Windows 10: Dissapointed but not suprised.

Interesting... I think I can agree up to the Win 10 part. From what I see so far it's an improvement. Well, for desktop users at least, like me. I use apps in Win8.1.1 and Win10 but I don't find any need to access the Start Screen,, well not all that much. I might go there once in the blue moon.

So far I really do like Win10 and I plan on upgrading/buying a copy when it comes out next year.
My 2c, YMMV

 

"Windows 7 = Ancient tech"
I guess you guys don't like wheels either.

 

Wheels? Not only do we like them, we like four.

Windows 7 is quick.....







It's just that 8.1 is a lot quicker....







Better looking too. Wouldn't you say?

Remember > We used 7 at one time > Then they came out with a much better model. *Smile

 

HippsieGypsie.

Windows 7 = Ancient? I just bought mine in Jan 2014. Not ancient to me. If you are having speed issues with windows 7, it could be either the software or the hardware. I found out through mine, it was actually a faulty motherboard. If it is videos not playing or buffering, that most likely you internet service provider or the webpage itself. Since, my motherboard got replaced under warranty, speed increased this was on 4gb machine with 64 bit windows installed. I have not tested out virus programs like avg or avast since I did that. I like MSE, it knows how to utilize memory.


All,
I know I have a low memory system but as I told others I am going to stick with it. I have also notice that a lot of windows 8/8.1 64 bit computers only have 4 gb of ram and a 500 gb hard drive. The OEM and/or Microsoft should made a minimum of 8 gb of ram if that what it is really needed. There are also report on the web saying you really don't more than 8 gb of ram. Since, I am not good at getting inside the "All-in-one" systems, I would have to take it to a computer shop to do that, I might as well by another computer. Which I am not.

 

Those of you who know me from SevenForums and EightForums will recall that originally I hated Metro with a passion (Win 8 DP), but that by the time the RTM was released I'd customised 8 heavily with 3rd-party options to make it more user-friendly, and was coming to quite like it.

Rather than simply 'diss' 8 on the basis of Metro, I was one of those who, despite disliking Metro intensely, was prepared to persevere with 8 and put in the time and effort needed in order to 'learn' it thoroughly, and was happy enough with it upon its release to the public to take MS up on their cut-price intro offer (A$60 against a full price of A$399) and to also grab a WMC key while they were available for free. Adding this basically gives you Win 8 Ultimate (and it shows as such in SANDRA).

I upgraded that installation to the Win 8.1 RTM upon its release, and it is this which I am still running (updated to Win 8.1.1). In Win 8 I used Classic Shell as my start menu but upon upgrading to 8.1 I elected to 'give it a go' without any start menu replacement at all, it was a challenge at first but I kept at it and have now got my All Apps set up and customised to be my 'Start Menu' (and I almost never see the Start Screen at all, haven't even bothered to rearrange or resize its tiles). I do have (as always) the old XP/Vista 'Quick-Launch' toolbar enabled, which does substitute somewhat for not having a dedicated Start menu

So far, I'd tend to opt not to run the Start Menu in Win 10 as I'm now so totally comfortable and at home with my custom Win 8.1.1 start setup that I really don't want to change back. I did try to set the start options (with the Start Menu disabled) in Win 10 to replicate the experience I get in 8.1.1 and couldn't. 10 doesn't even come close (yet).

I do love my Win 8.1.1 setup, and consider it to be far superior to either the original Win 8 or Win 7. It's a far better OS than either its reputation suggests, or it's detractors believe. And that's not just my opinion. I, for one, certainly know I'll miss it (well, I won't, really, because it'll always be running on one of my 'other' machines, as indeed do my XP and Vista setups to this day *Tongue ). I must be one of the very few who loves 8.1.1 and ISN'T desperately hanging-out for MS to get rid of it? I'll seriously be as disappointed to see the end of 8.1.1 as I was to see the demise of DOS 6.22, Win98SE or Win 7.

Windows 10 will need to bring a LOT more to the table than just a re-vamped Start menu to tempt me away. Hint: Putting the full bloody Aero experience (a la Vista/7) back again would be a major tempter for me.


.

 

HippsieGypsie.

Windows 7 = Ancient? I just bought mine in Jan 2014. Not ancient to me. If you are having speed issues with windows 7, it could be either the software or the hardware. I found out through mine, it was actually a faulty motherboard. If it is videos not playing or buffering, that most likely you internet service provider or the webpage itself. Since, my motherboard got replaced under warranty, speed increased this was on 4gb machine with 64 bit windows installed. I have not tested out virus programs like avg or avast since I did that. I like MSE, it knows how to utilize memory.


All,
I know I have a low memory system but as I told others I am going to stick with it. I have also notice that a lot of windows 8/8.1 64 bit computers only have 4 gb of ram and a 500 gb hard drive. The OEM and/or Microsoft should made a minimum of 8 gb of ram if that what it is really needed. There are also report on the web saying you really don't more than 8 gb of ram. Since, I am not good at getting inside the "All-in-one" systems, I would have to take it to a computer shop to do that, I might as well by another computer. Which I am not. Well, Win7 did come out on Oct 2009 so it's about 5 years old and that is ancient tech from my perspective at least. When the beta of Win7 came out I dropped Vista and used 7 as my primary right away. And I bet a few of the others here did the same so for us it's what we would call "old".

As for memory, I had 4gb but I upgraded to 8gb and I would never have less than that from now on. In fact if I could I might add another 8gb of the same type of memory. It's not that you need it it's just that it does make a difference in your systems performance, IMO.. YMMV.

 

This horse drawn cart was the 'tank' of Ramses II when he fought the Hittites in 1274 BC at Kadesh. It was manned with a driver and a soldier with bow and arrow. Problem was, the Hittites had an new release of the cart that could hold 2 soldiers with bow and arrow who were shooting twice as many arrows. The battle was a draw although Ramses II portrait it as a victory. Times never change.

The cart on HG's picture was actually rebuilt from a model they found in the tumb of king Tut.

 

Bunny J wrote:

My 'super-lappy' (an Acer Aspire 'ETHOS' i7 2670Qm quad-core 'desktop-replacement') runs Windows 8.1.1 Pro w/WMC 64-bit and has 8gb RAM. It is 2½ years old.

My brother has a Toshiba Satellite with a 'Pentium' quad-core and only 4gb RAM. He runs Windows 8.1 Core 64-bit. His machine is brand-new.

Even taking hardware differences into account, the difference the extra 4gb makes is more than just 'noticeable'. The super-lappy simply jumps all over its younger cousin from a considerable height.

And in a couple of months the super-lappy's getting an upgrade - a 256gb (minimum) SSD C: drive to replace one of the two 750gb spinners currently fitted, and another 8gb of RAM. So that will increase the gap (and the super-lappy's performance) considerably... *Tongue


.

 

My 'super-lappy' (an Acer Aspire 'ETHOS' i7 2670Qm quad-core 'desktop-replacement') runs Windows 8.1.1 Pro w/WMC 64-bit and has 8gb RAM. It is 2½ years old.

My brother has a Toshiba Satellite with a 'Pentium' quad-core and only 4gb RAM. He runs Windows 8.1 Core 64-bit. It is brand-new.

Even taking hardware differences into account, the difference the extra 4gb makes is more than just 'noticeable'. The super-lappy simply jumps all over its younger cousin. *Tongue


Wenda. Could be very true but I just get the feeling that it's faster and I guess that's what counts for me at least.

 

I respect your reply. I am actually speaking for the non-enthusiasts who never visit forums to voice their thoughts. I work with the "regular Joe & Jane" on their home computers. These people power on a computer, open a browser to check email or play Windows games. They may use Office or have some type of Greeting Card software. And, they are usually, like me, a senior citizen. These 600 plus people around the world have gotten to know me since 2006 as their PC-Go-To-Guy. They could care less about specs. What they want is familiarity. Most started with Windows 98 or XP and when some of them went to the store to buy a new computer and brought home Windows 8, they were horrified.

Microsoft does not need to make these changes to the OS (it's called marketing). Heck, XP users are still having a good time with their machines and simply ask me to disable IE and install GC or MFF.

 

Yeah, let's not change anything. It's better to to do as is always done, no use to get anything new. We don't need new.

Who needs these big wide screen displays with millions of colors, the 14 inch 4 to 3 EGA display from 1981 when IBM PC was introduced is good enough. Windows 3 worked well, why on earth has MS decided to change it time after time introducing new bells and whistles? Who needs several gigabytes of RAM, the IBM PC had 384 KB and it worked well. Why do we ever developed modern broadband systems when the connections worked well using the phone line and a 2.400 baud modem?

Please MS and PC manufacturers, please do never change anything, do not evolve your products. Let us just use the old systems as we have always used.

 

This keyboard/mouse user couldn't disagree with you more. So, with all due respect, instead of saying "we" it should be "I" have no use for gaudy tiles. 100% correct

 

I respect your reply. I am actually speaking for the non-enthusiasts who never visit forums to voice their thoughts. I work with the "regular Joe & Jane" on their home computers. These people power on a computer, open a browser to check email or play Windows games. They may use Office or have some type of Greeting Card software. And, they are usually, like me, a senior citizen. These 600 plus people around the world have gotten to know me since 2006 as their PC-Go-To-Guy. They could care less about specs. What they want is familiarity. Most started with Windows 98 or XP and when some of them went to the store to buy a new computer and brought home Windows 8, they were horrified.

Microsoft does not need to make these changes to the OS (it's called marketing). Heck, XP users are still having a good time with their machines and simply ask me to disable IE and install GC or MFF. I didn't like the W8 Start Screen at first either. It took a period of adjustment to get use to. Advancements in technology are a part of life and whether we like it or not, change is inevitable. I suspect those people, who are hoping W10 will be W7 with a few under the hood improvements, will be disappointed. But since W7 is still going to be supported for quite a while, they have the option to stick with it.

 

I understand what you are saying, but that statement is not quite correct. From 7 to 8 we moved into a completely different world which is ruled now by tablets and phones. MS has to provide an interface that is suitable for those devices.

The could have, of course, seperated the OS for the portable devices from the OS for PCs. But that is a very expensive proposition. Maintaining 2 seperate OS is extremely expensive if you want to keep them halfway in sync as far as the functions are concerned. I have been there and know that it is a nightmare.

 

I respect your reply. I am actually speaking for the non-enthusiasts who never visit forums to voice their thoughts. I work with the "regular Joe & Jane" on their home computers. These people power on a computer, open a browser to check email or play Windows games. They may use Office or have some type of Greeting Card software. And, they are usually, like me, a senior citizen. These 600 plus people around the world have gotten to know me since 2006 as their PC-Go-To-Guy. They could care less about specs. What they want is familiarity. Most started with Windows 98 or XP and when some of them went to the store to buy a new computer and brought home Windows 8, they were horrified.

Microsoft does not need to make these changes to the OS (it's called marketing). Heck, XP users are still having a good time with their machines and simply ask me to disable IE and install GC or MFF. I would think that if you're a "PC-GO-To-Guy" you would have had no issues both figuring out how to make use of Win8 and explaining it to all of your followers/clients. Being in the IT filed since I was 17, now 53, I've had to learn and addapt to numerous OS's and the change from Win7 to Win8/Win10 has been rather painless for me at least and explaining the changes to others is not really that hard. It only takes me about an hour and I've covered most if not all of the bases so the individual I'm helping out is not having any issues with the new OS.. Win8 or Win10.

Oh, and Xp is no longer supported so those still using it are taking a big risk with security issues. But hey.. that's their problems not mine. I would rather use Linux than Xp right now. I can agree that for the average user Win7 is just fine for now and for the next 5 years but keeping them on Xp is doing them a disservice. IMO

Jeff