Windows 10 and why I don't care for it much.

[ThinkPad560X]

Windows 10 and why I don't care for it much

I will admit I've been reading lots of news feeds of Windows 10 through out the year and its coming out next week. I finally installed my download trial demo onto my ThinkPad R61i after of course buring the DVD. The download came with a 32-bit and 64-bit and your product key and is called the Insider Preview. After the install I have the Windows 10 Pro since I'm guessing it read from what version windows I was running "Windows 7 Professional". The Start Menu is back like everyone was wanting but as for me it's still like Windows 8 and 8.1. It has live tiles with small open programs on the side. And is just confusing to someone thats from XP and 7. I started with Windows 3.1 back in the day but truly started my Windows home use with Windows 95 and up, And I always liked the way the start menu was set. | START | Shut Down, Log Off, Run, Help Support, Search, Settings, Documents, Favorits, Programs and Windows Update. And I always set to classic in Windows XP and Vista, Windows 7 doesn't really have a Classic but you do get the old 95-2000 start bar. I don't care for live tiles and flash videos or Areo as I just want a working basic Windows, even if they went back to the Windows 95-98 look again. I also have a hard time finding certain folders, Took me awhile to find My Computer to view Drive C: and the properties specs of the computer as it is renamed to This PC now.

I do have Windows 8 Pro witch was updated to 8.1 and guessing it is a service pack more if anything, and have it installed on my main desktop as a external HDD since I only use it if needing that operating system and may do the same to Windows 10. My main OS on my desktop (IBM ThinkCentre M55e) is Windows XP Professional | 2nd Drive Windows 7 Professional, and I'm even using Windows XP now as typing this. It still runs very good on its original 80GB HDD and gets the work done that I need, plus I still use old IBM hardware that Windows 8 and above may not work with.


Viewing lots of Windows 10 videos it seems windows 10 is more for a casual consumer that uses their smart phone daily and Microsoft mixes the Windows within it for the desktop witch 8 has done and doesn't seem like a business get work done operating system anymore. I think Microsoft could of made a whole other type OS for casual consumers and left the Windows as a work related OS. I know thier is Windows 10 Enterprise but isn't it the same excact setup as Home and Pro of 10 but without the forceful automatic updates?

I know their is a few people I talked to that agree Windows 10 isn't really for them and are sticking with Windows 7 for as long as they can or move to Linux witch I though of trying Linux but here their is lots of driver issues. And I have a disc of Puppy Linux that was given to me years ago if anyone wants to say how that is.

[ZaZ]

I don't think a mass migration to Linux is in the future for most Windows users. I've not used Windows 10, but Microsoft has to deal with a future where phones are the center of the universe. A lot of tasks that people used to do on their PCs, have now moved over to the phone. I have a Windows phone and like it a lot, but Microsoft isn't gaining much traction there.

[wmgeorge64]

The move from XP to Windows 7 was not that big a deal. I have no plans for Win 10. Like you pointed out its not for real power users, more for the people who spend all there time on social media and like having a smeared up touch screen.

[RealBlackStuff]

I'd sooner move to Linux rather than going the W10 route.

[ajkula66]

I'd sooner move to Linux rather than going the W10 route.

+1

Force-fed updates = ultimate deal-breaker.

[pianowizard]

I think Microsoft could of made a whole other type OS for casual consumers and left the Windows as a work related OS.

That was indeed the case back in the 1990s: 95, 98/98SE and ME for casual home use, versus NT and 2000 for work.

Microsoft is a victim of its own success. Windows 7 already has all the features needed for work-related applications, but if professional users just stick with 7 permanently, how could Microsoft make any money? So, it came up with 8 and then 10, which do have novel features that appeal to some users, but professionals would rather not waste any time adapting to a new user interface.

If you were Microsoft, what would you do? By "you" I mean all of you, not just ThinkPad560X.

[ajkula66]

, but professionals would rather not waste any time adapting to a new user interface.

That's a straw man if I ever saw one. No, professionals simply don't trust Microsoft to force-feed them updates, and with an *excellent* reason. That's why W10 will fare worse than W8.x unless MS backs down on that particular decision.

If you were Microsoft, what would you do? By "you" I mean all of you, not just ThinkPad560X.

Listen to its core customer base. Businesses. As good of an OS as W7 might be there are numerous improvements that can be made to it.

[pianowizard]

No, professionals simply don't trust Microsoft to force-feed them updates, and with an *excellent* reason. That's why W10 will fare worse than W8.x unless MS backs down on that particular decision.

That's one reason for not upgrading, but I was asking about another reason.

As good of an OS as W7 might be there are numerous improvements that can be made to it.

Please name five.

Lots of professionals were happy with XP even last year (before the end of life), and it was already a 13-year-old OS.

[precip9]

, but professionals would rather not waste any time adapting to a new user interface.

That's a straw man if I ever saw one. No, professionals simply don't trust Microsoft to force-feed them updates, and with an *excellent* reason. That's why W10 will fare worse than W8.x unless MS backs down on that particular decision.

Listen to its core customer base. Businesses. As good of an OS as W7 might be there are numerous improvements that can be made to it.

Mostly, ditto. My preference would be for:
1. Perpetuation of the Windows 7 interface for the rest of my stay here on earth.
2. Perpetual support, necessary for reasonable security when accessing the web.
3. Changes only to the extent that functionality is improved, as opposed to appearance.

There is absolutely no chance of this happening, because, regardless of our personal opinions, the business model for perpetuation of "classic" Windows does not exist. Business as a core is not enough to sustain Microsoft in a world where computers are present, everywhere, all the time. In every designer-of-note's brain, everywhere=cloud.

This has resulted in a change in the Microsoft strategy. Previously, Microsoft's operating system would be omnipresent. Now, Microsoft will be omnipresent.

A good number of the people on this board (majority?) don't want to be passively lead into a future in which a corporation is constantly present on their machines. About this change, we feel great malaise.

I'll keep running Windows 7 until the sunset date. Perhaps some facts about security of an OS after sunset will by then have changed. Perhaps I'll have a few more years with Windows 8.1. There may then have to be a radical shift, perhaps involving linux. I'm not looking forwards to it. The whole experience of Windows 7 is so excellent it has not been replicated by others.

[pianowizard]

2. Perpetual support, necessary for reasonable security when accessing the web.

This is analogous to selling a laptop with a 100-year warranty. How could the manufacturer make any money?

3. Changes only to the extent that functionality is improved, as opposed to appearance.

But most of these functionality changes can be made simply through free updates. Major changes might require a new service pack, but that's still free. Like I said, the fact that Windows 7 has already satisfied most professionals' needs discourages them from upgrading any further. Let's say Windows 11 will have the exact same interface as 7, but just a tad more secure, a tad faster and a tad more stable. The difference would not be enough to get many people to upgrade. That's why Microsoft came up with Windows 8: it is indeed slightly faster, slightly more secure and slightly more stable than 7, but these advances alone weren't enough to lure people to upgrade, so Microsoft changed Windows' appearance as well.

Again, if you guys were Microsoft, what would you do?

I'll keep running Windows 7 until the sunset date. Perhaps some facts about security of an OS after sunset will by then have changed.

Unlike XP, 7 might be sufficiently secure to continue to be safe for a few years (say, five) after official support ends.

The whole experience of Windows 7 is so excellent it has not been replicated by others.

For me, it has been topped by 8.1, but I realize that the majority of users would disagree.

[Dekks]

Win 10 runs very well as an OS, however the UI is a bit of a mess as MS messed up Win 8 and brought in a half assed modern UI.

However I'm sure the hackers will quickly show ppl how to get a Win 7 looking UI when win 10 launches.

[jdrou]

2. Perpetual support, necessary for reasonable security when accessing the web.

This is analogous to selling a laptop with a 100-year warranty. How could the manufacturer make any money?

Not sure that he meant free support. I know I would pay $20-$50 a year to keep the same OS perpetually updated with security fixes and support for new hardware (and new versions of DirectX, .NET framework, and so on). Not necessarily drivers since those are up to the device manufacturer but at least the basic support for new technologies.

[Hans Gruber]

People should not jump to conclusions regarding Windows 10. They have some very good drivers compared to some of the Windows 7 drivers. They need to add a bit more color to the UI of Windows 10. It's a wait and see approach because Windows 10 has not launched. Hopefully Microsoft will provide a clean Windows 10 install for those who are more skilled than the standard computer user in the upgrade process from Win7/8 to Windows 10.

[pianowizard]

Win 10 runs very well as an OS, however the UI is a bit of a mess as MS messed up Win 8 and brought in a half assed modern UI.

I haven't played with 10 yet, and the only UI element change I know about is the Start Menu which looks like a Win7/Win8 hybrid.

One of the several reasons why Vista was so unpopular was that Microsoft shuffled things around and people found the new UI hard to learn. But this exposure to Vista helped users prepare for 7, which had an almost identical UI. 7's popularity was partly due to that preparedness. History may repeat itself with 8 and 10. A major reason that people hate 8 is the drastically revised UI. But if 10 looks similar to 8 (aside from the new-and-improved Start Menu), more people may actually find it user-friendly.

Not sure that he meant free support. I know I would pay $20-$50 a year to keep the same OS perpetually updated

Microsoft is doing exactly that for Windows XP, though only for governments and large companies if I am not mistaken.

I interpreted precip9 to mean free support because he said it would not be compatible with business models. If he meant $20 - $50 per year, that would be a good source of revenue for Microsoft.

Hopefully Microsoft will provide a clean Windows 10 install.

Would a clean install be able to verify that the computer is currently running a legitimate copy of 7 or 8 and is thus eligible for the free upgrade? Paid installation media will certainly support clean install.

[Hans Gruber]

Win 10 runs very well as an OS, however the UI is a bit of a mess as MS messed up Win 8 and brought in a half assed modern UI.

I haven't played with 10 yet, and the only UI element change I know about is the Start Menu which looks like a Win7/Win8 hybrid.

One of the several reasons why Vista was so unpopular was that Microsoft shuffled things around and people found the new UI hard to learn. But this exposure to Vista helped users prepare for 7, which had an almost identical UI. 7's popularity was partly due to that preparedness. History may repeat itself with 8 and 10. A major reason that people hate 8 is the drastically revised UI. But if 10 looks similar to 8 (aside from the new-and-improved Start Menu), more people may actually find it user-friendly.

Not sure that he meant free support. I know I would pay $20-$50 a year to keep the same OS perpetually updated

Microsoft is doing exactly that for Windows XP, though only for governments and large companies if I am not mistaken.

I interpreted precip9 to mean free support because he said it would not be compatible with business models. If he meant $20 - $50 per year, that would be a good source of revenue for Microsoft.

Hopefully Microsoft will provide a clean Windows 10 install.

Would a clean install be able to verify that the computer is currently running a legitimate copy of 7 or 8 and is thus eligible for the free upgrade? Paid installation media will certainly support clean install.

Microsoft OS scans hardware, specifically serial numbers of hardware parts. If your laptop has a COA key, it's mated to that copy of Windows 7 or Windows 8. I imagine the same validation process would be used in Windows 10, thus making a clean install option on laptop with the COA key a non issue.

The big deal for Windows 10 is DX12. Windows 10 has shown significant improvement in frames per second in DX11 games.

[jdrou]

Microsoft is doing exactly that for Windows XP, though only for governments and large companies if I am not mistaken.

I think they charge a lot more for that than an individual would be willing to pay though.

[Dekks]

One of the several reasons why Vista was so unpopular was that Microsoft shuffled things around and people found the new UI hard to learn.

Vista performing like a slug before the SP1 was the real issue.

[Omineca]

I though of trying Linux but here their is lots of driver issues.

Linux support for ThinkPads is very good. I rarely have any driver issues. Puppy linux should run out of the box, but it's worth downloading the latest version. If you're looking for a more complete distribution, there's a version of Debian with all the non-free drivers here, which should get almost any ThinkPad of relatively recent vintage (p4 and newer) up and running without trouble: http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unoff ... -firmware/. I'm actually running it on a p3, but I wouldn't guarantee that every p3 will run without issues.

Debian is rock solid stable. I highly recommend it. You could leave it running for years without trouble.

I don't care much for the changes in Windows after Windows 7, or office since the ribbon was introduced and all the keyboard shortcuts were massacred, so I run MS Office via Wine. I happily work with Word and Excel 2000, with the compatibility pack, and can open and edit any .docx or .xlsx file I come across.

[ajkula66]

Vista performing like a slug before the SP1 was the real issue.

Yep. Resource hog that one was as well. One would never guess running it fully-updated today on the system from that era.

[ajkula66]

Please name five.

1) Improve - or better yet completely re-write/re-design - scaling

2) Improve UEFI performance

3) Improve the kernel security-wise

4) Introduce DX12 that we should get to see in W10

5) Improve TRIM implementation, preferably offering it as a manual option as well on the OS level.

Personally, I'd only be interested in 1 and 5, but there are other people who would like to see the rest of this stuff implemented.

[85101]

I work at Microsoft, although I am not associated with the Windows team. I've been playing around with >RTM internal builds and I can say for certain that I do not prefer 10 over 8.1. The supposed reasoning for the automatic updates is to prevent fragmentation as new features are rolled out. That's good for developers who won't need to support multiple versions, but from a user's perspective I don't like it any more than the rest of you.

[Norway Pad]

3. Changes only to the extent that functionality is improved, as opposed to appearance.

But most of these functionality changes can be made simply through free updates. Major changes might require a new service pack, but that's still free. Like I said, the fact that Windows 7 has already satisfied most professionals' needs discourages them from upgrading any further. Let's say Windows 11 will have the exact same interface as 7, but just a tad more secure, a tad faster and a tad more stable. The difference would not be enough to get many people to upgrade. That's why Microsoft came up with Windows 8: it is indeed slightly faster, slightly more secure and slightly more stable than 7, but these advances alone weren't enough to lure people to upgrade, so Microsoft changed Windows' appearance as well.

Again, if you guys were Microsoft, what would you do?

For me Win8 felt like a fresh system compared to Win7, if you forget the new UI. But I installed the Stardock Start menu on my Win8/Win8.1 machines, and by doing so, I got an almost Win7 looking OS, that generally felt more responsive and streamlined than Win7. So if Microsoft creates a better, faster and more secure OS, and there is an EOL date set for the old OS sometime in the future, I think the reason for upgrading will always be there.

And what market share does the retail and upgrade versions have? How many of these licenses does Microsoft sell compared to the millions of operating systems they ship out with new computers? That's where the market is, and at that point the question of luring people into upgrading is no longer relevant. Those brand new computers are shipped with whatever OS that Microsoft has available at the time. For the business side, I don't know what triggers a business to upgrade, but I would think that's based on more than just being lured by a new appearance.

[precip9]

I work at Microsoft, although I am not associated with the Windows team. I've been playing around with >RTM internal builds and I can say for certain that I do not prefer 10 over 8.1. The supposed reasoning for the automatic updates is to prevent fragmentation as new features are rolled out. That's good for developers who won't need to support multiple versions, but from a user's perspective I don't like it any more than the rest of you.

Having written some software, it's a valid reason. But there are two problems with it:
1. There are other plausible reasons that don't have to do with reliability. Microsoft could introduce intrusive changes, and user could do nothing about it.
2. It might break MY apps, and there is no way for ME (pardon the caps!) to keep the functionality.

Here's a real-world example. Corel's Painter 2015 was broken by Windows Update Netframework 4.5.2. For some time, before Corel came up with a patch, with Windows 7 and 8.1 there were two workarounds:
a. Uninstall the update.
b. Install a .NET 4.5.3 beta -- this was my action.
Eventually, Corel came up with a hotfix: http://howto.corel.com/en/dc/Painter_us ... _installed
which, with caveats, is a workaround.

Sometime, somewhere, in the long lifecycle of Windows 10, this kind of breakage will occur. And unless the user has the Enterprise Edition, or his particular issue is fixed within the Microsoft-specified 8 month window, he is *out of luck*.

Your fellow Microsoft employees are very, very smart people. Unfortunately, very smart people sometimes make decisions that seem smart from the corporate-strategic pov, but are actually disastrous to significant proportions of users. Many of us associated that kind of decision-making with Steve Ballmer. We hoped it would end with his exit. We are still hoping.

[precip9]

For me Win8 felt like a fresh system compared to Win7, if you forget the new UI. But I installed the Stardock Start menu on my Win8/Win8.1 machines, and by doing so, I got an almost Win7 looking OS, that generally felt more responsive and streamlined than Win7.

W8.1 is more efficient than W7 with memory. As typical RAM sizes soar above 8G, the benefit of this efficiency diminishes. It was noted early that the speed increment of W8/8.1 diminishes to insignificance with increasing machine speed and memory. W8.1 starts up a little faster, but, according to my tests on an X61s, resumes from hibernate slower than W7. On the other hand, it hibernates faster than W7, because it writes less.

With W8.1 on my X61s Thinkpads, I use the 3rd party "Classic Start Menu", and with it, 8.1 works well. I still prefer the Aero interface. The reasons for removing it had entirely to do with a "uniform customer experience" inclusive of tiny machines with tiny batteries.

I was not interested in a uniform customer experience. But it was not in the character of Steve Ballmer to ask about my preferences. It was in his character to ram a broken GUI down my throat. I returned the compliment with Amazon reviews of W8 that may have had some effect on public opinion.

It's telling that, in his afterlife, Steve Ballmer can think of nothing better than owning a sports team, while Bill Gates is improving the planet.

[pianowizard]

Vista performing like a slug before the SP1 was the real issue.

I realized that, and that's why I wrote "one of the SEVERAL reasons". Vista's poor performance was the reason I avoided it for four years, and I have said that at least 50 times on this forum. The second most cited reason is driver incompatibility. The unfamiliar UI was #3. My department's IT guy has told me more than once that Vista's new UI was a big problem for quite a few people in this department.

I don't care much for the changes in Windows after Windows 7, or office since the ribbon was introduced and all the keyboard shortcuts were massacred, so I run MS Office via Wine. I happily work with Word and Excel 2000, with the compatibility pack, and can open and edit any .docx or .xlsx file I come across.

Most of the old keyboard shortcuts still work, and I have continued to use them in Office 2010. I have zero interest in upgrading to Office 2013 or 365 though.

1) Improve - or better yet completely re-write/re-design - scaling

2) Improve UEFI performance

3) Improve the kernel security-wise

4) Introduce DX12 that we should get to see in W10

5) Improve TRIM implementation, preferably offering it as a manual option as well on the OS level.

How many of these require a new Windows version, as opposed to a service pack? I guess it's hard to tell. I remember vividly what Microsoft said when explaining the importance of SP2 for XP, which introduced changes that were unusually substantial for a service pack. The guy said that such drastic updates would normally be done through the release of an entirely new version of Windows, but because some of them addressed very urgent security risks, Microsoft couldn't wait that long and did it through a service pack instead. That was back in 2004, and since then Microsoft has made lots of major changes to Windows through service packs and even regular "Patch Tuesday" updates. Having accustomed to receiving major enhancements and fixes through free updates for over a decade, many users are now less likely to shell out money for a new OS that functions better but looks exactly like an existing version.

In my whole life I have bought Windows only twice, both of them Windows 8, because normally I just install whatever COA comes with a computer. Had 8 looked identical to 7, I doubt I would have bought it.

And what market share does the retail and upgrade versions have? How many of these licenses does Microsoft sell compared to the millions of operating systems they ship out with new computers? That's where the market is, and at that point the question of luring people into upgrading is no longer relevant.

Of course you are right as far as the number of copies, but I suspect Microsoft makes much more money from each copy of the retail version than from each preinstalled copy.

[RealBlackStuff]

For those of you who are sick and tired of the Office 2007/2010/2013 ribbon:
go get the "old" menu back using UbitMenu: http://www.ubit.ch/software/ubitmenu-languages/
Been using it for several years now in Office 2010, works great!

[Cigarguy]

For those of you who are sick and tired of the Office 2007/2010/2013 ribbon:
go get the "old" menu back using UbitMenu: http://www.ubit.ch/software/ubitmenu-languages/
Been using it for several years now in Office 2010, works great!

Thanks for posting this.

[Sudevan]

I have not tried out Windows 10, and probably don't have much interest in doing so. Win 7 is working fine on my one-year-old Dell XPS 8700, as well as on numerous Thinkpads. I also have Linux Mint 16 or 17 on almost all of my later Thinkpads starting with the T40s and into the T60s. As I gain more experience with Linux Mint 17, I find that it is a superb OS for my needs, and it has none of the intrusive updating processes which Microsoft uses. True there are updates waiting for you, but you don't really have to install them. What's more, one can learn the terminal commands ( sudo apt ) as need arises, and gradually one gets better at tweaking things to fine-tune the OS based on one's needs. And there are close to 50,000 pieces of software in the Package Manager, vetted and installable for your applications. Libre ( formerly Open) Office is also fully compatible with MS Office, so documents, spreadsheets and powerpoint files transfer seamlessly back and forth.

More generally, I think a profit-centred company like Microsoft is never going to support any OS indefinitely. I fear that eventually they will build in planned obsolescence into OS-es so that after a period of several years, bits and bobs of the OS will actually begin to fail irremediably, rather like Henry Ford did with car manufacturing. The basic requirements for an OS are actually fairly small for me. A lot of the things that have been added on to Windows are really frills, at least from my perspective. For example, I don't use more than ten of the dozens of features available in Word for almost 90% of the work I do with writing. Newer versions of Word are simply a burden for me, I have to get used to an interface I don't care for all that much (Word 2013 ), and often it seems as though the newer versions have made things much worse, rather than improving anything.

So, there will come a point when I will get out of Windows completely. One of my close friends and research collaborators decided to get completely out of Windows almost ten years ago when he retired from the university we worked at. He went to Linux and to Macs -- mostly Linux. He has never had a reason to go back to Windows. When I was using XP for many years with my 2004 Dell Dimension 4600, the multiple SPs and other updates and mods grew to be so bulky and unwieldy that the functioning of the computer was hampered rather than speeded. I am not sure if the same fate awaits Win 7, or Win 10 for that matter. I think the same general direction seems to be in my future as far as hardware is concerned. It might be better to build one's own machines rather than buy complete machines from Dell or Lenovo or Gateway. Last years fiasco with UEFI locking out Linux and other non-Microsoft OS-es (although that seems to have been rectified now) left me wondering why we must support computer-makers who support that sort of excess. When the corporate world gets more and more intrusive and demanding, one way out is to leave them alone and move in a different direction. This may not be a path for everyone, but to me, it seems a more likely route.

Sudevan

[ThinkPad560X]

Didn't IBM before they sold the PC to Lenovo sell ThinkPads with Linux OS as option over Windows? I remember seeing the option for Linux OS instead of Windows Vista.

If not Lenovo should start giving the option to sell ThinkPads with a select OS of Linux the customer wants.

[Pokrzept]

Didn't IBM before they sold the PC to Lenovo sell ThinkPads with Linux OS as option over Windows? I remember seeing the option for Linux OS instead of Windows Vista.

If not Lenovo should start giving the option to sell ThinkPads with a select OS of Linux the customer wants.

This shall not be too hard for them, Dell allready offers preinstalled Linux distro on both consumer and business laptop series.