Windows 10: Microsoft opens up about more Windows 10 preview features

Thank you. And it's often conveniently overlooked while at the same time bashing Microsoft.

Anyway it was written that what you see today may not be what you see in final release...

And this important note...

In short... Expect issues on a beta / Tech preview OS

They'd also welcome feedback...

source: Download Windows Technical Preview ISO - Microsoft Windows

Don't know what else some expect of MS on a beta OS *Confused

 

Folks we chose to be the guinea pig testers.
If W-10 met the standards of a quality complete operating system Microsoft would of put a ($) in front of the (Windows 10)
and sold it to us.

Windows 10 is like any other operating system; it will never be perfect.
With our input, Microsoft ability, updates and upgrades it will get better.
Remember W-10 is not competing against W-8 but rather W-7 and that's a tough row to hoe.

 

The point is that MS brought this on themselves (slow handclap).
Before the Registry, ALL software was portable.

The Windows Servers (W2K8 & W2K8R2) we used in my Networking Course could export the setup (XML).
The W8 series can apparently export your settings to the "Cloud".
Why can't it be done locally?

So WinRT doesn’t use the Registry at all?
I wasn't aware of that.

I'm not suggesting that MS throw away legacy code.
They could create a Virtual Registry to support old code (like the Virtual Store in W7).

What you are saying is MS has spent 13 years (or more) working on this and they still can't make it more reliable.

Thank you. And it's often conveniently overlooked while at the same time bashing Microsoft.
...
Don't know what else some expect of MS on a beta OS *Confused I use Windows for at least 95% of my computing.
I'm not an Apple fanboy who faces Cupertino and prays to the statue of Steve Jobs.

I don't defend MS when it makes "bonehead" decisions.

Using an update instead of an ISO has been around for years.
It has caused issues for users for the same amount of time (including W8 users too).

If you are going to throw out a system that works (clean install) and replace it with a new system (only allow in-place upgrades) it had better work.

If your great "new" idea still doesn't work after 13 years and at least 3 operating systems, maybe you should cut you losses.

MS needs W10 Final to be a success and as such it should work 100% of the time straight "out of the box".
Any system that doesn't work 100%, or at least as reliably as the rest of Windows, should be jettisoned.

If it isn't, the Internet & the mainstream media will be full of headlines like:

• "MS Screws Up Again!"
• "W10 Sucks!"
• "I swapped to a Mac and I haven't looked back."
• etc.

 

Well let's not kid ourselves here - Microsoft could give us the Golden OS on a silver platter and people will still complain because it's Microsoft, and they didn't personally hand it out on a gold plated platter.

And I never pay attention to those sensationalistic headlines as they are nothing more than attention grabbing noise; usually with little credibility.

My two cents.

 

Sure glad I went out and got that popcorn and diet Pepsi. . .it is starting. . .Microsoft you had better be reading this stuff or these people will be jumping ship to Linux or Mac OS. . .Oh wait. . .didn't they already do that over on the 8 forums. . .

 

The one thing we know the majority of Windows users didn't do was rush out to buy W8.

Maybe MS is counting on the end of official W7 sales to force people to buy W8.
Windows 7 PC Sales to End on Friday - Windows 7 Help Forums

That said, there was a big jump in W8.1's market share (+4.3%) last month and a big drop in XP's share (-6.7%).
"Other" also gained a couple of percentage points.




NetMarketShare
Market share for mobile, browsers, operating systems and search engines | NetMarketShare
It looks like MS has managed to outlast the XP holdouts.

 

Hi there

XML and so is great also in theory so Portable apps could be the way forward -- but the problem with these is then licensing so that the software is only used on the machine(s) / device(s) it's licensed for.

I remember years ago when you had to plug in all sorts of "dongles" when running some software -- we don't ever want to go back to that mess again surely.

Portable apps are great in theory - especially for open source /; free applications - but they can present a NIGHTMARE scenario for I.T admins who want to keep reasonably locked down company workstations / laptops. There's not much protection against running unlicensed software unless you totally disallow any sort of external device to be used on your machine such as a USB drive - which really would inconvenience legitimate users.

Cheers
jimbo.

 

That is a very good point. *Smile

You'd have to have some sort of master program list on the server (Active Directory?).
A client PC would have to request authorization to run executable files.

Some sort of Group Policy Rules that would only allow authorized code to run, might work.

Maybe both, plus an alert for the Admin, to warn them that unauthorized programs were on the network.

 

You could just roll your own "portable" applications...

VMware is one of the ways to move apps between machines, it does require virtual software, but it works well. With the available hardware and the quality of the VMware software nowadays, there isn't much performance hit in running two OSs on machine.

My W7 and MacBook Pro have the same image for W8.1 and Office, Visio, etc. I haven't seen any issues with licensing on either of the platforms...

 

Nor did people "rush out" to buy Windows 7, Vista (obviously), XP, etc.. It takes years for people to get off their old versions. It's funny how quickly people forget that so many people hated XP when it first came out.. they called it the "Fisher Price" OS. They hated the new start menu. They hated that they had to buy more memory and hard disk, or buy a new computer... Eventually, XP became the new normal.

Remember, most people were upgrading from Windows 98 or ME. They typically had 64MB of memory, or 128. 1GB was almost unheard of, because many motherboards back in the day couldn't even use that much memory if you had it (it was god awful expensive in the 9x days).

Windows 7's uptake was better than average, but that was largely because so many people had skipped Vista.. and with 7 years between Major OS's, it was a sort of perfect storm. With security concerns, aging hardware needing replacement, and policies from Microsoft that sunset IE versions and other software on XP, it got people and companies to switch to 7.

The problem is, none of that existed for Windows 8. It had only been a couple of years since companies (and in some cases companies were still in the process of..) switched to 7. There are no sunset policies for 7, meaning all technology (other than WinRT) that works on 8 works on 7. There is no forced upgrade reasons, unlike XP.

So you really can't read "popularity" into why 7's numbers are so high and 8's numbers so low. If 7 had been allowed to exist without the forced upgrades, it very well might have had similar numbers a 8.

Considering that last month, there was a weird anomaly of supposed XP going up.. I would say that there was some kind of flaw in the counting and this month just fixes it.. My guess is that it should have been a little less of drop.

 

Excluding the latest figures, W7's market share increased at roughly the same rate as the W8 series since Oct 2012 (W7 total increase ~9%).

Drilling into the latest figures, Vista still has a market share of ~2.6%.

I do remember some complaints about XP.
I didn't actually start using it until 2004.
I think the first version I used was XP SP1.

Considering that last month, there was a weird anomaly of supposed XP going up.. I would say that there was some kind of flaw in the counting and this month just fixes it.. My guess is that it should have been a little less of drop. The chart I posted last month showed that W7 went up, XP was flat and the W8 series went down.

Nonetheless, the previous figures seemed strange to me too.

It seemed unlikely that 10M - 20M computers stopped using the W8 series.

I wonder if the boost in share is (directly) related to the increase in Surface Pro profits?
https://www.tenforums.com/windows-10-...-business.html

 

Microsoft doesn't really compete against the likes Linux or Apple or any other operating system on computers.

For years Microsoft has had 90% or more of the market share and the other companies operating systems get to peck at the scraps.
Every operating system Microsoft makes competes against a older Microsoft operating system.

I know of no other company that it's number one competitor is it's self.
If you buy W-7, W-8 or the new W-10 the money goes in one bank account belonging to Microsoft.

The last time I checked Microsoft has around of 90% of the Office program market.

DailyTech - Office 2010 to Launch Today, Microsoft Owns 94 Percent of the Market


What Microsoft is looking for is a bigger share of the mobile market which is somewhere under 20% the last I looked.
Now if Microsoft can come with a operating system that can be shared across all platforms, BINGO they found the pile of gold they want.

Microsoft is still the big dog when it comes to the server market with Enterprise but they do have some competition.

Just think of it.
A operating system, office product and a App store across enterprise, small business, home users and all the various mobile devices. In my opinion that is exactly what Microsoft is trying to do.

We could wait for the Russians and or the Chinese to spend less time making infection to share with the world and make a new operating system the world will want.

I will wait for Microsoft to complete W-10 and hope they do a good enough job that I will want to run it along side my W-7 computers.
Remember folks that you don't have to get rid of W-7 to use W-10. You can have and use both in the U.S.A.
Those who live in the E.U. might want to check for new laws against having both operating system at the same time.

Just some rambling thoughts from

 

That was the W8 plan; "One GUI to rule them all."

 

Plan "A" didn't work so now they are coming out with plan "B". W-10

Plan "A" they tried to cram down are gullets.
Plan "B" they are working with their customers which hopefully will end up creating a great operating system we all can enjoy. Well most of us.

 

I think that's way too simplistic. Microsoft always knew Plan "A" wasn't going to be a runaway success. Just like they knew Vista was going to be problematic (although Vista ended up being much more problematic than they intended).

With Vista, they knew that the introduction of UAC would be a hard pill to swallow, but they intentionally made it even more annoying than they had to because they wanted to find the real pain points so that, in the next release they could ease them. This strategy backfired on them quite a bit in terms of publicity to the point that Vista became a pariah.

With Windows 8, they knew Metro was "version 1.0", and that it had a long way to go before it became mature. This was one reason they barely even tried to target Windows 8 at business (The had the enterprise version of course, but the entire Metro experience was very difficult to manage for business).

They have always known this was going to be a long, slow slog to bring WinRT (Metro) apps to feature parity with Win32 apps, and to eventually have them take over. This is all still part of Plan "A", though maybe it's "A1"