Know what you mean... My biggest gripe is hearing folks complain about this free-beta-preview-software-that-no-one-is-forced-to-install as if Win10 was already RTM and shipping and they were discussing a "final" version of it (although no software worth having is really ever 'final,' so to speak.) I actually like Win10 a lot, frankly, warts and all--but the warts are to be expected at this point, which some folks really don't seem to understand for some reason. Go figure. As for the rest of it--computer hounds remind me of a saying I recall from my distant Navy days: "That's what sailors do--we bitch!"...
Yes, i used a lot of programs that were preloaded on Windows 7 and earlier. But the Windows 8.1 -> 10 Metro Apps ... ew, hell no.
Absolutely! Apple is the poster child for wanna'-be-sheeple... But forcing everyone into the same sized shoe is kind of out-of-character for Microsoft, imo. Generally, the secret of Microsoft's popularity down through the years I would attribute to the company providing options for just about everything I want to do--forcing people into molds is the last thing Microsoft needs to do. Leave that to Apple. But, hey, now I'm waxing philosophical... This is really something very minor for me.
10 is the fastest MS OS I have ever run and to date I have only run it in VMWare as a guest. Actually, that's all I care about too, performance. I could care less what it looks like or what it has or doesn't have inside, anything I need I can get or add later. All the nonsense going on here is just that.
Has anyone figured out how to permanently remove selected Modern UI Applications such as Zune Music or Video? I've uninstalled these by right-clicking their icons in the Start Menu but they keep coming back! Where are the Start Menu links for the Modern UI Applications stored? I'd like to at least be able to remove their links in the Start Menu even if they refuse to uninstall.
Pretty much the only reason I'm using these builds Couldn't care less about Modern UI stuff or Cortana for the most part. As long as performance is nice or better, and app compatibility with my major stuff is good, I'll take it I was on Windows 7 on my desktop yesterday; I'm re-setting up 9926 atm on it, but I plan on doing some benchmark comparisons between it and 7 (with Geekbench and PerformanceTest) just out of curiosity.
Seriously. Idiots on here are complaining about the calculator being too big? Anyway. I totally don't like this Start Menu. I mean at least give us the same option like they did in the Start Screen where you can start typing inside it and it will display the app(s) you are typing.
Very well stated, I like that. As long as we can still customize everything the way that us power users like after the fact, whether by official customization or unofficial third party apps, having a base operating system which has increased in performance, security and stability is all that matters. That was similar with Windows 8 as well where they did a number of features for performance optimization and general increased performance under the hood as well as additional security features. I see the same happening with Windows 10 as well with increased performance and hopefully some more security features along with DirectX 12 for additional performance in games and more. I don't care much for Modern apps either, as most of us seem to agree upon. And we already know that they plan to continue support for traditional win32 apps. Although I do admit that they are blending modern and win32 apps in together a bit better now with the current theme. Performance of Modern apps has been a complaint as well, but I do know that Microsoft has stated publicly that performance of modern apps is a priority for them so we will have to see what happens there. Regardless of the pros and cons, I am keeping an open mind at the very least. Sometimes we can't really complain until we give certain features a try for at least a few days. But hey, we'll just have to see what happens.
Actually, the 64bit version of Windows XP Pro (OEM) which is based on Server 2003 is a faster desktop OS then anything else they have built, not including Server 2003 x64, which is a beast on the same hardware. I am speaking of ONLY desktop performance here, not the technology or its features. However, from Windows Vista SP2, 7, 8/8.1 and 10 are all far superior in many other ways, but not in sheer desktop performance. On my old hexa core Xeon (6C12T) Windows XP Pro 64 is just instant at everything (except browser performance). This could all change if software developers would take advantage of all the newer built in instruction sets, such as AVX and SSE5, that the processors now come included with, maybe just maybe computing would be faster then it is today. However, at present most of the newer faster extensions are not used for anything but by the most demanding of apps. With this said, most of our modern computers may not even allow something as old as 2003 to be installed. I am on x58 so I have intel drivers that go back to as far as 2003 and XP, but that may not be the case for many of you. Last year I had to install Server 2003 for a tech support reason (one of my clients in upper NM was having troubles and I needed a refresher) and I could not believe (or remember) how fast it was, much of it placebo from being a fresh install on bare metal Xeon, but it was MUCH faster then my Windows 7, my 8.1 and even this Windows 10. Not even remotely close. However, I believe by the time we get to Windows 12 or 13 and well into the newer Skylake platform we might be as fast again. Computational speed wise we blow 2003 out of the water as-is I think (I have not tested that theory and do not know if it can be tested). Anyway, my point is I think the fastest OS I have ever seen in front of my face with "hands on experience" was and is Server 2003, with Windows XP 64bit closely following it. This is my experience on my hardware though and will not be the same on different setups. By the way, has anyone seen a changelog for this newer Windows 10 kernel yet? Or did they just change the number to make it seem newer?
Sure but why the heck would they take that away when I'm sure lots of people preferred that way of searching. I really don't like that Search Bar because it takes up space on my Task Bar. So I disable it and it become a total mess when I click on the Start Menu and the Search Box popping up and overlapping my other apps on the task bar. I mean clicking on the Start Menu should automatically let you type anything and it will display the what you are typing and people don't need to see that stupid Search Box popping up.
Been playing around with Cortana 9926...not too much there yet. I noticed that I could not get Cortana to function unless I restored the start menu back to 9926 functionality (disabled the Dword "EnableXamlStartMenu.") I've managed to get Cortana to repeat my name audibly, but I have no luck when I try to "chat" with her--but then, I'm trying to type in my questions and have her read back her answers--but she may be programmed to only respond in kind (I don't yet have a microphone attached.) Not enough there so far to justify hanging on to the gigantic start menu (I don't like tiles so there's a lot of blank space unless I enable the Xaml start menu.) Anyone have any pointers, suggestions...? ALso...not sure why, but although I can get the Cortana search icon ("O") I cannot get a "search box" in the taskbar at all.
Well, they are sort of trying to do away with the start screen unless you are on a tablet which would kind of make typing in it to search rather moot.
I wanted to mention that maybe you missed it, but according to the way I interpret Microsoft's announcements this week at Build--there isn't going to be a Win 11,12, XIII, etc. Changing the kernel # is just PR weenie stuff as far as I can see--nothing radical or major to justify moving from 6.4.xx in build 98xx to 10.x.xx in 99xx. Supposedly, the deal is now that you'll pay an up-front fee for the OS--once--and then you are entitled to perpetual upgrades to it for the "supported lifetime of your device"--which I interpret to mean "so long as the manufacturer of your device supports it" or even longer, if Microsoft decides. The idea, according to Build, is that instead of having to wait on new features inside the next version of the OS (as has been the case in the past) we'll be able to get them immediately, and at no additional cost, as they are developed. For us folks who roll our own boxes and are at least running Win7, my interpretation is that when Win10 ships later this year, we'll be getting a free upgrade to Win10 (in the first year), and we'll never need another version of Windows. Ever... (Because for those devices there is *no* end to support as we're constantly buying new peripherals/components as we need/want them, and so manufacturer's support is basically perpetual.) Wild & crazy...This will affect everything, right down to license authorization by Microsoft (we may have seen the end of "phone authorization," etc.)--it's all going to change to be more consumer-friendly, imo, but I can't say that I really dislike the plan at all. Win10 is going to cost something for some people, of course. XP/Vista folks will be paying for it this year should they choose to get Win10. Microsoft isn't talking about giving it away, even for upgrades, past the first year. I'll be surprised, though, if the entry fee isn't very low, at least as measured by traditional costs for new OS versions. (Hope this what Microsoft intends!...)