any sign of 10049 iso yet?

[T]

?

[Paul]

T wrote:
> ?

Why ?

Stick with a release that works better.
The additions aren't that impressive.

Paul

[T]

On 04/02/2015 11:08 AM, Paul wrote:
> T wrote:
>> ?
>
> Why ?
>
> Stick with a release that works better.
> The additions aren't that impressive.
>
> Paul

Hi Paul,

I really don't care which one works or not. I need
to learn and get ready for the approaching storm.

10041 is hosed on my machine. I keep being told I need
0.0MB more free space to install 10049, no matter how
much free space I free up.

And, it also says I have to install 10041 as well as
10049, even though I am on 10041.

So, I have to wipe and reinstall, which is good practice.

-T

[John Szalay]

T > wrote in :

> On 04/02/2015 11:08 AM, Paul wrote:
>> T wrote:
>>> ?
>>
>> Why ?
>>
>> Stick with a release that works better.
>> The additions aren't that impressive.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I really don't care which one works or not. I need
> to learn and get ready for the approaching storm.
>
> 10041 is hosed on my machine. I keep being told I need
> 0.0MB more free space to install 10049, no matter how
> much free space I free up.
>
> And, it also says I have to install 10041 as well as
> 10049, even though I am on 10041.
>
> So, I have to wipe and reinstall, which is good practice.
>
> -T
>

FWIW:
go back to 10041, 10049 so far is a disaster.

Unistack, whatever that is, is hogging 92% of CPU,,
Spartan barely runs ,
was happy with the first builds, ran just great but this one seems to
have issues..

still, its part of the testing/preview....

[Joel]

"john szalay" wrote in message
31...
>
>T > wrote in :
>
>> On 04/02/2015 11:08 AM, Paul wrote:
>>> T wrote:
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> Why ?
>>>
>>> Stick with a release that works better.
>>> The additions aren't that impressive.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> I really don't care which one works or not. I need
>> to learn and get ready for the approaching storm.
>>
>> 10041 is hosed on my machine. I keep being told I need
>> 0.0MB more free space to install 10049, no matter how
>> much free space I free up.
>>
>> And, it also says I have to install 10041 as well as
>> 10049, even though I am on 10041.
>>
>> So, I have to wipe and reinstall, which is good practice.
>>
>> -T
>>
>
>FWIW:
>go back to 10041, 10049 so far is a disaster.
>
>Unistack, whatever that is, is hogging 92% of CPU,,
> Spartan barely runs ,
>was happy with the first builds, ran just great but this one seems to
>have issues..
>
> still, its part of the testing/preview....
>
>
Glad you tried it first. Can we turn off upgrading and wait to see?

[Brian Gregory]

On 03/04/2015 23:46, Joel wrote:
> "john szalay" wrote in message
> 31...
>>
>> T > wrote in :
>>
>>> On 04/02/2015 11:08 AM, Paul wrote:
>>>> T wrote:
>>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Why ?
>>>>
>>>> Stick with a release that works better.
>>>> The additions aren't that impressive.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> I really don't care which one works or not. I need
>>> to learn and get ready for the approaching storm.
>>>
>>> 10041 is hosed on my machine. I keep being told I need
>>> 0.0MB more free space to install 10049, no matter how
>>> much free space I free up.
>>>
>>> And, it also says I have to install 10041 as well as
>>> 10049, even though I am on 10041.
>>>
>>> So, I have to wipe and reinstall, which is good practice.
>>>
>>> -T
>>>
>>
>> FWIW:
>> go back to 10041, 10049 so far is a disaster.
>>
>> Unistack, whatever that is, is hogging 92% of CPU,,
>> Spartan barely runs ,
>> was happy with the first builds, ran just great but this one seems to
>> have issues..
>>
>> still, its part of the testing/preview....
>>
>>
> Glad you tried it first. Can we turn off upgrading and wait to see?

10049 works great for me.

Spartan works.
Nothing is hogging any CPU cycles.

It did take several hours to update from 10041 to 10049 though.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

[T]

On 04/03/2015 03:46 PM, Joel wrote:
> FWIW:
> go back to 10041, 10049 so far is a disaster.
>
> Unistack, whatever that is, is hogging 92% of CPU,,
> Spartan barely runs ,
> was happy with the first builds, ran just great but this one seems to
> have issues..
>
> still, its part of the testing/preview....

Hi Joel,

Perhaps you are thinking I am going to use this for actual work?
What I am using it for is to learn how to cope with all the
"go wrongs". Basically, I want to to see and cope with
any of the nonsense that will torment my customers.

So basically, I want on 10049 even more now. But, I will
need the ISO to get there.

-T

I don't actually create anything thing in Windows anymore.
And I only have one remaining program I have to run
in a Windows Virtual Machine, but it doesn't create anything.

My Windows Virtual Machines are basically only for assisting
my customers, research, training, etc.. All my data is
safely tucked away on my Linux host machine.

So, bring on the "go wrongs" in my SOF (Son-of-Frankenstein,
a.k.a. Windows Nein, oops, Windows 10) Virtual Machine!

[T]

On 04/03/2015 05:17 PM, Brian Gregory wrote:
> On 03/04/2015 23:46, Joel wrote:
>> "john szalay" wrote in message
>> 31...
>>>
>>> T > wrote in :
>>>
>>>> On 04/02/2015 11:08 AM, Paul wrote:
>>>>> T wrote:
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Stick with a release that works better.
>>>>> The additions aren't that impressive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>
>>>> I really don't care which one works or not. I need
>>>> to learn and get ready for the approaching storm.
>>>>
>>>> 10041 is hosed on my machine. I keep being told I need
>>>> 0.0MB more free space to install 10049, no matter how
>>>> much free space I free up.
>>>>
>>>> And, it also says I have to install 10041 as well as
>>>> 10049, even though I am on 10041.
>>>>
>>>> So, I have to wipe and reinstall, which is good practice.
>>>>
>>>> -T
>>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW:
>>> go back to 10041, 10049 so far is a disaster.
>>>
>>> Unistack, whatever that is, is hogging 92% of CPU,,
>>> Spartan barely runs ,
>>> was happy with the first builds, ran just great but this one seems to
>>> have issues..
>>>
>>> still, its part of the testing/preview....
>>>
>>>
>> Glad you tried it first. Can we turn off upgrading and wait to see?
>
> 10049 works great for me.
>
> Spartan works.
> Nothing is hogging any CPU cycles.
>
> It did take several hours to update from 10041 to 10049 though.
>


Hmmmmmmm. If I sound a little disappointed ...

[John Szalay]

"Joel" > wrote in :

>
>>
>> still, its part of the testing/preview....
>>
>>
> Glad you tried it first. Can we turn off upgrading and wait to see?
>


Thats up to you, I,m still running 10049 trying to see what the issue
really is. I,m not alone in this I see several more are seeing the same
Unistack "problem"

If I kill the Unistacksvc , whatever it is, everything works again..

Cortana seems to be hanging in this build, works sometimes and sometimes
not..

trucking right along...

[GlowingBlueMist[_6_]]

On 4/3/2015 7:40 PM, T wrote:
> On 04/03/2015 03:46 PM, Joel wrote:
>> FWIW:
>> go back to 10041, 10049 so far is a disaster.
>>
>> Unistack, whatever that is, is hogging 92% of CPU,,
>> Spartan barely runs ,
>> was happy with the first builds, ran just great but this one seems to
>> have issues..
>>
>> still, its part of the testing/preview....
>
> Hi Joel,
>
> Perhaps you are thinking I am going to use this for actual work?
> What I am using it for is to learn how to cope with all the
> "go wrongs". Basically, I want to to see and cope with
> any of the nonsense that will torment my customers.
>
> So basically, I want on 10049 even more now. But, I will
> need the ISO to get there.
>
> -T
>
> I don't actually create anything thing in Windows anymore.
> And I only have one remaining program I have to run
> in a Windows Virtual Machine, but it doesn't create anything.
>
> My Windows Virtual Machines are basically only for assisting
> my customers, research, training, etc.. All my data is
> safely tucked away on my Linux host machine.
>
> So, bring on the "go wrongs" in my SOF (Son-of-Frankenstein,
> a.k.a. Windows Nein, oops, Windows 10) Virtual Machine!
Here is a link to the 32 or 64 bit versions of 10049 direct from Microsoft.

http://microsoft-news.com/download-windows-10-build-10049-iso-images/

[Disguised]

On 03-Apr-2015 23:03, GlowingBlueMist wrote:
> On 4/3/2015 7:40 PM, T wrote:
>> On 04/03/2015 03:46 PM, Joel wrote:
>>> FWIW:
>>> go back to 10041, 10049 so far is a disaster.
>>>
>>> Unistack, whatever that is, is hogging 92% of CPU,,
>>> Spartan barely runs ,
>>> was happy with the first builds, ran just great but this one seems to
>>> have issues..
>>>
>>> still, its part of the testing/preview....
>>
>> Hi Joel,
>>
>> Perhaps you are thinking I am going to use this for actual work?
>> What I am using it for is to learn how to cope with all the
>> "go wrongs". Basically, I want to to see and cope with
>> any of the nonsense that will torment my customers.
>>
>> So basically, I want on 10049 even more now. But, I will
>> need the ISO to get there.
>>
>> -T
>>
>> I don't actually create anything thing in Windows anymore.
>> And I only have one remaining program I have to run
>> in a Windows Virtual Machine, but it doesn't create anything.
>>
>> My Windows Virtual Machines are basically only for assisting
>> my customers, research, training, etc.. All my data is
>> safely tucked away on my Linux host machine.
>>
>> So, bring on the "go wrongs" in my SOF (Son-of-Frankenstein,
>> a.k.a. Windows Nein, oops, Windows 10) Virtual Machine!
> Here is a link to the 32 or 64 bit versions of 10049 direct from Microsoft.
>
> http://microsoft-news.com/download-windows-10-build-10049-iso-images/

This download is not from a Microsoft site.

[Paul]

Disguised wrote:
> On 03-Apr-2015 23:03, GlowingBlueMist wrote:
>> On 4/3/2015 7:40 PM, T wrote:
>>> On 04/03/2015 03:46 PM, Joel wrote:
>>>> FWIW:
>>>> go back to 10041, 10049 so far is a disaster.
>>>>
>>>> Unistack, whatever that is, is hogging 92% of CPU,,
>>>> Spartan barely runs ,
>>>> was happy with the first builds, ran just great but this one seems to
>>>> have issues..
>>>>
>>>> still, its part of the testing/preview....
>>>
>>> Hi Joel,
>>>
>>> Perhaps you are thinking I am going to use this for actual work?
>>> What I am using it for is to learn how to cope with all the
>>> "go wrongs". Basically, I want to to see and cope with
>>> any of the nonsense that will torment my customers.
>>>
>>> So basically, I want on 10049 even more now. But, I will
>>> need the ISO to get there.
>>>
>>> -T
>>>
>>> I don't actually create anything thing in Windows anymore.
>>> And I only have one remaining program I have to run
>>> in a Windows Virtual Machine, but it doesn't create anything.
>>>
>>> My Windows Virtual Machines are basically only for assisting
>>> my customers, research, training, etc.. All my data is
>>> safely tucked away on my Linux host machine.
>>>
>>> So, bring on the "go wrongs" in my SOF (Son-of-Frankenstein,
>>> a.k.a. Windows Nein, oops, Windows 10) Virtual Machine!
>> Here is a link to the 32 or 64 bit versions of 10049 direct from
>> Microsoft.
>>
>> http://microsoft-news.com/download-windows-10-build-10049-iso-images/
>
> This download is not from a Microsoft site.

I think that was a test, to see if Todd had
his morning coffee yet :-)

https://mega.co.nz/#%21HdBShbAJ%21VKvKiHejVWB26sM9J9jsZKTK9YdQ7tlkX1A pAwn_G6Q
https://mega.co.nz/#%21PFplWQjQ%21L6SjAIIc2tTcjQdm_FsIdLgmmywXHoz3AMQ MuPsYb-k

Yeah, looks safe to me :-)

I don't mind stuff like that, if I have a SHA1 or SHA256 checksum
to verify they haven't been modified. If someone gives me an
MD5 checksum for the files, that's useless as protection
from counterfeits. And SHA1 is barely adequate.

Paul

[GlowingBlueMist[_6_]]

On 4/4/2015 8:04 AM, Paul wrote:
> Disguised wrote:
>> On 03-Apr-2015 23:03, GlowingBlueMist wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2015 7:40 PM, T wrote:
>>>> On 04/03/2015 03:46 PM, Joel wrote:
>>>>> FWIW:
>>>>> go back to 10041, 10049 so far is a disaster.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unistack, whatever that is, is hogging 92% of CPU,,
>>>>> Spartan barely runs ,
>>>>> was happy with the first builds, ran just great but this one seems to
>>>>> have issues..
>>>>>
>>>>> still, its part of the testing/preview....
>>>>
>>>> Hi Joel,
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you are thinking I am going to use this for actual work?
>>>> What I am using it for is to learn how to cope with all the
>>>> "go wrongs". Basically, I want to to see and cope with
>>>> any of the nonsense that will torment my customers.
>>>>
>>>> So basically, I want on 10049 even more now. But, I will
>>>> need the ISO to get there.
>>>>
>>>> -T
>>>>
>>>> I don't actually create anything thing in Windows anymore.
>>>> And I only have one remaining program I have to run
>>>> in a Windows Virtual Machine, but it doesn't create anything.
>>>>
>>>> My Windows Virtual Machines are basically only for assisting
>>>> my customers, research, training, etc.. All my data is
>>>> safely tucked away on my Linux host machine.
>>>>
>>>> So, bring on the "go wrongs" in my SOF (Son-of-Frankenstein,
>>>> a.k.a. Windows Nein, oops, Windows 10) Virtual Machine!
>>> Here is a link to the 32 or 64 bit versions of 10049 direct from
>>> Microsoft.
>>>
>>> http://microsoft-news.com/download-windows-10-build-10049-iso-images/
>>
>> This download is not from a Microsoft site.
>
> I think that was a test, to see if Todd had
> his morning coffee yet :-)
>
> https://mega.co.nz/#%21HdBShbAJ%21VKvKiHejVWB26sM9J9jsZKTK9YdQ7tlkX1A pAwn_G6Q
>
> https://mega.co.nz/#%21PFplWQjQ%21L6SjAIIc2tTcjQdm_FsIdLgmmywXHoz3AMQ MuPsYb-k
>
>
> Yeah, looks safe to me :-)
>
> I don't mind stuff like that, if I have a SHA1 or SHA256 checksum
> to verify they haven't been modified. If someone gives me an
> MD5 checksum for the files, that's useless as protection
> from counterfeits. And SHA1 is barely adequate.
>
> Paul
Thanks for the vote of confidence Paul, but
I must have been asleep when I posted that link.

It does not matter any longer as they have removed the downloads from
access. Should someone try to download one of them a warning message is
posted advising they were removed with one of three possible reasons.

"The file has been removed because of a ToS/AUP violation."
"Invalid URL - the ink you are trying to access does not exist"
"The file has been deleted by the user."

Sorry people... And torrents link no less...

[T]

On 04/04/2015 06:04 AM, Paul wrote:
> I think that was a test, to see if Todd had
> his morning coffee yet :-)

You didn't hear me clucking like a chicken? Hmmmmm....