poll Windows 10 Preview (How do you like it?)

[Gerowen]

In the process of installing it in a virtual machine, and apparently there's no option to create a local only user account on first bootup.  This is what I've gotten.  My only options are to enter my account credentials, or create a live account to log in with.  There should be a radio button or something asking whether you would like to authenticate with your live account or create a local account.

 

Edit:  After accidentally fat fingering my password, I was presented with an option to create a local account.

[Kazama Levi]

In the process of installing it in a virtual machine, and apparently there's no option to create a local only user account on first bootup.  This is what I've gotten.  My only options are to enter my account credentials, or create a live account to log in with.  There should be a radio button or something asking whether you would like to authenticate with your live account or create a local account.

nogeneric.png

 

Edit:  After accidentally fat fingering my password, I was presented with an option to create a local account.

noaccount.png

 

Oh, so you can install without a MS account? Interesting. I created one just for the install (using random bogus info :rofl: Not going to use it anyway, and turned off online stuff like OneDrive and such.)

 

Anyway, did a proper install (no VM) with 9879. Install went nicely, but not overwhelmingly fast or anything. Didn't check compatibility much yet, but no major issues so far. Feature-wise, it's already a great deal better that Windows 8. First thing I did was removing the tiles crap from the start menu :laugh: They should however provide an easy option to turn off tiles as a whole, rather than having to turn them off one by one. No issues so far otherwise.

[PGHammer]

The Link toolbar is in Windows 8.1...

And QuickLaunch dates back to 8's Developer Preview - it was even in the two major leaks prior to it.

 

Kazama Levi - I have had exactly three games that refuse to run (though all would install) in any version of the Technical Preview; however, that is the only issue I have had in any version of the Technical Preview.

 

So far, the biggest complaints with the Technical Preview are the same ones around 8+ - aesthetics (as opposed to operating the OS).

 

However, because the hardware bar has, in fact, remained unchanged, getting folks to upgrade won't be ANY easier than it was with 8 - given their druthers, complacency DOES set in.

[chrisj1968]

Are we going to see WDDM upgraded to perhaps 1.4? I've never seen a thread or discussion on this subject

[PGHammer]

You mean this?

 

Untrue - in fact, the same shortcut for it (WinKey + R) is used - it goes back to the original Microsoft Natural Keyboard and thus Windows 3.x. (I use it to launch unpinned/unshortcutted applications that are in my PATH - such as Word and Outlook.)

 

That selfsame keyboard -  and all the clones - ergo and otherwise - since, use the SAME "baked-in-to-the-OS" shortcuts, which have been unchanged - regardless of the default OS shell.  (I still have, in fact, the first ergo keyboard I've ever owned - a Natural Keyboard Elite - the low-cost reboot of the original wired Natural Keyboard; like the original, it supports PS/2 ports as the default, but unlike the original, a PS/2-to-USB adapter was standard with the Elite, even in OEM trim, despite it being less than half the price of the original.)

[Chosin137]

Although I like Windows 10, the days of charging 150$ for the Operating system are over. It's Windows 8.2... so far.

[Guest]

Are we going to see WDDM upgraded to perhaps 1.4? I've never seen a thread or discussion on this subject

 

Since they're doing DX12 as well, probably.

[PGHammer]

Although I like Windows 10, the days of charging 150$ for the Operating system are over. It's Windows 8.2... so far.

Agreed - however, that hasn't been the case since XP Professional. (System Builder copes of any version of Windows - going back to that selfsame XP Professional, have been no more than - at worst - $119USD.)

Google and Apple are charging for services, and using them to defray OS costs - that is why Apple has not charged for any version of OS X since Snow Leopard.  (This is also something that Microsoft - via multiple legal court rulings and regulations - is explicitly blocked from doing - why?)

 

Still, my argument is more in terms of the excessive amount of complacency that has built up - and it is in more than just in terms of Windows as an operating system.

[Stoffel]

Although I like Windows 10, the days of charging 150$ for the Operating system are over. It's Windows 8.2... so far.

 

I don't understand why people have a problem to pay for a piece of software they use daily for +3 years.

Even if it was $200, that would only make it $0.2 if you use it for 3 years

[Active.]

Apple has not charged for any version of OS X since Snow Leopard. 

Neither Lion nor Mountain Lion were free (although at $20-30 they might as well have been). Mavericks was the first version to be offered free of charge.

[Kazama Levi]

Neither Lion nor Mountain Lion were free (although at $20-30 they might as well have been). Mavericks was the first version to be offered free of charge.

 

MS really should offer the Win 10 upgrade for Win 7 and 8 users for $20 - that would certainly help its popularity as well. But I kinda doubt they will, they're probably to greedy for that, unlike Apple.

[nosense]

MS really should offer the Win 10 upgrade for Win 7 and 8 users for $20 - that would certainly help its popularity as well. But I kinda doubt they will, they're probably to greedy for that, unlike Apple.

I agree not greedy at all, they rather lock out older users from installing the latest version of the os.

[chrisj1968]

I don't understand why people have a problem to pay for a piece of software they use daily for +3 years.

Even if it was $200, that would only make it $0.2 if you use it for 3 years

 

Well. actually MS in my humble opinion could make more money if they sold their OS for less cost. two reasons

 

1. This would in fact make sure more PC's had their OS on them. which would translate into bigger profits. plus a lower cost OS would make it more profitable because this would allow more people to buy into the OS.

 

2. This would free up some cash on families with budgets so they could spend that money on other MS software, Office, games, even an xboxone perhaps?

 

sometimes selling more copies of a software at less cost will translate into more sales and more cunsumers.. in the long stretch.

[PGHammer]

MS really should offer the Win 10 upgrade for Win 7 and 8 users for $20 - that would certainly help its popularity as well. But I kinda doubt they will, they're probably to greedy for that, unlike Apple.

You really hate Microsoft that much, don't you?  Remember, Apple has iTunes and the App Stores as revenue sources - and iTunes is the biggest source of revenue for Apple.  That alone is plenty of reason why they don't charge for OS X (or iOS) - both drive customers to the Stores and iTunes (basically a captive market).  Google has their advertising revenue stream - not small by any means.  Microsoft has neither.

[Quillz]

One thing I'm not liking is that updates keep breaking for me (I know, I know, it's beta)...

 

For the third time, I'm having to do a complete reinstall of my VM using the original disc image that was released of build 9841 or so... From there, I'm able to upgrade to the latest official build, right? (Which means no 9901, correct?)

[PGHammer]

Well. actually MS in my humble opinion could make more money if they sold their OS for less cost. two reasons

 

1. This would in fact make sure more PC's had their OS on them. which would translate into bigger profits. plus a lower cost OS would make it more profitable because this would allow more people to buy into the OS.

 

2. This would free up some cash on families with budgets so they could spend that money on other MS software, Office, games, even an xboxone perhaps?

 

sometimes selling more copies of a software at less cost will translate into more sales and more cunsumers.. in the long stretch.

Cost/price isn't why Windows 8+ didn't sell - complacency and a poor economy is why.  In fact, given that PC sales are, in fact up - and despite Windows 8+ being what is on the hardware - the poor economy is the biggest reason (though even I will admit that complacency IS a factor).  Besides, hardware requirements have not gone anywhere since 7 (or even Vista) - as even Windows 8+' own critics admit.  So, what is YOUR real reason for staying put - complacency or being a cheapskate?

[Kazama Levi]

Cost/price isn't why Windows 8+ didn't sell

 

True, forcing a Windows Phone UI on the desktop, without giving people a sane alternative, is the reason. It's not only that it works completely different in many regards, it's also that it has awful usability without touch, and it's very ugly to look at on top of it. No surprise at all that people don't want it.

With the Windows 10 Preview, they've already started to fix up the mess. They'd better go all the way there and keep the Windows Phone UI stuff to Windows Phone platforms only. Otherwise, if they keep that stuff on the desktop, they have no right to complain when Windows 10 doesn't sell either.

[onewarmslime]

Kazama Levi, on 15 Jan 2015 - 21:55, said:

MS really should offer the Win 10 upgrade for Win 7 and 8 users for $20 - that would certainly help its popularity as well. But I kinda doubt they will, they're probably to greedy for that, unlike Apple.

 

Unlike apple? HA HA HA HA

[PGHammer]

True, forcing a Windows Phone UI on the desktop, without giving people a sane alternative, is the reason. It's not only that it works completely different in many regards, it's also that it has awful usability without touch, and it's very ugly to look at on top of it. No surprise at all that people don't want it.

With the Windows 10 Preview, they've already started to fix up the mess. They'd better go all the way there and keep the Windows Phone UI stuff to Windows Phone platforms only. Otherwise, if they keep that stuff on the desktop, they have no right to complain when Windows 10 doesn't sell either.

Kazama Levi - So the issue for you has everything to do with touch support?

 

Riddle me this - name ONE application (just one) that was broken due to the addition of touch support. (I can't - and neither my desktop or my notebook has any, yet both run the Windows 10 Technical Preview, and in the notebook's case as only OS.)

 

Exactly three desktop applications got mooted (going from Windows 7 to Windows 8+) - remember, no touch support on the desktop, or the notebook.  All were mooted due to features included with the operating system.  All were, in fact, third-party applications.

 

From what you yourself have been saying, it sounds like your real issue is that the OS looks different than 7 (aesthetics), as the lack of a Start menu is fixable via third-party software (therefore you actually get a Start menu clone back).

 

Please - you're better than that.  If the issue is aesthetics, say so.  Don't try to blow smoke up my posterior.

[PGHammer]

Don't get me wrong, I thought Windows 8 was enough of an upgrade from Windows 7 to put up with the annoyances but right now Windows 10 is basically Windows 8 with the Mini Start. If people didn't upgrade to Windows 8 then I don't see why they'd upgrade to Windows 10, unless the upgrade is extremely cheap or free.

 

That said, I'm assuming that Microsoft is keeping the biggest features under wraps as right now it's basically Windows 8.2.

theyarecomingforyou - Windows 10 is, when it gets down to brass tacks, basically an improved 8.1; the one thing that 8 may have gotten wrong is timing (it released in the teeth of a poor economy).

 

Over ninety percent of the complaints ABOUT 8 are aesthetic in nature (mostly because of no Start menu) - note that despite that, nobody has been able to state provably that desktop applications from prior to 8 didn't work.  (That couldn't have been said about Vista at RTM, and it couldn't have been said about 7 at RTM, either.  Basically, THE biggest issue with upgrading Windows got rendered moot.)

 

However, the lack of issue with desktop software ALSO has forced the critics to look elsewhere for reasons/excuses for dinging the OS - aesthetics are all that has been able to be dug up.  (The aesthetics issue has been heard before - about most previous versions of Windows - in fact, EVERY version of Windows NT has gotten their share of dings over aesthetics; Windows 2000 Professional got dinged for the fade-in effect when launching the Start menu.)  Aesthetics are fixable - dinging an OS over a fixable issue smacks of desperation.  (No; that's not an original quote - the quote itself I sourced from John C. Dvorak - the original IT Curmudgeon.  Compared to Dvorak, Paul Thurott is cute and cuddly!)

 

The biggest improvement I saw in 9901 is the one really-usable feature there that was under lock and key previously - Cortana for Windows.  It is what Siri (or Google Now) wish they were and it is itself leveragable in any way they are (by voice, typing, etc.)  The biggest issue with Cortana is going to be extending it - we ARE going to want to extend it; count on it.  (Is it a certainty that Cortana will be unlocked in the next Consumer Preview?)  My comment about GN came from using GN heads-up against Cortana (9901 vs. JellyBean with the latest update for Google Services - which includes Google Now, on a Samsung Galaxy S3 - Google Now got smashed rather flat.)

[chrisj1968]

Cost/price isn't why Windows 8+ didn't sell - complacency and a poor economy is why.  In fact, given that PC sales are, in fact up - and despite Windows 8+ being what is on the hardware - the poor economy is the biggest reason (though even I will admit that complacency IS a factor).  Besides, hardware requirements have not gone anywhere since 7 (or even Vista) - as even Windows 8+' own critics admit.  So, what is YOUR real reason for staying put - complacency or being a cheapskate?

 

oh I wasn't regarding windows 8 just windows in general. sorry for the confusion 

 

@PGHammer - I don't think the asthetic aspect is so much the look as it also encompasses the general "where is that feature or app..." problem as it changed the way people worked. I'm not perfect with changes but, I have my limits. I'm a strict desktop user. Windows 8.1's app store and app area is like beets. I never eat beets because they taste horrible.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Windows 10 is, when it gets down to brass tacks, basically an improved 8.1; the one thing that 8 may have gotten wrong is timing (it released in the teeth of a poor economy).

I wouldn't say the economy was a major factor but rather people's perception of technology. Operating systems are seen as what ships with the device or a free update that comes later (like iOS and Android). Further, most people don't need any additional features.

 

The biggest improvement I saw in 9901 is the one really-usable feature there that was under lock and key previously - Cortana for Windows.  It is what Siri (or Google Now) wish they were and it is itself leveragable in any way they are (by voice, typing, etc.)  The biggest issue with Cortana is going to be extending it - we ARE going to want to extend it; count on it.  (Is it a certainty that Cortana will be unlocked in the next Consumer Preview?)  My comment about GN came from using GN heads-up against Cortana (9901 vs. JellyBean with the latest update for Google Services - which includes Google Now, on a Samsung Galaxy S3 - Google Now got smashed rather flat.)

I really don't think that Cortana is going to be a selling feature. As impressive as the technology is I can't see myself using much, if at all. On my phone I only use S Voice to set alarms because it's more convenient than setting them manually - on a PC with keyboard and mouse I don't see that being the case.

 

As a gamer and tech enthusiast I'll be upgrading for Windows 10 at launch, as I have done with every previous release since ME (the only really bad version of Windows). Perhaps we'll see some consumer orientated features that are truly compelling announced on the 21st but so far I haven't seen anything to suggest that will be the case. I haven't seen anything for the average consumer to get excited about.

[timbo_sf2]

Well. actually MS in my humble opinion could make more money if they sold their OS for less cost. two reasons

 

1. This would in fact make sure more PC's had their OS on them. which would translate into bigger profits. plus a lower cost OS would make it more profitable because this would allow more people to buy into the OS.

 

2. This would free up some cash on families with budgets so they could spend that money on other MS software, Office, games, even an xboxone perhaps?

 

sometimes selling more copies of a software at less cost will translate into more sales and more cunsumers.. in the long stretch.

 

[PGHammer]

I wouldn't say the economy was a major factor but rather people's perception of technology. Operating systems are seen as what ships with the device or a free update that comes later (like iOS and Android). Further, most people don't need any additional features.

 

 

I really don't think that Cortana is going to be a selling feature. As impressive as the technology is I can't see myself using much, if at all. On my phone I only use S Voice to set alarms because it's more convenient than setting them manually - on a PC with keyboard and mouse I don't see that being the case.

 

As a gamer and tech enthusiast I'll be upgrading for Windows 10 at launch, as I have done with every previous release since ME (the only really bad version of Windows). Perhaps we'll see some consumer orientated features that are truly compelling announced on the 21st but so far I haven't seen anything to suggest that will be the case. I haven't seen anything for the average consumer to get excited about.

If Cortana were limited the way Google Now or Siri are (neither supports even virtual keyboards), your point would be valid.  However, that is, in fact, the major difference with Cortana - it can fit in with how you work.  You don't need to use voice - you can use it with a keyboard just as easily.  If you have a mic (including ones built into webcams), you can use that.  However, the reasoning with Cortana (like Siri or Google Now) is that it requires nothing extra in terms of hardware. - the real difference between the three is in implementation - Cortana is "federated" (OS-wide) and accepts input every which way, which is something that both Google Now and Siri flat-out lack.  In other words, it's still about convenience - which is the why for ANY form of "virtual assistant" - and not being limited in how is far better.  If you don't need it, it CAN be turned off.  I'm not thinking that Cortana will be pushed all that hard - however, when folks discover it, word-of-mouth advertising WILL push it - mainly due to the advantages compared to either Google Now or Siri.

[theyarecomingforyou]

If Cortana were limited the way Google Now or Siri are (neither supports even virtual keyboards), your point would be valid.  However, that is, in fact, the major difference with Cortana - it can fit in with how you work.  You don't need to use voice - you can use it with a keyboard just as easily.  If you have a mic (including ones built into webcams), you can use that.  However, the reasoning with Cortana (like Siri or Google Now) is that it requires nothing extra in terms of hardware. - the real difference between the three is in implementation - Cortana is "federated" (OS-wide) and accepts input every which way, which is something that both Google Now and Siri flat-out lack.  In other words, it's still about convenience - which is the why for ANY form of "virtual assistant" - and not being limited in how is far better.  If you don't need it, it CAN be turned off.  I'm not thinking that Cortana will be pushed all that hard - however, when folks discover it, word-of-mouth advertising WILL push it - mainly due to the advantages compared to either Google Now or Siri.

I'm sure it will be of use to some people but I just don't see the appeal, either for myself or casual users. It just doesn't strike me as a compelling feature, though I reserve judgement until I've seen the final implementation.