# Windows 10 - Convince me.



## Thunderfoot (Aug 18, 2015)

Okay, so the topic title is problematic, it's the best I could come up with.

The gist is I posted on the Microsoft website a query and they banned me for "content violations" - So I will posed the same question here.
Why should I upgrade to Windows 10?

Keep in mind I DO NOT own, operate or otherwise use the following:
A smartphone - phones are for phone calls, computers are for computing
Texting - if you want to talk to me RIGHT NOW, call me otherwise send me an email and I'll answer when I can.
Now Social media - I HATE Facebook, Twitter and such, if I cared what your friends, girlfriends dog was doing, I'd ask.  Also, if I wanted my "friends and family" to find me, I would tell them where I am, your marketing department should not care.  (Facebook should be outlawed because of this invasion of privacy alone)
Cortana - no smartphone, no smart-alack phone assistant.
Touch screen anything.
Cloud assisted media - I like my personal CDs, DVDs and files to not be tagged and delivered to the world, thank you.
Xbox - I don't own one

Now, it's not that I'm downing Windows 10, I'm not, it appears to be an upgrade of 8 via cranial-rectal removal surgery and that's a VERY good thing.  But all of the reasons to upgrade that are part of their snazzy little ad campaign just make me think - useless (at least to me anyway).  So IS there any reason for me to upgrade, even if it is free?


I realize that I sound like an old crotchety man, well I am..  So shut-up and get off my lawn before I hit you with my cane and call the cops... lol


----------



## Morrus (Aug 18, 2015)

I dunno. Sounds like you should get a typewriter. 

I'm no help. I love all the stuff you hate.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Aug 18, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I dunno. Sounds like you should get a typewriter.



Now Admiral, you've seen me in action at the ENnies, it's not the technology I hate, it's all those annoying people. lol


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 18, 2015)

Well there's one good reason; if you're going to continue using a Windows based PC, it's your only upgrade path.

I've installed it on one PC, a Dell XPS notebook that's a few years old. So far I'm liking it far better than win8/8.1 by far. It's hardware aware. If it doesn't find a touchscreen, it doesn't give you that stupid tile interface. It has a tile based Start Menu that's actually not too far from a real Start Menu. All the software that I used in Win7 seems to be working fine. In short if you're a Win7 user, it's not a quantum leap going to Win10. Sure, they moved around some things that they really didn't need to, but they always do that.

The one personal drawback that I've found is that it didn't bring over my mail from Windows Live Mail, into their new mail application. Good thing I did it on a secondary PC first.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 18, 2015)

Thunderfoot said:


> Now Admiral, you've seen me in action at the ENnies, it's not the technology I hate, it's all those annoying people. lol




Fair enough! 

That said, though, if you don't want W10, don't get it. W7 is just fine. I upgraded because I like new and shiny, but if that's not you then stick with what you like and know.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Aug 18, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Well there's one good reason; if you're going to continue using a Windows based PC, it's your only upgrade path.
> 
> I've installed it on one PC, a Dell XPS notebook that's a few years old. So far I'm liking it far better than win8/8.1 by far. It's hardware aware. If it doesn't find a touchscreen, it doesn't give you that stupid tile interface. It has a tile based Start Menu that's actually not too far from a real Start Menu. All the software that I used in Win7 seems to be working fine. In short if you're a Win7 user, it's not a quantum leap going to Win10. Sure, they moved around some things that they really didn't need to, but they always do that.
> 
> The one personal drawback that I've found is that it didn't bring over my mail from Windows Live Mail, into their new mail application. Good thing I did it on a secondary PC first.



See, this is what I need to hear.  All of the features that they discuss are based on social media and alternate hardware applications, I 'm looking for actual hard data on usage, performance, etc - Microsoft has refused to really put it out to the public and it made me wonder - smoke and mirrors?  Thanks


----------



## Thunderfoot (Aug 18, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Fair enough!
> 
> That said, though, if you don't want W10, don't get it. W7 is just fine. I upgraded because I like new and shiny, but if that's not you then stick with what you like and know.



Part of the problem is I don't know.  All anyone can talk about in the media ads are the social media and cloud applications, which for me are obviously useless, but what is there that would be useful - processing time down, streamlined start-up software, less intrusive or pared down "house keeping" functions, etc, none of the bare-bones functionality is being publicly revealed or discussed.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 18, 2015)

Thunderfoot said:


> Part of the problem is I don't know.  All anyone can talk about in the media ads are the social media and cloud applications, which for me are obviously useless, but what is there that would be useful - processing time down, streamlined start-up software, less intrusive or pared down "house keeping" functions, etc, none of the bare-bones functionality is being publicly revealed or discussed.




Well, do you *want* to be convinced?


----------



## Thunderfoot (Aug 18, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Well, do you *want* to be convinced?



Sure, why not?  Like I said, I really do want to know what this software can do me, even more importantly than what it can't do for me, but no one seems to talk about that stuff.

My point being, what , if anything is there that would make me want to upgrade.  I mean, it's free, that's a pretty good incentive, but if I end up just having it sit there running all the pretty-shinies and it's not really doing anything, that to me is annoying, and more to the point, if I don't use or want to use a functionality is there a way to disable said functionality so it doesn't steal processing power, etc.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 18, 2015)

You can choose whether or not to use the tile interface. By default it reads your hardware during installation and if it finds a touch enabled screen, it enables the tile interface. If not, then it doesn't.

Start-up seems faster than Win7. About the same as Win8/8.1, which I find subjectively faster than 7. 

In operation it seems to run OK on the system ion which I have it installed. No slower than Win7 and perhaps slightly faster.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 19, 2015)

Thunderfoot said:


> Sure, why not?  Like I said, I really do want to know what this software can do me, even more importantly than what it can't do for me, but no one seems to talk about that stuff.
> 
> My point being, what , if anything is there that would make me want to upgrade.  I mean, it's free, that's a pretty good incentive, but if I end up just having it sit there running all the pretty-shinies and it's not really doing anything, that to me is annoying, and more to the point, if I don't use or want to use a functionality is there a way to disable said functionality so it doesn't steal processing power, etc.




Honestly, I'd stick with W7.  I enjoy the new and shiny, like networking all my computers and consoles, and like having voice control over it all.  That's what attracted me. Otherwise, W7 worked just fine for me.  I guess for me, every step towards Star Trek where I just walk into a room and tell the air what I want done is a bonus, but if that's not your thing, then W7 is just fine.  It's why I like Apple stuff, too.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 19, 2015)

Window 7 stick with it as long as it is supported.  Windows 10 is okay, lot better than 8 but not a reason to change from 7.  One of the first things I did was create a Godmode folder on my desktop to find everything.  

create a folder on your desktop and name it: GodMode.{ED7BA470-8E54-465E-825C-99712043E01C}


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 19, 2015)

Personally, I'll wait as long as I can before I switch from Windows 7 to Windows 10, i.e. when Microsoft stops supporting Windows 7.

Having said that, Windows 10 isn't actually bad - unlike Windows 8. There's just no reason to upgrade unless you have software you'd like to use that won't run on Windows 7.

(Note that I'm a software developer, so I'll likely have to work with Windows 10 a lot earlier than I'll start using it on my private PC.)


----------



## juanlb (Aug 19, 2015)

I find no reason to upgrade Windows 7 which I'm happy with.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 19, 2015)

The overall impression I have gotten, from multiple sources, is that if you aren't using touchscreen hardware, there is no compelling reason to upgrade from Win7 at this time.  The performance benefits aren't Earth-shattering.


----------



## Janx (Aug 19, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Well there's one good reason; if you're going to continue using a Windows based PC, it's your only upgrade path.
> 
> I've installed it on one PC, a Dell XPS notebook that's a few years old. So far I'm liking it far better than win8/8.1 by far. It's hardware aware. If it doesn't find a touchscreen, it doesn't give you that stupid tile interface. It has a tile based Start Menu that's actually not too far from a real Start Menu. All the software that I used in Win7 seems to be working fine. In short if you're a Win7 user, it's not a quantum leap going to Win10. Sure, they moved around some things that they really didn't need to, but they always do that.
> 
> The one personal drawback that I've found is that it didn't bring over my mail from Windows Live Mail, into their new mail application. Good thing I did it on a secondary PC first.




Along with this, the big problem of XP and Vista is that nobody upgraded.  ever.  Eventually that means you can't get a printer that works.

Windows 10 is a free upgrade (for win7/8 users).  That means for $0 you can get all of your modern PCs running the same OS.  And pre-Win8, that OS actually runs better.

Windows 8 introduced some radical performance improvements that were clouded by the crappy interface changes.  But stuff really does run better inside of it, due to how they handy sleeping applications that don't have the Focus.


Another plus of this upgrade is that it is the "last" upgrade.  After this, like Apple, MS intends to just keep updating it.  For free.  Sure, one day, your PC will be too slow to accomodate the latest whatever, but at a fundamental level, all your PCs can run the same OS.  Not splitting hairs over "that one is still on Vista, this one is 7...."

That'a s PITA in my multi-PC house where I have more IT concerns going on.

And its free if you have Windows 7 or 8.x.  I can see balking when it costs money.  This is free.  And it'll probably work.  Compared to some past upgrades where you're better off wiping and starting fresh.

I upgraded my Surface Pro3 a few weeks back.  Win10 is working good.  Sure, there's a few differences like the right-swipe menu changing radically so it's hard to get to my Wireless Display Adapter enabling menu.  But that's a minority problem.


----------



## Janx (Aug 19, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Honestly, I'd stick with W7.  I enjoy the new and shiny, like networking all my computers and consoles, and like having voice control over it all.  That's what attracted me. Otherwise, W7 worked just fine for me.  I guess for me, every step towards Star Trek where I just walk into a room and tell the air what I want done is a bonus, but if that's not your thing, then W7 is just fine.  It's why I like Apple stuff, too.




I disagree.  I'll be working to upgrade my wife's Win7 AlienWare laptop soon.  I can post about how well that went/how performance is from a practical view then.

Get your free upgrade.  You have 1 year (less a month or so).

It's not about the fancy widgets.  It's about snapping your OS to be the current standard.  For free.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Aug 19, 2015)

.


----------



## Erekose (Aug 19, 2015)

I went from Window 7 to Windows 8 (and 8.1) and then back to Windows 7. That said, I am a sucker for the "new and shiny" so have upgrade to Windows 10.

It is new and shiny and ... fractionally quicker but other than new and shiny icons I'd be hard pressed to tell a difference between Windows 10 and Windows 7 - which is a good thing! Was a real pain having to reinstall after the Windows 8 debacle


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 19, 2015)

Janx said:


> I disagree.  I'll be working to upgrade my wife's Win7 AlienWare laptop soon.  I can post about how well that went/how performance is from a practical view then.
> 
> Get your free upgrade.  You have 1 year (less a month or so).
> 
> It's not about the fancy widgets.  It's about snapping your OS to be the current standard.  For free.




I'm going to have to be a little more circumspect in my upgrades, as I run a couple of Win7 based web servers. I'm unsure how Apache and the attendant other apps I've installed will be tolerated by Win10. Also, given that I stumbled across the fact that Microsoft was sharing my bandwidth for their own benefit, purely by accident, I want to be sure that there aren't any other little gotchas out there waiting for me, that might also have security or fiscal impacts.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 19, 2015)

I tried Windows 10 for about 6 hours yesterday (from the free upgrade from Win 7). While I didn't necessarily hate it (and like the OP, I don't use other electronic mobile devices: cell phones, tablets, etc.), but for some reason Win 10 couldn't find my appropriate monitor, nor its appropriate driver. It used a generic monitor driver, that had the wrong resolution setting (which I couldn't change) and the aspect ratio was wrong - meaning the screen image was wider than it should have been. Since I'm a graphic designer and use my PC to create graphics (especially maps) having wrong aspect ratio means a square appears as a rectangle - not a good thing for graphic design. There was no way to easily point to the correct driver, nor change the resolution even from Windows Settings Menu. Then spending a half hour on the phone with technical support, getting an Indian support person who had no idea what I was talking about nor how to fix it. I subsequently uninstalled Win10 and went back to Win 7...

Regarding whether Windows continues to support Win 7, does that really matter? As long as the PC still works even without an update, why would you need support. I run a graphics shop with several computers, most using a different OS. I have 2 Win 98 machines still in use still using Win 98 and they work fine - I have some old software that I still use on those PCs that won't work with newer OS's. I have 2 PCs using Vista, and both machines and the Win 98 machines are networked together. My Win 7 machine isn't on the network, as its ethernet connection is used for online access - and the other PCs on the network use ethernet to connect them. If I need to move files from my Win 7 machine, I just copy the file to a jump drive and physically use the jump drive on my Vista machine to get it into that network. When I purchase my next computer, it will no doubt have Win 10 on it, so I can wait until then, before I have to use it.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 19, 2015)

Janx said:


> And it'll probably work.




And, by reports, that's correct.

But "probably" may not be enough for someone considering upgrading their own and only machine - the "if I brick this I have *nothing*" person who isn't themselves an IT professional is not unreasonable to be a bit risk averse.



> It's not about the fancy widgets. It's about snapping your OS to be the current standard. For free.




But, for what gain?

In the distant past, I used a full tower, and I did lots of hardware upgrades to extend the life and put off investing in a whole new machine.  Then, keeping up on the OS makes some sense.  But, now I work with a laptop that I am unlikely to pop open and alter myself.  The only external hardware it uses is a fairly standard wireless network laser printer.  

Am I really apt to have to worry about not having the new and standard OS before some other issue or need is likely to make me want to replace the whole machine anyway?


----------



## Janx (Aug 19, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> I too would wait as long as possible before changing to a different operating system.
> 
> MicroSoft has a history of releasing products and TONS of patches to fix problems that should have been done before its release.
> 
> ...




you can always image it with the Win7 backup and restore utilities first 

There's a year to upgrade.  So waiting a bit hurts nothing.  But I would make a plan to upgrade as I have done.


----------



## Janx (Aug 19, 2015)

Umbran said:


> And, by reports, that's correct.
> 
> But "probably" may not be enough for someone considering upgrading their own and only machine - the "if I brick this I have *nothing*" person who isn't themselves an IT professional is not unreasonable to be a bit risk averse.
> 
> ...




Games, apps.  My wife is a PC gamer.  There are games coming out that are Win10 only that she wants to play.  It's a factor for her.

And I am an IT professional, so my risk is minimal (nor am I going to call anybody for support).


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Aug 19, 2015)

I've change to W10 on two of our four computers. On our son's Win 8.1, it seems to be interface changes, only, while on my Win 7 machine our weird mouse problem seems to have vanished after the first rounds of updates.

Only thing I'm really missing from Win 7 is the quick shutdown sequence...


----------



## Thunderfoot (Aug 20, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> <SNIP>
> Also, what if this new operating system is not adaptable to your hardware?  Your computer is older and the processors not fast enough, memory not big enough, etc.
> 
> This offer of getting it free, but then having your computer crash and being unusable...<SNIP>



Not really a concern since I built this thing from the ground up about 2 years ago so I'd have some technology headroom.  (Pre-builts - ick)


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 20, 2015)

Jan van Leyden said:


> Only thing I'm really missing from Win 7 is the quick shutdown sequence...




not sure what you mean, but hit the Window Button, click power and you will see options.  You can also create a desktop icon that runs the command "shutdown /s" or /p (no warning)


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Aug 20, 2015)

Hand of Evil said:


> not sure what you mean, but hit the Window Button, click power and you will see options.  You can also create a desktop icon that runs the command "shutdown /s" or /p (no warning)




Several years of using [Windows] - [Cursor right] - [Return] leave traces. Everything doable without touching the mouse is a big plus for me!


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 20, 2015)

Thunderfoot said:


> Not really a concern since I built this thing from the ground up about 2 years ago so I'd have some technology headroom.  (Pre-builts - ick)




I've been in the industry, in one way or another, for almost 30 years. I've build my own and I've put together packages for industrial assembly of PCs.

I buy pre-built


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 20, 2015)

one of the new feature I do like is the virtual desktops.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 20, 2015)

I am not a computers guy at all, and I have had no issue with upgrading three computers. I did so because I hated windows 8 tiles as my default screen, and windows 7 was not useable on my printer. It has been aok for me...


----------



## Thunderfoot (Aug 22, 2015)

Hand of Evil said:


> one of the new feature I do like is the virtual desktops.



Expound please, saying you like it doesn't really tell me anything...


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 22, 2015)

Thunderfoot said:


> Expound please, saying you like it doesn't really tell me anything...




just having apps running in different desktop and just switching between them, it is a better way of organizing and use of resources.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Aug 24, 2015)

Hand of Evil said:


> just having apps running in different desktop and just switching between them, it is a better way of organizing and use of resources.



I'm sorry, I have to laugh at this, that was the original concept of windows...    
I remember when I first joined the Army, my job was rather specific in what I had to do and when I had to do it, so on one position I had four windows up at all times monitoring mission, allocation stabilization, system integrity and inter site communication - simultaneously.
The more things change, I guess. 
But, that being said, thank you for the clarification, and you're right, they have finally started how to better manage multi-tasking


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 25, 2015)

I would not recommend upgrading from Windows 7 to Windows 10 at this time. I did it, and I had some issues. I could fix the, but I am a software developer, I know how to solve computer problems. A colleague of mine also had problems. 
This does not apply if you want to do a complete reinstall anyway. Just upgrading from Windows 7 seems a bit wonky still. 

That doesn't mean I would not recommend changing to Windows 10 at at some point. 
If you play games, it has Direct X12, and that will become very interesting in the future, as it promises lots of performance improvements. And any graphics card that already has Direct X 11 support will be able to benefit from that. But it's still some time until this will be really noticeable. And if you're not into computer games, this is irrelevant for you.

So, 3 possible upgrade times: 
1) Shortly Before the "free upgrade" offer runs out.
2) When the first game you're interested in is released that utilizes DirectX12
3) When Windows 7 support runs out, like it has for Windows XP.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 27, 2015)

Janx said:


> Games, apps.  My wife is a PC gamer.  There are games coming out that are Win10 only that she wants to play.  It's a factor for her.
> 
> And I am an IT professional, so my risk is minimal (nor am I going to call anybody for support).




Except your best online friend, Mr. Google, of course.


----------



## Janx (Aug 27, 2015)

Ultimately, nobody can make you upgrade.  If you don't upgrade, your PC will work just fine as it has.

If you do upgrade, you might have some devices that don't support Windows10.  Or you might not have a problem.  That's checkable and you should use know what you have and if it is supported before you throw the lever.

Personally, I find it useful to be fluent in the current stuff.  Insisting on staying on the old stuff, out of fear, habit, stubbornness is generally a bad thing in my book.

For perspective, a few says ago was the 20th anniversary of Windows95.  I was in college and bought the upgrade that week.  By that weekend, I had made my money back helping other folks with their upgrade.

It was worlds better than the prior Windows, and it was absolutely where everybody's PC was moving to in a rapid pace.  Having familiarity with it was valuable for a lot of reasons.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 27, 2015)

My office is currently doing a (long-overdue) hardware upgrade. We're going with Windows 7 Pro on the new PCs and will probably upgrade to Windows 10 in 6 to 9 months, or right before whenever the upgrade offer runs out.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 27, 2015)

Janx said:


> Ultimately, nobody can make you upgrade.  If you don't upgrade, your PC will work just fine as it has.
> 
> If you do upgrade, you might have some devices that don't support Windows10.  Or you might not have a problem.  That's checkable and you should use know what you have and if it is supported before you throw the lever.
> 
> ...




Ah, Win95. I think that the little company that I worked for, at the time, was the only one to actually meet the release date for builders. What fun when the President of your company thinks that it would be a great idea to buy a whole lot of sound cards, that didn't support Win95, and then say to you, "OK, you make them work."


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 28, 2015)

Janx said:


> Personally, I find it useful to be fluent in the current stuff.  Insisting on staying on the old stuff, out of fear, habit, stubbornness is generally a bad thing in my book.



Well, regarding Microsoft's operating systems at least, it seems more prudent to skip every other version. You really don't have to follow every trend if it's kind of obvious it will be a dud. Windows 95, Windows ME, Windows Vista, Windows 8 - all of these versions were half-baked affairs that either went too far in the wrong directions or not far enough.

Windows 10 is kinda different because it's supposed to be the last version of Windows we'll ever see - Well, we'll see  Personally, I'm 100% sure, there'll be a new version eventually. It's just a question of how many years it will take. The problem is that 'living' software doesn't age well: Adding more and more features to a software, changing and fixing code in several iterations will inevitably lead to clunky code that is hard to comprehend and maintain until you reach a point where it's simply better to start from scratch.

Waiting before you upgrade still makes sense because Windows 10 is basically incomplete: While you can already work with it, it's still lacking many of the features that were promised.
Another issue is incompatibility with hardware you may currently use. Imho, it's always best to start using a new OS when you also get a new PC.

Ideally, you have access to several PCs, so you can give Windows 10 a try while keeping a stable, well-known OS version on your main PC.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 31, 2015)

Jhaelen said:


> Well, regarding Microsoft's operating systems at least, it seems more prudent to skip every other version. You really don't have to follow every trend if it's kind of obvious it will be a dud. Windows 95, Windows ME, Windows Vista, Windows 8 - all of these versions were half-baked affairs that either went too far in the wrong directions or not far enough.
> 
> Windows 10 is kinda different because it's supposed to be the last version of Windows we'll ever see - Well, we'll see  Personally, I'm 100% sure, there'll be a new version eventually. It's just a question of how many years it will take. The problem is that 'living' software doesn't age well: Adding more and more features to a software, changing and fixing code in several iterations will inevitably lead to clunky code that is hard to comprehend and maintain until you reach a point where it's simply better to start from scratch..



But I think pretty much no Windows Version was made from scratch. I think pretty much all modern Windows Version can probably be dated back as least as far as Windows NT 3.1. 
There are certainly parts that were rewritten over time, but throwing out everything and rebuildng from there is unlikely, and unneccessary, and most definitely hasn't happened so far.

"Living" software can age poorly if the development team is not taking steps to avoid it, but it is possible to take such steps. Good architectural design, regular refactoring, strict coding guidelines, reviews, automated testing... 

The version number we hear - Windows 7, Windows 8.1, Windows 10  -that's mostly a marketing thing. It has little do with the underlying software.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 31, 2015)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But I think pretty much no Windows Version was made from scratch. I think pretty much all modern Windows Version can probably be dated back as least as far as Windows NT 3.1.
> There are certainly parts that were rewritten over time, but throwing out everything and rebuildng from there is unlikely, and unneccessary, and most definitely hasn't happened so far.
> 
> "Living" software can age poorly if the development team is not taking steps to avoid it, but it is possible to take such steps. Good architectural design, regular refactoring, strict coding guidelines, reviews, automated testing...
> ...




The modular style of programming results in significant bloat, if you never go back to rationalize the processes in your modules. My hope is that they did just that in Win10. I wouldn't expect them to start from scratch, but at least verifying that you still use everything in your existing code is not a bad thing.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 31, 2015)

I had a lot of awkward problems, but so far I'm liking Windows 10. The search feature makes hunting for things easy, it's easy to disable programs from launching at start-up, and like being able to pick the size of icon for the start menu. The libraries in the sidebar of the file explorer are easier to manage and redirect. The quick access option in the sidebar is proving useful as well. And I love not having to hit "yes" every time I delete something; it just goes bye-bye.

The start menu itself seems to be an interesting combo of the Windows sidebar, smart tiles, and the standard start menu. 

For the total price of "free" it was worth it.


----------



## juanlb (Sep 1, 2015)

is windows 10 free forever?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 1, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> The modular style of programming results in significant bloat, if you never go back to rationalize the processes in your modules. My hope is that they did just that in Win10. I wouldn't expect them to start from scratch, but at least verifying that you still use everything in your existing code is not a bad thing.




That prettty much seems to fall under the umbrella of refactoring your software. Dead code elimination should even have tooling support to some extent. 

But the entirety of the Windows public API, as bloated as it may seem sometimes, is unlikely to change, since it must maintain backwards compatibility. 


Any complex software without modularizaton will be impossible to maintain in the long run. We're talking an Operating System here, not a Hello World Program.



juanlb said:


> is windows 10 free forever?




No. IIRC, the free upgrade offer is limited, but I don't remember when it runs out.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 1, 2015)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> That prettty much seems to fall under the umbrella of refactoring your software. Dead code elimination should even have tooling support to some extent.
> 
> But the entirety of the Windows public API, as bloated as it may seem sometimes, is unlikely to change, since it must maintain backwards compatibility.
> 
> ...




Of course such complex software has to be handled modularly. That's not what I was saying. The question is are the modules efficient? Is there a large amount of redundant code? Are they making proper use of new processor and chipset features, since the older processors will no longer even run your O/S?



> No. IIRC, the free upgrade offer is limited, but I don't remember when it runs out.




A year from release, if I remember correctly.


----------



## Janx (Sep 1, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> The modular style of programming results in significant bloat, if you never go back to rationalize the processes in your modules. My hope is that they did just that in Win10. I wouldn't expect them to start from scratch, but at least verifying that you still use everything in your existing code is not a bad thing.




um, modular style programming is what results in code-reuse, which is reduction of bloat.

copy-pasta is the spaghetti code you get from old procedural programmers who just copy blocks of code from one area over to another area, thus doubling the amount of code that does "the same thing"

Note, I use the term modular loosely, in the sense of a variety of languages support using multiple files to store common code, use of functions or objects that can be referenced from multiple code blocks, etc. As compared to writing the majority of your code in the single main() function as an extreme example.

Ultimately, many of the advances in programming style today can be ascribed to "how to organize the code."  Some of those styles, like Onion Architecture can create a different kind of bloat as its rules for where to put stuff arbitrarily means making more structures and places than might actually be needed for a smaller problem.


----------



## Janx (Sep 1, 2015)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But I think pretty much no Windows Version was made from scratch. I think pretty much all modern Windows Version can probably be dated back as least as far as Windows NT 3.1.
> There are certainly parts that were rewritten over time, but throwing out everything and rebuildng from there is unlikely, and unneccessary, and most definitely hasn't happened so far.
> 
> "Living" software can age poorly if the development team is not taking steps to avoid it, but it is possible to take such steps. Good architectural design, regular refactoring, strict coding guidelines, reviews, automated testing...
> ...




That's likely one of the problems WIndows has, all that backward compatibility means carrying bloat so all the old kernel32 and HAL calls still work, etc.  Heck, there was a demo where MS ran Office95 on a Windows10 machine just to prove it could be done.

As I understood it, back when the Mac's OSX came out, they dropped all compatibility with previous versions of software.  Partly because Apple changed processors from Motorola to Intel (so I recall), but with the side effect of they could rewrite their OS from the ground up (and it was, it was Unix based, where the old one was whatever they cobbled together back in 1983).

Windows10 might have benefited further from a radical dropping of "everything but our current API".  Perhaps using a virtual machine model for the legacy support (not as a full VM with Windows 7 desktop, just a backed handling of the code and the Window of the application running).  This kind of trickery is doable with Remote Desktop services as well, where instead of remoting in to see the desktop of the other machine, you see just the window for the app you are running, which is really running on the other host.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 1, 2015)

Janx said:


> um, modular style programming is what results in code-reuse, which is reduction of bloat.
> 
> copy-pasta is the spaghetti code you get from old procedural programmers who just copy blocks of code from one area over to another area, thus doubling the amount of code that does "the same thing"
> 
> ...




Let's change that reference to "should." Microsoft seems to assign different sections of an O/S to different teams. These different teams may reinvent the wheel for their portions of the project, when everything could reference back to a single set of code. I understand that splitting things up by teams is the most cost effective and quick method of producing the final product, but it would seem to me to be guaranteed to produce inefficient code.

*NOTE* I'm a network hardware/geek, not a programmer.


----------



## Janx (Sep 1, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Let's change that reference to "should." Microsoft seems to assign different sections of an O/S to different teams. These different teams may reinvent the wheel for their portions of the project, when everything could reference back to a single set of code. I understand that splitting things up by teams is the most cost effective and quick method of producing the final product, but it would seem to me to be guaranteed to produce inefficient code.
> 
> *NOTE* I'm a network hardware/geek, not a programmer.




in theory (and Microsoft is generally the king of defining APIs, etc), MS would have specified all the APIs they would need before development would begin.  Then that work would be divided up by teams, with each team knowing what the other team built (and you build the stubs for all the functions before you build the meat).

the .NET framework is an example of that, as they found a place for everything a programmer would need to do everything, and generally speaking, there's not redundancy in that one sub-section repeats the same functionality as another.  System.IO does not supply string manipulation functions because that's what System.Text was in charge of.


----------



## Elodan (Sep 1, 2015)

juanlb said:


> is windows 10 free forever?




If you get it in the first year of release and install it on your machine (assuming you have an eligible version), it's free.  After that you'll have to pay to get it.

Windows 10 upgrade FAQ:
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-faq


----------



## GMMichael (Sep 2, 2015)

Thunderfoot said:


> Why should I upgrade to Windows 10?



Because you like privacy invasion, no control over updates, and a seemingly random shifting from your program in use to a background one?

I hear the gaming framerates are a tiny bit better on 10.


----------

