It didn't suck though 1 feature the start menu is the main issue most have the rest of the OS most i think like. The start screen is not that bad anyone with a tablet or phone will agree here im sure. We have the best of both worlds with Windows 10 because they didn't listen. If they did listen we would have been stuck with a none touch friendly os on tablets and mobiles for Windows 8/8.1. More people have benefited from 8 and 8.1 than not ignoring bad feedback can lead to a positive outcome.
Just in case this hasn't been posted yet... Download will be available "around 9AM" PDT (UTC -0700) tomorrow according to a private QA PDF distributed to Microsoft Partners PDF provided by Lyraull: Code: ****s mega.co.nz/#!x45nTTYa!d4h7eHGCUzlcY5v9nPUTQjRvgD5t5bWtFFKGXES95Wk
It's still NTFS They need something with the ambition of WinFS, the flexibility of ext4 (native drivers please!), and the ability to handle flash-based storage on par with F2FS
This is where my Metro 'Alarm' is very useful. I have already set it up with the chime ringer. Who says Metro tile is not very useful?
The Start menu fiasco was just a symptom of a much larger issue with Windows 8. The integration of Metro and the classic desktop was immature, under-thought, and lazy. What sucked about Windows 8 was the desktop experience. Noone is arguing for or against the mobile niche. The legacy of Windows 8 is low rate of adoption due to a horrific desktop experience. i.e. it sucked (for desktop - wtf cares about mobile)
metro was great sadly most users where to stupid to know how to use it right and how to make it work for them
Right, well it's been fun, I'm off to bed, another 17 hours or something until release if that 9am PST is correct Don't download all the ISOs, leave one for me
What makes you say that? It doesn't even have all of NTFS features. On the other hand it has lots of new interesting abilities, like beeing defrag-less, that you demanded. Thats not something you can build on top of a existing fs. what do you mean by native drivers? for other platforms than windows? why would ms want to do that. you cant make an FS that is customized for flash to perform well on HDDs also. therefore they dont have interest in such a specific file system.
So just wanted to follow up with some of these nuggets of information I gleaned from the September 2014 Partner Guidance PDF: A new TechNet forum for Windows 10: answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windowstp A specific hour, 9AM tomorrow, is mentioned as to when the download for Windows 10 TP will be available. System requirements were listed for Windows 10: Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) Free hard disk space: 16 GB Graphics card: Microsoft DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM driver
not everyone is built for the future but i find metro very useful and it keeps all my applications in sections according to name such as game dev tools IT tools and music and last games all 164 from steam brought by fps adventure and so on all organized
This ^^ most people i know who actually tried Windows 8 found it much more easy to use over Windows 7. The big tiles and simple look really helps people less tech savy. It's only been the few people on forums that i see or hear moaning about windows 8. Think it was a good thing what they did with 8/8.1 glad it happened and in Windows 10 all the teething problems will be almost ironed out and people from both sides will be happy. This is progress that would not have happened if they didn't ignore feedback you would just have desktop users happy and not mobile users. Plus if windows 7 was so perfect and they didn't add a touch ui or anything new what would have been the point in people upgrading? Stuff actually needs to be added and changes or there is just no point in making a new windows.
No windows 8/9 didnt make you less tech savy at all if anything it taught you somethings about windows you dont care to know before i mean i have seen some dumb s**t said before but lol that takes the cake for sure
first you said you want an microsoft filesystem that is on par with something like btrfs. Now you want ms to support brfs itself? 1) its not the ms way to addopt opensource software, because they want to be in control. 2) refs is the closest thing to btrfs (in the microsft world)
People moaned about Vista also when it came out just like 8/8.1 and soon as 7 came out it was amazing (even though little changed really) When windows 10 is out (again little changed) people will love it i am sure. Amazing what a simple quality of life improvement can make in a UI. Most users hate change, wont think change is a good thing and will moan about it. Nothing wrong with ignoring them to make a better product imo.
What was Vista's main issue anyway? Afaik, it was OEMs shipping low-end computers and initial bad graphics driver support from manufacturers; both of which aren't the fault of Vista directly.
Many years ago, Novell came with a built in utility called Salvage that handled erased files. When a file was erased, they just marked the file as erased, kinda like windows does. But unlike Windows, Novell kept any file that was deleted on the server disk in it's entirety. All the pointers, all the clusters. Admin's could see it, users could not. Salvage used all the empty space on the drive to store the file in a first in first out arrangement. Even though hard disks were a fraction of the size then compared to what they are today, we could still recover files in minutes from several months back. With today's gigantic hard drives you could probably go back years and recover any erased file. It would also get rid of all of the supposed unerase utilities that work so-so with Windows. Novell had Salvage back in 1990, and Microsoft still hasn't figured a way to implement something similar that can replicate 25 year old technology. And as far as the naming convention goes, I can only guess why they skipped 9 as the version number. To Sgt. Schultz and Colonel Klink it would come out as Windows NO, and anybody from Germany would probably snicker. So they came up with With Windows 10, which no doubt will soon be shortened to WinX. And maybe a good marketing slogan might be Keep your Windows clean with WinX. Get it?
This post is directed to you, but the general belief about OS X that you exhibited, so don't take it negatively. I've used Hackintosh(MAC OS X on PC) from 10.4.7 to 10.8(I ditched it just when 10.8 is released) & as a Computer Service Engineer(during that time) I even had to provide support for Mac systems. I tried hard to acclimatize myself to the OS X, but I never able to do so. I find it hard to understand how people think OS X is more productive than Windows, especially in those times(10.4.7-10.8), this same argument of OS X being the fastest, smartest & most secured(even more absurd) was there then also. There wasn't even a basic functionality like Cut & Copy in 'Finder' (I think they introduced it OS X Lion aka 10.7), so much for productivity & ease of use, isn't it?. And then comes this ridiculous belief that Mac OS X is most secured OS(some people still believe it, astonishingly), actually, I would say it's completely unfair to compare the security of Windows & OS X(or any other OS for that matter), because of the huge difference in their user base. According to the latest statistics(Wikipedia), Windows has around 90% share of Desktop & Laptop user base and OS X has around 6%. Now tell me, why on earth a virus coder likes to invest his time & effort to write a virus that can be used to infect only 6% of Desktop & Laptop users hence less reward(if any at all), instead of targeting 90% user base hence more chances to succeed. Because of it's user base(& not being an open source), Windows is always be most vulnerable(again not because of it's built or made poorly) for virus attacks. Heck even take the example of bash bug, that is recently identified on all Unix systems, if that was for a windows(a similar bug) even with half of it's severity then it would have been identified years ago(bash bug was gone unnoticed since 1992!! as per wikipedia), and there would be many coders jumping on it to exploit millions of Windows systems. I still remember, during my usage of OS X 10.4.5 to 10.8(although I must say I've not used 10.8 that much), there were constant updates of sizes around 700-800 MB(even more some times), literally for every 3 days or so. And can any one guess why that much updates needed so frequently?, no?, they were mostly security patches. And if some one points this, Apple fans will justify by saying, well Apple cares about their customers & their security very seriously?(too much I guess), if that is the case then why the heck they even release a OS with that many security holes?, that too a Unix based OS. And then comes Safari, the less you talk about it's security the better it is. And Apple mess up their updates more often than Windows(Microsoft). My whole point is, if not for the huge difference in user base & number of virus coders ferociously trying to break in to the systems, then Windows is always secure out of the box(what I mean is Windows is coded in such a way that it's hard to break than OS X(& how it is built) in spite of it is being Unix based OS). It's been 5 years, since I used any Anti-virus program regularly, I use it once in a while(I install & check for viruses in my PC for every few months, that too, because I always plug in USB drives that are used on other people systems), and in all these 5 years, I never had an issue with virus. No my OS is not OS X, but Windows. If Windows was(is) not easy to use & productive than OS X at any point of their history, then Windows wouldn't have been this much popular(even though Microsoft has early advantages in penetrating the market). Microsoft(Windows) also have to satisfy a much diversified customers(because of their huge user base) than any other OS, which makes life difficult to bring any changes either in UI or at core base. If 'Start Screen' kind of thing is introduced in OS X, it would've been received a wonderful reception & would've been praised by all the bloggers, but look what happened when Microsoft had done that. (I consider, and I think many people will agree with me), Microsoft is one of the best software company(if not the best) in terms how they shaped the PC usage to what it is now, with their products(mainly OS), period. But many times strengths can(will) also become weaknesses, for people as well as companies. Apple does definitely have it's share in contributing to PC industry as well as mobile. The thing is, each has it's own pros & cons at this point of time, if you need a good combination of security, productivity & ease of use then opt for Windows, if you need pretty looks(& style statement) then opt for OS X and if security is your major concern then opt for Linux at this point of time. Disclaimer: I'm not a Microsoft employee or in no way related to Microsoft, but can't stand this false belief(based on facts) that Windows is inferior to OS X in every way. All my thoughts expressed above are based on my little knowledge that I gained during the last 8 years as normal user, Computer repairing guy & now a small time system admin. Sorry for the long post.