Windows 10 - First Impressions

[NoelC]

I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but no.  Not saying Win 2000 wasn't good - it was.  But its time came and went.

 

I used Win 2000 for everything it was worth.  Then I used XP, which was better.  Vista as initially released was NOT better.  Then I used Vista after SP2 (I think it was), which was better.  Then I used Win 7, which was better.  Win 8.0 was NOT better.  Then I used Win 8.1, which was better.

 

Only in Vista was I first able to achieve the kind of "runs for weeks without fault" stability that I needed.  All predecessors ground down over time, using up resources, and ultimately starting to get flaky - Win 2000 and XP included.  This was on systems, for example, that were engineering workstations or had no other function than to do software build after software build, or machines in server type roles.

 

I made all these judgments to adopt the newest system with eyes open, by being critical of needs and doing return-on-investment analysis each time, after learning what I could do to tweak and augment each system and whether it would meet my needs and the needs of the engineers in my groups.

 

At this point I rank Win 10 with Win 8.0 and pre-service pack Vista - not yet ready to support serious work.  It has no advantage I can detect over, say, Win 7 or 8.1, but it is not without promise.  Trouble is, Microsoft doesn't really want it to be a General Purpose OS - and THAT's a problem.

 

-Noel

Edited July 28, 2015 by NoelC

[modernponderer]

I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but no.  Not saying Win 2000 wasn't good - it was.  But its time came and went.

 

I used Win 2000 for everything it was worth.  Then I used XP, which was better.  Vista as initially released was NOT better.  Then I used Vista after SP2 (I think it was), which was better.  Then I used Win 7, which was better.  Win 8.0 was NOT better.  Then I used Win 8.1, which was better.

 

Only in Vista was I first able to achieve the kind of "runs for weeks without fault" stability that I needed.  All predecessors ground down over time, using up resources, and ultimately starting to get flaky - Win 2000 and XP included.  This was on systems, for example, that were engineering workstations or had no other function than to do software build after software build, or machines in server type roles.

 

I made all these judgments to adopt the newest system with eyes open, by being critical of needs and doing return-on-investment analysis each time, after learning what I could do to tweak and augment each system and whether it would meet my needs and the needs of the engineers in my groups.

 

At this point I rank Win 10 with Win 8.0 and pre-service pack Vista - not yet ready to support serious work.  It has no advantage I can detect over, say, Win 7 or 8.1, but it is not without promise.  Trouble is, Microsoft doesn't really want it to be a General Purpose OS - and THAT's a problem.

 

-Noel

Really? XP was better than 2000? Based on what? Take a look at this if you really think so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_XP

 

Also, Windows 10 is already far better than 8.1 at least based on the return of Previous Versions alone.

[NoelC]

Based on my own professional experience, which involved running a pretty good sized engineering organization.  We wouldn't have upgraded to XP if it didn't offer advantages and enable us to do things we couldn't previously do.  FYI, we adopted XP x64 when it came out.

 

Regarding your example about previous versions...  I have Win 8.1, do regular system image backups, and can restore any previous version I want, using user interfaces better than the Previous Versions tab in the Properties dialog.  Discovering how to do that figured in my decision to call it "better" and to adopt it for my work.  Now having used it for years after having used Win 7 for  years, I know it was the right decision.

 

Like I said, it's all about knowing how to get the things you need done.  In my mind there's little sense in judging an OS by what's delivered alone.  It's a set of cogs in a bigger machine.  It's about what you can make that whole machine do.

 

-Noel

Edited July 28, 2015 by NoelC

[Tripredacus]

Really? XP was better than 2000? Based on what?

The term "better" implies its use is based upon opinion. Arguments over which OS is "better" than another are stupid because you are basically saying your opinion is correct and the other person's isn't. There is no way to benchmark specific features or compare numbers of opinions, which is why these types of debates never get resolved. This community is home to people who both use Windows 98 and Windows 8.1 computers. The reason why someone would keep an old OS around must certainly mean that person's opinion is that the OS is better at doing something than another OS.

Then there are things we can measure. People (or bought-out journalists) laud the fact that Windows 8 can boot to the desktop in less than 10 seconds. So what? I had a PC that was Windows 95 that could boot up in 6 seconds. Which one is better? Who cares?

[vinifera]

XP had better gaming support

less drive corruption

and lets not forget uxtheme

[JorgeA]

Then there are things we can measure. People (or bought-out journalists) laud the fact that Windows 8 can boot to the desktop in less than 10 seconds. So what? I had a PC that was Windows 95 that could boot up in 6 seconds. Which one is better? Who cares?

 

Great point!

 

IMO that bit about Windows 8 booting up fast is anyway one of the more dubious arguments for it. If you want to get back into the system really fast, just put your Vista or 7 PC to Sleep or Hibernate; Fast Startup or whatever they call it is little more than some hybrid of that.

 

Is there any technical reason why this kind of hybrid (even if it were deemed worthwhile) could not be incorporated into Win7 via a Windows Update?

 

--JorgeA

[NoelC]

I have a PC running Win 7 that boots to the desktop in under 15 seconds, and that's a genuine bootup, no fast/hybrid construct.

 

Microsoft tries to take credit for computers getting faster.

 

Regarding what's better, I started out somewhere up above saying "for me" in at least one or several places.  I belabored the point because what a system can be made into is different than what it is out of the box.  Way different.  The modern Windows Kernel is good and has been getting better.

 

What Windows 10 is out of the box is some kind of turnkey-wannabe for IQ 90 ADHD phone users.  That being said, right now, save for some bugs, it's already capable of being turned into something usable.  I have a test system set up with all my engineering and business tools and it really does work.  Quite well.

 

BUT (and it's a big one), Microsoft has promised continuous updates, which will no doubt turn it into something else.  Thus we cannot trust what it will become, and Microsoft hasn't any good track record at all of taking Windows in a direction I need it to go lately.  Of course you have to make your own judgment about that.

 

It boils down to this:  When I enter into a partnership with someone (or a company), I need to see that their goals and my goals have some similarity in direction.  That's simply not been the case at all since around the time of Windows 7.  With Windows 8.1 I found it possible to spend extra effort to dredge back up the things Microsoft was de-emphasizing.  Virtually all of them.  I've already accomplished that with Windows 10, but it's pretty clear it's not going to last, and once I've chosen to partner with Microsoft, when they delete a feature I really do need, I'll have no recourse.

 

For example, what do you think they mean to do with the feature that they "deprecated" out of Win 8.1 - but "brought back" in Win 10 called "Windows 7 Backup".  If they intended to keep it long term don't you think they'd have dropped the 7?  What does "brought back" mean when we've been promised "continuous updates"?

 

No, they couldn't win hearts and minds with Win 8 so now they're trying to trick people into falling through the trap door.  Then when they've got us, it's time to lead the sheep to shear (or maybe it's lambs to slaughter).

 

-Noel

[JorgeA]

Microsoft explains Windows 10 -- try to stay awake

 

If you’re still undecided whether Windows 10 is for you or not, or you just want to find out a bit more about the forthcoming OS, Microsoft has a new video designed to walk you through the changes and new features.

 

The video is presented by Mohammed Samji of the Windows Team, and it’s about as laid back as you can imagine. Samji, dressed in pastel colors, talks in the sort of tone you tend to hear in apps designed to help insomniacs get to sleep, while a similarly relaxing tune burbles along in the background. Is Samji explaining Windows 10’s key principles, or attempting to hypnotize the viewers? Watch the video and decide for yourself.

 

Maybe the idea of the video is to match the drabness of the Win10 interface, with its flat buttons, dingy Explorer scroll bars, and colorless window title bars...

 

--JorgeA

 

[OldSchool38]

Given the progress of Windows 10, here are the probable features of W12:

 

-Built-in hardware-destroyer (CPU & GPU overheater) that activates when you were offline for more than a day. You know, hackers might do funny stuff with your PC otherwise!

-Automatic credit-card charger for the crapstore: It charges 10$ for every day you don't buy something to check whether everything's alright!

-Uploader tool: It automagically uploads your documents to an intelligency agency of your choice, that way bandwidth will be saved.

-Fart app choice screen on every boot-up.

   Love it!  I cant stop laughing!  Btw, forgive my ignorance, but is Microsoft trying to slip in Win 10 to Vista users as well-or is it just Win 7/8 only?

[jaclaz]

Btw, forgive my ignorance, but is Microsoft trying to slip in Win 10 to Vista users as well-or is it just Win 7/8 only?

No, the offer is only for Windows 7/8/8.1.

Vista has been altogether deleted from *any* MS "politically correct" communication (most probably they think that just its mentioning will make people recall the failure it was).

The same happens for XP, though for different reasons (they already setup it in such a way that if you really-really want to continue using XP - I mean in an institution/company you will need to pay them some US$ 200 per year and per seat to have continued support).

Now, if we have a look at the last available stats (June 2015 and not entirely reliable because they measure "internet access"), you have:

 

 

 

June 2015:Windows 8.1       13.12%Windows 8          2.90%Windows 7         60.98%Windows Vista     1.62%Windows XP        11.98%                 ------Total            90.60%

 

Logically (and from a "normal", "traditional" standpoint) the upgrade path has always been:

• a strong rebate if you are upgrading from the very last "previous version"
• a halfway discount if you are upgrading from *any* of the non-last version
• full price for everyone else

If they did it like this they would have in a couple of months (completely FAKED data):

 

September 2015:Windows 10        17.00%Windows 7         60.00%Windows Vista     1.62%Windows XP        11.98%                 ------Total            90.60%

As both the XP and Vista users by now are the last remained die hards and they won't change and surely won't change if they have to pay to upgrade downgrade to Windows 10 (and often the few XP's and Vista's remaining are run on older hardware that would simply not run properly with the new bloat).

 

With this forced upgrade they will likely be able to obtain (still completely FAKE data):

September 2015:Windows 10        42.00%Windows 7         35.00%Windows Vista     1.62%Windows XP        11.98%                 ------Total            90.60%

And:

1. claim success for the new OS
2. brag a lot about it having - in an extremely short time - overtaken Windows 7 usage

 

jaclaz

[Tripredacus]

No, the offer is only for Windows 7/8/8.1.

Actual requirements are Windows 7 SP1 or Windows 8.1 with Update 1. Windows 8.0 or Windows 8.1 without Update 1, to my understanding, would not even get the GWX update.

[Formfiller]

 

Also, Windows 10 is already far better than 8.1 at least based on the return of Previous Versions alone.

 

 

For now.

 

Windows 8/8.1 is a POS in vanilla-state but at least it's a beast which can be tamed. But Windows 10 with its update scheme is an outright liability.

 

They could force through Windows Update a GUI far worse than W8's metro onto it and block classic shell while they are at it, and if you try to stop that update somehow, MS declared that they might "punish you" and cut you off from security updates.

 

Given this, Windows 10 is the worst Windows thus far.

[NoelC]

Not a lot of people understand the significance of this, Formfiller.

 

The "beast which can be tamed" is a "devil we know".  Its features are given, and will not be summarily removed.  CANNOT be, based on the business model in which it was made.

 

Now we have a shapeshifting beast in the form of Win 10.

 

• We have been promised "continuous updates".  The word "update" has been perverted; Microsoft deletes things at will now that don't suit their Borg philosophy.
   
• Backup has been returned to the system, but it's called "Windows 7 Backup".  Where did we see that before?  Oh, that's right, it was in Windows 8.0.  Then it was DELETED from Windows 8.1.
   
• Though right now Microsoft has clearly put effort into maintaining compatibility on the desktop with older applications, they've also stated that they want everyone off the desktop by, what was it, 2019?  How do we think that's going to happen?  Do we think Modern is going to become suddenly fantastic and all kinds of new Apps that get everything done are going to show up?

I'm going to continue to use my tamed beast for now.

 

-Noel

[Formfiller]

http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-10-review-microsoft-goes-back-to-the-future

 

By Brad Sams

When Windows 8 was launched back in 2012, I called it the 'hybrid OS' because Microsoft built essentially two operating systems packaged into one bundle. The OS was a complete failure on nearly all fronts for the company and resulted in a change of leadership

 

Aha. Just hinting at this on the neowin forums resulted in bans not too long ago. And the same Brad Sams who wrote the above quote wrote back then this:

http://www.neowin.net/news/calling-windows-8-the-next-vista-makes-you-look-like-an-id***
 

The next person who says that Windows 8 is the next Vista deserves to be kicked in the shin, twice. The context for making this comparison is so far off-base that by saying it, not only does it make you sound dumb, but it lowers the IQ of those around you

 

People can be so slimy and turncoaty it makes you sick sometimes.

[JorgeA]

Nice find, Formfiller!

 

I wonder whether Brad Sams (1) doesn't remember what he wrote back then, or (2) doesn't care.

 

--JorgeA