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

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by crane3

Liking it doesn't mean that the product is good; not even windows which started as all glitz & no substance.

Let's see, my 1st encounter with apple was trying to decide whether to get an Atari or Apple II. On the Apple side: I want to use the TV as a monitor with Color? That's an extra $100; I want to be able to use both upper case & lower case? That's another $100.

Sometime later the Mac 512 came out & my coworker said that the Mac had a "very good" project management software. So brought my either Atari ST or Dos formatted 3 1/2 diskette. Put it in the Mac & expecting that it didn't like it but will format the diskette to suit, like normal computers. However, the Mac not only won't recognize it but won't format the diskette & won't eject it; my last resort was to just unplug the power whereby the diskette ejected; someone later that there is a pin-hole to use for ejecting the diskette!!?? We later got a loan of a LISA to checkout but it became just a printer server for the laserjet.

Went to buy a used 4mm tape drive for backup Dos/windows; was given a new Mac 4 mm tape drive & was told that it will work with the PC; but the PC version won't work with the Mac.

Found later that crapple used roms/chips in their hardware & that the OS won't work if the roms were not present. Was verified when the sysadmin swapped the hard disk between an IBM & a Mac, both drivers were made by Seagate. Naturally, the Mac drive worked on the PC but not the reverse, not even reformatting the drive. An apple user all the way from the the apple ii thought that something in the ram chips were done to stop users from not paying for apple ram.

It was noted that apple products are mostly bought by the boomer generation with much money; but the "me" gen mirrors them.

Of course, I used to use "microsh*t" term as well, but the censorship are being picky more now. I don't use win7 now only because I've had to do a fresh win7 install several times which looks like being messed up by the "security"/virus programs since each time the win7 got installed the ownership of the hard disks & partitions got changed & I had to change each back for permissible access. Win8 "fixed" the ownership problem as every ownership got changed instead of having various ownerships; but then win8 removed the normal user access to change ownership. The ownership forced a very long delay even when doing a "dir" to see the directory; & every time i tried to run a program or access a file, it goes thru the security, virus & other malware check......


I've decided to stop eating so many apples because of diabetes & will shortly saying "crapple".

Well you seem to have had more than your share of problems with both Apple and Windows products.

The only Apple type product I have had a lot of experience with was an Apple II clone I made from chips and a circuit board in 1981. I actually thought it was delightful.

I have been using Windows mostly from 3.0 on and while I encountered quite a few problems along the way and am never completely happy with them, I am overall comfortable with the system. I have used unix, xenix, CPM at home or at work as well as android and some obscure OS and basically I prefer Windows. But I don't hold any of the other operating systems in contempt.

Sorry about your diabetes. A bad thing to have to deal with and I wish you the best of luck.

Helen

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by kacir

I used to do the same change on every single computer I installed and/or helped to maintain. Of course I always trained the user how to change it back in case that [s]he did not like it. Most people kept the change and asked me to do it again on newer computers. And instead of Levander I used to use "toothpaste light-green". Sadly, with increasing version of Windows this is buried deeper and deeper. With Vista the number of steps to make this change became ridiculous.

What's even more ridiculous is that starting in Win 8 you are forced to use a high contrast theme to change background colors. High contrast themes mess a lot of apps up.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Because you made a random, unnecessary comment, which incidentally made no sense and included the rather arbitrary belief that the default assumption should be that a person can only know about one thing at a time.

(Yes, I have called it Windoze, all the time. It is. There are professional Windows IT guys who say the same thing, so I ask again -- what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?



In this case, I am simply irritated that I have someone telling me I must have no idea what I am talking about, when I am talking about Windows (in that particular instance, I was merely observing that MS had not, in fact, moved to a subscription model for Windows -- that is all I said)...

because I am a linux guy.

I have made jokes about the superiority of linux, yes. But I don't generally demand that people convert (I have suggested it as an option, say, when people want to know why they cannot run the latest versions of calibre on WinXP).
I like to think I am reasonably relaxed on the issue of other people using Windows. I have helped people lots of times get their Windows computers running the way they need it.

I also could not possibly care less about the "capitalism tainted-ness" of Windows or any MS product. I would be happy to use it myself, if I found it as easy to use as linux.
That would be why I don't tend toward proselytizing, either -- to me, it is all about the usability.



Exactly.

Richard Stallman & Co. are the ones you should be complaining about -- most linux users are not like that.

I am pretty sure I did not say or imply that you knew nothing about Windows. I did state or imply that you preferred Linux. This is not a direct correlation that I can see. Again I think you are being too sensitive or perhaps arguing for the sake of arguing. Probably not the case, but seems possible.

I do not believe I was attacking you on a personal, professional or other competency level in any system. Just stating that is was my belief you preferred Linux. Mea culpa for even assuming such a thing. Totally untrue assumption I made probably.

Helen

[frahse]

Originally Posted by Jack Torrance

I remember getting the Technical preview/Beta for Windows 7 and upgraded from XP because I liked the look and feel of 7.

While I like 10 better than 8/8.1 I don't find myself choosing to use it like I chose to use 7 over XP. I really don't like 8/8.1 and don't have it running on any of the machines I own. I know people say you get used to it and it works fine, but every time I play with it, usually on a machine at the store, it just irritates me and I walk away.

I just cant put my finger on why I don't want to use 10 and jumping right in and learning it in and outs might be part of the problem and maybe when it gets an actual release with all the appropriate drives ect I'll feel better about, but something tells me I'll being hanging on to my copy of 7 for a few more years.

I liked WXP. W7 is pretty good.
W8 is bad. W8.1 is an improvement over W8 but nowhere near as good as WXP and W7.
I am willing to try W10 but not as a Beta user.

I find myself using ChromeOS on a Chromebook a lot. There are still problems with it but Google has a chance of making it pretty good.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

My experience is that Linux users fall generally into one of four groups:

1. Professional Users in a business or sophisticated development environment and for which, for their own specific case, Linux is the best choice for them. All well and good and as they are professionals who understand needs one rarely comes across them as evangelists claiming that Linux is the best choice for everyone.

2. The Cost Restrained of which there are two subgroups. (a) They do not have the discretionary income to buy an O/S such as Windows, or (b) They do have that discretionary income but decide they have better uses for it. Both, but especially subgroup (a), often do not wish to admit to the fact of their circumstances and so cover that up by claiming, regardless of what they really think of it, that Linux is the best thing for everyone. Some do admit to the fact that their choice is cost driven and I admire them for their honesty.

3. Amateur Users who have a real and advanced (but sub-professional) interest in IT, that interest being in the challenges of IT itself, or of another technology based interest they have which is reliant on IT. The more knowledgeable of these have opinions similar to Group 1 in that they recognise that the best O/S choice is driven by the circumstances of the user. The least adept (and the immature, as this is geek territory too) try to sell Linux to everyone and disparage all else whenever possible.

4. The Self Delusionists. This group generally does not hold any sophisticated knowledge in IT compared to the level of, say, groups (1) and (3) but adopt Linux in order to give the illusion that they are quite clever or geeky when compared to the rest of us. They love to talk about the merits of the various distributions, and the various jargon associated with those and which is unlikely to be heard of, let alone understood, by those not in the brotherhood, in order to elevate the appearance of their actual shallow IT knowledge.

Group 3 are the ones we hear most of, their prattling on endlessly as to the superiority of Linux distributions over all other O/S contenders (including other Unix derived ones) for all occasions and in all matters, and giving the impression that the approximate 95% of PC users who do not use Linux have just made a bad choice through technical ignorance or lack of enlightenment. Sometimes they even have tussles, and even battles, among their own Linux brotherhood claiming their own used distribution is better than another's.

Approximately 90-95% (depending on whose estimates one takes) of the installed base of O/Ss on PCs is Windows, the other 5-10% being shared amongst Apple and Linux (predominantly). So if one assumes, say, that 5% is Linux (that assumption about the split between Linux and Apple makes little difference to the outcome) and that, say, half of those are in Group 4, "The Self Delusionists", then it is amazing the racket these few around 2.5% make on any matter to do with PC O/Ss.

It appears to me that there have been a few "Self Delusionists" expounding in this thread, hoping to bamboozle the rest of us with their "superior" knowledge that Linux is best for us all and the error of our ways. I sometimes wonder if they sense the smirks that some of the rest of us wear.

For the sake of good order and in an attempt to forestall the likely deluge of claims from the Group 4s that I am a Windows "fanboy", I make no claims as to what is the best O/S for all PC users, it very much depends on the circumstances. In my view Groups 1, 2 & 3 above have all made rational choices when it comes to their choice of Linux. For myself I use Windows as I find that best suits my own needs, and because I work in business and industrial environments it is the O/S I am most exposed to - so any appearance that I favour Windows for all is misdirected, it is just the one I know best and so can best comment on (I have though managed technology based projects of values in the $100s of millions which use multiple operating systems according to which is best suited for each of the various tasks, but I leave the innards and choice of those to the software engineers ).

I openly say I'm in group 2(b). I first used DOS 2.0. Then Win 3.1, Win 98 se 2, ME then XP. And AntiVirus software, year after year. Each version gave me some major feature(s) - that was useful to me - and I could keep such older pieces of software as I wanted and had.

That train came to an end with Win7 64 when lots of my old software would no longer work under it. Yes, there were free 3rd party software packages I could use to do what I had been doing. But to what end? Thre weren't any new features I wanted on the new OSes, plus $50 a year (or so) for a cycle hog AV sofware, another $150 every 3 years or so for a new OS, with a new UI that I had to learn, not because I wanted a new UI, but because some marketing moron thought it would sell better.

I decided it was time to cut the Gordian knot (Gordian III, 244AD). I have gone into the painful Linux learning curve, not because I consider it better, but because I have better things to do with my life that re-learning UIs every 3 years, and averaging paying out $100 a year just for the priviledge...

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I have gone into the painful Linux learning curve, not because I consider it better, but because I have better things to do with my life that re-learning UIs every 3 years (...)

How ironic, seeming as re-learning the UI is a common criticism of Linux.

Yet I do agree. While my approach to Linux is probably quite different from yours, I have found that it allows me to build upon existing skills rather than learning new skills. To give you and idea of what I mean, I have been using the much maligned vi editor for nearly 20 years. (The editor itself even predates my birth.) Every year I get better at using vi, and I'm more than willing to use newer implementations of it to gain access to more powerful features. Even though I am using a different implementation today, the skills that I learned 20 years ago are still valid so I am becoming more effective at using the software. Since vi is entrenched in the Unix world I am also confident that this skill building will continue for decades to come. I can make similar claims for many utilities that come with Unix systems.

The other nice thing about Unix is its nearly universal nature. If I know how to use a userland feature on Linux, I can probably use it in OS X. It is also applicable to varying degrees on my Android and Kobo devices. Yes, there are going to be some changes (GNU vs. BSD vs. Busybox) but the basics are all there.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

How ironic, seeming as re-learning the UI is a common criticism of Linux.

Yet I do agree. While my approach to Linux is probably quite different from yours, I have found that it allows me to build upon existing skills rather than learning new skills. To give you and idea of what I mean, I have been using the much maligned vi editor for nearly 20 years. (The editor itself even predates my birth.) Every year I get better at using vi, and I'm more than willing to use newer implementations of it to gain access to more powerful features. Even though I am using a different implementation today, the skills that I learned 20 years ago are still valid so I am becoming more effective at using the software. Since vi is entrenched in the Unix world I am also confident that this skill building will continue for decades to come. I can make similar claims for many utilities that come with Unix systems.

The other nice thing about Unix is its nearly universal nature. If I know how to use a userland feature on Linux, I can probably use it in OS X. It is also applicable to varying degrees on my Android and Kobo devices. Yes, there are going to be some changes (GNU vs. BSD vs. Busybox) but the basics are all there.

But I don't have to learn a new UI for the Linux that I use. I don't have to upgrade, unless I want to. With a copy of the repositories for Linux Mint 17 (all 60+ GBs) I can install it on machines for the rest of my life (as long as they run x86 archetecture). Shucks I'm still running 30 year old Atari 800 software (under emulator), I've only got 30-40 more years left, I'll get along...(And use those skills I am bulding, plus all those old ones of XP which I still use (as a virtual machine, of course).

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by danwdoo

Another problem is AV suites. Can't tell you how many computers have seemingly unrelated issues such as crashes and hangs and performance problems that magically go away after uninstalling some of the monster AV suits out there. Having unexpected, hard to track down issues? Uninstall your security suite, make sure Windows Security Essentials (Windows Defender in Win 8.X) is active and test it for a week or so. The difference might amaze you.

Someone asked me for help with Office 365 that said it had a licensing problem. It turned out Office 365 was unable to connect to the server to validate the license because of an expired trial version of some version Norton. The solution was to uninstall Norton and the system (with Windows 8.1) functioned just fine after that.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But I don't have to learn a new UI for the Linux that I use. I don't have to upgrade, unless I want to. With a copy of the repositories for Linux Mint 17 (all 60+ GBs) I can install it on machines for the rest of my life (as long as they run x86 archetecture). Shucks I'm still running 30 year old Atari 800 software (under emulator), I've only got 30-40 more years left, I'll get along...(And use those skills I am bulding, plus all those old ones of XP which I still use (as a virtual machine, of course).

If you're taking it online, I'd be as hesitant about running an unpatched version of Linux as I would of Windows. Both platforms will have security related bugs and design flaws. About the only thing you're assured of with Linux is that the software in the repositories doesn't carry malware, with the added benefit that it is a less attractive target since it is less popular. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if certain components are more common than Windows. For example: the Linux kernel is everywhere and many libraries are cross-platform.

[Glorfindel]

Originally Posted by LinuxArie

No, until january 14, 2020
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle

That's correct, I forgot to check up on that

[kacir]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

What's even more ridiculous is that starting in Win 8 you are forced to use a high contrast theme to change background colors. High contrast themes mess a lot of apps up.

For me, the feature that frustrated me the most with the Windows 8 was the inability to change the shape of window borders and decorations.
I was surprised how much I disliked the flat look and sharp corners of windows. I suspect that this was done deliberately ugly to motivate users to use full-screen apps under Metro.
I say I was surprised, because I am used to change. I have changed the desktop environment and window manager quite a few times during the long period I have used FreeBSD and Linux as my main desktop at home and usually I can live with most of the UI themes available. For most desktop environments there are usually lots of themes that you can download and/or customize. The themes can completely change the look of the UI so it can look like any UI back to the CDE (ancient "Common Desktop Environment), Motif, or even QNX3 Photon.

I do not understand why in 2015 a desktop environment, such as Windows interface can't have a few themes available for various tastes.

Originally Posted by kacir

For me, the feature that frustrated me the most with the Windows 8 was the inability to change the shape of window borders and decorations.

(...)

I do not understand why in 2015 a desktop environment, such as Windows interface can't have a few themes available for various tastes.

Ignoring the unpopularity of Metro itself, Microsoft was probably in a difficult situation. The new interface doesn't support themes in any meaningful manner. I suspect a large factor are design decisions. Yet new software often lacks features of its more mature counterparts, simply because they have to ship a product in a timely manner. Seeming as Metro is flat and has lots of sharp corners, the traditional desktop had to look the same. If it didn't, people would be criticizing Windows for a lack of consistency. Even if they shipped the current theme as the default and allowed people to change the appearance of the traditional desktop, people would be criticizing the lack of consistency between applying themes.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I am pretty sure I did not say or imply that you knew nothing about Windows. I did state or imply that you preferred Linux. This is not a direct correlation that I can see. Again I think you are being too sensitive or perhaps arguing for the sake of arguing. Probably not the case, but seems possible.

I do not believe I was attacking you on a personal, professional or other competency level in any system. Just stating that is was my belief you preferred Linux. Mea culpa for even assuming such a thing. Totally untrue assumption I made probably.

Helen

You are being mendacious again. I am not even going to bother anymore.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

You are being mendacious again. I am not even going to bother anymore.

Pot calling the kettle black here I think.
But I am more than fine with you not bothering.
Helen

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Mivo

I'm actually entertaining the idea to get a Mac, because I never had one. Wanted one in 1993, when the Atari era came to a close and I had to make the jump for professional reasons, but I couldn't afford it, so had to take the Wintel route. Since a lot of the software I use is either open source or has an OS X version also, I'm relatively independent, OS-wise.

Love my Mac. I went Mac two years ago. For a developer, it's a dream machine. I can run Mac, Windows and Linux (the latter 2 via vm) very well. And despite the pretty GUI, the Mac is indeed a Unix OS. Posix compliant, and therefore a true unix...which Linux is not.

And you get far more software and peripheral support. Not as much as windows, but darn close (with peripherals) and far better than linux.