According to the articles I read about Windows 10, it is a business platform. Nothing was said about retail applications. Like all new platforms, I shall reserve judgement until it comes to the retail consumer market.
Microsoft announces Windows 10
- Thread starter Candlelight
- Start date
I just skipped Windows 8 because it seemed like an abomination.
And you were right.
I was tempted to upgrade to 8 after it was released because of the hype but was told "hey, it's basically just a more expensive version of 7 but with new icons and a new layout you have to learn so don't bother." I listened. I'm glad.
Omg... They are lying out their ass saying that 10 will be the "last" major update. My lord the lies.
I just skipped Windows 8 because it seemed like an abomination.
And you were right.
As someone who has both 7 and 8. 8 sucks. Use 7 as long as possible.
That's the plan. I switched from 7 Ultimate over to 7 Professional but that's been the only change I've made.
Nah, they're just going for a more "agile" model like Firefox and Chrome have been doing, or maybe more like OS X. I love how people are calling this "radical" when Apple's been doing it for, what, 15 years??
Sorry I thought I clarified once, but I'll do it again. I found it radical and ambitious to announce that they would be in effect branding their OS as "Windows 10" forever, by denying there would ever be any new major releases. It's not even something that Apple did.
Now Apple can move on, merge their iOS and OS X, create a new brand, and make Microsoft look like idiots again playing catch up with egg on their face. Or not. Doesn't matter. Microsoft has still locked themselves into a strategy.
edit - I never asserted that the technology was either radical or ambitious. It's radical and ambitious by comparison with their established business practices, especially coming off the debacle of their previous major release. It's an unnecessary risk to the Windows brand to make such an announcement.
Last edited:
I didn't think you were saying the technology was radical, because it obviously isn't. MS is many things but a developer of radical technologies has never been one of them.
I assumed you meant going to a more frequent update cycle rather than releasing new versions of Windows every few years.I agree that it's radical for MS, but then I suppose we should expect some changes given Ballmer's departure and the ongoing shakeup over there.
I really don't think this approach is any more of a "risk to the Windows brand" than Windows 8 was.
I'm reposting my latest post from the SciTech thread on Windows 10, because this is an important issue, I think.
This issue has made at least one person I know, representing multiple associated enterprises, opt out of installing the "Windows 10 preview." Microsoft admits Windows 10 preview has a keylogger:
This would obviously include passwords.
My personal opinion regarding this is that this is really unfortunate, because it undermines the testing phase of the OS. I expect therefore that this will be a more weakly tested OS [in the pre-release phase] than previous releases. We shouldn't expect people to test processes that depend upon keystroke security, which includes an enormous range of critical processes. How much more weakly tested is really impossible to say right now. Microsoft will be in the best position to know, but I wouldn't expect them to disclose anything like that.
No word out yet on whether the final release will have such a logger, and how we will be able to know that it doesn't, though I have confidence that if such a thing exists, and is enabled, it will be soon discovered.
This issue has made at least one person I know, representing multiple associated enterprises, opt out of installing the "Windows 10 preview." Microsoft admits Windows 10 preview has a keylogger:
This would obviously include passwords.
My personal opinion regarding this is that this is really unfortunate, because it undermines the testing phase of the OS. I expect therefore that this will be a more weakly tested OS [in the pre-release phase] than previous releases. We shouldn't expect people to test processes that depend upon keystroke security, which includes an enormous range of critical processes. How much more weakly tested is really impossible to say right now. Microsoft will be in the best position to know, but I wouldn't expect them to disclose anything like that.
No word out yet on whether the final release will have such a logger, and how we will be able to know that it doesn't, though I have confidence that if such a thing exists, and is enabled, it will be soon discovered.
I wonder if J. knows about the keylogger. I'm not sure if he's installed just the preview or has access to the full, regular version of 10 but even if I were interested in transitioning over to Windows 10 the knowledge that my keystrokes and possibly even passwords might be monitored by anybody or anything corporate or otherwise would be more than enough to make me forget about it.
A
Amaris
Guest
It's the Commodore 64 color stream wallpaper. Since the site I got it from originally is long gone, I uploaded it to my file host and you can download it here: https://www.mediafire.com/?pdu4ud7dbwk97se
I know about it, or at least, found out about it. I knew they were recording data usage, which is necessary in a tech preview, but I didn't know they had installed a keylogger. I have the OS on a partition, so it shouldn't be an issue. Microsoft insists it's solely for predictive text and such, but if anyone feels uncomfortable about it, they should remove the tech preview. I might, simply because while I like Microsoft and don't think they'd do anything untoward with that data, I have a very strong reaction to keyloggers in general, and consider them too dangerous to play with.
That would probably be the smart idea just to be on the safe side. Why take the risk if you don't have to? Windows and Microsoft might not have the dirtiest or most untrustworthy reputation in the industry but when it comes to monitoring data and user actions I'm just not fond of the idea at all. Most people engage in innocuous and innocent activities with their browsers and OS but it's the principle of the matter above all else.
A
Amaris
Guest
Agreed. I've had the chance to test it thoroughly anyway, and I like what I've seen. Windows 10 is a well balanced hybrid that knows what it wants and where it's going. I'll probably purchase it when it is released.
I know what you mean but until a couple of days ago I was still on a 32 bit OS myself. I finally motivated myself to do a new install and now I regret not updating to the newest version of my OS sooner. Lots of small improvements. It's not Windows, though.
I was under the impression that almost all 32 bit programs would also work on a 64 bit OS because the 64 bit CPU can also do 32 bit. Or is that a specific problem with Windows or really exotic programs?
Well, actually, even though I have fond memories of XP (and it's still on my older laptop because I can't get fully rid of it for reasons I won't bore you with) Microsoft even extended the originally planned life cycle of XP several times (and companies still get support, I think). All in all, it's a really old OS and it's very apparent if you also use a modern one, I find. I don't like Microsoft but you can't really expect them to continue supporting an OS that was released in 2001 indefinetely.
A
Amaris
Guest
Some programs won't run on a 64 bit OS because there's 16 bit code even in the 32 bit instruction set. I hear it's few and far between, but it would be my luck.
That said, I'd have to reinstall the OS, and I'm so tired of doing that stuff. Plus, I only have 3 GB of RAM. For a 32 bit OS, that's great, but for a 64 bit OS, it's lacking.
That said, I'd have to reinstall the OS, and I'm so tired of doing that stuff. Plus, I only have 3 GB of RAM. For a 32 bit OS, that's great, but for a 64 bit OS, it's lacking.
Some programs won't run on a 64 bit OS because there's 16 bit code even in the 32 bit instruction set. I hear it's few and far between, but it would be my luck.
Can't you test somehow (or find it out somewhere) whether any program you use is affected?
Does it work that way? Doesn't a 64 bit OS just have a larger range of memory adresses? I always figured that means it would be using memory more efficiently. But maybe I'm wrong. I do have a 64 bit OS running with 2,9 GB of RAM (it's generally an older laptop, a Thinkpad x61s), though, and it's never full. Windows is said not to be as good with memory usage but still.
I'm just thinking more longterm here. If MS follows through with its policy of continuous updates instead of new versions of Windows, you'll be stuck with a 32 bit system.
Reinstalling the OS is fun! I just did it on my desktop computer and now I'm seriously thinking of reinstalling the OS on my laptop (with prior partitioning and everything!).
I remember it being more of a hassle with Windows, though. When I did my new install last week, I spent more time getting the partitioning right (I got some absurd error messages and had to Google what to do) than the actual install took.
ETA: I hope I don't come off as smug. I just like to talk about that stuff sometimes and get carried away a little.
You should come off as smug by right, as you usually use a superior, non-Microsoft OS
Some programs won't run on a 64 bit OS because there's 16 bit code even in the 32 bit instruction set. I hear it's few and far between, but it would be my luck.
Can't you test somehow (or find it out somewhere) whether any program you use is affected?
The techniques described here can tell you if an application is 16-bit.
Yeah, J is being a little silly here. 3GB is 3GB whether it's on a 32-bit system or a 64-bit one. It's not as if the 64-bit version of a program bloats to double the size of a 32-bit one. 64-bit is merely potential. In fact, 64-bit CPUs are more efficient because they can, for instance, execute two 32-bit instructions simultaneously. (How well this works depends on a lot of factors including the compiler and how well the prediction code on the CPU works.) In no way should one conclude that 3GB on a 32-bit system is equivalent to 1.5GB on a 64-bit system. It's exactly the same amount of memory and it has virtually the same potential in terms of how many programs you can run, since compilers are pretty efficient and don't make 64-bit instructions unless it's actually necessary or advantageous somehow.
As for memory usage, it is important to remember that MS overhauled how memory is used as of Vista. In the past, Windows only stored active programs in memory, so what showed up in the Task Manager was genuinely how much RAM you were really using. As of Vista, however, MS added application caching, which means commonly-used programs are kept in RAM (to the extent RAM is available) even when they aren't running. This is more efficient, since it means a given program can launch almost instantly if it's already cached in RAM. A good principle to remember is that unused RAM is wasted RAM. This is part of why Windows 7 and up seem really snappy--they load programs from disk less often, and the more RAM you have, the better it is.
A
Amaris
Guest
I'm not being silly, I'm being uninformed, thank you very much.
Seriously, though, I have had zilch experience with 64 bit operating systems.
Seriously, though, I have had zilch experience with 64 bit operating systems.
Similar threads
