besides what MS puts in the table, what about like this: 32-bit 2GB 64-bit 4GB what do you peope think?
Not as a minimum requirement, I've run 64bit on 2GB machines fine many times Raising minimum requirements, with blocked installs without those specs is just dumb, MS way of making their OS look more perfect than it really is by forcing only higher spec'd machines to run it
From my personal experience, Windows 10 runs slower than Windows 7 and especially Windows 8 on the same hardware . So, in my eyes, Microsoft was "cheating" when said that for Windows 10 requirements was not changed. Now, they just "edited" them to actual values. These 2Gb/4Gb are true values for Windows 10. This is just my opinion.
What are the chances of the anniversary update being released at least a week b4 29July? Kinda annoying if it's on or after, means having to double install, if you want the free upgrade.
Obviously it will be in the wild days or weeks before the 29/7. There i a reason if the expire date of insiders build is set to 15/7
Are the builds getting more resource hungry with each update? That's why MS change the minimum requirements?
I was thinking the same thing. I also notice on buildfeed that there are many different variations of 16342, the last being 10.0.14342.1016. I would presume there was a 1015 etc, but that isn't listed. The interesting thing is that these were ongoing from 17 days ago for .1000 to yesterday for 1016, despite 10343 through to 10352 since that same date. Build .1016 of 10342 is newer than 10352? Maybe it's different code paths, patching etc? In which case, what is missing from 10352 that made it into 10342.1016? Who knows! It could also be that 10352 etc builds aren't ready and we'll get 1016 tomorrow or later in the week :S, containing fixes but not the changes in 10352 that could be causing issues? Hope that makes sense!
H'mm what would you call "old"......also noticed when installing these builds it wipes out daz loader for win 7 on my other drive, so I have to reload.