I Like Windows 10 But I'm Going Back To Windows 8.1

Neither did I, but I'm pretty sure that benchmarks showed that 8 was faster than 7 (and I assume 8.1 is faster as well).

Reality is that I didn't notice much difference between vista and 7 when 7 came out. I liked 7's UI more, but at that point, vista wasn't bad. I definitely liked it better than XP by 2009.

What benchmarks showed "8 was faster than 7"? And don't say Battlefield 4 because the exception proves the rule.

Faster bootup? Except its not, everyone is simply razzle dazzled by 8's hybrid resume trick. Doing a full init boot, they're the same.
 
We're not talking just about machines from years ago but machines that are currently on the market today. There are a shitload of sub $200 Windows devices on the market that reach those price points because of low hardware specs. Some of these devices are even under $100. Cheapest x86 device I ever bought last November was the HP Stream 7 tablet. $97 including shipping with a discount. But with only 1 GB of RAM it doesn't meet the minimum spec to run x86 Windows 8.x or 10. Upgraded it to 10 the other day and its running fine for such a cheapo device.

I bought the 8" Winbook tablet from Microcenter for $99. Went with it over the HP since it came with 2GB of ram and 32GB flash for $99 on sale.

With the 1.33 ghz quad core atom cpu, it's faster than some of the old P4 systems we are still using at the office (They are running a very old application, but I still hope to have them all replaced in the next few months, so I can upgrade the office version to 2013)
 
Like what? It is riddled with data collection or the forced video driver updates?

A lot of this stuff was already in 8.x. But the whole data privacy issue, that ship sailed a long time ago. And it's been pretty much heartily accepted by consumers given the meteoric rise of apps stores and the cloud and social networks and smartphones in a rather short time. It's easy to say that none of this belongs on a PC until the day comes, which it already has, when person sets up a PC and nothing syncs up and they have to one by one sign into a bunch of web sites and their programs have to be installed one by one manually, etc. The consumer market has accepted hook, line and sinker a cyber economy that trades convenience and reduced direct cost for less data privacy. Until something changes radically it's a done deal.

And I'm not saying people shouldn't be concerned or that this course is the best one or that it's without issues, potentially serious ones. But it is how this works now. In speaking to a number of people about Windows 10 and the data privacy issue my observation is that people generally have some reservations about it all but also realize that Windows 10 is FAR from then only thing they use or depend on or enjoy that isn't doing similar stuff.

As far as the technical experience. After a dozen personal installs and two remote upgrades I've not seen any serious issues. The remote upgrades worked perfectly, I'd never done anything like that remotely in terms of the consequences had things gone south being hundreds of miles away from each location but I made the users aware of the situation. Both loved the upgrade from 7 at least initially. Mileage has always varied when it comes to a new version of Windows especially at launch. I get that the forced driver update is causing some issues for some and there probably needs some more control over this.
 
" And it's been pretty much heartily accepted by consumers"

The masses are stupid and I will not accept this BS just because the masses do.
 
Win 10 is legit, faster, smoother, actually allows me to work faster. Citrix Receiver works nicely. The Win 10 UI as a whole is much more integrated and cohesive. Internet Explorer is hidden and Edge is upfront. Edge is the roughest part of the package.
 
A lot of this stuff was already in 8.x. But the whole data privacy issue, that ship sailed a long time ago. And it's been pretty much heartily accepted by consumers given the meteoric rise of apps stores and the cloud and social networks and smartphones in a rather short time. It's easy to say that none of this belongs on a PC until the day comes, which it already has, when person sets up a PC and nothing syncs up and they have to one by one sign into a bunch of web sites and their programs have to be installed one by one manually, etc. The consumer market has accepted hook, line and sinker a cyber economy that trades convenience and reduced direct cost for less data privacy. Until something changes radically it's a done deal.

And I'm not saying people shouldn't be concerned or that this course is the best one or that it's without issues, potentially serious ones. But it is how this works now. In speaking to a number of people about Windows 10 and the data privacy issue my observation is that people generally have some reservations about it all but also realize that Windows 10 is FAR from then only thing they use or depend on or enjoy that isn't doing similar stuff.

As far as the technical experience. After a dozen personal installs and two remote upgrades I've not seen any serious issues. The remote upgrades worked perfectly, I'd never done anything like that remotely in terms of the consequences had things gone south being hundreds of miles away from each location but I made the users aware of the situation. Both loved the upgrade from 7 at least initially. Mileage has always varied when it comes to a new version of Windows especially at launch. I get that the forced driver update is causing some issues for some and there probably needs some more control over this.

I managed to break the thing on the first upgrade. Got a Windows update that wouldn't install and kept giving an error so I rolled back only to find out that the roll back didn't work and left my keyboard and mouse drivers inoperable. Reupgraded to Windows 10, found the same Windows update problem and then did a reset upon which time it promptly forgot the product key and refused to activate and I had to crack the activation to get it to work (and given how easy it was to bypass the activation, I don't understand why Microsoft insists on continuing to put it in since it only hurts legitimate customers).
 
I am about to do the same. I can live with a lot of the new features and even the UI changes, but the fuzzy display coupled with the constant flickering/brightness adjustments are forcing me to go back to 8.1 on my craptop. With a little time to patch things and for OEMs to update their drivers/software, I should be able to upgrade again down the line.
 
I managed to break the thing on the first upgrade. Got a Windows update that wouldn't install and kept giving an error so I rolled back only to find out that the roll back didn't work and left my keyboard and mouse drivers inoperable. Reupgraded to Windows 10, found the same Windows update problem and then did a reset upon which time it promptly forgot the product key and refused to activate and I had to crack the activation to get it to work (and given how easy it was to bypass the activation, I don't understand why Microsoft insists on continuing to put it in since it only hurts legitimate customers).

Which is why I never trust roll back features in upgrades.

Before running the upgrade I dumped the Windows partitions to my NAS using dd, so I can restore then exactly the way they were easily.
 
I like windows 10 but i'm going back to windows 98.

my old i5 intel 4000 laptop is now able to play diablo 3 with less stuttering. however my good rig now stutters/freezes randomly in d3 which may be a radeon driver issue. either way i love it, not going back except at work to win7 lol
 
" And it's been pretty much heartily accepted by consumers"

The masses are stupid and I will not accept this BS just because the masses do.

If you are truly concerned by data collection don't use any mobile apps. Apple, Microsoft, and Google just require that the app declare that it uses the "Internet for data" -- that will then let the app serve you ads, collect analytics, etc...

Application Analytics allows an app to monitor whatever they want about the app even if the app isn't a web service. So if an app connects to the internet in anyway, I would assume it is gathering analytics on you.

Example: http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/application-insights/
 
In addition -- I use application insights in my iOS apps. It is free for a certain number of users and has helped me fix/find usability bugs, etc... Apple doesn't require that the user be informed, be allowed to opt-out, etc... I just have to declare that my application uses the internet which I use to serve ads and gather analytics.


From App Insights:
Easily add Application Insights SDK to Java, iOS or Android apps. Monitor apps written in languages like Ruby, Python, PHP, Node.JS, etc. with open source SDKs on GitHub.
 
I don't feel either way about Windows 10. I was dead set on staying on the OS, but the AMD drivers have given me nothing but trouble since day one. Will be going back to Windows 7, for the time being.
 
Really? Wow...that's smaller than 7 or 8.

Yep.

After a clean install in Virtualbox, with swap file and hiberfil.sys disabled, the sparse disk image file is 8.4GB

Code:
~/VirtualBox VMs/Windows 10 Pro $ ls -lhrt
total 8.4G
4.0K Aug  7 17:20 Logs
22K Aug  7 18:20 Windows 10 Pro.vbox-prev
22K Aug  7 18:20 Windows 10 Pro.vbox
8.4G Aug  7 18:22 Windows 10 Pro.vdi
 
Zarathustra[H];1041781784 said:
Yep.

After a clean install in Virtualbox, with swap file and hiberfil.sys disabled, the sparse disk image file is 8.4GB

Code:
~/VirtualBox VMs/Windows 10 Pro $ ls -lhrt
total 8.4G
4.0K Aug  7 17:20 Logs
22K Aug  7 18:20 Windows 10 Pro.vbox-prev
22K Aug  7 18:20 Windows 10 Pro.vbox
8.4G Aug  7 18:22 Windows 10 Pro.vdi

That's still about 5 gigabytes more than it should be.

They really ought to eliminate the 32-bit legacy garbage. If someone isn't competent enough by now to release a 64-bit version of their program, 13 years after the first x86-64 processor, they don't deserve any business.
 
That's still about 5 gigabytes more than it should be.

They really ought to eliminate the 32-bit legacy garbage. If someone isn't competent enough by now to release a 64-bit version of their program, 13 years after the first x86-64 processor, they don't deserve any business.

How breaking backwards compatibility with who knows how much simply isn't an option at this time. Plus there's a lot of hardware out there that gains nothing going 64 bit and isn't even 64 bit compatible. This would be a perfect example of change for the sake of change.
 
How breaking backwards compatibility with who knows how much simply isn't an option at this time. Plus there's a lot of hardware out there that gains nothing going 64 bit and isn't even 64 bit compatible. This would be a perfect example of change for the sake of change.

It's been possible to run a pure x86-64 Linux for 10 years. Not one of my Linux installs has 32-bit compatibility libraries on them.

It isn't difficult to port from IA32 to x86-64 unless you are incompetent at programming because pretty much everything that causes breakage is things no competent programmer should be doing anyways (like using pointers to pass exceptions because you were a lazy idiot that assumed the least significant bit would always be ignored).
 
It's been possible to run a pure x86-64 Linux for 10 years. Not one of my Linux installs has 32-bit compatibility libraries on them.

It isn't difficult to port from IA32 to x86-64 unless you are incompetent at programming because pretty much everything that causes breakage is things no competent programmer should be doing anyways (like using pointers to pass exceptions because you were a lazy idiot that assumed the least significant bit would always be ignored).

Linux still has 32-bit distros. Ubuntu it recommends 32 bit for machines with less that 2 GB of RAM. There are a number of Windows machines on the market, some of the cheapest PCs on the planet, with less than 2 GB of RAM.

In any case, desktop Windows and Linux are very different things. Windows 10 according to the daily tracker at gs.statcounter.com already has over twice the market share of desktop Linux. Breaking 32 bit backwards compatibility and then calling people stupid might work for desktop Linux but not for desktop Windows.
 
Linux still has 32-bit distros. Ubuntu it recommends 32 bit for machines with less that 2 GB of RAM. There are a number of Windows machines on the market, some of the cheapest PCs on the planet, with less than 2 GB of RAM.

In any case, desktop Windows and Linux are very different things. Windows 10 according to the daily tracker at gs.statcounter.com already has over twice the market share of desktop Linux. Breaking 32 bit backwards compatibility and then calling people stupid might work for desktop Linux but not for desktop Windows.

64-bit is about more than physical RAM. There is also VAS as well as the elimination of legacy features (e.g. segmented memory) and the additional registers.

RAM is so cheap that any PC with less than 4 gigabytes should simply be tossed in the garbage.
 
64-bit is about more than physical RAM. There is also VAS as well as the elimination of legacy features (e.g. segmented memory) and the additional registers.

RAM is so cheap that any PC with less than 4 gigabytes should simply be tossed in the garbage.

Why should anyone simply toss into the garbage something thats working for them? And if Linux still supports 32 bit why shouldn't Windows?
 
Been using classicshell since windows 7. Can't let go of that windows xp/95 feel start menu. Looks the same as i used it on windows 7, 8, 8.1 and now windows 10. Consistency through out all the windows with the same start menu. Don't have to worry about changing windows when you got classicshell :). Save your configuration to a backup file. Can load it on all your systems easily. Good stuff. :)
 
It's amazing, so many of the "problems" people have with a new OS boil down to it simply not working exactly like their old one did.

It's a new OS, it's not supposed to be exactly like your old one.

People need to give themselves at least a little bit of time to get used to a new OS before they go on some obnoxious rant about it mostly due to their own frustration and ignorance.

It's not about working exactly the same way. It's about working in an intuitive way. And being able to access functions easily. When I've tried w8 it wasn't intuitive at all. If I have to look at the manual or search the net to even be able to access basic functions then it's not good. A good UI is where you can find everything easily.

And on top of that it turned out that most functions that I use need more clicks to access than in any earlier windows, expect maybe 3.1.

As for it being faster is just an illusion. Every freshly installed os is faster than a bloated one. If both system are freshly installed the differences will be negligible on a fast computer.
 
It's not about working exactly the same way. It's about working in an intuitive way. And being able to access functions easily. When I've tried w8 it wasn't intuitive at all. If I have to look at the manual or search the net to even be able to access basic functions then it's not good. A good UI is where you can find everything easily.

And on top of that it turned out that most functions that I use need more clicks to access than in any earlier windows, expect maybe 3.1.

As for it being faster is just an illusion. Every freshly installed os is faster than a bloated one. If both system are freshly installed the differences will be negligible on a fast computer.

The thing is that with very few exceptions, it's not different than Windows 7, unless you used Windows 7 like it was Windows XP or Windows 95.

<windows key> steam <enter> = Steam Launcher

It's definitely faster than a Windows 9x/XP menu (no matter how much time you put into organizing it)

The one exception might be when you had something pinned to the start menu (but not the task bar). For me that's pretty much limited to a metro news reader that I occasionally look at.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041781784 said:
Yep.

After a clean install in Virtualbox, with swap file and hiberfil.sys disabled, the sparse disk image file is 8.4GB

Code:
~/VirtualBox VMs/Windows 10 Pro $ ls -lhrt
total 8.4G
4.0K Aug  7 17:20 Logs
22K Aug  7 18:20 Windows 10 Pro.vbox-prev
22K Aug  7 18:20 Windows 10 Pro.vbox
8.4G Aug  7 18:22 Windows 10 Pro.vdi

I put Windows 7 Ultimate on my Dell Mini 9 with an 8GB SSD and it fit with 1.5GB free.
 
I put Windows 7 Ultimate on my Dell Mini 9 with an 8GB SSD and it fit with 1.5GB free.

are all of these 32bit installs? As I recall, my Windows 7 ultimate x64 install took up more than 10GB of space.
 
are all of these 32bit installs? As I recall, my Windows 7 ultimate x64 install took up more than 10GB of space.

that's right, it was a 32bit install. And it ran really really well on that Atom processor. I did put 2GB ram in it and eventually upgraded to a 16GB SSD so I could put a few more apps on it.
 
that's right, it was a 32bit install. And it ran really really well on that Atom processor. I did put 2GB ram in it and eventually upgraded to a 16GB SSD so I could put a few more apps on it.

Ah, then we should probably compare apples to apples.

I have no idea how large a 32 bit install of Win10 is.
 
The thing is that with very few exceptions, it's not different than Windows 7, unless you used Windows 7 like it was Windows XP or Windows 95.

<windows key> steam <enter> = Steam Launcher

It's definitely faster than a Windows 9x/XP menu (no matter how much time you put into organizing it)

The one exception might be when you had something pinned to the start menu (but not the task bar). For me that's pretty much limited to a metro news reader that I occasionally look at.

I'm not too proud to admit that it wasn't until after I upgraded my gaming partition to Windows 8 in April of this year I realized one could use Windows 7 like that.

I was using it like it was 95/2000/XP all along.

TYo my defense, I rarely used Windows in the last 10-12 years or so though, having moved to Linux as my primary OS. Windows only stayed installed on a separate partition for game purposes.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041782874 said:
I'm not too proud to admit that it wasn't until after I upgraded my gaming partition to Windows 8 in April of this year I realized one could use Windows 7 like that.

I was using it like it was 95/2000/XP all along.

TYo my defense, I rarely used Windows in the last 10-12 years or so though, having moved to Linux as my primary OS. Windows only stayed installed on a separate partition for game purposes.

I've been saying this in posts since 7 Launched (maybe earlier). I'm really looking forward to trying 10 out, because I like the idea of a menu over a screen (just because I do sometimes use my mouse and it looks easier to get to the pinned items).

Really where I find the search comes in most handy is control panel. Id on't always know what I want, but I can type something in an generally find it within seconds. I don't know if it was like that in Vista or not. Until I found the search, I was all about the classic control panel.

Really, 7 (or possibly Vista) was the OS that brought the keyboard back to the OS...it's really what power users wanted since Windows became the main OS.

People keep fighting for the 9x menu, but if you don't organize it, it's a mess and even if you do, you end up with some many nested folders it's insane.
 
The thing is that with very few exceptions, it's not different than Windows 7, unless you used Windows 7 like it was Windows XP or Windows 95.

<windows key> steam <enter> = Steam Launcher

It's definitely faster than a Windows 9x/XP menu (no matter how much time you put into organizing it)

The one exception might be when you had something pinned to the start menu (but not the task bar). For me that's pretty much limited to a metro news reader that I occasionally look at.

I'm still using quick launch, I can't live without it. And I never pin any software to the task bar. The task bar is reserved for running program instances. As I often have multiple instances of multiple programs running that I want to access quickly. So that means "use small icons" and "never combine" If it combines multiple instances of the same application that means I'm one click further away from my goal. And on top of that it's impossible to launch multiple instances of applications that are pinned to the taskbar. hence I need quick launch.

But I also need it cause of the show desktop icon. Whoever put this functionality to the right of the taskbar in W7 wasn't thinking straight. That's the farthest place on the screen from where the pointer is usually located. Far from everything else.

The windows key + type in is reserved for applications that I rarely use (means once or twice a week) And every other application that I use maybe once or twice daily is on the desktop as an icon or pinned to the start menu. The quick launch is reserved for applications I access every 5 minutes. Like the web browser or file manager.
 
Is anyone else having problems moving windows from one screen to another in Windows 10?


I find that when I try, my mouse pointer gets stuck at the screen border, and I have to jiggle it a little to get it to go across.
 
I'm still using quick launch, I can't live without it. And I never pin any software to the task bar. The task bar is reserved for running program instances. As I often have multiple instances of multiple programs running that I want to access quickly. So that means "use small icons" and "never combine" If it combines multiple instances of the same application that means I'm one click further away from my goal. And on top of that it's impossible to launch multiple instances of applications that are pinned to the taskbar. hence I need quick launch.

But I also need it cause of the show desktop icon. Whoever put this functionality to the right of the taskbar in W7 wasn't thinking straight. That's the farthest place on the screen from where the pointer is usually located. Far from everything else.

The windows key + type in is reserved for applications that I rarely use (means once or twice a week) And every other application that I use maybe once or twice daily is on the desktop as an icon or pinned to the start menu. The quick launch is reserved for applications I access every 5 minutes. Like the web browser or file manager.

Since <win>+d can't be used to show desktop, I get why location matters to you,
but I don't get why you don't simply search for apps instead of using the desktop.

If you know the apps, and I assume you do, seems like a quick search is faster than minimize everything, start app, click on apps you want shown again (cause show desktop will just minimize the program you opened/open it back up, but not the ones that were originally closed).

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm trying to understand why you'd launch from the desktop. (Note that use to be something I did all the time, but no longer find it as efficient a method).

Also, are you using 10? If yes, do you find the virtual desktops useful?
 
I'm still using quick launch, I can't live without it. And I never pin any software to the task bar. The task bar is reserved for running program instances. As I often have multiple instances of multiple programs running that I want to access quickly. So that means "use small icons" and "never combine" If it combines multiple instances of the same application that means I'm one click further away from my goal. And on top of that it's impossible to launch multiple instances of applications that are pinned to the taskbar. hence I need quick launch.

One thing people should start trying is the new task view, that has a number of advantages for task switching over the task bar. You get thumbnails that are usually easy to see the app content and it works across multiple monitors where if you're running a lot of apps it's easy pick an app across them. It can be activated with a three finger swipe from most track pads or a programmable mouse button. Also not sure where you're getting that you can't launch multiple instances of apps from the task bar because that's been there since Vista I believe? It's been there since 7 I know.
 
One thing people should start trying is the new task view, that has a number of advantages for task switching over the task bar. You get thumbnails that are usually easy to see the app content and it works across multiple monitors where if you're running a lot of apps it's easy pick an app across them. It can be activated with a three finger swipe from most track pads or a programmable mouse button. Also not sure where you're getting that you can't launch multiple instances of apps from the task bar because that's been there since Vista I believe? It's been there since 7 I know.

Because using that includes two additional steps that I don't want. if everything is laid out on the task bar I get access to any running application with a single point and click. But if I use task switching it's click point click. Which might not seem a big difference, but on a whole it is a lot to me. I'll try to explain why: on the task bar there are all the programs laid out, by name, and I can easily decide which one I want. But with the task switching method I bring up the task selector, then I have to visually assess the screen to get a glimpse of which application ended up where on the screen, only then I can click on the one I want.

Yes you can launch multiple instances of pinned applications, by bringing up the right-click menu, and then searching for the right option to launch another instance of the app, again way too slow compared to what I'm used to.
 
Since <win>+d can't be used to show desktop, I get why location matters to you,
but I don't get why you don't simply search for apps instead of using the desktop.

If you know the apps, and I assume you do, seems like a quick search is faster than minimize everything, start app, click on apps you want shown again (cause show desktop will just minimize the program you opened/open it back up, but not the ones that were originally closed).

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm trying to understand why you'd launch from the desktop. (Note that use to be something I did all the time, but no longer find it as efficient a method).

Also, are you using 10? If yes, do you find the virtual desktops useful?

I use the desktop less and less that's true, but I still think it's faster to double click an icon than to type in the name of a program. Of course it happens when I don't see the desktop that I use the search instead of the icon on the desktop. But I still use the desktop at the beginning of work.

I'm not using windows 10, and virtual desktops is useful if you use a single screen. On multiple screens I find it really unnecessary. As I rarely need more desktop space than what two screens can provide. And switching between virtual desktops is the same to me as switching between apps on the taskbar. And I don't like the way it works in windows10, that you manually have to add desktops, I prefer the linux way where you have four virutal desktops and you can easily switch between them by a single click. And I also find the overview map useful, so I can see which desktop is which.
 
I use the desktop less and less that's true, but I still think it's faster to double click an icon than to type in the name of a program. Of course it happens when I don't see the desktop that I use the search instead of the icon on the desktop. But I still use the desktop at the beginning of work.

Everyone is different.

To me, typing is ALWAYS fastter than having to find the right thing on a 2 dimensional plane, hover over it and click it.

Any time I can do something without having to process visual cues on a screen it is faster, and using the windows key and starting to type, I could start a program blindfolded, without my hands ever needing to leave their normal place on the keyboard to grab the mouse.
 
Trying to remember the names of 300 games I have installed so I can start them by typing in the search box s a retarded idea.
 
Trying to remember the names of 300 games I have installed so I can start them by typing in the search box s a retarded idea.

Trying to find a game among 300 icons is equally nuts. And if you're using the start menu, you either have to click through a bunch of sub folders (games-><pub> -> <game title -> exe

If I know what to click on, I can type it faster than I can type. I'm mean honestly, there's never a time where I go, "Hmm I want to play that game that I don't know the name of, but can remember exactly where the icon is."

But that's me. You clearly have some system that works for you.
 
Back
Top