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

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by PatNY

As I said, regardless whether they are separate services, the resources consumed by GWX are so insignificant as to be negligible. Stopping GWX is going to save you 0% CPU and <1mb memory, according to my system. So keeping it enabled is not going to waste "even one cycle" (when inactive, which is most of the time) and won't be"slowing down your computer" (as you put it).

And following that logic, we should activate services for every piece of software in creation. 'cause it's just 1MB (except when it isn't). And then you look at the dozens of services and notice that your computer is crawling at a snail's pace.

If there is no valid reason for a service to exist, how is the negligible impact a valid excuse?

Your logic works for people who don't care about what's on their computer (and usually have a swiss-army-knife collection of all the applications in creation). But to someone who has actually notice the service exists, a MB here and there is morally offensive, not practically offensive.

IOW, you are missing the point, as well as your target audience.

Sure, if you want to do everything manually and IF you remember to do it. I'm not too sure the update will appear if you uninstall GWX. Regardless, since there is really no hit on resources or performance keeping GWX installed and active, I would recommend most people who plan to upgrade keep it -- and not disable it. Or at the very least keep it, even if you want to disable the notifications.

Again, I would venture to say that most of the people who care would prefer to download the update manually rather than keep extraneous services running. Also, the are more likely to be the type to e.g. clean install, keep backup media, etc.

I've also seen a few reports where people uninstalled the update, hid it, and then when they went back into Windows Update to get it back, couldn't find it.

Possibly because they didn't look under "hidden updates"?

I didn't say anyone was "bothered" by the situation. I said someone made a "big issue" of it, which is not necessarily the same thing. Though "big issue" might be a slight overstatement, there were at least 3 posts in this thread (813, 819, and 834) warning about the lack of native DVD support in W8.1/10 and the possible need to have to pay to get that back. I would characterize the 3 posts as at least significant discussion.

I would categorize your categorization of "slight overstatement" as more than a slight overstatement.
And no one made a big issue of it, it simply happened to be mentioned. Inside a discussion where every last little detail gets hashed over endlessly. And the topic was the politics of doing so, e.g. why MS decided to make that change.

The tone of the discussion was plainly focused on its status as a default, preinstalled media player.

The point I was making is this -- the misconception about the possible need to pay for DVD support in W10 was never corrected in any of those 3 posts, and those upgrading to W10 will not have to pay one extra cent if they want it. My post had nothing to do with WMC per se or any other multimedia functions.

--Pat

Consider your point made... by these posts here:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...87#post3118587
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...lc#post3118984
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...lc#post3119290

When you say "the misconception about the possible need to pay for DVD support in W10 was never corrected in any of those 3 posts", you are totally correct... the misconception that none of the participants had was corrected in several posts around the posts you cherry-picked.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And following that logic, we should activate services for every piece of software in creation. 'cause it's just 1MB (except when it isn't). And then you look at the dozens of services and notice that your computer is crawling at a snail's pace.

If there is no valid reason for a service to exist, how is the negligible impact a valid excuse?

Your logic works for people who don't care about what's on their computer (and usually have a swiss-army-knife collection of all the applications in creation). But to someone who has actually notice the service exists, a MB here and there is morally offensive, not practically offensive.

IOW, you are missing the point, as well as your target audience.

No, not at all. Why would one ever want to install software of no value willy nilly just because the performance hit is non-existent or negligible? That's not what I suggested anyone do at all. (And, yes, the resource usage of GWX really is 0% on the CPU and <1mb memory.)

You’re making an incorrect assumption that GWX has no value. I totally disagree. Its value is to (1) help to officially and easily reserve the update and (2) periodically run compatibility checks after initial checks are run to see if there are any conflicts with newly added software or hardware (3) possibly to ensure an automatic and seamless download and installation of the update itself and (4) remind some that the update is imminent so that they can prepare for it, if necessary, and to make the actual W10 update in a timely manner, if desired.

My logic works for anyone who is not overly a techno geek (like some in this thread) and who wants an efficient and easy computing experience without getting bogged down by unnecessary steps that could also be counter-productive. It is not aimed at anyone who finds "morally offensive" <1mb of ram usage for something that may or may not be of value. I can’t even begin to comprehend the mentality of someone who would find something so trivial in life like this to be "morally offensive." No, anyone like that is certainly not my "target audience" as you put it.

Again, I would venture to say that most of the people who care would prefer to download the update manually rather than keep extraneous services running. Also, the are more likely to be the type to e.g. clean install, keep backup media, etc.

If you are talking about those who would find <1mb of potentially unneeded RAM usage "morally offensive" then not only are they in a tiny tiny minority but my comments are not aimed at them. Not at all.

I would categorize your categorization of "slight overstatement" as more than a slight overstatement.
And no one made a big issue of it, it simply happened to be mentioned. Inside a discussion where every last little detail gets hashed over endlessly. And the topic was the politics of doing so, e.g. why MS decided to make that change.

The tone of the discussion was plainly focused on its status as a default, preinstalled media player.

Then we will just have to agree to disagree on that. IMO, it was at most a slight overstatement. And, IMO, your saying this “simply happened to be mentioned” is at least a slight overstatement in itself.

As for the "tone" of the discussion being centered around the default media player, sure. I never said otherwise. That doesn't mean that considerable statements weren't made within the context of that discussion which left the incorrect impression that one might be forced to pay for the ability to play DVDs in W10. Which was what I was trying to clarify.

Consider your point made... by these posts here:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...87#post3118587
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...lc#post3118984
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...lc#post3119290

When you say "the misconception about the possible need to pay for DVD support in W10 was never corrected in any of those 3 posts", you are totally correct... the misconception that none of the participants had was corrected in several posts around the posts you cherry-picked.

None of those posts mention that VLC is free and one doesn't even mention VLC at all. In addition, they all preceded post 834, which I think left the largest misimpression that one might have to pay for DVD playing capabilities in W10. Hence, why I thought it should be clarified/corrected.

--Pat

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Possibly because they didn't look under "hidden updates"?

Here's someone who couldn't find the update once they uninstalled and hid it and who obviously looked for it, since they found the other updates they had previously hidden --

(see first post) http://www.sevenforums.com/windows-u...kb3035583.html

So, my point remains -- once uninstalled and hidden, you might have trouble getting it to appear again in Windows Updates.

--Pat

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by PatNY

...As for the "tone" of the discussion being centered around the default media player, sure. I never said otherwise. That doesn't mean that considerable statements weren't made within the context of that discussion which left the incorrect impression that one might be forced to pay for the ability to play DVDs in W10. Which was what I was trying to clarify.

None of those posts mention that VLC is free and one doesn't even mention VLC at all. In addition, they all preceded post 834, which I think left the largest misimpression that one might have to pay for DVD playing capabilities in W10. Hence, why I thought it should be clarified/corrected.

As the author of post 834 I need to point out to you that you have lost entirely the point and direction of the discussion regarding DVD playing.

The discussion regarding DVD playing was initiated by the loss of Windows Media Center in Windows 10 (and indeed in Windows 8.x too). Prior to post 834 I had pointed out that Microsoft have stated that they will be providing a solution for playing DVDs in lieu of WMC (as they claim DVD playing was now the major use of WMC and the rest of its functionality little used in comparison) and I commented that "As there was for Windows Media Centre (although it has been free in some instances), I would not be surprised if there was a small charge" (post 814).

That comment regarding the possibility of (as far as I know MS have not said that there will be) a small charge was very clearly directed at the solution that MS itself provides in lieu of WMC.

Furthermore, in my post 834, which you claim makes the "the largest misimpression that one might have to pay for DVD playing capabilities in W10", there is no inference or claim whatsoever that there are no free alternatives for playing DVDs. The only references to cost are made specifically to that of the inclusion of the MS provided functionality in Windows itself. The "misimpression" is entirely a construct of your own.

You seem to have misrepresented the discussion by myself and a number of others, which was specifically about MS's provision with Windows itself (WMP) or as an add-on (WMC) by MS for playing media and the mentioning that WMC was not free and the possibility that there may be a charge for WMC's "successor" (for playing DVDs only), as meaning that there were no non MS free solutions.

It worthwhile to point out that I am sure most of us are aware that there are other free popular non MS solutions for playing DVDs (and other media); VLC, with which you seem to have an emotional attachment is not the only choice. In fact, I would suggest that one would be well advised to consider the alternatives to VLC (especially if one's main objective is playing DVDs); there is much guidance on the internet as to the various free solutions people may choose from so I need add nothing to that.

Please note that I will not be responding to any further claims by yourself regarding the above, my comments above standing as fact. I have better things to do than be drawn into a tiresome backwards and forwards with you along the lines your recent posts with another has demonstrated is likely.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Please note that I will not be responding to any further claims by yourself regarding the above, my comments above standing as fact. I have better things to do than be drawn into a tiresome backwards and forwards with you along the lines your recent posts with another has demonstrated is likely.

Don't worry, I am outta this conversation too.

[AnotherCat]

.....

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

You seem to have misrepresented the discussion by myself and a number of others, which was specifically about MS's provision with Windows itself (WMP) or as an add-on (WMC) by MS for playing media and the mentioning that WMC was not free and the possibility that there may be a charge for WMC's "successor" (for playing DVDs only), as meaning that there were no non MS free solutions.

It worthwhile to point out that I am sure most of us are aware that there are other free popular non MS solutions for playing DVDs (and other media); VLC, with which you seem to have an emotional attachment is not the only choice. In fact, I would suggest that one would be well advised to consider the alternatives to VLC (especially if one's main objective is playing DVDs); there is much guidance on the internet as to the various free solutions people may choose from so I need add nothing to that.

Please note that I will not be responding to any further claims by yourself regarding the above, my comments above standing as fact.

I’ve already acknowledged that the larger context of those 3 posts was native DVD playing in W10 via WMP or WMC. I’ve never said otherwise. So I don’t see how I could have mischaracterized the thrust of that conversation. I merely contend – and still do – that the misimpression was left within this context that upgraders to W10 might be required to pay to be able to play DVDs. And NOTHING in post 834 or the other two I pointed out contradicts that thought. These are facts as well. Therefore, I felt the need to clarify that point when I made that short comment many posts back.

As for VLC, I have no emotional attachment to it. That’s a fact too. I simply believe it is one of the best player options out there due to its high reliability, choice of skins, frequent updates, wide compatibility with both a variety of video formats and various Windows OS’s, and the fact it is totally free – no hidden upgrades or costs. But I would be very open to other free options. Since you seem to think there are many other good free options out there, it's too bad you won't be sharing that information with others -- as you said you won't be replying. I'm sure many W10 upgraders would find that information helpful.

Maybe someone else who knows of other good free DVD players can be generous enough to share their thoughts?

--Pat

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Yes, it's not persistent. But here are TWO methods to hide the icon and make it stick if you really want to without having to uninstall the update:

http://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/6...s-7-8-1-a.html

I would not uninstall the update file if you're interested in getting W10 as it might interfere with your ability to download it.

Frankly, I find the icon very unobtrusive. I hardly know it's there. I keep it showing because it reminds me to check up on the progress of W10 and any issues it may have before I take the plunge.

--Patt

The problem is, as you already mention, that it won't stick hidden. And it might be unobtrusive if you've that 24" monitor. But I can tell you it's VERY obtrusive if you've an 8" screen in portrait mode.

And it won't matter that you uninstall the update. You can always re-install the update again. If you want it. I have a big problem with the entire concept of it. I don't want to upgrade to Windows 10 on my tablets, especially not on day 1. From all videos and pictures I've seen, I won't like it. So, I got the notice, but where is the option: I've seen it, no need to remind me again? Maybe I'll update somewhere in May 2016. Which means I'd have been looking at that icon for a whole year for nothing.

About VLC and DVD playing software: we tried VLC. It performed badly on our system. And you had to jump through several hoops (and some of those were very tiny!) to even get blue ray playing working, let alone working decently. So we bought PowerDVD, which incorporates nicely into our Media Center and which allows us to watch DVD's and bluerays from the same application that lets us watch recorded shows.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I don't want to upgrade to Windows 10 on my tablets, especially not on day 1.

You don't have to.

It might have gotten lost in the catfights but there are several posts in this thread that explain that you can download the upgrade but not install it and even convert it into an ISO for installation later. And the posts explain *how* to do either or both things.

Signing up for the update is just a way to get a choice of when and if to upgrade for free.

It's a US$120 savings if you use it at some point and one wasted DVD if not.
Cost-benefit analysis is up to you.

[fjtorres]

More details on the update trickling in:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/microso...tag=TRE17cfd61

On July 2, via a blog post from Terry Myerson, Executive Vice President of the newly combined Windows and Devices Group, Microsoft shared a few more specifics about how it will deliver Windows 10.

Microsoft is closing in on release-to-manufacturing (RTM) and "soon" will get the RTM build to its OEMs, Myerson said. After that, Microsoft will provide retailers with the RTM build so they can get the OS to individuals with recently purchased Windows 8.1 devices. (The image embedded above in this post is the sticker that will be on devices that have been proactively tested with Windows 10.)

The five million Windows Insiders -- those who have been testing Windows 10 for the past several months -- will get Windows 10 on July 29.

After that, Microsoft will deliver Windows 10 in waves. Those who have "reserved" their copies of Windows 10 will be notified "once our compatibility work confirms you will have a great experience, and Windows 10 has been downloaded on your system," according to Myerson.

If Microsoft determines a user's system is "not yet ready for your upgrade," the company will provide more details, such as contact information to enable users to get more details from app developers and device makers

As usual, more at the source.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

The problem is, as you already mention, that it won't stick hidden. And it might be unobtrusive if you've that 24" monitor. But I can tell you it's VERY obtrusive if you've an 8" screen in portrait mode.

And it won't matter that you uninstall the update. You can always re-install the update again. If you want it.

Take a look at the tenforums link I posted above. There are TWO methods for disabling the icon in the notification area which are permanent and don't involve uninstalling the update. They are options 3 & 4. The reg file option couldn't be easier.

Also, take a look at the link to the thread in the sevenforums I posted just above. It has reports from multiple people that they couldn't get the update back in Windows Update once they uninstalled and hid it. They had to download the file separately and install it manually. It's your choice, but personally I prefer the convenience of having everything all ready for update without the need for much intervention.

--Pat

[HarryT]

That's interesting. Sounds as if the upgrade checker looks at what programs you have installed on your PC and checks whether or not they're compatible with Windows 10. That's really good to hear.

[cvkemp]

I was reading this morning that the Windows Insiders, the ones doing the preview testing will be the first to get the full version of Windows 10. Then from there it will be by what it takes to upgrade the different PCs.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sounds as if the upgrade checker looks at what programs you have installed on your PC and checks whether or not they're compatible with Windows 10. That's really good to hear.

Or frightening.
It is *not* a job for an operating system to collect info about programs that I am using. Especially when it didn't ask for permission in advance and when there is not possibility to opt-out.

[HarryT]

It's something I'd expect any upgrade of this type to do. The last thing I want to do is upgrade my o/s and only then discover that my printer or scanner won't work with it. I'd be extremely annoyed if it didn't warn me about incompatible programs or drivers.

ISTR that every Windows upgrade since at least Vista has done a compatibility check.