Why Upgrade to Windows 10?

[Windows Sniper]

Workarounds is not the point,
The point is the default install and easy to find options,

Why is M$ throwing users to the third party wolves.

They are not, they are just taking the software in a direction that they feel will improve it.

If your issue is with the default installation and usage, you are the same as every user that went from XP to 7... You are not familiar with it, so you reject it.

You should know from how much work we do here, that there are lots of things you can do with Windows 7, and I won't hesitate to guess that a lot of that functionality is also present in Windows 10.

We just need to figure out how to do it.

 

[Boozad]

The Windows 10 OOB experience is much closer to 7 than 8 was. The Start menu does exactly the same thing as 7's does, it just looks different. In fact it offers more than the Start menu in 7. I've seen nothing touch related in 10 so far and have added absolutely no third party programs he it still works like my 7 install, and I've spent about the same amount of time setting it up as I did 7.

I do feel that people who claim 10 is the same as 8 and that it is 'useless on a desktop' haven't even given it a proper chance.

 

[nt62]

... I've seen nothing touch related in 10 so far ...

I like 10 and will keep a copy of it on a separate SSD. At some point, it may be necessary to use 10.
10 is a touch OS. It will be installed on phones, tablets, and touch lappies. The next Surface will use 10. The controls and pinned programs in 10 are designed for touch. The new "notifications" area is designed for touch. The personalization options are all designed for touch. Tablet mode is designed for touch.

Why upgrade to 10? It's a good idea. I wouldn't toss out a working copy or image of 7 however.
The difference between 8 and 10 is immersion. 10 is always on the desktop. 8 uses an immersive menu. Under the hood improvements are important. Performance improvements are important.
Not really sure what functionality dx12 brings to the table. It's obvious 10 handles memory better. Explorer functions are better in 10 but 7 still works great.

There are touch apps in 10 that cannot be uninstalled. (camera - photos - store - etc...)

 

[Windows Sniper]

There are touch apps in 10 that cannot be uninstalled. (camera - photos - store - etc...)

This is the only problem I have with the new Windows, however by disabling the service and stopping them from being opened you barely notice them being there.

Out of sight, out of mind.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I know it doesn't look clunky and dated like Windows 7.

I'm afraid that's a matter of personal opinion. I feel the square, flat look of Win 8.x and Win 10 with no shading and shadowing dates back to earlier times (look at screen shots from the old AOL, for example) and tend to blend in with each other, making looking over a monitor with a lot going on far more difficult. The icons in Win 10 look far more primitive and waste more screen real estate than they do in Win 7, the very definition of klunky You can resize icons in Win 7 pretty much to your heart's content; I like the ones on my desktop, on the start menu, and in my taskbar as small as possible.

 

[groze]

All,
I have a few issues with windows 10, the dvd player feature being removed and I don't have windows media center. Didn't keep my grey theme I have with windows 7-I did an upgrade test. The last W10 preview seems to run slower and the boot time is very slow.

Microsoft Legal needs to get on the ball and define what a life cycle of a device is? I read comments here and on news articles & other forums people are not wanting to upgrade to 10 until that is defined so a laymen can understand it. I also notice in those postings, some people want reassured from an official source that after upgrading windows 10 will never become subscription based. It didn't help that concern when Microsoft bought the windows365 domain. Right now a lot is just hearsay or people opinions or concerns.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

In the cases that most of you are referencing are aesthetics.

I moved from Windows 7 to 8 purely for the performance increase that it offers, and yes there are huge performance benefits. However i've modded my Windows8 to be aesthetically the same as windows 7.

So long as that option is there, no matter if it is third party or vendor, I will most likely move to 10.

You can moan all you like about the Tiles / Metro / Charms, what you don't realise is that you can disable most of them through the registry anyway. If you are looking for a system that brings performance increases and functionality (DX12), then surely you can take the time to learn how to personalise the machine to you?

Also, as a point the Charms bar does not exist in Win10 desktop, however it can be accessed through touchsmart media by swiping still.

Heck, i've got Facial recognition on my Win8 desktop which has been added as a default in Win10 with Hello!


Stop looking at the things you can change, and start looking at the work that MS has actually done under the hood.


Have a read through of Windows 10 vs Windows 7: Should you upgrade? and it will actually highlight some decent improvements compared to Windows 7, a few were available in Win8 but those have also been improved.

Aesthetics can make a huge difference to how long one can work without tiring. As far as having to bother with making changes to something to make it look like something you already have, why bother? Why not just keep what you already have?

Improved performance doesn't always equate with increased productivity. What is the point of a machine that boots a bit faster if you don't reboot often (my desktop runs 24/7)? It's like comparing a car used to commute to work and get groceries that is powerful enough to do 120 mph when the roads you drive on most of the time have speed limits of 45 mph or less. There is also the perception of speed changes depending on the baseline speed. If took, say, one minute to save a file and you were able to halve that amount of time, that change would seem pretty dramatic. However, if it took one second to save a file and you were able to halve that, the change would be nowhere nearly as noticeable, if you even noticed it at all.

Many people like to have the latest and greatest. They live for more bells and whistles. Others like to get something that meets their needs without a lot of tinkering, then stay with it because they are comfortable with it and because it costs less (and, often, they like the appearance better than a newer model). I delayed moving from XP because I would have had to also replace a very expensive program ($600 although it would have cost me $400 to upgrade; I eventually was able to upgrade for considerably less due to a special offer I received), a perfectly good scanner and a laser printer because they weren't compatible with Vista, and, later Win 7. Once I got the special offer to upgrade the program at far less cost and the printer and scanner had been replaced due to old age. I completed the upgrades to Win 7, about a year before XP's EOL (I had already been using Win 7 on a notebook six months before I replaced my desktop computer and put Win 7 on it).

When I got my first Win 7 machine, I was expecting a huge learning curve. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised to find I could hit the ground running when I first fired it up and was pretty much able to use it with hardly any trouble. There was a learning curve (heck, I'm still learning) but not a crippling one. The first time I used a Win 8 machine, I had no clue how to do anything with it short of hitting the on switch. I had to be tutored to learn how to use it and I never overcame the feeling of awkwardness with it (in fact, the week I had to use that machine was the longest decade of my life).

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

...If your issue is with the default installation and usage, you are the same as every user that went from XP to 7... You are not familiar with it, so you reject it...

That just simply isn't true. I had no trouble going from XP to Win 7 once I resolved some expensive hardware and software incompatibility issues. Most people I know that eventually made the switch said the same thing. The jump from Win 7 is far more dramatic and, for most people, with little gain.

 

[strollin]

I find it interesting that people like the Win 10 Start menu but hate the Win 8 Start screen. IMO, they aren't that much different. The major difference is that the Start screen in Win 8 is full screen as opposed to the Windowed, resizable menu of Win 10. Personally, I don't use either one.

Many people whined about how much they hated the tiles and Metro or Modern apps. Those haven't gone away in Win 10.

I really don't see Win 10 as an improvement over Win 8. I use Win 8.1 everyday on a non-touch system and never understood why some people claim Win 8 is too touch centric, I have zero problems using Win 8 with mouse and keyboard. I don't plan to upgrade any of my eligible Win 7 or Win 8.1 machines to Win 10 as I see no advantage to it. I probably won't have Win 10 until I build/buy a new machine.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I find it interesting that people like the Win 10 Start menu but hate the Win 8 Start screen. IMO, they aren't that much different. The major difference is that the Start screen in Win 8 is full screen as opposed to the Windowed, resizable menu of Win 10. Personally, I don't use either one...

Actually, that size difference is what many people do not like. You can fewer entries on the start screen because of size of the tiles opposed to a simple menu listing. Also, the tiles are organized alphabetically going horizontally (unless you reorganize it, of course), which is much harder to peruse alphabetically than a vertical list since you eye has to move over the entire entry (and tile) to get to the next one whereas with a simple vertical list, all one needs to look at is the first letter or two before moving immediately to the next entry.

Also, every picture I've seen of Win 10's start menu has larger icons and more space between each entry that what one can have on Win 7's start menu. Win 7's start menu more efficiently uses screen real estate than Win 10's.

...Many people whined about how much they hated the tiles and Metro or Modern apps. Those haven't gone away in Win 10...

True but, in many cases, you can get rid of them in Win 10, I believe by replacing them with a shortcut. I'm just too lazy to do that when I already have an OS that I don't need to do that in.

 

[Boozad]

Actually, that size difference is what many people do not like. You can fewer entries on the start screen because of size of the tiles opposed to a simple menu listing.

Not if you resize the tiles to Small like in my Programs here or at the top of Office. Plus I can still drag the Start menu bigger again if I wanted. I can fit way more on here than in my 7 Start menu. Not dissing 7, I love it, but 10's Start menu does offer more.

​

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Those are still huge compared to the entries on the lists on my start menu and the icons on my desktop and taskbar. One thing I do have to say for Win 10's start menu is one can resize it by simply dragging a side.

 

[ThrashZone]

Yep your right nothing touch centric about that

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Yep your right nothing touch centric about that

:roflmao: In all fairness you can use a mouse instead of your finger on the tiles, which is probably where Gav is coming from. Some people like the tiles; I'm not one of them. Heck, I'm not overly fond of icons!

 

[Boozad]

Those are still huge compared to the entries on the lists on my start menu and the icons on my desktop and taskbar. One thing I do have to say for Win 10's start menu is one can resize it by simply dragging a side.

They're really not that big. I don't like big icons but these are fine by me personally, they may look bigger as I only snapped a part of the screen. The taskbar icons are no bigger than in 7, in fact given the actual button area they're smaller.

​

 

[ThrashZone]

I find it interesting that people like the Win 10 Start menu but hate the Win 8 Start screen. IMO, they aren't that much different. The major difference is that the Start screen in Win 8 is full screen as opposed to the Windowed, .

I agreed with John that in 8.1 the start screen is good and I might have been able to live with that,

Except for the fact I already paid for start8 which so did he
I actually prefer it over the new start menu of 10tp
If it weren't for all of the charms bars 8.1 would be okay,

I find Bing integration offensive in either but especially in 10tp it is on steroids.

 

[Boozad]

Yep your right nothing touch centric about that

I've never touched my monitor once. Except to clean it.

 

[ThrashZone]

Yep your right nothing touch centric about that

I've never touched my monitor once. Except to clean it.

That is actually a very good point,
I don't have any screens that are touch capable
Windows know it and installs a touch centric interface anyway.

 

[Boozad]

I give up. I'll unsubscribe from here.

 

[essenbe]

You know, the big complaint about Windows 8 was it did not give many choices. Now Windows 10 does give you choices and everyone wants to complain about that.