Windows 10 worse than windows 8

[JDobbsy1987]

I see that as a great approach Greg, it would feel like a much more natural approach to the app culture for users that would more than likely ignore it.

 

[whs]

I would never use an MS mail app. I use AOL since day 1 and never lost a mail. I can still retrieve my mail from 2007 and need not use any storage space on my machine. Same with Gmail. If I think of all these poor suckers that lost their mail when going from one system to another I think I did the right thing.

 

[JDobbsy1987]

I don't use the MS Mail App, i just go to GMail myself but why would using the MS Mail App cause you to lose mail?
Wouldn't it just reference whatever account you normally use such as AOL, GMail, Yahoo etc...?

 

[whs]

If it can reference my current mails, then OK. I guess I have to try that.

 

[Boozad]

I just stick to Outlook personally, although the Mail app has worked fine for me as it auto synced to my Outlook account after me logging into W10 for the first time.

 

[Kari]

Unfortunately by giving it away they are pointing to the intention to double down on the Store model where apps are rented and I don't think people will pay for them, not their billion+ desktop customers who are trained and set in the Windows model.

Please someone explain this to me: quite a lot of these users who see the Windows Store as the Big Evil Who Brings The World To The End, in their Android and iOS phones and tablets see the same totally natural and acceptable.

Android: You need to use a Google account, if you need apps you search the Google store and if the app you want to is not free, you pay for it.

Windows 8 and later: You need an MS account but only if you want to use Windows Store, if you need apps you search the Windows store and if the app you want to is not free, you pay for it. The similarities end there: In addition, you can completely forget the store and download / buy desktop apps as in XP or Seven and use them, without any whatsoever account needed.

How is that in Android that is OK although Google tries everything they can to force you to use Google Play, but when Windows offers the Store as an additional feature which you may but are not forced to use, it's The Sign Of The Devil?

I would never use an MS mail app. I use AOL since day 1 and never lost a mail. I can still retrieve my mail from 2007 and need not use any storage space on my machine. Same with Gmail. If I think of all these poor suckers that lost their mail when going from one system to another I think I did the right thing.

Wolfgang, Windows Mail App uses IMAP and Exchange protocols. Both are similar in the way they handle the messages: they are stored on server. Setting up the Mail app in a new Windows 8 or later computer it retrieves all your mail, however old it may be as long as it still exists on server, if you want to. Of course you can only select for instance to show only last weeks messages in the app if you want to and then when you want to get the old ones, too, just change the settings.

 

[whs]

Thanks Kari for the clarification. But I think I stick with what I have and know that it works from all my different Windows PCs, tablet, phone and my Android tablet. Has worked since 2007 and will probably work for the rest of my life.

 

[gregrocker]

Ironically, Kari, I think it is my hand-me-down Iphone3 that got me inclined toward certain apps like their all-in-one popped Mail app and a few others. So sure I think the modern app culture will all accelerate this, but that MS just tried too fast in 8 to push it on a billion+ desktop users.

I also think I could live perfectly fine without any apps, but once I saw all five of my webmail boxes popped together in a nice GUI, it was an immediately useful timesaver. Then I got spoiled by the popups for new mail on my desktop while that feature of Windows 10 Mail was still working.

 

[Dude]

Unfortunately by giving it away they are pointing to the intention to double down on the Store model where apps are rented and I don't think people will pay for them, not their billion+ desktop customers who are trained and set in the Windows model.

Please someone explain this to me: quite a lot of these users who see the Windows Store as the Big Evil Who Brings The World To The End, in their Android and iOS phones and tablets see the same totally natural and acceptable.

Android: You need to use a Google account, if you need apps you search the Google store and if the app you want to is not free, you pay for it.

Windows 8 and later: You need an MS account but only if you want to use Windows Store, if you need apps you search the Windows store and if the app you want to is not free, you pay for it. The similarities end there: In addition, you can completely forget the store and download / buy desktop apps as in XP or Seven and use them, without any whatsoever account needed.

How is that in Android that is OK although Google tries everything they can to force you to use Google Play, but when Windows offers the Store as an additional feature which you may but are not forced to use, it's The Sign Of The Devil?

I would never use an MS mail app. I use AOL since day 1 and never lost a mail. I can still retrieve my mail from 2007 and need not use any storage space on my machine. Same with Gmail. If I think of all these poor suckers that lost their mail when going from one system to another I think I did the right thing.

Wolfgang, Windows Mail App uses IMAP and Exchange protocols. Both are similar in the way they handle the messages: they are stored on server. Setting up the Mail app in a new Windows 8 or later computer it retrieves all your mail, however old it may be as long as it still exists on server, if you want to. Of course you can only select for instance to show only last weeks messages in the app if you want to and then when you want to get the old ones, too, just change the settings.

Kari, I agree with you. I read over and over how people don't want to change what they have. They accept change in so many ways, but once MS does it with an OS it becomes evil. To me it is just a matter of adapting to how you get to your end point so to say. It may be a little different, but it is the same.

For all the W7 users I mean no offense, but come on, you are holding on to old ways the same as XP users did. A lot of the old XP holdouts are the same ones that are now W7 hold outs. It is the same argument, I don't want change, I like how it is with my current OS.

It's an OS...adapt to the change and make it work for you, the newer OS's are better. I love W7, but W8.1 is better after using it. It takes time to get past the learning curve, but once you do you will see what I mean. end of rant

 

[whs]

There are two conflicting forces. One is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and the other is "If it is new, it must be better". The art is to find the middle way.

 

[gregrocker]

To compare Win7 users - many millions of who just migrated to it when XPired - to XP users not wanting to accept change is a bit askew to me. XP was showing its age badly and when compared to Windows 7 was like pulling up in a Model T (OK a Ford Fairlaine) next to a Lexus. You can hardly compare that Lexus to a product which flopped so badly it was just short of being a Saturday Night Live parody, disdained by every tech reporter on every continent, and which brought down the CEO of the company calling into question its very future. Windows 10 is an attempt to bridge the divide and my money is still on it succeeding, but it will not do so at all by calling out billions of happy Windows 7 users as somehow suddenly troglodytes. I just came back to it after five months solid 10 use and I am not seeing any age at all, whereas at this point in XP's tenure it was almost needing to be hand cranked.

 

[Dude]

There are two conflicting forces. One is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and the other is "If it is new, it must be better". The art is to find the middle way.

I agree with the logic there, but I don't say it's because it is new, I just think it is better. I base that upon adapting, I found the middle way in my opinion.

To compare Win7 users - many millions of who just migrated to it when XPired - to XP users not wanting to accept change is a bit askew to me. XP was showing its age badly and when compared to Windows 7 was like pulling up in a Model T (OK a Ford Fairlaine) next to a Lexus. You can hardly compare that Lexus to a product which flopped so badly it was just short of being a Saturday Night Live parody, disdained by every tech reporter on every continent, and which brought down the CEO of the company calling into question its very future. Windows 10 is an attempt to bridge the divide and my money is still on it succeeding, but it will not do so at all by calling out billions of happy Windows 7 users as somehow suddenly troglodytes. I just came back to it after five months solid 10 use and I am not seeing any age at all, whereas at this point in XP's tenure it was almost needing to be hand cranked.

I agree with the part where you said "Windows 10 is an attempt to bridge the divide"

Both of you are people I hold in high regard, I just think that the new OS is better.

I agree to disagree. I do still think W7 is a great OS, but I have got past what I did not like about 8.1, I adapted to it and now feel it is better. I think 10 will be even better

 

[Kari]

There are two conflicting forces. One is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and the other is "If it is new, it must be better". The art is to find the middle way.

That's quite a black and white way to see this. In my opinion there are also the multiple shades of grey (no pun intended, no reference to the book). The opposing forces really see only the black, they are "forced" to use this and do that when in reality nobody is forcing them to do anything.

But on the defending side there are a lot of variations in opinions, those shades of grey. For me and many other users Microsoft has done excellent job and is doing better and better with every new build, but there are also those who had some antipathy first but after they decided to forget to oppose only for the sake of change, they have slowly changed their opinion.

In all its simplicity, Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 can be made to look and feel like Windows 7, they run the same desktop software than Windows 7, they can be used without any whatsoever cloud services, they do not need any cloud accounts to be created and there's absolutely no need to use any of the modern apps, apart of that the Control Panel is moving towards the PC Settings app. Anyway, the PC Settings app does not require a Microsoft Account nor does it connect the user to the cloud anymore than Control Panel in Windows XP. It's just a more versatile and includes more settings in easy to find and use integrated app than Control Panel.

It never ceases to amaze me how paradoxical approach so many users have to this new Windows. They use Steam, a cloud based system for their gaming when not gaming with XBox using their Steam or XBox gamer accounts, they install apps to their Android devices and iPads and iPhones from respective stores totally accepting that they need to use a Google or Apple account for this. They listen their music from a cloud like Spotify, they share their data using clouds like DropBox, they watch their movies from Netflix cloud and so on.

Then arrives a new OS which allows you to use an online account if you so decide and wish, but also totally accepts if you don't want to use the cloud services and use an online account on your device. This is suddenly not accepted, they keep telling how Microsoft is "forcing" them to cloud when in reality it's the only one of the big players which totally let's you decide, cloud or no cloud.

I just wish I could find some logics in all of this.

 

[Dude]

I just came back to it after five months solid 10 use and I am not seeing any age at all, whereas at this point in XP's tenure it was almost needing to be hand cranked.

And 10 is not done yet as this is a preview we are talking about.

Think back Greg, was there not a day where you held XP in high regard? That is the point I am trying to make. 7 clearly won you over with it's improvement, I think 10 will too.

 

[whs]

That's quite a black and white way to see this. In my opinion there are also the multiple shades of grey

Kari, of course there is grey. That's what I call the middle way. Everybody has to make his/her own list of desirable features of the new system and decide on that basis. I don't think we can make a 'one fits all' recommendation.

Sometimes it is little things that may keep you from changing. Like right now the High Contrast Theme is not fully implemented in W10. That is the main reason that I cannot really fully explore it because all of that new UI stuff in settings I cannot decipher. I have hopes that they will fix that because it works great in 8.1. But if they don't W10 is out of the question for me.

There is even high Contrast in Chrome. This is how this posting looks on my screen.

 

[Night Hawk]

To compare Win7 users - many millions of who just migrated to it when XPired - to XP users not wanting to accept change is a bit askew to me. XP was showing its age badly and when compared to Windows 7 was like pulling up in a Model T (OK a Ford Fairlaine) next to a Lexus. You can hardly compare that Lexus to a product which flopped so badly it was just short of being a Saturday Night Live parody, disdained by every tech reporter on every continent, and which brought down the CEO of the company calling into question its very future. Windows 10 is an attempt to bridge the divide and my money is still on it succeeding, but it will not do so at all by calling out billions of happy Windows 7 users as somehow suddenly troglodytes. I just came back to it after five months solid 10 use and I am not seeing any age at all, whereas at this point in XP's tenure it was almost needing to be hand cranked.

XP was the EDSEL of MS flop II to follow ME which many didn't find as bad as the rep that one got! It was just that 2000 and 2000 Pro took on a better flavor with NT being brought into the home user desktop. XP was a rush job that still flopped after SP3 was out since the original coding errors and age correctly place it in a museum! MS made a few goobers with Vista by dropping Fat support now seen with every hand held with room for an SD or TD type memory card or usb port. It was also loaded up with a bit too many services while 7 saw the fat being trimmed and the 32bit 7 offering Backward compatibiliy for XP apps that lacked in Vista. In most cases you never need the compatibility mode in the 32bit 7.

Now as far as downloading the second 10 preview I got in ISO format in one shot. Didn't need any conversion to iso from the other when not choosing the upgrade over the present OS link but going for the dvd image for either x32 or x64 downloads.

As for 8 and 8.1 that was the great experiment of MS's trying to work out what would be needed for a multi platform OS now that hand helds have overwhelmed the market place while desktop sales slumped. I figured as usual it would take a few versions to work out the bugs and still be able to satisfy each platform(Start Menu returns! while not so pleasant with Start screen tiles now seen there! taking up half the screen in the process). The new looks as far as not seeing 7 as the retiree has to do with what went on "under the hood" compared to Vista first bringing in the Aero themes vs Classic. The secure boot where only the latest is seen as a valid OS unless added in by the Win8, 8.1, and now 10 installer compared to how much easier it is to set up multi-booting with 7 in contrast.

But like Metro was the reject from 7 users NT was the reject at first from the old 98SE users when 2000 and XP were first seen. ME still carried on with FAT32 back then but didn't bring in the improved FS as well as security. But don't worry any XP floundered there substantially with every root kit and malware that could be thought up. XP grew in popularity with everybody asking each other how to fix it!

 

[whs]

I did not have any trouble adjusting to 8 and 8.1. Yes the UI was a bit unusual at first, but after a few days of exploring I had no problems. Where I still see problems is with UEFI and secure boot. It is a real bitch to use all my old tools on those UEFI systems.

I have one laptop where the BIOS does not offer legacy mode. There is is impossible to boot e.g. a Linux from a USB stick - I am talking about a running persistent Linux system on a stick. Since weeks I try to figure out how to install a UEFI Linux on a stick but have still not managed.

 

[ThrashZone]

If UEFI bios is a minimum requirement my decision is already made for me "Not compatible"
I can continue to play with Linux and forget about 10.

 

[gregrocker]

After a rough adjustment period, there is not a problem any longer with UEFI BIOS. I handle multiple cases of these here per day and have only had one I recall in a year's time that couldn't get installed to UEFI.. Firmware just had to catch up and it seems to have all done so. So it just take a little patience, getting the settings and any flash installer correct.

 

[DavidE]

I'm curious, have you tried the latest WTP build, and what do you think ?

I did a clean install with the latest build in VMware Player and it performs much better than my previous WTP VM that has been updated since the original WTP release.

My biggest problem really is running in a VM, it's not the same as a bare metal install.
For me the newer versions of VMware Player don't play nice for me with screen resolution ...

When i have to scroll up/down and left/right to see the Desktop, i get annoyed and lose interest ...
I found a VMware setting change that i never needed before works when i view the Guest (WTP) in full screen ...
In some ways i feel using an older version of VMware Player works better for ME.
It auto adjusted screen resolution depending on how I was viewing and changed to correctly adjust what i see ...