Windows 10 Usage Climbing As Windows 7 Share Drops Sharply

Why would Microsoft want to divide their resources supporting old operating systems? The sooner they are able to shift more people onto 10, the sooner they can assign more people and resources to improving and securing it.

I don't really care what Microsoft wants. Allocation of support resources is a Microsoft problem, not an end user problem. Chrysler might want to sell new cars and tell you that you just have to get the newest model because "it's totes better than the old one" but does not remove their obligation to fulfill the promised warranty.

If Microsoft doesn't want to "divide their resources" supporting prior versions of Windows, then they should stop promising such long periods of "supported until" windows. This really shouldn't be a hardthink concept.
 
Nevertheless I think you do a good job on advising people about Windows and Microsoft's hardware.

Thanks! There's always pretty much everything said about every version of Windows so you to cut through the bull. If Windows 10 has all of these inherently bad privacy and other issues time will tell. But clearly not everyone is going to see it the same way or have the same experiences. So far, I've just not had many problems with Windows 10. Obviously there's always room for improvement. If people want to stick with 7 or 8.x or move to Linux then that's their choice.

But I can't do all the things I do with Windows PCs with 7 or even 8.x anymore as I use a lot of Windows software and a number of hybrid devices. I also would never want to go back to 7 or 8.x on a multiple screen setup. And I'm using things like Cortana which I think is pretty useful. Again, not everyone is going to see eye to eye on it. I like 10 and others do to. I don't see the point in trying to say that everyone hates or loves it. For the average PC I think it's a fine OS and it's very interesting especially on some of the new mobile and hybrid hardware out there. I think that's why this type of hardware is seeing growth, there's just neat stuff there.
 
Well I am so sick and tired of all the puerile name changes and moving stuff around that has no real advantage other than making all the new changes a prick to adapt too.
It's like change for changes sake with no real reason.
Why for gods sake did they change My PC to This PC ? utter idiotic moronic lunacy. What FW at Microsoft gave that the seal of approval?

I've made the switch to Linux Mint 17.3 rather than again familierise myself to the ridiculous changes that we've had to endure over the ongoing abysmal failures of rushed to the market place software.

Windows 98 becoming 98 SE, Vista, 8 and the lousy attempt at recovery of 8.1 and now 10 that still doesn't have a face looking anything close to their most popular editions of XP and 7

What have been the most unpopular Microsoft operating systems after Vista, 8 and 8.1 and 10 is only 8.2 with a name change to try and disassociate itself with the malodorous pallor of anything that has an 8 in it

I hate and detest 10 with all the time I've wasted on it. I tried but figure I'm better off investing any relearning with Linux and I've been with Window in various iterations including 3.1, 95, 98, 98se, XP, Vista, 7 and for about 6 weeks 10 and that's it.
Goodbye and never see you again Microsoft.

I may be wrong, but I can see 10 being as divisive as 8 and 8.1 and ultimately unsuccessful.
Time will tell, but I won't be watching.

Who comes up with these stats anyway? how many people swapped back ?
And FREE must have something to do with its initial popularity, it sucked me in, though quickly spat me out again :D
 
Just to be clear, the only people who are being "forced" to upgrade are the people who reserved a copy but apparently didn't actually want one. While the language was a bit ambiguous, and there may have been some who didn't understand what it actually meant when they hit Reserve, no one is getting upgraded if they didn't at least reserve a copy at first. If people don't want Windows 10, maybe they should stop fucking reserving copies on their computers. :rolleyes:

I'm sure most hit "reserve". The way MS worded it (intentionally) made it seem like you had to reserve it or else you would not be eligible for the upgrade. And with the constant pop ups I am sure people caved and did it to prevent the nagging.
 
Here's another way of looking at the data--change by month:
Code:
Month	Win7	Win10
Aug	-4%	+8%
Sep	-0.4%	+1.2%
Oct	-1.7%	+1.7%
Nov	-0.8%	+1.5%
Four data points is not much to project a trend, so it's probably early to draw any conclusions. But we can try. Windows 10 faces much the same obstacle as Windows 7 did on it's release--it is trying to supplant a well-entrenched and popular OS.

But from what I've seen, I think Win10 may be in trouble. Here's why:
1) Ignoring the first month, the adoption rate (after the first month) for Win10 has been fairly similar to Win7, despite a near-zero (and in some cases, below zero) barrier to entry. It's "free."
2) A certain portion of the adoption rate is simply due to attrition--Windows XP/Vista/7/8 machines being retired, and Win10 machines being purchased. If Windows in general has a constant 90% market share, and you estimate that people replace their PCs every 8 years, that accounts for about 1% market share growth for the new OS, all by itself. That means that the rate of people upgrading to Win10 from an existing Windows install is about 0.5%/month. Again, despite being (monetarily) free.

From my personal viewpoint, I was very interested in upgrading to Win10 once all the early adopters did the beta testing for me, and all the hardware manufacturers got their drivers up to date. But then I actually used Windows 10. For a power user like me, who likes a fast, clean, bloat-free OS, Windows 10 offers nothing to get excited about. Frankly, it doesn't do anything better than Win7, for my use case.

I could go on about the privacy concerns, the difficult-to-remove bloatware (hello OneDrive), the mess that MS have made of the control panel/settings app, and how the Start Menu is significantly worse. But even if you set all that aside, it leaves you with the question of "why would I bother to upgrade?"

It will be interesting to see adoption rate after a full year. I could well be proven wrong, and Windows 10 might become wildly popular.
 
Remember how excited people were back in the day, how they stood in line for 95, 98, how XP was such a milestone? I used to build a new computer for each new OS. Now microsoft has to resort to trick hotfixes, nebulous terminology, bribes, propaganda and a multitude of other strong arm tactics to try and force people into adopting it. What a sad company they have become. Windows 7 is ms's greatest OS. 10 will not be the one to dethrone it I think.

95? Sure. 98? Vaguely. XP? Not at all. I don't remember a single friend upgrading in the first 6 months. Gaming sites specifically recommended we stick with 98.
 
Windows 7 is old already. Peoples are already getting tired of it already. They want something different now pretty much.
 
I don't really care what Microsoft wants. Allocation of support resources is a Microsoft problem, not an end user problem. Chrysler might want to sell new cars and tell you that you just have to get the newest model because "it's totes better than the old one" but does not remove their obligation to fulfill the promised warranty.

If Microsoft doesn't want to "divide their resources" supporting prior versions of Windows, then they should stop promising such long periods of "supported until" windows. This really shouldn't be a hardthink concept.

Where are people getting the idea that Microsoft isn't going to fulfill their support obligation? Nobody has said that.
 
If you bought a car with a 10 year bumper-to-bumper warranty, and 5 years in, your dealer starts harassing you to buy the 2015 model because "They shouldn't have to support your old car". Would that make ANY sense?

Before my current car was even 2 years old, the dealer started harassing me with emails and snail mail trying to get me to "upgrade" to a newer model. Sure, I'd be glad to increase my payments another $100+/month just so I can have that new car smell again.

My solution was to block the emails and just throw the snail mail in the trash without opening it.
 
I'm sticking with 7 as my main OS.
Windows 10 cant be trusted.

I upgraded my tablet to Windows 10, but that's mainly because it had Windows 8.1 on it.

My HTPC will never be upgraded past Windows 7, because Windows 10 no longer has the Media center and cable card support available. I'll be sticking with Windows 7 until I no longer need a DVR.

I'll also be sticking with Windows 7 on my home desktops for now, no reason to upgrade.

As for the Office, it will also be Windows 7 until a couple old apps are retired since they won't run on anything after Windows 7.
 
Multi-monitor is not exactly something that matters to most people.

Yes thats true. doesnt effect most people. But like he said.. its unbroken. i.e. not broken in Win 7. Works perfectly on a dual screen setup i use 5 days a week.
 
Multi-monitor is not exactly something that matters to most people.

Yes thats true. doesnt effect most people. But like he said.. its unbroken. i.e. not broken in Win 7. Works perfectly on a dual screen setup i use 5 days a week.

Multiple monitors are pretty important in environments that are about desktop productivity. There's no single thing that I can think of that increases desktop productivity more than multiple monitors. So while it may not effect most people it is important to those that do a lot of real work on the desktop.

Multiple monitors, multiple desktops, per monitor window management and window management work significantly better out of the box on 10 than 7. If one is going to criticize Windows 10 for hampering desktop productivity it seems silly to discount areas where it's clearly better.
 
There's really no evidence at all that people will work harder or faster just because they have more than one screen. At most places that I've seen, people will just position one of their two monitors to be harder for other people to see so they can use it to do non-work junk. Multiple monitor support is like the thing clueless people who don't at all understand how a human brain works to have an excuse to put more crap on their desks to impress other people or seem more "executive" than someone else. It's mostly a silly overcompensation penis thing and a screwing off on the job thing.
 
There's really no evidence at all that people will work harder or faster just because they have more than one screen. At most places that I've seen, people will just position one of their two monitors to be harder for other people to see so they can use it to do non-work junk. Multiple monitor support is like the thing clueless people who don't at all understand how a human brain works to have an excuse to put more crap on their desks to impress other people or seem more "executive" than someone else. It's mostly a silly overcompensation penis thing and a screwing off on the job thing.

I certainly am much more effective with multiple monitors. When I've got 15 windows open and I'm bouncing between 4 or 5 different tasks, it can be extremely inefficient and frustrating when everything is on top of something else.
 
Windows 7 is old already. Peoples are already getting tired of it already. They want something different now pretty much.

I honestly think that is marketing at work. Random people who have no idea about computers are asking me for Windows 10 with no idea of the difference, based solely on the fact that it is an, "Upgrade."

I am a proponent of Windows 10. It is a nice step forward (with some tweaks), but for most users they won't notice any difference in their usage between any of the 7-10 distributions. Windows 10 is spreading, but it is going to take a lot longer to catch on than people think, especially in the enterprise and government sectors.
 
I certainly am much more effective with multiple monitors. When I've got 15 windows open and I'm bouncing between 4 or 5 different tasks, it can be extremely inefficient and frustrating when everything is on top of something else.

ditto. I am a design engineer so multiple monitors is critical to my work. I use three monitors and routinely have a PCB layout on one monitor, schematic entry on a different monitor, and references on the third. Without this kind of layout I'd be constantly alt-tabbing between windows and losing the ability to have side-by-side context/comparison.
 
Windows 7 is old already. Peoples are already getting tired of it already. They want something different now pretty much.

I am completely and utterly gob smacked! :confused:

What you are saying is you want change, just for changes sake, good luck with that philosophy.

I get so pissed when you go to the supermarket and they've changed the layout with everything to F with your mind so you spend more than you would normally by tempting you with crap you weren't expecting to see when you went looking for what you actually needed.

Sort or like what MS has done to you now

I really really don't want to buy into your world at all, sorry.
 
What you are saying is you want change, just for changes sake, good luck with that philosophy.

Don't forget the opposite side of this coin, tradition for the sake of tradition. There are people here arguing against advancements in touch and even high end productivity enhancements such as multiple monitor and high DPI support because from their reasoning "not many people use these things." Most at some point didn't use things that billions use today. I didn't use a computer before the age of 9 and didn't personally own a computer until I was 15.

As humans we tend to be quick to judge and slow to change. But change, over the eons, is what science tells us how we got here. We exist because of adaptability. We exist because we our inherent distaste of change was counteracted by the inevitability of change. We are survivors of Natural Selection, i.e. forced changed.
 
ditto. I am a design engineer so multiple monitors is critical to my work. I use three monitors and routinely have a PCB layout on one monitor, schematic entry on a different monitor, and references on the third. Without this kind of layout I'd be constantly alt-tabbing between windows and losing the ability to have side-by-side context/comparison.
I've read some argue that it's not the number of monitors but the aggregate number of pixels. Tools like the Dell DDM Monitor Application and improvements to "Aero" Snap would lend credence to this view.

I don't know where I fall on the issue, but my work is looking to replace the three regular monitors that a group of our employees use with two UltraHD widescreen monitors under this assumption. My concern is they won't think 2 UltraHD widescreen monitors pixels > three regular monitors pixels but will see 2 monitors < 3 monitors. Or that the follow up will be "I like these monitors - can I get three of them?"
 
I've read some argue that it's not the number of monitors but the aggregate number of pixels. Tools like the Dell DDM Monitor Application and improvements to "Aero" Snap would lend credence to this view.

I don't know where I fall on the issue, but my work is looking to replace the three regular monitors that a group of our employees use with two UltraHD widescreen monitors under this assumption. My concern is they won't think 2 UltraHD widescreen monitors pixels > three regular monitors pixels but will see 2 monitors < 3 monitors. Or that the follow up will be "I like these monitors - can I get three of them?"

I could buy into this assuming that I can have all of my design software open with sufficient pixels to read everything at a comfortable zoom level. Squeezing three high-resolution windows into a tiny viewport doesn't cut it.
 
I've read some argue that it's not the number of monitors but the aggregate number of pixels. Tools like the Dell DDM Monitor Application and improvements to "Aero" Snap would lend credence to this view.

Multiple monitors by definition is a greater number of aggregate pixels give multiples of the same monitor no matter the number of pixels of that monitor. Windows 10 1511 has better window support even on a single monitor over 7 with automatic side by side resizing.
 
Multiple monitors by definition is a greater number of aggregate pixels give multiples of the same monitor no matter the number of pixels of that monitor. Windows 10 1511 has better window support even on a single monitor over 7 with automatic side by side resizing.
I have no clue what language you're speaking, but I am not entirely convinced it is English.

Give the choice between 3 Dell P2016 (1440 x 900) monitors and two Dell P2314H (1920x1080) monitors, which would you choose? This isn't the choice we're making at work. However, they are similarly priced.

The difference is in work, the 2x27" monitors they've chosen allow you to use Dell DDM software, which allows you to split up the monitor with much more granularity than "Aero" Snap. The 3x24" monitors do not. The total combined resolution (what I called "aggregate pixels") favors the 27" but only slightly. And until Q2/Q3, they're stuck with Windows 7, until we start moving to Windows 10. I didn't make the decision and didn't influence the decision.

And what if I gave you the choice of an unlimited budget to pick the highest resolution available for one single monitor (looks like 5120×2880?) or gave you four 1366x768 monitors. Which would you pick? No difference? Are the four monitors better?

(Sorry everyone else for dragging this off topic. Seems to happen.)
 
I am not great at English either. Here are some articles that indicate that the debate isn't settled:
LifeHacker: http://lifehacker.com/5616859/is-the-multiple-monitor-productivity-boost-a-myth
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/technology/personaltech/surviving-and-thriving-in-a-one-monitor-world.html?_r=0
Journal of Accountancy: http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2011/feb/20103260.html
Patrick Dubroy: http://dubroy.com/blog/multiple-monitor-productivity-fact-or-fiction/
One of the original studies Microsoft Research: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/news/features/vibe.aspx

I would expect the issue is more nuanced and dependent on the situation and area of work.
 
Give the choice between 3 Dell P2016 (1440 x 900) monitors and two Dell P2314H (1920x1080) monitors, which would you choose? This isn't the choice we're making at work. However, they are similarly priced.

Why not three 1080P monitors (that's my standard desktop setup) or better? The point being that the aggregate number of pixels doesn't normally limit the number of monitors with sufficient hardware.

The difference is in work, the 2x27" monitors they've chosen allow you to use Dell DDM software, which allows you to split up the monitor with much more granularity than "Aero" Snap. The 3x24" monitors do not. The total combined resolution (what I called "aggregate pixels") favors the 27" but only slightly. And until Q2/Q3, they're stuck with Windows 7, until we start moving to Windows 10. I didn't make the decision and didn't influence the decision.

You're complaining about my use of English?

And what if I gave you the choice of an unlimited budget to pick the highest resolution available for one single monitor (looks like 5120×2880?) or gave you four 1366x768 monitors. Which would you pick? No difference? Are the four monitors better?

(Sorry everyone else for dragging this off topic. Seems to happen.)

Multiples of the same monitor. Windows 10 handles multiple monitors better out of the box than 7. You're dragging people into a contrived discussion for no purpose other than to make no point.
 
I have no clue what language you're speaking, but I am not entirely convinced it is English.

Give the choice between 3 Dell P2016 (1440 x 900) monitors and two Dell P2314H (1920x1080) monitors, which would you choose? This isn't the choice we're making at work. However, they are similarly priced.

The difference is in work, the 2x27" monitors they've chosen allow you to use Dell DDM software, which allows you to split up the monitor with much more granularity than "Aero" Snap. The 3x24" monitors do not. The total combined resolution (what I called "aggregate pixels") favors the 27" but only slightly. And until Q2/Q3, they're stuck with Windows 7, until we start moving to Windows 10. I didn't make the decision and didn't influence the decision.

And what if I gave you the choice of an unlimited budget to pick the highest resolution available for one single monitor (looks like 5120×2880?) or gave you four 1366x768 monitors. Which would you pick? No difference? Are the four monitors better?

(Sorry everyone else for dragging this off topic. Seems to happen.)
The only thing I will say about this is that multiple monitors allows for better ergonomic placement and usability. Having a HUGE panel of pixels that is a single pane of rectangles right in front of you is not always better when compare to multiple monitors that can be wrapped to field of view and other ergonomic considerations.
 
There are people here arguing against advancements in touch and even high end productivity enhancements such as multiple monitor and high DPI support because from their reasoning "not many people use these things." Most at some point didn't use things that billions use today. I didn't use a computer before the age of 9 and didn't personally own a computer until I was 15.

Gee, you quote what i said in response to somebody, that was just to clarify what you yourself said. And somehow this is some big statement that "high end productivity enhancements such as multiple monitor and high DPI support" is not required?

You really are a one man band. No one else really needs to say anything because you've got all the crazy girlfriend fact changing ability covered!

How about gleaming the obvious truths from my post... like how Windows 7's multi-monitor support, although works and works fine, is seriously lacking functionality that SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE well before they finally work the fuck up and did something about it in Win 8. Now we have rose colored glass fools like yourself toting how great and fabulous it is to get some actual abilities in an OS in 2015. Horse. Bolted. Capeesh?

As humans we tend to be quick to judge and slow to change. But change, over the eons, is what science tells us how we got here. We exist because of adaptability. We exist because we our inherent distaste of change was counteracted by the inevitability of change. We are survivors of Natural Selection, i.e. forced changed.

Wow. Talk about a tough sell there. We also tend to be completely unlike any other species at any other point in time. And create shit just for entertainment and also have muli billion dollar corporations trying to shovel absolute bullshit "feelings" in marketing to sell more stuff to the gullable. You forget that change for the sake of change does not mean change for the sake of survival. SO nice marketing spin there, but thats all it is. More marketing BS.

Last time i checked...there's quite a few million people that coudlnt give ashit about "adaptring" to the latest operating system and those poor souls will just not be able to adapt and survive! oh no!

ffs listen to yourself.
 
The only thing I will say about this is that multiple monitors allows for better ergonomic placement and usability. Having a HUGE panel of pixels that is a single pane of rectangles right in front of you is not always better when compare to multiple monitors that can be wrapped to field of view and other ergonomic considerations.
Good point.

I liked the idea of three monitors rather than two. A single monitor wasn't one of the options. I prefer using built-in tools to third party tools, and I think that any benefit of added virtual flexibility is outweighed by the intuitive nature of having separate monitors. It makes more sense to think of three separate workspaces than to think of a pool of space and imagine how you might want to split that up.

Below is the Dell Display Manager software. It's neat, but I think it makes things unnecessarily complex. If you don't want the window to resize to fit a zone when you move it, you have to hold shift.

500x1000px-LL-a919a8a3_Manager4.PNG
 
Why not three 1080P monitors (that's my standard desktop setup) or better? The point being that the aggregate number of pixels doesn't normally limit the number of monitors with sufficient hardware.



You're complaining about my use of English?



Multiples of the same monitor. Windows 10 handles multiple monitors better out of the box than 7. You're dragging people into a contrived discussion for no purpose other than to make no point.
Thanks. Good talk.
 
Yes thats true. doesnt effect most people. But like he said.. its unbroken. i.e. not broken in Win 7. Works perfectly on a dual screen setup i use 5 days a week.

I agree with this. Notice how the discussion suddenly focused on a straw-man argument that there's something wrong with multiple monitors on 7.
Well, I have used dual screens in XP, in Vista and in 7. AMD and Nvidia managed to extend it to games. Not once have I complained about this feature.

People who upgrade to a new Windows everytime Microsoft pushes :)D) one out. I have more issues with responding to 'what OS are you using?' because I have to literally check. Why? because I use software. An OS facilitates requirements software have. Stuff like drivers, window managenent, handling low-level stuff like cryptography.
I feel entitled to state this based on the fact I used Win 3.11, Win 95, Win 98SE, Win 2000, Windows Millenium, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1, Linux 2.4, Linux 2.6, Linux 3.x on four desktop environments: KDE 3.5, KDE 4.x, Gnome 2, Xfce. Switching between them has never posed me any trouble. KDE was easy peasy, Gnome I hated, Xfce was slow because it had to load Gnome and KDE (QT) libraries anyway for most software to work.
Windows Vista still gives me trouble at work, mostly with Windows Update.
Windows 8 was literally unusable to me. I won't go into details so that certain people can't latch onto little details.
Installing a third-party UI extension like Classic Shell is out of the question for me. One day after a patch Tuesday I could walk into my job and be greeted by flames because explorer failed to load due to incompatibility. And I wouldn't be able to ask Microsoft for support because - hey - I mixed their code with some random stuff off the 'net.
 
I agree with this. Notice how the discussion suddenly focused on a straw-man argument that there's something wrong with multiple monitors on 7.
Well, I have used dual screens in XP, in Vista and in 7. AMD and Nvidia managed to extend it to games. Not once have I complained about this feature.

Multiple monitor support and window management are better out of the box in 10 compared to 7:

1. Taskbar across all monitors
2. Mouse based window snapping along the interior edges of multiple monitors
3. Support for monitor independent scaling
4. Per monitor task view
5. Automatic side by side resizing.
6. Virtual desktops

The last two aren't specific to multiple monitors and there are 3rd party tools that can do most of these things, again I was referring to the OOBE.

If one doesn't like Windows 10 fine. But there are some significant enhancements in this area and it seems silly to say things like most people don't use them when the point is these are features for people using the desktop for higher end productivity which isn't most Windows users to begin with,
 
Multiple monitor support and window management are better out of the box in 10 compared to 7:

1. Taskbar across all monitors
2. Mouse based window snapping along the interior edges of multiple monitors
3. Support for monitor independent scaling
4. Per monitor task view
5. Automatic side by side resizing.
6. Virtual desktops

The last two aren't specific to multiple monitors and there are 3rd party tools that can do most of these things, again I was referring to the OOBE.

If one doesn't like Windows 10 fine. But there are some significant enhancements in this area and it seems silly to say things like most people don't use them when the point is these are features for people using the desktop for higher end productivity which isn't most Windows users to begin with,

I have virtual desktops on Windows XP using Microsoft's Desktops 2.0.
I haven't said people don't use multi-monitor setups - just that Vista and 7 do them well enough for my needs.
The scaling issues didn't hit me because my home screens were all 1248x1024. So I might have been unaware of some configurations causing some problems. But I have also used two different widescreen monitors at work and nothing really bugged me, and I am a nit-pick.
2. Mouse based window snapping along the interior edges of multiple monitors
English is not my native tongue and I have trouble translating this one. You mean - dragging a window to another screen and snapping it to its' edge (so that it occupies half) or to its top edge to maximize? If so, that worked for me. Actually, the second method was my preferred one when dealing with multiple resolutions.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improvements and the stuff you mentioned, especially when present OOBE (and not breaking when one installs a GPU driver). I acknowledge that Windows 8 starts up faster, I have seen this. But, sadly, for me the IMHO 'bad' additions annoyed me enough to fallback to my 'lesser evil' older versions of Windows.
 
How about gleaming the obvious truths from my post... like how Windows 7's multi-monitor support, although works and works fine, is seriously lacking functionality that SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE well before they finally work the fuck up and did something about it in Win 8. Now we have rose colored glass fools like yourself toting how great and fabulous it is to get some actual abilities in an OS in 2015. Horse. Bolted. Capeesh?

The argument can always be made that any given feature in a product should have been available in a prior of version of that product. Ok, fine. That still doesn't change the fact that out of the box multiple monitor support is better in 10 than 7.

Last time i checked...there's quite a few million people that coudlnt give ashit about "adaptring" to the latest operating system and those poor souls will just not be able to adapt and survive! oh no!

ffs listen to yourself.

Desktop Windows is a very old product in tech terms. It has to change over time to adapt to the mainstream or it can't be mainstream. Mobility, touch, tablets, etc. are all now mainstream things simply didn't exist when Windows was originally created. Windows has long incorporated new things once they became mainstream. Changes to support mobility, touch and tablets were not changes just for the sake of change. They were changes to allow Windows to run on the kinds of hardware and support the kinds of software that are mainstream today.

I know people will say that it was a mistake to incorporate tablet and touch features in a desktop OS. However it is this kind of hardware that's growing at a significant clip while conventional PC hardware have flat lined and shrunk in new sales.
 
By the way, could you tell me how's the legacy hardware compatibility between 7 64 bit and 10?
I'm on a shoe-string budget at work and thus a boatfull of HP Laserjet 1150, 1010 and 1200 units. A canon LBP2900 (HP clone), an old Kyocera 1620 copier with USB support, some older Plustek scanners, older Creative Labs webcams and such.
I even have to keep a VirtualPC with XP on it for some very, very old DOS-based accounting software.
And I do enjoy my Civilization II multiplayer edition - it works on 7 64 bit - will such old things work on 10?
Is there something that won't work on 10 that works on 7 for me?
 
I have virtual desktops on Windows XP using Microsoft's Desktops 2.0.
I haven't said people don't use multi-monitor setups - just that Vista and 7 do them well enough for my needs.
The scaling issues didn't hit me because my home screens were all 1248x1024. So I might have been unaware of some configurations causing some problems. But I have also used two different widescreen monitors at work and nothing really bugged me, and I am a nit-pick.

I did say that virtual desktops have been supported with 3rd party tools, I know the APIs have been there but no UI included in the box. Again, it is an out of the box change that I noted.

English is not my native tongue and I have trouble translating this one. You mean - dragging a window to another screen and snapping it to its' edge (so that it occupies half) or to its top edge to maximize? If so, that worked for me. Actually, the second method was my preferred one when dealing with multiple resolutions.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improvements and the stuff you mentioned, especially when present OOBE (and not breaking when one installs a GPU driver). I acknowledge that Windows 8 starts up faster, I have seen this. But, sadly, for me the IMHO 'bad' additions annoyed me enough to fallback to my 'lesser evil' older versions of Windows.

In versions prior to 10, there was no way to snap a window along the interior edges of multiple independent monitors with a mouse. It could be done using the keyboard shortcuts, Windows key+Arrow key. It is a pretty minor thing but something that I've seen a number of people ask about over the years.
 
I did say that virtual desktops have been supported with 3rd party tools, I know the APIs have been there but no UI included in the box. Again, it is an out of the box change that I noted.
OOBE I could agree upon as I have not had the chance of trying out Win10 with multiple screens. Desktops 2.0 is a MS product, it's Microsoft now. So, not 3rd party but not included in the install disc, too.

In versions prior to 10, there was no way to snap a window along the interior edges of multiple independent monitors with a mouse. It could be done using the keyboard shortcuts, Windows key+Arrow key. It is a pretty minor thing but something that I've seen a number of people ask about over the years.

I just took a second look in my living room where I have a Win7 PC and a widescreen monitor, wired via HDMI. I cannot 'snap' a window to the edge which separates the screens, But it does snap to the second monitor's outer, bottom and top. Is that what you mean?
 
Back
Top