mandatory updates

[T]

Hi All,

On the "oh no" front, Son-of Frankenstein (W10 preview) is
now requiring mandatory updates. And, I can't help but notice
that the first update I did required me to reinstall the
entire OS.

M$ has a bad history of bad updates. Here are 20 examples
for your amusement:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/2889295/microsoft-windows/20-epic-microsoft-windows-auto-update-meltdowns.html

I wish M$ would reverse themselves on this.

-T

[Geoff[_8_]]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:48:11 -0800, T > wrote:

>Hi All,
>
>On the "oh no" front, Son-of Frankenstein (W10 preview) is
>now requiring mandatory updates. And, I can't help but notice
>that the first update I did required me to reinstall the
>entire OS.
>

[snip]

>I wish M$ would reverse themselves on this.
>

You're running pre-release code. What do you expect? If you think you
can run it as you would Windows 7, think again.

If you don't like what it's doing to your system don't run it.

[Paul]

Geoff wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:48:11 -0800, T > wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> On the "oh no" front, Son-of Frankenstein (W10 preview) is
>> now requiring mandatory updates. And, I can't help but notice
>> that the first update I did required me to reinstall the
>> entire OS.
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>> I wish M$ would reverse themselves on this.
>>
>
> You're running pre-release code. What do you expect? If you think you
> can run it as you would Windows 7, think again.
>
> If you don't like what it's doing to your system don't run it.

Unfortunately, the plan is for the Win10 RTM to do the same thing.

This will be accompanied with a new Terms and Conditions
for Windows 10. It states:

"You don't own this computer. It now belongs to Microsoft.
You have to ask nicely, if you want a few cycles. We're
busy now, so go away."

That's the Windows 10 T&C. And this is how Skynet started...

HTH,
Paul

[Bill[_40_]]

In message >, Geoff
> writes
>On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:48:11 -0800, T > wrote:
>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>On the "oh no" front, Son-of Frankenstein (W10 preview) is
>>now requiring mandatory updates. And, I can't help but notice
>>that the first update I did required me to reinstall the
>>entire OS.
>>
>
>You're running pre-release code. What do you expect? If you think you
>can run it as you would Windows 7, think again.
>
>If you don't like what it's doing to your system don't run it.

I can't see any problem with mandatory updates of pre-release code.
Anything else would be a waste of everyone's time.

But what is worrying is the way that Windows update was dumbed down when
being moved from Control Panel to Settings, and the fact that I saw a
statement that this would be changed for the release version, but
another statement in a Microsoft blog appeared to contradict this.

I've just had to bring a machine up to date from the recovery partition
on a W7 laptop. This involved a bunch of updates, then a service pack,
then another bunch of updates. On several attempts the update process
ran for ages, then said the updates had failed. To get round this, the
updates had to be installed in small batches. I don't think the order
had to be changed, but rather that early updates had to be fully
installed via a restart before the others would "take". In these
circumstances all or nothing updates don't work and would be a
deal-breaker.

Also Microsoft seems to be saying that the versions of W10 issued to the
public would have updates that included 'improvements', new features and
developments. The implication of the blog was that these would be
mandatory for the 'public', but that corporate users would have
different long term support versions that would not have mandatory
updates.

I have sent feedback to Microsoft about this and suggested in the forum
that there needs to be a clear statement of policy.
--
Bill

[Bob Henson[_2_]]

On 27/02/2015 12:56 pm, Bill wrote:
> In message >, Geoff
> > writes
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:48:11 -0800, T > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> On the "oh no" front, Son-of Frankenstein (W10 preview) is
>>> now requiring mandatory updates. And, I can't help but notice
>>> that the first update I did required me to reinstall the
>>> entire OS.
>>>
>>
>> You're running pre-release code. What do you expect? If you think you
>> can run it as you would Windows 7, think again.
>>
>> If you don't like what it's doing to your system don't run it.
>
> I can't see any problem with mandatory updates of pre-release code.
> Anything else would be a waste of everyone's time.
>
> But what is worrying is the way that Windows update was dumbed down when
> being moved from Control Panel to Settings, and the fact that I saw a
> statement that this would be changed for the release version, but
> another statement in a Microsoft blog appeared to contradict this.
>
> I've just had to bring a machine up to date from the recovery partition
> on a W7 laptop. This involved a bunch of updates, then a service pack,
> then another bunch of updates. On several attempts the update process
> ran for ages, then said the updates had failed. To get round this, the
> updates had to be installed in small batches. I don't think the order
> had to be changed, but rather that early updates had to be fully
> installed via a restart before the others would "take". In these
> circumstances all or nothing updates don't work and would be a
> deal-breaker.
>
> Also Microsoft seems to be saying that the versions of W10 issued to the
> public would have updates that included 'improvements', new features and
> developments. The implication of the blog was that these would be
> mandatory for the 'public', but that corporate users would have
> different long term support versions that would not have mandatory
> updates.
>
> I have sent feedback to Microsoft about this and suggested in the forum
> that there needs to be a clear statement of policy.
>

I have done likewise. The whole update procedure is unclear and vague,
and takes away too much user control.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

If a man stands in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no
woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 20:49:34 -0800, Geoff >
wrote:

> You're running pre-release code. What do you expect? If you think you
> can run it as you would Windows 7, think again.
>
> If you don't like what it's doing to your system don't run it.


A strong ditto!

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 01:54:31 -0500, Paul > wrote:

> Geoff wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:48:11 -0800, T > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> On the "oh no" front, Son-of Frankenstein (W10 preview) is
> >> now requiring mandatory updates. And, I can't help but notice
> >> that the first update I did required me to reinstall the
> >> entire OS.
> >>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> I wish M$ would reverse themselves on this.
> >>
> >
> > You're running pre-release code. What do you expect? If you think you
> > can run it as you would Windows 7, think again.
> >
> > If you don't like what it's doing to your system don't run it.
>
> Unfortunately, the plan is for the Win10 RTM to do the same thing.


Not to disagree, but it remains to be seen. Plans sometimes *do*
change.

[Bob Henson[_2_]]

On 27/02/2015 4:49 am, Geoff wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:48:11 -0800, T > wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> On the "oh no" front, Son-of Frankenstein (W10 preview) is
>> now requiring mandatory updates. And, I can't help but notice
>> that the first update I did required me to reinstall the
>> entire OS.
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>> I wish M$ would reverse themselves on this.
>>
>
> You're running pre-release code. What do you expect? If you think you
> can run it as you would Windows 7, think again.
>
> If you don't like what it's doing to your system don't run it.
>

One of the problems, though, is that we aren't being told what is
experimental for the sake of it, and what is permanent and will form
part of Windows 10. Now, therefore, is the time to start commenting
about silly features like the current update set-up - not when it has
become a permanent feature and it is too late to say anything. That, I
thought, was the whole idea of releasing the preview - so Microsoft can
judge how new "features" will be accepted and act accordingly. In this
case, since it worked fine before, and doesn't now, one would have
thought they could have guessed anyway, and left it alone.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

Karaoke is Japanese for tone-deaf!

[Geoff[_8_]]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:01:56 +0000, Bob Henson >
wrote:

>On 27/02/2015 4:49 am, Geoff wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:48:11 -0800, T > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> On the "oh no" front, Son-of Frankenstein (W10 preview) is
>>> now requiring mandatory updates. And, I can't help but notice
>>> that the first update I did required me to reinstall the
>>> entire OS.
>>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I wish M$ would reverse themselves on this.
>>>
>>
>> You're running pre-release code. What do you expect? If you think you
>> can run it as you would Windows 7, think again.
>>
>> If you don't like what it's doing to your system don't run it.
>>
>
>One of the problems, though, is that we aren't being told what is
>experimental for the sake of it, and what is permanent and will form
>part of Windows 10. Now, therefore, is the time to start commenting
>about silly features like the current update set-up - not when it has
>become a permanent feature and it is too late to say anything. That, I
>thought, was the whole idea of releasing the preview - so Microsoft can
>judge how new "features" will be accepted and act accordingly. In this
>case, since it worked fine before, and doesn't now, one would have
>thought they could have guessed anyway, and left it alone.

A fair point. But Microsoft doesn't monitor Usenet for the Windows 10
Preview program, AFAICT, so writing about it here won't be heard by
those who make that decision. Peers here might start a grass-roots
movement but I think per this thread that the comments in the
Microsoft forums would be a better place to get their attention and
their comments on the problem. The chorus would also be larger.

I got the impression that the OP was less concerned with the mandatory
updates being required in the RTM version than he was with it making
him reinstall the entire OS. It sounded a bit whiny to me. I don't
volunteer for test programs unless I am prepared to deal with the
consequences of a catastrophe on my test platform.

[T]

On 02/27/2015 09:19 AM, Geoff wrote:
> I got the impression that the OP was less concerned with the mandatory
> updates being required in the RTM version than he was with it making
> him reinstall the entire OS.

Having to reinstall Alpha code is all part of the game.

> It sounded a bit whiny to me.

Ha!

> I don't
> volunteer for test programs unless I am prepared to deal with the
> consequences of a catastrophe on my test platform.

Son-of-Frankenstein (SOF) "Preview" (W10) is safely tucked away
in a virtual machine. If things go wrong, I have plenty (four)
images of the previous hard drives. But, it may be better
for my purposed to try to fix what goes wrong -- good training.

The reason I am testing SOF is so I will be familiar with it,
so I can help my customers when they ultimately get the thing
themselves.

My remark was that the first update to SOF preview crashed my machine.
Not a good sign. And, that M$ has a long, nasty history of bad updates,
which is why I posted the link.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/2889295/microsoft-windows/20-epic-microsoft-windows-auto-update-meltdowns.html


So if M$ sticks to their guns and does mandatory updates, we all
are in for a very rough ride!

And, by the way, having to see what would happen if I had to
do a reinstall or in place reinstall was something I had to get
out of the way anyway, so it was good training. A silver lining
so to speak. Well, after I was done shaking my head in disgust.

My post had nothing to do with my annoyance over having to reinstall,
it had to do with what we all have in store for up in the future!
Can you imagine what this would do to a company that relied on
Windows platforms to have all their computers go down without warning?

It is bad enough W7 users and currently suffering from an update
taking out Power Point and another update telling them they don't
have Genuine Windows.

I don't know, but I would think that if M$ persists in mandatory
updates for SOF, that it just may be time to move to another
platform. Due to the quality and performance issue involved,
I personally avoid Windows platforms. But my customers don't,
so I will continue to support them.

-T

And, by the way, I think that SOF is "Snappy" compared to
its father (Frankie). M$ might actually pull a rabbit out
of its hat, as it did with W7. Lets hope. Mandatory updates
could kill all that. We may all be in for a very rough ride!

Hopefully, next preview, M$ will have fixed a bunch of bugs.
By the time they RTM, maybe they will be at the Beta code
stage. (M$ also has a bad history of that too.)

[T]

On 02/27/2015 07:36 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 20:49:34 -0800, Geoff >
> wrote:
>
>> You're running pre-release code. What do you expect? If you think you
>> can run it as you would Windows 7, think again.
>>
>> If you don't like what it's doing to your system don't run it.
>
>
> A strong ditto!
>

I need to learn to support my customers.

And, I never had any false expectations of what
happens when I run any Alpha stage code. I have Son-of-
Frankenstein (W10) safely tucked away in a virtual
machine. Can't hurt those around it.

Why in the world would anyone think I was expecting
to use an Alpha stage product for anything other than
testing? Weird. Thought that went without saying.

[Nil[_5_]]

On 27 Feb 2015, T > wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10:

> Why in the world would anyone think I was expecting
> to use an Alpha stage product for anything other than
> testing? Weird.

Because, as usual, you never state your intentions or methods. You seem
to think we are all mind readers.

[T]

On 02/27/2015 10:19 AM, Nil wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2015, T > wrote in
> alt.comp.os.windows-10:
>
>> Why in the world would anyone think I was expecting
>> to use an Alpha stage product for anything other than
>> testing? Weird.
>
> Because, as usual, you never state your intentions or methods. You seem
> to think we are all mind readers.
>

I know what I am thinking, why not you? :-)

[Bob Henson[_2_]]

On 27/02/2015 5:19 pm, Geoff wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:01:56 +0000, Bob Henson >
> wrote:
>
>> On 27/02/2015 4:49 am, Geoff wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:48:11 -0800, T > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> On the "oh no" front, Son-of Frankenstein (W10 preview) is
>>>> now requiring mandatory updates. And, I can't help but notice
>>>> that the first update I did required me to reinstall the
>>>> entire OS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> I wish M$ would reverse themselves on this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're running pre-release code. What do you expect? If you think you
>>> can run it as you would Windows 7, think again.
>>>
>>> If you don't like what it's doing to your system don't run it.
>>>
>>
>> One of the problems, though, is that we aren't being told what is
>> experimental for the sake of it, and what is permanent and will form
>> part of Windows 10. Now, therefore, is the time to start commenting
>> about silly features like the current update set-up - not when it has
>> become a permanent feature and it is too late to say anything. That, I
>> thought, was the whole idea of releasing the preview - so Microsoft can
>> judge how new "features" will be accepted and act accordingly. In this
>> case, since it worked fine before, and doesn't now, one would have
>> thought they could have guessed anyway, and left it alone.
>
> A fair point. But Microsoft doesn't monitor Usenet for the Windows 10
> Preview program, AFAICT, so writing about it here won't be heard by
> those who make that decision. Peers here might start a grass-roots
> movement but I think per this thread that the comments in the
> Microsoft forums would be a better place to get their attention and
> their comments on the problem. The chorus would also be larger.

Yes, it is pointless in here - but I reported it using the official
feedback app too. I only mentioned it here because it came up in the
conversation. Although they don't reply to them, all the app replies are
read by someone at Microsoft, and apparently they've had a hell of a lot
of them on many and various topics.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

He is not drunk who, from the floor,
Can raise his glass and ask for more.

[T]

On 02/27/2015 10:19 AM, Nil wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2015, T > wrote in
> alt.comp.os.windows-10:
>
>> Why in the world would anyone think I was expecting
>> to use an Alpha stage product for anything other than
>> testing? Weird.
>
> Because, as usual, you never state your intentions or methods. You seem
> to think we are all mind readers.
>


Hi Nil,

What is your take on the mandatory updates? You think
M$ will insist or relent?

If the insist, we all get to make a lot more money. Sheesh!

-T

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:10:04 -0800, T > wrote:


> Why in the world would anyone think I was expecting
> to use an Alpha stage product for anything other than
> testing? Weird. Thought that went without saying.



It certainly does *not* go without saying. An enormous number of
people do, either because they don't realize the implications of what
they are doing, or most often because they don't know it's not a
released product.

[T]

On 02/27/2015 10:46 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:10:04 -0800, T > wrote:
>
>
>> Why in the world would anyone think I was expecting
>> to use an Alpha stage product for anything other than
>> testing? Weird. Thought that went without saying.
>
>
>
> It certainly does *not* go without saying. An enormous number of
> people do, either because they don't realize the implications of what
> they are doing, or most often because they don't know it's not a
> released product.
>

Hi Ken,

Really. You must be right or others wouldn't have thought
I was whining. But golly gee wiz, what part of "preview"
and all those disclaimers did they miss?

When I am writing on this group, I "presume" that I am
writing other professionals that are doing the same
thing I am doing: familiarizing themselves and testing.

Guess there are a bunch that also are trying to use in
for real. Bad idea with any Alpha stage code. Not too good
an idea with Beta stage either.

I would add to that, because it is free and they don't realize it
comes will a kill switch.

What is your take on the mandatory updates. Do you think M$ will
relent or insist?

-T

[Geoff[_8_]]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:06:15 -0800, T > wrote:

>On 02/27/2015 09:19 AM, Geoff wrote:
>> I got the impression that the OP was less concerned with the mandatory
>> updates being required in the RTM version than he was with it making
>> him reinstall the entire OS.
>
>Having to reinstall Alpha code is all part of the game.
>
>> It sounded a bit whiny to me.
>
>Ha!
>
>> I don't
>> volunteer for test programs unless I am prepared to deal with the
>> consequences of a catastrophe on my test platform.
>
>Son-of-Frankenstein (SOF) "Preview" (W10) is safely tucked away
>in a virtual machine. If things go wrong, I have plenty (four)
>images of the previous hard drives. But, it may be better
>for my purposed to try to fix what goes wrong -- good training.
>
>The reason I am testing SOF is so I will be familiar with it,
>so I can help my customers when they ultimately get the thing
>themselves.
>
>My remark was that the first update to SOF preview crashed my machine.
>Not a good sign. And, that M$ has a long, nasty history of bad updates,
>which is why I posted the link.
>
>http://www.infoworld.com/article/2889295/microsoft-windows/20-epic-microsoft-windows-auto-update-meltdowns.html
>
>
>So if M$ sticks to their guns and does mandatory updates, we all
>are in for a very rough ride!
>
>And, by the way, having to see what would happen if I had to
>do a reinstall or in place reinstall was something I had to get
>out of the way anyway, so it was good training. A silver lining
>so to speak. Well, after I was done shaking my head in disgust.
>
>My post had nothing to do with my annoyance over having to reinstall,
>it had to do with what we all have in store for up in the future!
>Can you imagine what this would do to a company that relied on
>Windows platforms to have all their computers go down without warning?
>
>It is bad enough W7 users and currently suffering from an update
>taking out Power Point and another update telling them they don't
>have Genuine Windows.
>
>I don't know, but I would think that if M$ persists in mandatory
>updates for SOF, that it just may be time to move to another
>platform. Due to the quality and performance issue involved,
>I personally avoid Windows platforms. But my customers don't,
>so I will continue to support them.
>
>-T
>
>And, by the way, I think that SOF is "Snappy" compared to
>its father (Frankie). M$ might actually pull a rabbit out
>of its hat, as it did with W7. Lets hope. Mandatory updates
>could kill all that. We may all be in for a very rough ride!
>
>Hopefully, next preview, M$ will have fixed a bunch of bugs.
>By the time they RTM, maybe they will be at the Beta code
>stage. (M$ also has a bad history of that too.)

Thanks for the clarification. I can see now there is more behind the
post than I kinetically perceived.

Speaking of updates, I had Ubuntu 14.03 LTS in a VM on my MacBookPro
and an update crashed it badly. Total destruction of the VHD and I had
to reinstall from the original ISO and I am ignoring all updates or at
most, selective about what packages I update. I only need it for the
compiler tool chain so that's good enough until I choose to use the
next major release. Snapshots, snapshots, snapshots.

The much vaunted "it never requires reboots for updates" OS X has been
requiring reboots of my machine with every single update since I
upgraded from OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard. (Well, maybe not _every_ update,
I think there was a Safari update recently that didn't need a reboot.)

I have a perfectly good iMac Core2 Duo that is stuck in 10.6.8-land
thanks to Apple going to an exclusively 64-bit OS with 10.7 "Lion".
The fun with Apple is that you are completely hosed by the choices
they make when they decide not to support both the hardware and the
software you bought into. Premium hardware prices with a two or three
year support cycle... gotta love it. No wonder they are so profitable.
If I wasn't a shareholder I'd be _really_ whiny right now. ;)

Then there's the Yosemite update that killed everyone's WiFi
connection and forced people to reinstall, reset their PRAM,
reconfigure DNS, use browsers other than Safari, etc., etc...

Still, the fanboys cheer.

There is risk in every choice and the grass always appears greener and
change is always educational.

P.S. There is no forum where you can get any official response from
any employee of Apple about any OS or hardware issue. All the forums
are nothing but regular users who may or will be just as clueless as
you might be about the issue you're asking about.

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:11:26 -0800, T > wrote:

> On 02/27/2015 10:46 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:10:04 -0800, T > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Why in the world would anyone think I was expecting
> >> to use an Alpha stage product for anything other than
> >> testing? Weird. Thought that went without saying.
> >
> >
> >
> > It certainly does *not* go without saying. An enormous number of
> > people do, either because they don't realize the implications of what
> > they are doing, or most often because they don't know it's not a
> > released product.
> >
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> Really. You must be right or others wouldn't have thought
> I was whining. But golly gee wiz, what part of "preview"
> and all those disclaimers did they miss?
>
> When I am writing on this group, I "presume" that I am
> writing other professionals that are doing the same
> thing I am doing: familiarizing themselves and testing.
>
> Guess there are a bunch that also are trying to use in
> for real.


I don't know for sure, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet that the
great majority of those posting here are the latter.



> What is your take on the mandatory updates. Do you think M$ will
> relent or insist?


Since I don't know, I have no real opinion. I'll just wait and see.

[Geoff[_8_]]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:43:03 -0800, Geoff >
wrote:

>Thanks for the clarification. I can see now there is more behind the
>post than I kinetically perceived.
Wow ---------^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't know how that happened. I feel like I've been auto-corrected
by iOS.

Should have been "initially perceived".

[mechanic]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:14:28 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> [T wrote:}
>> When I am writing on this group, I "presume" that I am
>> writing other professionals that are doing the same
>> thing I am doing: familiarizing themselves and testing.
>>
>> Guess there are a bunch that also are trying to use in
>> for real.
>
> I don't know for sure, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet that the
> great majority of those posting here are the latter.

The two are not incompatible.

[T]

On 02/27/2015 12:43 PM, Geoff wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:06:15 -0800, T > wrote:
>
>> On 02/27/2015 09:19 AM, Geoff wrote:
>>> I got the impression that the OP was less concerned with the mandatory
>>> updates being required in the RTM version than he was with it making
>>> him reinstall the entire OS.
>>
>> Having to reinstall Alpha code is all part of the game.
>>
>>> It sounded a bit whiny to me.
>>
>> Ha!
>>
>>> I don't
>>> volunteer for test programs unless I am prepared to deal with the
>>> consequences of a catastrophe on my test platform.
>>
>> Son-of-Frankenstein (SOF) "Preview" (W10) is safely tucked away
>> in a virtual machine. If things go wrong, I have plenty (four)
>> images of the previous hard drives. But, it may be better
>> for my purposed to try to fix what goes wrong -- good training.
>>
>> The reason I am testing SOF is so I will be familiar with it,
>> so I can help my customers when they ultimately get the thing
>> themselves.
>>
>> My remark was that the first update to SOF preview crashed my machine.
>> Not a good sign. And, that M$ has a long, nasty history of bad updates,
>> which is why I posted the link.
>>
>> http://www.infoworld.com/article/2889295/microsoft-windows/20-epic-microsoft-windows-auto-update-meltdowns.html
>>
>>
>> So if M$ sticks to their guns and does mandatory updates, we all
>> are in for a very rough ride!
>>
>> And, by the way, having to see what would happen if I had to
>> do a reinstall or in place reinstall was something I had to get
>> out of the way anyway, so it was good training. A silver lining
>> so to speak. Well, after I was done shaking my head in disgust.
>>
>> My post had nothing to do with my annoyance over having to reinstall,
>> it had to do with what we all have in store for up in the future!
>> Can you imagine what this would do to a company that relied on
>> Windows platforms to have all their computers go down without warning?
>>
>> It is bad enough W7 users and currently suffering from an update
>> taking out Power Point and another update telling them they don't
>> have Genuine Windows.
>>
>> I don't know, but I would think that if M$ persists in mandatory
>> updates for SOF, that it just may be time to move to another
>> platform. Due to the quality and performance issue involved,
>> I personally avoid Windows platforms. But my customers don't,
>> so I will continue to support them.
>>
>> -T
>>
>> And, by the way, I think that SOF is "Snappy" compared to
>> its father (Frankie). M$ might actually pull a rabbit out
>> of its hat, as it did with W7. Lets hope. Mandatory updates
>> could kill all that. We may all be in for a very rough ride!
>>
>> Hopefully, next preview, M$ will have fixed a bunch of bugs.
>> By the time they RTM, maybe they will be at the Beta code
>> stage. (M$ also has a bad history of that too.)
>
> Thanks for the clarification. I can see now there is more behind the
> post than I kinetically perceived.
>
> Speaking of updates, I had Ubuntu 14.03 LTS in a VM on my MacBookPro
> and an update crashed it badly. Total destruction of the VHD and I had
> to reinstall from the original ISO and I am ignoring all updates or at
> most, selective about what packages I update. I only need it for the
> compiler tool chain so that's good enough until I choose to use the
> next major release. Snapshots, snapshots, snapshots.
>

Hi Geoff,

Were you running Time Machine or similar? All you had to do was
restore the VDH. Love VM's for that!

> The much vaunted "it never requires reboots for updates" OS X has been
> requiring reboots of my machine with every single update since I
> upgraded from OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard. (Well, maybe not _every_ update,
> I think there was a Safari update recently that didn't need a reboot.)
>
> I have a perfectly good iMac Core2 Duo that is stuck in 10.6.8-land
> thanks to Apple going to an exclusively 64-bit OS with 10.7 "Lion".
> The fun with Apple is that you are completely hosed by the choices
> they make when they decide not to support both the hardware and the
> software you bought into. Premium hardware prices with a two or three
> year support cycle... gotta love it. No wonder they are so profitable.
> If I wasn't a shareholder I'd be _really_ whiny right now. ;)
>
> Then there's the Yosemite update that killed everyone's WiFi
> connection and forced people to reinstall, reset their PRAM,
> reconfigure DNS, use browsers other than Safari, etc., etc...
>
> Still, the fanboys cheer.
>
> There is risk in every choice and the grass always appears greener and
> change is always educational.
>
> P.S. There is no forum where you can get any official response from
> any employee of Apple about any OS or hardware issue. All the forums
> are nothing but regular users who may or will be just as clueless as
> you might be about the issue you're asking about.
>

I have never cared for Apple because they are so closed. Feel
like I am wearing a straight jacket. But, their quality sure
is better.

I personally prefer Red Hat because I can (and do) write the developers
directly on their Bugzilla. (I was the one who discovered that
cutting a DVD on RHEL5 corrupted your hard drive -- and Red Hat
fixed it for me. Can't even imagine if that had happened on
an M$ or Apple OS. "You ordered how many copies????")

-T

[T]

On 02/27/2015 02:17 PM, Geoff wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:43:03 -0800, Geoff >
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the clarification. I can see now there is more behind the
>> post than I kinetically perceived.
> Wow ---------^^^^^^^^^^^
> I don't know how that happened. I feel like I've been auto-corrected
> by iOS.
>
> Should have been "initially perceived".
>

Hi Geoff,

You have got about 2000 typos to go to catch up with me. You
can't win this one. I went to publik skool!

:-)

-T

[Geoff[_8_]]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:26:43 -0800, T > wrote:

>
>Hi Geoff,
>
>Were you running Time Machine or similar? All you had to do was
>restore the VDH. Love VM's for that!
>
I was on the road at the time and the Time Capsule wasn't available to
me at the time. I keep my code on an SVN server that's always
accessible so it was no big deal to scrap the image, reinstall from
the ISO and get the project from the server.

>
>I have never cared for Apple because they are so closed. Feel
>like I am wearing a straight jacket. But, their quality sure
>is better.
>

I know the feeling. I run my entire business off my iPhone, iPad and
MacBook. I've had Blackberry and PC/Outlook and functionally they are
all about the same but the Apple hardware has been solid. My PCs are
all solid too, but they don't travel and I will never own a Dell or
Toshiba laptop again. I was considering a Surface Pro 3 but I think
I'll wait until Windows 10 is released and then compare that platform
with the MacBook Air 13". I need USB ports because I run certain
applications on Windows that use a specialized interface.

>I personally prefer Red Hat because I can (and do) write the developers
>directly on their Bugzilla. (I was the one who discovered that
>cutting a DVD on RHEL5 corrupted your hard drive -- and Red Hat
>fixed it for me. Can't even imagine if that had happened on
>an M$ or Apple OS. "You ordered how many copies????")
>

Been there, done that. Fedora Core 8 was an adventure too. I've not
kept up with them since Ubuntu did what I needed it to do for
generating code compatible with the machines it was targeted for.

[Bill[_40_]]

In message >, Geoff
> writes
>I know the feeling. I run my entire business off my iPhone, iPad and
>MacBook. I've had Blackberry and PC/Outlook and functionally they are
>all about the same but the Apple hardware has been solid. My PCs are
>all solid too, but they don't travel and I will never own a Dell or
>Toshiba laptop again. I was considering a Surface Pro 3 but I think
>I'll wait until Windows 10 is released and then compare that platform
>with the MacBook Air 13". I need USB ports because I run certain
>applications on Windows that use a specialized interface.

All this is exactly the argument for discussing here how best to edge
Microsoft towards a workable, usable, adaptable system.

The iPad is good, but potentially my Linx MS tablet is better at 1/10th
the price. Only W8 holds it back because it keeps having to drop back
into desktop mode to do what I want and my fingers are too big.
Son's iPad Air is good, but horrendously expensive and very rigid except
when he runs Parallels to run the Windows based software. My W7 laptops
are good, but the W8 ones have to keep dropping into Metro mode for some
basic things that I do.
Linux is OK for a lot of things, but pro audio, for example, and
security camera software have so far beaten me.

I do think it is important that Microsoft keeps going, but on a sensible
path, so the hope is that someone in there actually does make decisions
based on the feedback they are getting.

I haven't found any way to see what feedback I've already given and
whether there were any 'likes' - has anyone else?
Can I also ask here whether anyone else is confused by the colours
chosen for the scroll bars in the start menu and their disappearing act?
I've asked in the forum but had no response. Is the black on blue like
the wedding dress in today's papers, where some people (maybe the
developers?) see it as white and some other colour?
--
Bill

[Robert Brereton]

> Can I also ask here whether anyone else is confused by the colours chosen
> for the scroll bars in the start menu and their disappearing act?

I have (among other items) put a comment on the feedback site about the
black on blue scroll bars, also the unnecessary Alphabetic tabs.