I'm a massive convert. I went from being a bleeding-edge upgrader, to holding out all 5 (6?) of my systems to Win7 for the past several years. But Windows10? I've already got the insider preview running on two systems, and I l-o-v-e, love it.
The one fear I've got is that I'm holding out hope that MS won't be overly restrictive with customizations. I'm hoping they really open up and allow modders to do exciting things with tiles and the start menu, rather than locking it in too tightly.
Windows 8.1 is tolerable if you install a start menu replacement, like Classic Shell. But even Win10 requires such hacks. The new Start menu is not quite there yet.
One issue I have with the new menu is that it's not possible to move the "Metro" apps to sub-folders in the All Apps section. Classic Win32 apps can be moved around and tucked neatly in sub-categories just like in Windows 7 and before. This is a pain in the ass, because the only categorization for "Metro" apps is alphabetical, with separators by letter. Each entry is this list takes more space than they did in Win7. A flat list like this makes the scrolling annoying.
Classic Shell solves this neatly by separating "Metro" and Win32 apps in different sub-menus, and if I never want to see the "Metro" stuff, I can simply remove that part.
If Classic Shell is still needed, there's no reason for me to upgrade, so I'll stick with Win8.1 on my gaming rig, at least until I really, really need Directx 12.
Why do you say 'tolerable'? That implies that you wouldn't be able to use it without that? I've never understood that because windows 8 is not the worst windows to come out and it isn't hard to use at all. I'm glad stuff has been changing around in it and not stayed exactly the same as it had been for 10 years, that would be boring.
Exactly. I wanted Win8.1 for my gaming rig because it has better handling of SSDs and dual monitors, but the start screen is a hassle I'm not willing to put up with, specially on a 27" non-touch display.
I could tolerate it if it was possible to pin it to a specific monitor (my secondary is a smaller 24" that sits on the side) BUT have the applications open on the main display, but Windows 8 doesn't do that, applications open on the same display of the start screen, requiring them to be moved around.
I've run windows 8 since release and 8.1 since release and I spend almost no time in those menus? I just don't understand how it is that big of a hassle. You literally click one button and you are on the desktop and don't have to worry about it at all.
Ive heard good things thus far. Given their history im holding out until SP1 (or an equivalent) and the inevitable bugs get worked out. Been burned too many times in the past to overlook MS' history of major OS releases.
They say this, but its unproven, and the models they have built and their customers have adhered to will likely determine that course of action.
Microsoft hardly tests and QA's their monthly updates. Service packs and the whatnot helped reduce this overhead for companies supporting the windows OS.
Its likely fine for consumer use but in a business setting things change a bit. I hope they manage it great, but im not going to be on the bleeding edge given the shaky release history.
Even with them ditching patch Tuesday as a method, companies will still run releases on a schedule with WSUS/SCCM/LanDesk etc for version and QC.
Service packs in the past were tested and vetted much more than simple updates and in a lot of cases included essential updates that were already released. they may call them something different, but they have a lot of companies that use their OS, and they need to be able to continue to meet their needs.
You're definitely preaching to the choir, here. I don't trust anything Microsoft does out of the box. I'm not comfortable until they release a service pack with all of the updates necessary to create a stable system. My point is simply that Microsoft has said they're not doing service pack updates for 10, nor are they planning to release any new versions of Windows. They're simply going to push out periodic updates to patch and upgrade things they feel need fixing as they come along.
How this works out for them remains to be seen. I don't have much faith in Microsoft architecture.
I think they are definitely in a bad spot overall. In their search for stability they have found trouble dealing with the bloat of their code.
Products like Exchange are good examples of this. They have started releasing them every few years, but many companies rely on email so heavily, and Exchange patching being so finicky and break prone that many companies just got to 2010, skipping 2007 altogether (the last two I worked for included).
And these, even on their "new" email system are already outdated by almost two versiosn. and due to their inability to support the code and bloat that comes from version to version a 2003 ->2013 upgrade isn't possible. So how do they fix that? How do they instill confidence in companies that you don't need an Exchange Certified Master to help with an version upgrade?
The same can be said for server and workstation releases but on a issue of scale and version control. To this day we have 1 or 2 2012R2 servers but still rely on 2008R2 and 7 at our core. I still have some 2003 boxes im decomming and it has be a pretty big pain to get through some of these upgrades with vendors. I don't want the headache of support 7, 8, 8.1, 10, 2008, 2008 R2, 2012, 2012R2, and whatever 10's server version is.... That's like 8 different code bases and software compatibilities I have to support. So what do we do? We trim the fat, 7 and 2008R2 only. We have a few 8.1 (surface testing)/2012R2 (Few enhancements like DHCP replication) and may consider a move to 10 when the EOL 7/2008R2.
install (risky) third-party software to change up how our OS works and feels?
The later statement negates the earlier. Compare MacOS x Windows, iOS x Android and all of them versus Debian, Arch or Mint Linux. The simple fact that I CAN install third party apps to change the look and feel (example, I use Nova Launcher on my Android phone and Classic Shell on my Windows gaming rig) implies that I have such freedom. As a contrast, Apple's OSes usually don't give me such option (I may be wrong about MacOS, thou).
Yes, it's risky, but it's entirelly optional. It's not that Windows Vista,7,8, 10 or whatever are broken, it's just that it's impossible to please everyone. For people who needs or wants, it's good to have a choice. Just make sure restore points and backups are up to date and go for it.
I think what /u/Divergence0 was saying is that we should be given these tools in the first place. I shouldn't have to sneak into a registry and replace a hidden file to change my Windows 7 lock screen. It should be an administrator option from the start. Similarly, changing my Start button or installing gadgets that are even remotely useful require strange "hacks" as well. We shouldn't have to break into the operating system to change something as harmless as an icon.
Well, I can understand open source OSes like Debian having all those tools, after all it's maintained by volunteers. For Microsoft, shipping several different desktops, menu styles and tinkering tools comes with a cost. I'm happy that they at least make the OS flexible enough that I can use a third party tool to change the corner cases that'll make it better to me.
Keep in mind that ALL OSes comes with the same limitations, even the open source ones. Both BSDs and Linux distributions are a core set of tools (GNU OS for Linux and BSD tools for the others) complemented by a HUGE library of third party stuff. Same goes for Windows, MacOS, Android, etc.
Like I said, it's impossible to please everyone, and I don't expect OS makers to try, I just like that with some I have the freedom to change it. Linux gives more freedom to do so than Windows, Windows more that MacOS, that's all.
I shouldn't have to sneak into a registry and replace a hidden file to change my Windows 7 lock screen. It should be an administrator option from the start.
Yeah, SOME issues like that are harder to accept, though it can be explained. I believe some restrictions or hidden settings in Windows are there to please OEMs, so they can customize it with their images and logos in a way that'll be hard for an end user to change. OK, it's a dick move from MS and the OEMs, but let's be honest, it's a corner case.
I'm a massive convert. I went from being a bleeding-edge upgrader, to holding out all 5 (6?) of my systems to Win7 for the past several years. But Windows10? I've already got the insider preview running on two systems, and I l-o-v-e, love it.
The one fear I've got is that I'm holding out hope that MS won't be overly restrictive with customizations. I'm hoping they really open up and allow modders to do exciting things with tiles and the start menu, rather than locking it in too tightly.
Windows 8.1 is tolerable if you install a start menu replacement, like Classic Shell. But even Win10 requires such hacks. The new Start menu is not quite there yet.
One issue I have with the new menu is that it's not possible to move the "Metro" apps to sub-folders in the All Apps section. Classic Win32 apps can be moved around and tucked neatly in sub-categories just like in Windows 7 and before. This is a pain in the ass, because the only categorization for "Metro" apps is alphabetical, with separators by letter. Each entry is this list takes more space than they did in Win7. A flat list like this makes the scrolling annoying.
Classic Shell solves this neatly by separating "Metro" and Win32 apps in different sub-menus, and if I never want to see the "Metro" stuff, I can simply remove that part.
If Classic Shell is still needed, there's no reason for me to upgrade, so I'll stick with Win8.1 on my gaming rig, at least until I really, really need Directx 12.
Why do you say 'tolerable'? That implies that you wouldn't be able to use it without that? I've never understood that because windows 8 is not the worst windows to come out and it isn't hard to use at all. I'm glad stuff has been changing around in it and not stayed exactly the same as it had been for 10 years, that would be boring.
Exactly. I wanted Win8.1 for my gaming rig because it has better handling of SSDs and dual monitors, but the start screen is a hassle I'm not willing to put up with, specially on a 27" non-touch display.
I could tolerate it if it was possible to pin it to a specific monitor (my secondary is a smaller 24" that sits on the side) BUT have the applications open on the main display, but Windows 8 doesn't do that, applications open on the same display of the start screen, requiring them to be moved around.
I've run windows 8 since release and 8.1 since release and I spend almost no time in those menus? I just don't understand how it is that big of a hassle. You literally click one button and you are on the desktop and don't have to worry about it at all.
Ive heard good things thus far. Given their history im holding out until SP1 (or an equivalent) and the inevitable bugs get worked out. Been burned too many times in the past to overlook MS' history of major OS releases.
According to the Wired article posted previously:
They say this, but its unproven, and the models they have built and their customers have adhered to will likely determine that course of action.
Microsoft hardly tests and QA's their monthly updates. Service packs and the whatnot helped reduce this overhead for companies supporting the windows OS.
Its likely fine for consumer use but in a business setting things change a bit. I hope they manage it great, but im not going to be on the bleeding edge given the shaky release history.
Even with them ditching patch Tuesday as a method, companies will still run releases on a schedule with WSUS/SCCM/LanDesk etc for version and QC.
Service packs in the past were tested and vetted much more than simple updates and in a lot of cases included essential updates that were already released. they may call them something different, but they have a lot of companies that use their OS, and they need to be able to continue to meet their needs.
You're definitely preaching to the choir, here. I don't trust anything Microsoft does out of the box. I'm not comfortable until they release a service pack with all of the updates necessary to create a stable system. My point is simply that Microsoft has said they're not doing service pack updates for 10, nor are they planning to release any new versions of Windows. They're simply going to push out periodic updates to patch and upgrade things they feel need fixing as they come along.
How this works out for them remains to be seen. I don't have much faith in Microsoft architecture.
I think they are definitely in a bad spot overall. In their search for stability they have found trouble dealing with the bloat of their code.
Products like Exchange are good examples of this. They have started releasing them every few years, but many companies rely on email so heavily, and Exchange patching being so finicky and break prone that many companies just got to 2010, skipping 2007 altogether (the last two I worked for included).
And these, even on their "new" email system are already outdated by almost two versiosn. and due to their inability to support the code and bloat that comes from version to version a 2003 ->2013 upgrade isn't possible. So how do they fix that? How do they instill confidence in companies that you don't need an Exchange Certified Master to help with an version upgrade?
The same can be said for server and workstation releases but on a issue of scale and version control. To this day we have 1 or 2 2012R2 servers but still rely on 2008R2 and 7 at our core. I still have some 2003 boxes im decomming and it has be a pretty big pain to get through some of these upgrades with vendors. I don't want the headache of support 7, 8, 8.1, 10, 2008, 2008 R2, 2012, 2012R2, and whatever 10's server version is.... That's like 8 different code bases and software compatibilities I have to support. So what do we do? We trim the fat, 7 and 2008R2 only. We have a few 8.1 (surface testing)/2012R2 (Few enhancements like DHCP replication) and may consider a move to 10 when the EOL 7/2008R2.
They're going for incremental updates and no more service packs or even major releases.
[This comment was removed]