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

[theducks]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

But AFAIK there is no foolproof way to turn off updates completely in Windows 7. Please enlighten me.

Helen

control Panel: Windows update: (on the sidebar)Change settings: Never (not reccomended)
is one of the choices

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by kacir

by the way, *this* is what proper looks like:
<FUD> I also know how some PCs look after being used on the net by clueless users that open all the "OMG Ponies!" attachments [in mails from like-minded users] and install random crap from the net. </FUD> ;-)

What have clueless users to do with the quality of an OS? Of course if you have a bigger user base, you have more clueless users. And windows tries to help them by making automatic updates the default.

I don't understand why regular updated are considered a bad thing from so many? If you don't use your computer in the internet, just disable them. If you do have a connection, of course you need to be up to date. And at least my windows 7 does not reboot automatically but asked to be rebooted.

I don't know if this would be that painless, but I did upgrade vista to 7 and did not need to reinstall any apps or anything else. It took just around one hour and was very easy. I hope upgrading to 10 will be as painless.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

What have clueless users to do with the quality of an OS?

Nothing.
This is why I have posted that as a demonstration of what actually FUD is ;-)

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

What have clueless users to do with the quality of an OS? Of course if you have a bigger user base, you have more clueless users. And windows tries to help them by making automatic updates the default.

I don't understand why regular updated are considered a bad thing from so many? If you don't use your computer in the internet, just disable them. If you do have a connection, of course you need to be up to date. And at least my windows 7 does not reboot automatically but asked to be rebooted.

I don't know if this would be that painless, but I did upgrade vista to 7 and did not need to reinstall any apps or anything else. It took just around one hour and was very easy. I hope upgrading to 10 will be as painless.

There are a large group of users who just want to use the computer as a tool. And they want the tool to be unchanging (or only changing when they are ready for it to), because they don't want their carefully built reflexes to no longer work.

Newer is not better, merely different, in this day and age. Some times it's worse. Example, WIndows 7 no longer supported 16 bit Legacy applications. A clear design choice made by Microsoft. So? I have 16 bit Legacy programs I wanted to keep. I refured to scrap them, so I never upgraded. But that meant that when my hardware died, (or I wanted new hardware, I would be SOL. So I shifted to Linux. I can install any level of Mint I want, (as long as I keep the repositories - all the tested apps as well). And I virtualized my copy of XP, so i still have all my 16 bit Legacy programs (plus the virtual version boots like lightning).

So I'm not going back to the Microsoft world. I don't exist to feed the upgrade/subscription beasts. YMMV...

[tubemonkey]

To me, a computer without the internet is a worthless device.

I'd switch to Chrome OS, except it doesn't support AudibleManager and OverDrive WMA audiobooks.

[dickloraine]

And what would be the difference to virtualize xp and use windows 7 instead of linux? And windows even tries to be compatible with old code. I can still run some dos era programs on 7. But of course I could understand your user case. It is just very specific and using 16 bit is limiting. Sometimes a company has to take this kind of steps. Adaptation from 32 to 64 was slow also, even if it limited the amount of usable ram. Or look at the mess that was the dos ram allocation, some of that problems were then in win 95 too, because of compatibility.
Unfortunately software and hardware are not for eternity. My advice would always be to save data in a format that is widely used, exportable and convertible. This way you could use your data with whatever program suits you at any given time.

[dickloraine]

And of course there is a distinction between upgrading an os and just updating it.

Originally Posted by dickloraine

And what would be the difference to virtualize xp and use windows 7 instead of linux?

Cost. Linux distributions typically offer free updates, which is important if you want security patches (clearly that does not apply to XP in the VM) and to support new hardware. If the newer application software that you are running is open source, you also have the ability to update that software.

[Mivo]

Windows 8.1 also has the update options, and they work for me. It does not download or install anything unless I manually initiate the download or the installation. Android and iOS have these options too, and it's pretty crucial to me (slow 'net, so I'm picky about those things).

[Dylrob]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

It doesn't surprise me that Windows 10 is going to be free, because it seems that there's somewhat of a lack of interest in updating an OS given the figures still using Win7 (I'm in that): 48.14%, and XP: 28.47%.

That XP figure is extraordinary given that XP came on the market in 1999 (perhaps)?

Why upgrade when what they have still does everything they need it to? Even XP users have little trouble handling the latest web features thanks to continued support by third party browsers.

[Mivo]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Cost. Linux distributions typically offer free updates, which is important if you want security patches (clearly that does not apply to XP in the VM) and to support new hardware. If the newer application software that you are running is open source, you also have the ability to update that software.

Cost is relative if you consider time. I ran ArchLinux (and Ubuntu) for a couple years, and I spent substantially more time on tinkering, tweaking, and fixing than I ever had with a Windows machine.

For a while, that was fun, especially with a rolling release distro like Arch, but it really wasn't efficient, particularly if you wanted current software versions. (The latter applied to Ubuntu also, at least if you didn't only use mainstream programs.) There was also a lot of time spent on learning and re-learning things, which also took time.

Open source software exists for Windows and OS X, too, so the benefits of it are not limited to Linux. As far as hardware compatibility goes, it's very hard to beat Windows. Nearly everything you buy works out of the box, whereas with Linux you have to be very mindful of what you purchase, especially when it comes to more exotic devices (but also wireless chips). I recall spending a LOT of time trying to get a modern (that also means: updated) Linux distro work with a 10 year old laptop that has a propriety wireless chip, whereas Windows had no problems with it at all. That is not Linux's fault, but the manufacturers's, but it's still an issue.

Windows 7 is fairly non-bloated, and many of the modern Linux distros have similar hardware requirements. I'm all for people experiencing different operating systems, though, and I certainly learned a lot from using different flavors of Linux (and it's the obvious choice for a server, too). Choice is a good thing.

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.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

There are a large group of users who just want to use the computer as a tool. And they want the tool to be unchanging (or only changing when they are ready for it to), because they don't want their carefully built reflexes to no longer work.

Newer is not better, merely different, in this day and age. Some times it's worse. Example, WIndows 7 no longer supported 16 bit Legacy applications. A clear design choice made by Microsoft. So? I have 16 bit Legacy programs I wanted to keep. I refured to scrap them, so I never upgraded. But that meant that when my hardware died, (or I wanted new hardware, I would be SOL. So I shifted to Linux. I can install any level of Mint I want, (as long as I keep the repositories - all the tested apps as well). And I virtualized my copy of XP, so i still have all my 16 bit Legacy programs (plus the virtual version boots like lightning).

So I'm not going back to the Microsoft world. I don't exist to feed the upgrade/subscription beasts. YMMV...

Tools need to be sharpened, cleaned and oiled.
Many updates are doing things like that.
Others take care of the Safety recalls.

Do you bin the car, appliance recall notices you get?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

I don't understand why regular updated are considered a bad thing from so many?

Unfortunately Windows updates can crash the computer. Since I got "lucky" and (for a while) had to support relatives' and friends' Windows boxes, I got to see first-hand the results of an update gone bad. That's why, when I still used Windows, I very carefully watched what was going on during an update. And, even when I Windows update went well, often the PC ran slower afterwards. Windows tends to (or at least used to tend to) bloat and the Registry is always growing. I can't speak much for Windows in the last five years -- I've mostly escaped from it now -- thank goodness.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

They have moved to a subscription service for Office 365 which is what I was referring to but I was not specific. Pretty sure I did not say anything specific either about about Windows 10 being subscription based, maybe you can point out where I did?

Of course you are a Linux person from what I gather so not expected to be up to date on Microsoft, and chances are neither am I.

I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that since you were mentioning upgrading Windows, your subscription comment was about Windows itself, not an unrelated topic.

So yes, you should've clarified before assuming "you are a Linux person from what I gather so not expected to be up to date on Microsoft"...

OOH, OOH, looks like I might actually have thought before I spoke, instead of being a clueless non-Windows user.
Who'd'a thunk?

Windows generally allows you to update when you want to, but sometimes there is the random reboot in the middle of the night, which I resent as I sometimes have to get out of bed after the interminable update and put in my password before I can continue watching the TV show or listening to whatever. I resent it furthermore, because Windows is always warning me that software updates are turned off, which is clearly not the case.

Interesting to know that both Linux and Macs have forced or nagging updates. I ran Linux for a while and periodically try it out (last September was the last time) but it just feels rough around the edges for me. I did not encounter any forced or nagging updates, but as this would be, for me, its one redeeming quality, good to know it happens. Not that I hate Linux, just don't like it.

Err, I said they don't nag you. Ubuntu Update Manager for example will IIRC pop up a "Your updates have completed"-style* message as part of the updater GUI (the sparkly download bars, you see ) which will also alert you if "Some updates will not take effect until your PC is rebooted" or some such*. usually, a kernel upgrade will require this.
Then it shuts up.

A command-line updater, like ArchLinux's pacman, or Ubuntu's apt-get backend, won't pop up anything at all, mostly because it often gets run on a headless server...

Additionally, Ubuntu's desktop environment contains code to add a red bar in the dropdown for the logoff/shutdown/account-switcher tray icon, a simple unobtrusive banner that reminds you that some updates will take effect after the next reboot.



Contrast that to Windows, where the reboot is mandatory and pops up annoying timer messages, something that has admittedly gotten less (but still somewhat) offensive in successive Windows versions. And when Windows does reboot, it must "Configure Updates" for obscene periods of time....



Regarding nagging you to perform updates, neither linux nor Mac nor Windows does that to my knowledge. Windows has a tray icon which you can easily hide, or change the options to make it not check automatically. Ubuntu can be set to check automatically, and if so, will display the aforementioned unobtrusive banner, with a different message. (Other distros have their own ways, addons to the desktop -- none are even mandatory.)


* -- I forget the exact language used, simply because I moved on from Ubuntu a long time ago.

Probably you are right about best user experience, but for my situation, I would just as soon my settings didn't transfer unless I wanted them to do so explicitly.


Helen

I agree, that is merely what MS claims is the best user experience. For most people it is in fact irrelevant...

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Mivo

Cost is relative if you consider time. I ran ArchLinux (and Ubuntu) for a couple years, and I spent substantially more time on tinkering, tweaking, and fixing than I ever had with a Windows machine.

ArchLinux is a "tinkerer's" dream. I ran it and -- when I got it all set up the way I wanted -- I thought, "why did I waste that much time?" Linux Mint, on the other hand, literally installs in about 20 minutes, and that includes almost all the applications I use and all the codecs, and add-ons, like Flash, Java, etc., -- that a Windows' install requires AFTER installing the OS, installing and configuring all the applications and drivers, updating the OS and updating the applications and drivers. And don't forget about the ten or so reboots that it requires. Once you've got that done, then be sure to find and install your malware applications, and be sure you keep them up to date. I just don't have the time or patience for Windows' maintenance.

But I understand what you mean about ArchLinux or Gentoo. At one time I may have enjoyed learning and using those distributions, now I just want an OS to load and use -- even if it's not "tuned" to the gnat's eyebrow for my machine (like it might be with ArchLinux or Gentoo). That's why I use Linux Mint, it's simple with almost no maintenance.