notes on the update

[T]

Hi All,

The update to SOF (Son-of-Frankenstein, w10 preview) from
9926 to 10031 took about 7 hours to complete (about
3 hours to download over DSL and about 4 hours to
install, but I wasn't keeping track).

As far as I can tell, M$ is downloading the whole
potato and doing a full in-place reinstall. This
would account for the large amounts of time
involved. I presume they will do this the same
way with any service packs. They seem to have
done it this way with w7, vista (which was a
nightmare), and Frankenstein (w8) (sp1 was
a nightmare for a lot of people).

M$ would be well to take a page from Fedora/Red Hat,
where all programs installed the normal way and
their revisions are stored in a database (yum and rpm).
When you upgrade an alpha, beta, or release candidate,
it will only download and install what has changed.
Not the whole nine yards. Process takes anywhere
from a minute to 30 minutes over DSL. It is really
quick and simple.

I have no idea why M$ does it the way they do, but
I can't imagine it will done any better in the
future if M$ doesn't change its ways.

On the bright side, I did purposefully interrupted
10031 and a prior update to see what would happen.
And the update app handled it well. I was
impressed. (Dot Net updates did not go
so well in w7.)

Bit defender "seemed" (watch the weasel word) to
survive the 10031 update. Bit Defender still
wants me to "register", but I am loath to receive
their marketing spam. (I am not worried about
viruses anyway for this test bed. I am only concerned
on how the Anti Virus program react with SOF.)

I was also impressed with the big, round percent installed
graphic, as you were just SSSLLLLOOOOWWW and not crashed.

My 2 cents,

-T

[T]

On 03/19/2015 10:02 PM, T wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The update to SOF (Son-of-Frankenstein, w10 preview) from
> 9926 to 10031 took about 7 hours to complete (about
> 3 hours to download over DSL and about 4 hours to
> install, but I wasn't keeping track).
>
> As far as I can tell, M$ is downloading the whole
> potato and doing a full in-place reinstall. This
> would account for the large amounts of time
> involved. I presume they will do this the same
> way with any service packs. They seem to have
> done it this way with w7, vista (which was a
> nightmare), and Frankenstein (w8) (sp1 was
> a nightmare for a lot of people).
>
> M$ would be well to take a page from Fedora/Red Hat,
> where all programs installed the normal way and
> their revisions are stored in a database (yum and rpm).
> When you upgrade an alpha, beta, or release candidate,
> it will only download and install what has changed.
> Not the whole nine yards. Process takes anywhere
> from a minute to 30 minutes over DSL. It is really
> quick and simple.
>
> I have no idea why M$ does it the way they do, but
> I can't imagine it will done any better in the
> future if M$ doesn't change its ways.
>
> On the bright side, I did purposefully interrupted
> 10031 and a prior update to see what would happen.
> And the update app handled it well. I was
> impressed. (Dot Net updates did not go
> so well in w7.)
>
> Bit defender "seemed" (watch the weasel word) to
> survive the 10031 update. Bit Defender still
> wants me to "register", but I am loath to receive
> their marketing spam. (I am not worried about
> viruses anyway for this test bed. I am only concerned
> on how the Anti Virus program react with SOF.)
>
> I was also impressed with the big, round percent installed
> graphic, as you were just SSSLLLLOOOOWWW and not crashed.
>
> My 2 cents,
>
> -T
>

Also get a memory could not be reference on shutdown
three times after the update. Doesn't seem to hurt
anything

[Disguised]

On 20-Mar-2015 01:02, T wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The update to SOF (Son-of-Frankenstein, w10 preview) from
> 9926 to 10031 took about 7 hours to complete (about
> 3 hours to download over DSL and about 4 hours to
> install, but I wasn't keeping track).

<big snip>

Latest build is 10041 not 10031 (typo)?

[Paul]

T wrote:
> On 03/19/2015 10:02 PM, T wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The update to SOF (Son-of-Frankenstein, w10 preview) from
>> 9926 to 10031 took about 7 hours to complete (about
>> 3 hours to download over DSL and about 4 hours to
>> install, but I wasn't keeping track).
>>
>> As far as I can tell, M$ is downloading the whole
>> potato and doing a full in-place reinstall. This
>> would account for the large amounts of time
>> involved. I presume they will do this the same
>> way with any service packs. They seem to have
>> done it this way with w7, vista (which was a
>> nightmare), and Frankenstein (w8) (sp1 was
>> a nightmare for a lot of people).
>>
>> M$ would be well to take a page from Fedora/Red Hat,
>> where all programs installed the normal way and
>> their revisions are stored in a database (yum and rpm).
>> When you upgrade an alpha, beta, or release candidate,
>> it will only download and install what has changed.
>> Not the whole nine yards. Process takes anywhere
>> from a minute to 30 minutes over DSL. It is really
>> quick and simple.
>>
>> I have no idea why M$ does it the way they do, but
>> I can't imagine it will done any better in the
>> future if M$ doesn't change its ways.
>>
>> On the bright side, I did purposefully interrupted
>> 10031 and a prior update to see what would happen.
>> And the update app handled it well. I was
>> impressed. (Dot Net updates did not go
>> so well in w7.)
>>
>> Bit defender "seemed" (watch the weasel word) to
>> survive the 10031 update. Bit Defender still
>> wants me to "register", but I am loath to receive
>> their marketing spam. (I am not worried about
>> viruses anyway for this test bed. I am only concerned
>> on how the Anti Virus program react with SOF.)
>>
>> I was also impressed with the big, round percent installed
>> graphic, as you were just SSSLLLLOOOOWWW and not crashed.
>>
>> My 2 cents,
>>
>> -T
>>
>
> Also get a memory could not be reference on shutdown
> three times after the update. Doesn't seem to hurt
> anything

Have you tested for FLAC codec support yet ? :-)

I was waiting and waiting for that, and it was
supposed to show up at 9950 (a revision that
didn't show up).

Paul

[philo]

On 03/20/2015 12:02 AM, T wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The update to SOF (Son-of-Frankenstein, w10 preview) from
> 9926 to 10031 took about 7 hours to complete (about
> 3 hours to download over DSL and about 4 hours to
> install, but I wasn't keeping track).
>
>


<snip>


From start to finish it took exactly half that time for completion
and I'm running Win10 in a Virtual Machine.

That said, what MS is doing is simply installing an entire new build and
what you saw was not an update per se.


Once Win10 is released, I'm sure updates will occur without replacement
of the entire OS.


Even though I'd be unlikely to use apps from the Microsoft Store,
I decided to at least see what they are.


I tried the free "Photoshop Express"

Even though it's very limited, it's extremely user-friendly and it did a
good job.

Any serious photographer who uses the full version of Photoshop would of
course laugh at this, but for a casual user I can see that it would be
popular.

[T]

On 03/20/2015 06:02 AM, philo wrote:
> That said, what MS is doing is simply installing an entire new build and
> what you saw was not an update per se.
>
>
> Once Win10 is released, I'm sure updates will occur without replacement
> of the entire OS.

Hi Philo,

Their updates just update what is needed. Their service packs
seem to replace the whole potato at times. These are the
ones you have to let run overnight. And, customer's panic
and start rebooting things and all hell breaks lose.

If M$ does the round percent thing on their huge updates
(services) packs, I think the customers will just leave
them alone while they run.

-T

[T]

On 03/20/2015 05:02 AM, Disguised wrote:
> On 20-Mar-2015 01:02, T wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The update to SOF (Son-of-Frankenstein, w10 preview) from
>> 9926 to 10031 took about 7 hours to complete (about
>> 3 hours to download over DSL and about 4 hours to
>> install, but I wasn't keeping track).
>
> <big snip>
>
> Latest build is 10041 not 10031 (typo)?

Yup. Fumble fingers. :'[

[T]

On 03/20/2015 05:19 AM, Paul wrote:
> Have you tested for FLAC codec support yet ? :-)
>
> I was waiting and waiting for that, and it was
> supposed to show up at 9950 (a revision that
> didn't show up).
>
> Paul

Hi Paul,

By "FLAC" do you mean "Free Lossless Audio Codec"?

Is so, I do not have sound configured in my KVM (Red
Hat's Kernel Virtual Machine) or any other of my
virtual machines as Red Hat is working on a problem
I uncovered with sound support.

Sounds like you are still waiting on it. What
do you mainly use FLAC for? On my base system,
I use ogg almost exclusively.

-T

[Paul]

T wrote:
> On 03/20/2015 05:19 AM, Paul wrote:
>> Have you tested for FLAC codec support yet ? :-)
>>
>> I was waiting and waiting for that, and it was
>> supposed to show up at 9950 (a revision that
>> didn't show up).
>>
>> Paul
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> By "FLAC" do you mean "Free Lossless Audio Codec"?
>
> Is so, I do not have sound configured in my KVM (Red
> Hat's Kernel Virtual Machine) or any other of my
> virtual machines as Red Hat is working on a problem
> I uncovered with sound support.
>
> Sounds like you are still waiting on it. What
> do you mainly use FLAC for? On my base system,
> I use ogg almost exclusively.
>
> -T

I'm waiting on it, because it was
claimed to be a "feature". And since
actual Easter Eggs in the OS are few and
far between, that's why I've been making
a big deal about the claim. I want to see
Microsoft actually add a CODEC :-) You know
how it hurts them to do that.

Paul

[John Szalay]

Paul > wrote in :
>
> I'm waiting on it, because it was
> claimed to be a "feature". And since
> actual Easter Eggs in the OS are few and
> far between, that's why I've been making
> a big deal about the claim. I want to see
> Microsoft actually add a CODEC :-) You know
> how it hurts them to do that.
>
> Paul
>


build 10041, media player now plays .FLAC..