Windows 10 - free upgrade to those with PC using Windows 7 or 8

[cgsmom]

My husband and I are fulltime RV'ers. We were in campgrounds with free wifi this summer. When we got to our winter site three weeks ago we started using our mifi from Verizon Wireless for internet. I went into settings and changed our network to "Metered Connection". Updates have not installed since. It says they are available but does not download and install until I tell it to.

[Freeshadow]

More sniffing and less individual setting capabilities. A clear showstopper.
The fact that they plan to shove the so called upgrade on the machines regardless if I as a user want it speaks for itself.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

More sniffing and less individual setting capabilities. A clear showstopper.
The fact that they plan to shove the so called upgrade on the machines regardless if I as a user want it speaks for itself.

I tend to agree given the relentless Juggernaut roll-out.
Not very nice, even if free.

[Katsunami]

To be very honest, I've been thinking to switch to Linux full time because of the direction Microsoft has taken with Windows is going since Windows 8 (and Office since 2007).

I've tried, but it's almost impossible if you don't keep a seperate Windows-installation for games and Windows-software you really need; if you don't, much messing around ensues. (And I still haven't seen a decent alternative for Foobar, and CD-ripping software. That stuff is just much better under Windows.)

Yes, I run Windows 10 on both my computer and my laptop, but I only do so because in about 4 years, Windows 7 will be dropped, and I don't like sticking to the past if I will need to move to Windows 10 (or its successor) eventually.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

To be very honest, I've been thinking to switch to Linux full time because of the direction Microsoft has taken with Windows is going since Windows 8 (and Office since 2007).

I've tried, but it's almost impossible if you don't keep a seperate Windows-installation for games and Windows-software you really need; if you don't, much messing around ensues. (And I still haven't seen a decent alternative for Foorbar, and CD-ripping software. That stuff is just much better under Windows.)

Cheap box dedicated to windows software, and not connected to the Internet? It's what I do.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Cheap box dedicated to windows software, and not connected to the Internet? It's what I do.

I have been thinking about going dual boot for my next computer.

256 GB SSD running Windows 10, for games and the CD-ripping software (and any stuff for which I need Windows, often only temporarily), and one 128 or even 64GB SSD running Debian Linux, built from a netinstall for daily usage.

The computer would have a 2TB data drive, with an external counterpart for backups. 2TB is more than enough storage space for my use. I now have two 1TB drives, and I still have over 1TB space left. Most is used by my CD-collection, ripped to FLAC, and backups of software (GOG.com games, installation CD's ripped to ISO, etc...)

Still, Linux has so many problems when used as a desktop system... Red Hat being one of the biggest cause. They force unwanted changes onto the Linux users (Avahi, PulseAudio, PolicyKit, systemd, Gnome3) as aggressive as Microsoft pushes changes onto Windows users.

One of the biggest problems of Linux is the Linux upgrade chain, caused by keeping all software in one repository, and demanding that each library is only installed once in each system. (Kovid has ranted about this numerous times as well.) If program A is upgraded, and it uses library B, it might cause program C to upgrade as well, as it uses library B and D. But, because of that upgrade, library D will also upgrade, causing.... and so on. Upgrading one tiny utility might, in the end, cause you to upgrade the entire system including the operating system itself.

On Windows, I can (mostly) run 2001 software on a 2015 Windows, and often even the other way around.

[Katsunami]

Linus Torvalds Q&A

See at 6.42 minutes.

"We make binaries for Windows and OSX. We basically don't make binaries for Linux. Why? Because making binaries for desktop Linux is a major **** pain in the ass. You don't make binaries for Linux. You make binaries for Fedora 19, Fedora 20, or maybe even RHEL 5 from 10 years ago."

"Debian has these rules that you should use shared libraries... but using shared libraries is not an option if they're experimental/unstable, used by two people, and one of the is crazy. Every other day, some ABI breaks."

"You just want to have to build one binary, and have it work. Preferably forever. Preferably across all Linux distributions. I actually think distributions have done a horrible job."

"We have one rule in the kernel: We don't break user space. ... If people break user space, I get very angry ... I explain to developers that this is a really important thing. And then, distributions come in, and they screw it all up. They break binary compatibility left and right...."

And this, dear people, is the reason why almost no-one outside of the open source world writes software for desktop linux, or if they do, they eventually either give up, or state that you should use one specific distribution such as Ubuntu 14.04 or something, so they don't have to create 175 versions of their software. And, the developers will have to recompile and repackage all of their software each time the distribution they've chosen upgrades.

With most distributions, you can't upgrade applications and the operating system independently of one another.

These things are the reasons why Linux will never be an equal to Windows (and to some extent, but less so, the Mac) on the desktop, and is the main reason why I run Windows. To some extent, I even prefer Windows on the server, because I can run 3 or 4 Apache servers, all different versions, with different PHP versions and widely different configs installed. On Linux, things like that are very hard to do.

As I said, I have been thinking of switching to Linux for daily tasks, but in the end, at least up until now, for me it's just much more time-effective to smooth out or work around Microsoft's weirdness than to maintain a Linux desktop system.

[Freeshadow]

Katsunami you might consider using aptosid. (based on Debian unstable)
The maintainers keep an eye on the updates and warn you when better NOT to make a dist-upgrade if you don't want to epically screw up your dependencies. It's the distro I finally ended up using and am very happy with.

[Greg Anos]

What it really boils down to is - upgrade or no upgrade? - and - internet or no internet?

Personally, I have great problems with an OS that itself is spyware. Not to mention using me as an unpaid beta tester, whether I like it or not. Other people think this is peachy keen.

I have long since come to the conclusion that a new version of software is merely swapping one set of bugs for another set.

To me, the answer is OS segregation. Internet stuff on a box with a working OS that has a minimum spyware profile, and a "clean" box that does everything else. I use a KMV switch to bounce between the two boxes. With computers like the Intel NUCs nowadays, the footprint of such multibox systems is smaller than one medium tower.

A sample would be running Win 10 on your internet box and Win 7 on your clean box. And if you activate your Win 7 box by phone, rather than the internet, there is no way you are going to be affected by Microsoft's push to Win 10. No access.

Or you may substitute a Linux box for Win 10 on the "dirty' Internet box. <shrug>, to taste. I don't see how it is any harder than running a smart phone OS on your phone and a "big" OS on you home computer. . .

[eschwartz]

TechRepublic would like to point out that Haiku (open-source BeOS) is a viable alternative to Windows 10.


http://www.techrepublic.com/pictures...-disappoint/6/

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

TechRepublic would like to point out that Haiku (open-source BeOS) is a viable alternative to Windows 10.


http://www.techrepublic.com/pictures...-disappoint/6/

And so it is. I hesitated to discuss alternatives on a Windows 10 install thread. People have gotten grumpy. . .

[eschwartz]

Not really. This is an example of people going pretty overboard trying to convince people they still have options.

Now I get that linux is a viable alternative (heh, of course I'd say that).
It does take a certain commitment, but as people have spent the last day pointing out, linux might be very desirable as a way to escape the forced incredibly pushy updates.

But the spiritual descendants of OS/2 and BeOS are not on my radar as being reasonable.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Not really. This is an example of people going pretty overboard trying to convince people they still have options.

There is are only two options, Mac and Linux (something like Ubuntu or Mint).

For me the Mac is not an option, IMHO. Apple throws backward compatibility overboard much more quickly than Microsoft does. They just drop features and/or support of some versions of OSX and then blatantly state that you'll just have to buy a new Mac to get the new OSX version. Their entire 'We are the only one worth using'-aura isn't for me.

BSD is not an option on the desktop, because if Linux is only missing drivers for some hardware, then BSD is missing drivers for most non-server hardware. You'll have to build a very specific desktop to run one of the BSD's; you'd spare yourself a lot of problems if you'd just run Linux.

Everything else, such as Haiku, ReactOS, RiscOS (for Amiga) and eComStation (the closed-source successor to OS/2) is just scribbling in the margins. I even wonder why people spend time on them.

It's Windows for the mainstream computer users, Mac for mainstream users that are happy enough with the hardware Apple offers and policies it follows, and Linux for the people who have the time to make everything exactly as they want it.

[eschwartz]

Maybe I could understand why people spend time on ReactOS.

No one not (even that article) kids themselves that it is a usable desktop today.
But its goal is to be an open-source, drop-in replacement for Windows.

Whenever it leaves Alpha, maybe around 2040, I'm sure it will fulfill all those goals and really give people options.
I can understand why people would spend time on it. But they suffer from the same problems as the other three (the useless ones). it's a tiny target, few people care enough, so they will never get big enough to produce a working desktop.

[ottdmk]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

There is are only two options, Mac and Linux (something like Ubuntu or Mint).

[snip]

BSD is not an option on the desktop, because if Linux is only missing drivers for some hardware, then BSD is missing drivers for most non-server hardware. You'll have to build a very specific desktop to run one of the BSD's; you'd spare yourself a lot of problems if you'd just run Linux.

I disagree. I've been running FreeBSD as my main OS for over a decade, and I have never taken extraordinary care with the hardware. I'll admit that my use of Nvidia cards probably helped. I've used other video cards though and never had any problems. (I understand kms took a long time in FreeBSD which probably messed up a lot of people.)

If you're interested in gaming Linux is a better choice. Some games will only run in Wine on Linux. And Linux has Steam.