The final push to get users to convert to win 10 (for "free")?

[Z15CAM]

WinX is nothing more then Win7 with a lot more of Hella-Ballo.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

WinX is nothing more then Win7 with a lot more of Hella-Ballo.

I would've said that before. I also believe that it has a "Millennial" taint to it. M$ and every other software maker out there has to show that they gave their product a "whole new make-over" that outshines Donald Trump's pompadour. At the very guts of it, it still has to function to the demands of an IT establishment.

But I'm telling you. It boots quickly. It simply feels snappier and quicker.

And the system of the three on which I've installed it as a boot option, on which I actually use it -- is a 9-year-old C2D laptop with an SATA-II controller.

It is definitely not a slug. Neither the laptop, nor the OS that seems to make it work faster.

 

[Z15CAM]

Duck your words are different but we sing the same thing.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Duck your words are different but we sing the same thing.

Well, dawg, I'm only sayin' -- the deadline was getting closer and I stumbled across the "clean-install" download just in time, uncovering the various ways it can be used. I was going to let the opportunity lapse, because I didn't want to burn my Windows 7 bridges behind me.

But -- by the looks of it -- this is just great. And if you look for another recent thread, folks are complaining that the dual-boot menu forces an extra reboot cycle that requires another software to eliminate. For me, it hardly matters. It only matters that it's a reliable dual-boot system, and that there's little extra complexity to screw things up.

 

[Z15CAM]

If you ask me, Win 10 is quicker and leaner than Win 7.

I've tried WinX but it dose`t come close the ripping - Heaven Forbid.

 

[stockwiz]

though I don't like 10 as much as 7, I have been using almost since it's release and got my mother migrated to it on 2 of her 3 computers. 7 is still superior. I can't believe they put out 8/10 in their current state without fully migrating all features over to one user interface.. having about 20% on their new ugly UI and the other 80% on the old UI is just odd.

 

[Dude111]

Wrong.

Not wrong at all.... MANY COMPUTERS ARE BEING HIJACKED TO WIN10!!!!

http://betanews.com/2016/03/13/microsoft-installing-windows-10-without-consent

 

[pmv]

though I don't like 10 as much as 7, I have been using almost since it's release and got my mother migrated to it on 2 of her 3 computers. 7 is still superior. I can't believe they put out 8/10 in their current state without fully migrating all features over to one user interface.. having about 20% on their new ugly UI and the other 80% on the old UI is just odd.

I don't like it. If they actually fix the bugs it would be a bit more acceptable (is the 'most recently used programs list' ever going to work as advertised?).

But aesthetically and in terms of usability its just worse than Seven. Everything takes a fraction of a second longer to see and to use, because everything is so ill-defined and low-contrast (e.g. lack of easily-seen borders to windows). And the weird mismatch between new-style parts and old-style ones is just jarring (e.g. you have Seven-Style control panel components for everything _except_ wifi setup , which for some reason only exists in new Metro type form)..

Plus features and options are puzzlingly scattered all over the place or even duplicated (the aformentioned control panel components).

It just seems to fit into the tiresome software trope of change for the sake of change, in order to look 'fresh' and 'modern'. Its more like the fashion industry than technology.

 

[nerp]

Not wrong at all.... MANY COMPUTERS ARE BEING HIJACKED TO WIN10!!!!

http://betanews.com/2016/03/13/microsoft-installing-windows-10-without-consent

Old news. They clicked yes or agree. The boxes that popped up are deceptive. But people don't read, clicked "install later" or whatever, and not the X.

 

[mikeymikec]

though I don't like 10 as much as 7, I have been using almost since it's release and got my mother migrated to it on 2 of her 3 computers. 7 is still superior. I can't believe they put out 8/10 in their current state without fully migrating all features over to one user interface.. having about 20% on their new ugly UI and the other 80% on the old UI is just odd.

MS has been trying to revamp the Control Panel from after the release of Windows 2000. It's been a work in progress for about 15 years, why stop now?

 

[lupi]

Probably upgrade my win 7 machine soon as it needs an OS reinstall always. Going to buy 2 cheap SSDS so I can get the upgrades locked in on my 2 8.1 machines while not losing 8.1 on them since they are tied to WMC.

Actually since I don't care about using win10 on those two, may just reuse the same SSDS on the second and wipe it after each "install".

 

[SparkyJJO]

I don't like it. If they actually fix the bugs it would be a bit more acceptable (is the 'most recently used programs list' ever going to work as advertised?).

Works for me, same as it did in 7, Vista, XP...

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I see all the comments so far, and I either understand them and sympathize with fellow forum members, or I've suspended judgment on Windows 10.

First, PMV made a sensible observation. They are compelled to change the appearance of Win 10 over 7/8 because they have to promote it to mainstreamers, or even "new" computer users. None of those folks would be much interested in the new OS if it just "looked like" win 7.

And frankly, I think this is partly to be expected, and partly absurd. I'm still having trouble feeling comfortable working with an Android tablet. What made sense to me as a computer user since the prehistoric DOS era, the common appearance of MS Win since 3.1 through Win98, from Win 2000 through XP, VISTA and Windows 7 -- is a look and feel with an advantage that there's only a modest learning curve.

Now -- if I think that Win 10 "seems" faster in some respects, you can disagree. I don't have quantitative data to prove it. It just seems faster in certain instances, situations -- events.

But it would also stand to reason that M$ would improve the product from one version to the next. If there are "bugs," I"ve yet to find them.

But when it comes to accessing my SiliconDust HDHR's for TV, or using a very old 2003 license for Office to find that it installs, works -- but can't update -- I'd just as soon stick with Windows 7.

Even so, I won't burn my bridges in front of me, just as I won't burn them behind me. So I'll "play" with Win 10 with the eventual POSSIBILITY that I'll wipe my Win 7 installation.

Try and look at it from my point of view, though. I jumped into the technology in 1983 so I could analyze time-series with specialized statistical (econometric) software. Or -- I could write my own programs to do that. What has evolved is an entire dimension foreign to those ambitions. Then, there's "touch-screen" technology, and I HATE trying to communicate on my cell-phone with TXT, I HATE the idea of accessing the web from it when the screen is so small. And that's the basis for the "chiclet' appearance of the Win 10 start menu. It's not necessary; it doesn't give me an organism; it has no impact on my ease of use or anything else.

So I dread the "improvement evolution" I cannot possibly anticipate for the next 5 years. Whether or not "Millennials" are all jumping on the bandwagon -- I could care less. A Millennial should show me how to analyze a time-series with Box-Jenkins. Or they should tell me something more accurate than that we "fought the Cold War against the Columnists."

If I want Chiclets, I'll go down to the drugstore candy counter and buy some.

 

[Fardringle]

Despite Microsoft's promise in the past that they would not touch domain computers, I had to roll back three Windows 7 Pro computers on a domain at my wife's office recently because they were "upgraded" to Windows 10 without permission from the users. It's possible that one of them clicked yes on something, but the other two definitely did not - they know better - they just left their computers running Windows 7 on Friday and came back to a shiny new (and completely unusable) Windows 10 on Monday morning.

After wasting most of that Monday getting those three systems back to normal since a simple roll-back didn't restore everything exactly right, I wasted the rest of that day and the following Tuesday blocking the Win10 updates on the rest of the machines in the office so they don't run into the same problem.

There are _some_ nice things in Windows 10, but in this office it's absolutely not viable since their main office management software doesn't even work in Windows 8 yet, never mind Windows 10. That's a problem with the management system and not with Windows so I'm not blaming the compatibility issues on Microsoft, but it would be nice if they had kept their promise so domain administrators don't have to deal with this problem. Fortunately this office only has about 50 machines so it 'only' took two days to fix, but this could be a major hassle for anyone with a significant number of computers on their network if they aren't running WSUS or SCCM to block the updates globally, or don't have an easy way to (or either don't want to or can't due to policy) push out a blocking tool like GWX Control Panel.

 

[mikeymikec]

First, PMV made a sensible observation. They are compelled to change the appearance of Win 10 over 7/8 because they have to promote it to mainstreamers, or even "new" computer users. None of those folks would be much interested in the new OS if it just "looked like" win 7.

Sorry, but I don't buy this at all.

1) I would be willing to bet that the number of users who upgrade because of a new version of Windows (no matter how much the eye candy has been changed) is probably a single-digit percentage. Most people upgrade these days because their computer is creaking for one reason or another.

2) While I will acknowledge that if something looks new then it will attract more interest, however for example OS X's look has barely changed in comparison in what, 15 years? Furthermore, attracting interest isn't necessarily a good thing. The reason why movie sequels sell well is because they're generally serving up what is familiar to the audience. However in computer usage terms we're not talking about a two-hour experience, we're talking about something that will rack up hundreds or thousands of hours of experience, something they have to use (or consider to be indispensable). The only people who are interested in changing what is familiar to them in this context (UI) are those who are interested in the change itself, e.g. the kind of people who frequent this forum. When most people want something new from their UI, they change the desktop wallpaper, not re-arrange all the icons, taskbar and Start menu entries.

The only visually obvious changes (for the sake of change / "newness") I would make is the Windows splash screen on each release, the default wallpaper, and the addition of some new app. Otherwise the only UI changes that would be allowed by general development policy are ones that are considered to be necessary in order to make an actual improvement (e.g. feature addition / workflow improvement / fixing what is generally considered to be a borked UI by most accounts).

Furthermore, Windows XP and Windows 7 are generally acknowledged as the most popular versions of Windows. IMO, here are the reasons:

1 - Many people were upgrading to XP from 9x (ie. they didn't see Win2k), so there was the massive reliability / performance improvement. It had a default Fisher Price UI which maybe 1% of people actually liked, but it did the job; once you got used to it, it was OK, or you could switch to the classic UI without any disadvantages.

2 - XP stayed around for ages. People got comfortable and familiar with it. They probably changed computers at least once during XP's era, and they didn't have to worry about whether stuff had been changed between the old and the new computer. XP's lingering market share was a testament to this.

3 - Win7 was very similar in looks to Vista (I can think of two differences off the top of my head, the look of the taskbar and the way that sub-sections of the Control Panel were laid out). However, it fixed the performance problems of Vista and performed much more like XP from a cold boot. Most of the changes to Win7 were under-the-hood yet that didn't stop it from having having the dominating and lingering market share in a similar way to XP.

As far as I'm concerned, the burning question is will MS manage to resist re-arranging the deckchairs of Windows 10 every year or so, or canning some random app along the way: MS has a horrible record of introducing an app only to remove it a few years later in a new version (or in the case of e-mail, completely replacing it or completely removing it depending on which way the window blows!).

 

[SparkyJJO]

Despite Microsoft's promise in the past that they would not touch domain computers, I had to roll back three Windows 7 Pro computers on a domain at my wife's office recently because they were "upgraded" to Windows 10 without permission from the users. It's possible that one of them clicked yes on something, but the other two definitely did not - they know better - they just left their computers running Windows 7 on Friday and came back to a shiny new (and completely unusable) Windows 10 on Monday morning.

After wasting most of that Monday getting those three systems back to normal since a simple roll-back didn't restore everything exactly right, I wasted the rest of that day and the following Tuesday blocking the Win10 updates on the rest of the machines in the office so they don't run into the same problem.

There are _some_ nice things in Windows 10, but in this office it's absolutely not viable since their main office management software doesn't even work in Windows 8 yet, never mind Windows 10. That's a problem with the management system and not with Windows so I'm not blaming the compatibility issues on Microsoft, but it would be nice if they had kept their promise so domain administrators don't have to deal with this problem. Fortunately this office only has about 50 machines so it 'only' took two days to fix, but this could be a major hassle for anyone with a significant number of computers on their network if they aren't running WSUS or SCCM to block the updates globally, or don't have an easy way to (or either don't want to or can't due to policy) push out a blocking tool like GWX Control Panel.

Seems weird. All the domain-connected PCs I manage that are eligible for the upgrade have the little GWX icon on the taskbar, but nothing else has been happening with them. I'm eventually going to upgrade them sometime before July but just haven't had the time to do that off-hours yet. And they just sit there, waiting. Have been for quite some time now.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Seems weird. All the domain-connected PCs I manage that are eligible for the upgrade have the little GWX icon on the taskbar, but nothing else has been happening with them. I'm eventually going to upgrade them sometime before July but just haven't had the time to do that off-hours yet. And they just sit there, waiting. Have been for quite some time now.

Same here.

 

[Ketchup]

Mine actually did that for a couple months, and then magically stopped one day. I can't help but wonder how they did it.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

For an office of 50 people and mainstreamers, it would be a chore to either get the users to uncheck the Win10 update option offered in the "optional updates" list, or otherwise be attentive to eyeballing the WMX and other factors as possible loose-cannons.

My biggest roadblock to leaving Win7 permanently behind is the lack of a WMC in Win10, and any uncertainties I might face in administering Win10 for two other mainstreamer senior citizens.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

I have both on separate drives. Why have one and not the other?

So, basically, when you push the power button, your machine automatically gives you an option to choose which OS to start?

 

[Elixer]

So, basically, when you push the power button, your machine automatically gives you an option to choose which OS to start?

Yes... you get the option of which OS you want to boot into, and you have a default option as well.

 

[stockwiz]

MS has been trying to revamp the Control Panel from after the release of Windows 2000. It's been a work in progress for about 15 years, why stop now?

They move at about the pace of government. Seriously though there's no need to fix what isn't broken. My 7 year old nephew could navigate the control panel. It's not that complicated.

The old control panel, which I always set to use the individual small icons when I reinstall, just works. Pretty much everything was in there. Now about 80% is in there and 20% is in the new settings window, which is just confusing to a user. Plus the flat, blocky appearance... ugh. There was nothing wrong with 7's interface... and they clearly are not going to gain any mobile market share... they were late to the game and apple and android have the market, period.... they should go back to using what corporations prefer on their workstations, the windows 7 look... but they've changed too much of the coding to do that at this point I suppose.

Everything used to be easy to find... now it takes some digging... for now I use it and pretend the "app" side of it doesn't exist.. don't use any apps, try to avoid the new interfaces, have classic shell installed. Good enough. If it wasn't for them completely removing the windows update from the control panel and having to turn off the privacy stuff and set default apps, I'd never use the "settings" menu ever.

http://www.winbeta.org/news/windows-phone-market-share-continues-fall-kantar-report

If there's a technical reason to move windows to this new interface vs. the old one I'd like to hear it, but from a practical standpoint their attempts to gain market share in mobile have failed... frankly I thought they were on the right path with adding those widgets to the desktop in windows 7 that they later removed. It was just a perfect operating system in so many ways for a desktop where a mouse and keyboard are used. I wish they would have just make a second OS for mobile and left windows for desktop alone. Windows 7 should have been the "last version" of windows for the desktop... it's almost embarrassing to have an OS with such a hodge podge of interfaces put out by one of the biggest software companies... but hey I'm not totally resistant to change like some people here are... I'll continue to use 10 and upgrade the builds as they come and see what microsoft's grand plan is.

 

[mikeymikec]

If there's a technical reason to move windows to this new interface vs. the old one I'd like to hear it

If we're talking specifically about Settings / Control Panel UI, then there is certainly a need for the 'Settings' UI, being that touch-only users need a way of changing general settings.

IMO 'Settings' should have all the options that are relevant to touch-only users (even though many options may not be specific to touch-only environments), and 'Control Panel' should have all of the options.

I'll continue to use 10 and upgrade the builds as they come and see what microsoft's grand plan is.

"grand plan"? What convinced you that MS has any kind of long-term plan for anything? IMO they stagger from one reaction to the next. Any reactionary plan that they begin to execute seems to be left by the wayside as soon as something new to react to comes along.