see WHY users want to install it and NOT use our Start Menu.
Click to expand...
IMO it is a reasonable argument that MS should look at WHY they want Classic Shell.

Threads that have been suppressed:
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...ic-shell/e3de2b2b-54e4-4392-8680-34fe6b2b05ea
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...mization/a2e65e93-65a3-4c80-9012-f1eb492148ab

Does anyone know if any of the other Start Menu replacements are being blocked?

To quote Microsoft:

Hard Block:

The software must exhibit the following behavior to qualify for a hard block:

1. The OS is rendered unusable and unrecoverable (includes bug check).

2. The hard block is preferable to the alternative user experience, including:
a. The OS would be left partially functional, and no in-context guidance can be given to the user, and the hard block can provide steps to remedy the problem.
b. An application would be left unusable and unrecoverable (can&#8217;t be repaired by uninstall or upgrade). This should be an extremely rare case, since recovering from an application installation should be possible through install/uninstall software. The vendor would need to prove that that is not an option.

*******

When a hard block occurs, the Setup program prevents you from continuing until the issue is resolved. A hard block occurs because the Setup program has discovered an issue with your computer that would leave Windows in a damaged state if the Setup program continued. You cannot click Next to continue Windows Setup. Your only option is to close the Setup program.
Click to expand...
Classic Shell IMO doesn't fall within these guidelines.
 
Last edited:
Without classic shell:
oEI7a5d.png


With Classic shell
eo6NYHf.png


That probably qualifies as making the OS unusable, as the first couple of open programs can no longer be clicked on...and it isn't readily apparent what happened.
 
RampantAndroid, that problem is due to the search and taskview button - which I don't use. I also do not use pinned apps/programs as they take up too much space.

Skaedo, there is a list at the top of the Software for Windows forum of start menu replacements. The list is out of date and some of the programs listed are no longer available. Of the free ones, I only found one that wasn't blocked by the same incompatibility message. One would install but I did not care for it (and I can't even tell you what its name was).

I cannot see why Microsoft would so want us to use their design as is unless there is money (or the potential for revenue) involved? Start menu replacement programs are widely (understatement) used in windows 8 and 8.1 and will be in windows 10 if MS doesn't see the light.
 
Last edited:
Underclocked said:
RampantAndroid, that problem is due to the search and taskview button - which I don't use. I also do not use pinned apps/programs as they take up too much space.
Click to expand...

Sooo, you're arguing that MS should redesign windows to allow start menu replacements, instead of working on their designs? I mean, let's be clear - these start menu replacements are already pretty hack-ey.

Don't get me wrong - I want the search & taskview buttons configurable, too often do I now spill on to a second row of open programs...but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the Windows design has changed and as a result, some of these start menu programs are no longer working. Maybe they will in the end...or maybe they need an update in the end. It also seems a little pointless to sit here and complain about programs not working in a *preview* build (again, I'm turning blue saying this, NOT beta or release candidate. Preview.) Maybe you should send in feedback?
 
RampantAndroid said:
Sooo, you're arguing that MS should redesign windows to allow start menu replacements, instead of working on their designs? I mean, let's be clear - these start menu replacements are already pretty hack-ey.
Click to expand...
How about design Windows to be configurable to each users taste.
RampantAndroid said:
That probably qualifies as making the OS unusable, as the first couple of open programs can no longer be clicked on...and it isn't readily apparent what happened.
Click to expand...
I have search and task view removed, I haven't seen a problem using the first 2 or any open programs. I opened 6 just to try and replicate it.
 
Last edited:
Underclocked said:
I cannot see why Microsoft would so want us to use their design as is unless there is money (or the potential for revenue) involved? Start menu replacement programs are widely (understatement) used in windows 8 and 8.1 and will be in windows 10 if MS doesn't see the light.
Click to expand...
This is a pre-release build, distributes almost exclusively for Microsoft to get feedback.

My estimation is the last build distributed by Microsoft was just a push to get users to target their feedback towards the features Microsoft is actually developing. That, explains adding the empty "Cortana" reference in zPC Settings (you can stop asking), new icons (please stop asking), "Missions" in the new Insider Hub, and blocking ClassicShell. They want organic, usage-based feedback that they can use in the short-term. Presumably, if they just came out and said "Test the new Start Menu, please" people would turn off ClassicShell for an hour, give their feedback, and then BAU.

The UserVoice forum is filled with hogwash and, if users don't use the code Microsoft is writing, it doesn't get tested/feedbacked. And, mind you, feedback isn't just "it's not what I asked for," there are things they probably want to know about how people use the new Start Menu. Things you might not need/want to ask the user because it's mundane or you might get an incorrect answer. Off the top of my head, here are some questions:
  • How many apps are typically pinned to the right by users?
  • How many (and what kind of ) apps are pinned to the left by users? Is there a correlation with Jump List use?
  • Are most launches being made from the MRU, the pinned lists, Search, or All Apps?
  • How long does it take the Start Menu to open on a typical system?
  • How long is a typical interaction with the new Start Menu compared with the Start Screen and Classic Start Menu?
  • Are people searching successfully? To find apps, files, etc.? Do they typically engage with a file after searching for files?
 
There wouldn't be a need to install replacement start menus if they would actually listen to what people want to happen with it, instead of designing it around what broke Windows 8.

Honestly if the metro programs continue to intrude and make you jump trough hoops just to do something simple like connect to a wireless network I wont waste my or my companies time and money.

Seriously, connecting to a wireless network used to be; click the tray icon, click connect, enter password if required. Now it's; click icon in tray, wait for PC Settings to open, select wifi, select wifi connection, click connect, enter password, click connect again.
 
Skaendo said:
How about design Windows to be configurable to each users taste.

I have search and task view removed, I haven't seen a problem using the first 2 or any open programs. I opened 6 just to try and replicate it.
Click to expand...

Good for you? Again, it's a bug in classic shell (and probably start8 and the like too) - they're hack-ey ways to add a start menu. I don't see why MS should bend over backwards to keep them running (IE, why they should hack Windows to make sure classic shell works in Windows 10.) It makes sense that for a preview build they black list the classic shell app as it pretty much breaks Windows in the default config. According to MS' own documentation, if it's a hard block they notify the developer. This isn't kill bits.
 
Skaendo said:
There wouldn't be a need to install replacement start menus if they would actually listen to what people want to happen with it, instead of designing it around what broke Windows 8.

Honestly if the metro programs continue to intrude and make you jump trough hoops just to do something simple like connect to a wireless network I wont waste my or my companies time and money.

Seriously, connecting to a wireless network used to be; click the tray icon, click connect, enter password if required. Now it's; click icon in tray, wait for PC Settings to open, select wifi, select wifi connection, click connect, enter password, click connect again.
Click to expand...

What does the current start menu not do that you want? Removal of metro stuff from the new menu is very simple, so I won't accept that answer...
 
I have submitted feedback. I will continue to submit feedback. I'm an "Insider". 😉 Why do you feel a need to approve or disapprove mine and others opinions?

It would seem to me that your feedback would simply be "whatever MS does is fine with me". Maybe that is what they want, but I doubt it.
 
Underclocked said:
I cannot see why Microsoft would so want us to use their design as is unless there is money (or the potential for revenue) involved? Start menu replacement programs are widely (understatement) used in windows 8 and 8.1 and will be in windows 10 if MS doesn't see the light.
Click to expand...

I don't think MS has ever had two operating systems in a row bomb. They cannot let Windows 10 bomb because then you'll probably really see the market share start to move away from Windows. And once those who move away become accustomed top alternatives, they won't come back even after things get fixed up.

Windows 8.1 is perfect with Classic Shell installed. And tablets could still have their Metro. I cannot believe how such a simple fix, MS chose to ignore. If they come off as ignorant again I will personally, for the first time in my life, actively look to move away from Windows myself. Trying to block Classic Shell and rendering the OS unusable is a very bad sign. They better have a good reason for it. I'm not interested in compromising either after the way customers were ignored with Windows 8. That was what should been done, with 8.
 
Last edited:
njdevilsfan87 said:
I don't think MS has ever had two operating systems in a row bomb.
Click to expand...
Lets look at the history of good/bad Windows releases;
Win95 (bad), Win98 (good), WinMe (bad), WinXP (good), WinVista (bad), Win7 (good), Win8 (bad), Win9 (unreleased good?), Win10 (bad?)

I personally liked 95, 98, ME, XP and Vista. I was genuinely excited when each of them came out.

I'm not saying that Win10 is going to be bad, I really hope not. But there is a first for everything, and this could be the first time MS releases 2 bas OSs in a row. I don't think it's going to totally bomb because Win7 is growing close to EOL, but like you said if it isn't a hit there is likely to be a large group of people looking in other directions for their OS needs.

For me personally, if this crappy start menu remains uncustomizable, flat ugly icons remain and metro style crap remains it is a fail in my eyes. I don't like having to install 3rd party Start Menus and customized themes just to make an OS usable. Aside from a desktop background I keep my install 'out of the box'.

Maybe the Mayan calendar was prophesying 2012 (Windows 8 Release year) as a time that people start waking up and not accepting whatever the corporate giants and elite are dishing us as "We know whats best for you". Viva la Revolition!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top