[OFFICIAL] Windows 10 Insider Program

[Jackaluichi]

Has anyone tried to run BioShock in buld 10041? Crashing instantly for me.

I haven't. Which one? The original or any of the sequels?

The current AMD display drivers being installed via Windows Update are extremely buggy in most cases and cause freezes, hangs, crashes and blue screens in multiple games on numerous systems, desktops and laptops both. R9 290X, R9 270X, Radeon 7660D, Radeon 8660D, R7 250, and more. (Over 20 systems I've personally tested). The last stable ones were released in January 2015 or November 2014 (depending on which GPU we're talking about). There are numerous reports of this in the Feedback app and yet it is not listed as a known issue officially and no workaround or fix has been promised or released yet. I am not at all a MS hater. I mostly like Windows 10 and what MS has been doing lately, but... the AMD driver thing is causing me major grief. I've reported these issues to AMD as well btw. I am hopeful that MS and AMD can work together to fix this for their mutual users/customers asap. Or at least pull the awful buggy video drivers from Windows Update until fixed.

Try disabling all the video enhancement and hardware acceleration on Catalyst and see if it works better that way.

[indospot Veteran]

@Jackaluichi It's trhe original one. I think it might be related to what MyNamesTheDoctor said. AMD sucks. And CCC won't even open with the latest ASMD driver from Windows Update.

 

@Dot Matrix I'm pretty sure that's for everything that you have open, why wouldn't it work with Spartan?

[Jackaluichi]

@Jackaluichi It's trhe original one. I think it might be related to what MyNamesTheDoctor said. AMD sucks. And CCC won't even open with the latest ASMD driver from Windows Update.

@Dot Matrix I'm pretty sure that's for everything that you have open, why wouldn't it work with Spartan?

Something else must be causing you troubles. I can open and use CCC. Moreover, I've been playing some games with build 10041 and my R9 290X.

Have a look at this and see if you can improve your system reliability:

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/insider/forum/insider_wintp-insider_install/how-to-repair-your-system-files-using-dism-and-sfc/1021b42a-09ff-41a0-a95a-48f3ee3ae699

[indospot Veteran]

I have a much older GPU though (Mobility Radeon HD 6470M, rebranded to 7400M series). My driver is version 15.200 and something, installed through WU and CCC crashes instantly on start, it didn't do this with Catalyst Omega (Which included driver version 14.500).
 

I will try that nonetheless.

[Jackaluichi]

I have a much older GPU though (Mobility Radeon HD 6470M, rebranded to 7400M series). My driver is version 15.200 and something, installed through WU and CCC crashes instantly on start, it didn't do this with Catalyst Omega (Which included driver version 14.500).

I will try that nonetheless.

Good luck, and yes we all know how buggy AMD drivers can be, so imagine with a WIP OS and an updated WDDM.

[Ian S.]

I hope so because some if not most are the same since Windows 9x, it's time for them to change.

Honestly though, reworking the entire dialog system in Apple release speak would be a "brand new release" in and within itself, it is an extensive project.

[George P Global Moderator]

Honestly though, reworking the entire dialog system in Apple release speak would be a "brand new release" in and within itself, it is an extensive project.

I agree, they might not get many of them in this release but they should keep at it, maybe with a Windows 10.1 release next year they'll have most changed.

[FunkyMike]

The current AMD display drivers being installed via Windows Update are extremely buggy in most cases and cause freezes, hangs, crashes and blue screens in multiple games on numerous systems, desktops and laptops both. R9 290X, R9 270X, Radeon 7660D, Radeon 8660D, R7 250, and more. (Over 20 systems I've personally tested). The last stable ones were released in January 2015 or November 2014 (depending on which GPU we're talking about). There are numerous reports of this in the Feedback app and yet it is not listed as a known issue officially and no workaround or fix has been promised or released yet. I am not at all a MS hater. I mostly like Windows 10 and what MS has been doing lately, but... the AMD driver thing is causing me major grief. I've reported these issues to AMD as well btw.  I am hopeful that MS and AMD can work together to fix this for their mutual users/customers asap.  Or at least pull the awful buggy video drivers from Windows Update until fixed. 

 

Currently AMD drivers on Windows 10041 can destroy the whole OS without the chance of recovery, if you happen to have a laptop with switchable graphics and the following rough specs: Intel HD first gen + AMD Mobility 5xxx.

 

Hard to use the feedback app if you cannot even get into safe mode because of a bootloop.

 

Let us hope that AMD ups their game.

 

 

 

I have a much older GPU though (Mobility Radeon HD 6470M, rebranded to 7400M series). My driver is version 15.200 and something, installed through WU and CCC crashes instantly on start, it didn't do this with Catalyst Omega (Which included driver version 14.500).

 

I will try that nonetheless.

 

Count yourself lucky Indo

[Nogib]

The current AMD display drivers being installed via Windows Update are extremely buggy

 

Then don't use them!!!  I've been using the 14.12 Omega drivers in both 9926 and 10041 for my 7850 without a hitch.  WU tried to install an older driver a few weeks back but I didn't let it.

[indospot Veteran]

Jackaluichi, no luck at all here. I get an error in step 4.1.

EDIT: Never mind, I did it wrong...

[+Red King Subscriber²]

In Windows 8 - Modern Applications are slow to load. Did MS fix the modern application slowness yet? That is are all the modern apps opening for you within 1/10 to 1/1000 of a second?

[Jim K Global Moderator]

In Windows 8 - Modern Applications are slow to load. Did MS fix the modern application slowness yet? That is are all the modern apps opening for you within 1/10 to 1/1000 of a second?

 

They are still slow (or at least slower than their w32 counterparts).

 

[x.iso]

They are still slow (or at least slower than their w32 counterparts).

 

yes, but there is a bit of improvement. At least it's about 2-3 seconds mostly (on SSD), while even on previous 9926 I think it was 5 seconds and more

[Ian W]

They are still slow (or at least slower than their w32 counterparts).

 

Looks like it is slower by a second in your video.

[Kyang]

In the Charms bar, the user never even had to lift their finger from the brightness button or the mouse button, and they could just slide the pointer or their finger up or down to adjust the brightness.  It worked with the mouse wheel too.

 

There was even a line that appeared, connecting the slider and the mouse pointer/user's finger, giving the user a visual cue as to what was going on.  It also accounted for things like how much the pointer/finger was moving around on the screen, and compensated for that, so the user didn't have to struggle with moving their mouse/finger slightly to avoid the brightness jumping from max to min.

 

The volume slider worked the same way.

 

Frankly, this was brilliant, fluid, and very easy.

 

 

How is changing brightness handled now, in the Action Center?  Is it like Windows phone, where it just toggles between Auto/Low/Medium/High?

[Noir Angel]

Yes, 16x16 icons have outlived their usefulness. Our screens aren't 800x600 anymore. Nothing should be 16x16 pixels anymore.

 

Some tablets and plenty of laptops are still made with 1280x800 screens, small icons still have their place in Windows. And from what I can see there really aren't that many small icons in Explorer anyway, most of the ribbon icons and the shell icons default to 32x32 which is fine even on a 1080p display.

[sinetheo]

Some tablets and plenty of laptops are still made with 1280x800 screens, small icons still have their place in Windows. And from what I can see there really aren't that many small icons in Explorer anyway, most of the ribbon icons and the shell icons default to 32x32 which is fine even on a 1080p display.

 

Giggles and goes back to his perfect windows 7 desktop

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Some tablets and plenty of laptops are still made with 1280x800 screens, small icons still have their place in Windows. And from what I can see there really aren't that many small icons in Explorer anyway, most of the ribbon icons and the shell icons default to 32x32 which is fine even on a 1080p display.

 

No kidding.  I believe QuickLaunch uses 16x16 (or maybe its 20x20) ... and that is how I launch majority of my programs.  16x16 still has its place...even on 1080p monitors.  Dot Matrix just likes to think bigger is better.

[Ian W]

Giggles and goes back to his perfect windows 7 desktop

Oh, you mean the one that Windows 8 improved?

 

No kidding.  I believe QuickLaunch uses 16x16 (or maybe its 20x20) ... and that is how I launch majority of my programs.  16x16 still has its place...even on 1080p monitors.  Dot Matrix just likes to think bigger is better.

Quick Launch is not a recent feature and isn't even enabled by default in more recent versions of Windows. A large option is even available, so I don't know what your point is.

But it's nice to know that features such as the Quick Access Toolbar of the Ribbon have their place even on 1080p monitors.

[Ian S.]

No kidding.  I believe QuickLaunch uses 16x16 (or maybe its 20x20) ... and that is how I launch majority of my programs.  16x16 still has its place...even on 1080p monitors.  Dot Matrix just likes to think bigger is better.

QuickLaunch was last seen in Vista...

[Jim K Global Moderator]

QuickLaunch was last seen in Vista...

 

shhh....don't tell Microsoft that.

 

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/975784

[HawkMan]

I think I see a bug that title is a complete work of fiction

 

what ?...

[Ian W]

what ?...

I think he meant that the title for the article on Secure Boot wasn't accurate.

[sinetheo]

Oh, you mean the one that Windows 8 improved?

 

Quick Launch is not a recent feature and isn't even enabled by default in more recent versions of Windows. A large option is even available, so I don't know what your point is.

But it's nice to know that features such as the Quick Access Toolbar of the Ribbon have their place even on 1080p monitors.

 

 

I am seriously not an old man who hates change and can not adjust.

 

I just love everything about Windows 7 and mad at Microsoft for forcing me to use an older OS. Ok MS didn't force me at gunpoint ... but MS just went apesh** change for the sake of it when Windows 7 was at it's peak. I hate the new explorer, icons, flat look, colors, lack of shadows, 100% cpu usage spikes in explorer when I go up an down, schizophrenic UI with 2 versions of everything modern and non, and the list goes on and on. Windows 7 is consistent in UI and do not have to worry when I click around of something out of place.

 

True it is my opinion. But I do not understand what the fuss is with the icons in 10 for example? They already ARE FINE IN 7??!

 

I love WIndows which is why I am here at Neowin but I left Linux as a result of gnome 3 becoming flat and cell phone like. Windows 7 just came out by 2011 and it was love. ... now this?? NO

 

This thread should not even be he here. In an ideal world minor changes on top of the hood should be present with the real work underneath.

 

I do not want to run an outdated OS forever but I have no choice as I keep obsessing over the GUI when I use 8 because it keeps getting in my face instead of my work. To me it is that bad.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

yes, but there is a bit of improvement. At least it's about 2-3 seconds mostly (on SSD), while even on previous 9926 I think it was 5 seconds and more

Disappointment © Microsoft.