10061 Problems

[SC Tom[_3_]]

Just had it installed about an hour ago (took about 90 minutes to DL and
install over my wifi connection).

Seems a lot slower than the previous preview, and has added a major problem
for me: if I click on Start, All Apps, and then try to run any non-Win10
program, it won't start. I have to go back, right-click on the app, and
select Run as Admin. But, if I click on Start, then type the name of the app
I want to run, select it from the list, then it starts just fine.

None of the apps pinned to the Start menu work either, unless they're native
Win10 apps. If I had the .iso for this version, I'd do a wipe and reinstall,
but I don't really feel like wiping and reinstalling 10049, then re-updating
:-( Maybe I'll try Classic Shell again and see if that fixes it. If not,
I'll roll back to 10049; I don't need the aggravation of this release that
much LOL!
--
SC Tom

[T]

On 04/24/2015 08:56 AM, SC Tom wrote:
> I don't really feel like wiping and reinstalling 10049, then re-updating

I wiped and reinstalled 10041. Fast Track jumped me straight
to 10061

[Nil[_5_]]

On 24 Apr 2015, "SC Tom" > wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10:

> Just had it installed about an hour ago (took about 90 minutes to
> DL and install over my wifi connection).
>
> Seems a lot slower than the previous preview, and has added a
> major problem for me: if I click on Start, All Apps, and then try
> to run any non-Win10 program, it won't start. I have to go back,
> right-click on the app, and select Run as Admin. But, if I click
> on Start, then type the name of the app I want to run, select it
> from the list, then it starts just fine.
>
> None of the apps pinned to the Start menu work either, unless
> they're native Win10 apps. If I had the .iso for this version, I'd
> do a wipe and reinstall, but I don't really feel like wiping and
> reinstalling 10049, then re-updating

I was having big problems with 10049. Instead of reinstalling from
scratch, I did a "Reset" from the Advanced Troubleshooting startup
menu. I'm not sure what that does exactly, but it seems to do something
like rebuild my profile. It removed all the programs I had installed,
but it finally worked properly. I guess my profile had become corrupt
or had some problem. I then let it update to 10061 and re-installed my
few programs, and it seems to be working pretty well now. And a bit
faster than 10041 and way faster than 10049 on my VirtualBox VM.

[T]

On 04/24/2015 08:56 AM, SC Tom wrote:
> Just had it installed about an hour ago (took about 90 minutes to DL and
> install over my wifi connection).
>
> Seems a lot slower than the previous preview, and has added a major
> problem for me: if I click on Start, All Apps, and then try to run any
> non-Win10 program, it won't start. I have to go back, right-click on the
> app, and select Run as Admin. But, if I click on Start, then type the
> name of the app I want to run, select it from the list, then it starts
> just fine.
>
> None of the apps pinned to the Start menu work either, unless they're
> native Win10 apps. If I had the .iso for this version, I'd do a wipe and
> reinstall, but I don't really feel like wiping and reinstalling 10049,
> then re-updating :-( Maybe I'll try Classic Shell again and see if that
> fixes it. If not, I'll roll back to 10049; I don't need the aggravation
> of this release that much LOL!


I think it is time to wipe and reinstall 10041

[SC Tom[_3_]]

"T" > wrote in message ...
> On 04/24/2015 08:56 AM, SC Tom wrote:
>> Just had it installed about an hour ago (took about 90 minutes to DL and
>> install over my wifi connection).
>>
>> Seems a lot slower than the previous preview, and has added a major
>> problem for me: if I click on Start, All Apps, and then try to run any
>> non-Win10 program, it won't start. I have to go back, right-click on the
>> app, and select Run as Admin. But, if I click on Start, then type the
>> name of the app I want to run, select it from the list, then it starts
>> just fine.
>>
>> None of the apps pinned to the Start menu work either, unless they're
>> native Win10 apps. If I had the .iso for this version, I'd do a wipe and
>> reinstall, but I don't really feel like wiping and reinstalling 10049,
>> then re-updating :-( Maybe I'll try Classic Shell again and see if that
>> fixes it. If not, I'll roll back to 10049; I don't need the aggravation
>> of this release that much LOL!
>
>
> I think it is time to wipe and reinstall 10041

I did a "Refresh" from the Settings/Recovery menu. It of course uninstalled
all of the non-native programs, but then the Start menu started doing what
Marti and John posted- going away after ~3 clicks. I installed the latest
Classic Shell, and it cured that problem (and my original one), but "All
Apps" is empty. You may be right about wiping and starting over. I may just
load an image I have of it and let that one fast track to 10061.
--
SC Tom

[T]

On 04/24/2015 05:24 PM, SC Tom wrote:
>
>
> "T" > wrote in message ...
>> On 04/24/2015 08:56 AM, SC Tom wrote:
>>> Just had it installed about an hour ago (took about 90 minutes to DL and
>>> install over my wifi connection).
>>>
>>> Seems a lot slower than the previous preview, and has added a major
>>> problem for me: if I click on Start, All Apps, and then try to run any
>>> non-Win10 program, it won't start. I have to go back, right-click on the
>>> app, and select Run as Admin. But, if I click on Start, then type the
>>> name of the app I want to run, select it from the list, then it starts
>>> just fine.
>>>
>>> None of the apps pinned to the Start menu work either, unless they're
>>> native Win10 apps. If I had the .iso for this version, I'd do a wipe and
>>> reinstall, but I don't really feel like wiping and reinstalling 10049,
>>> then re-updating :-( Maybe I'll try Classic Shell again and see if that
>>> fixes it. If not, I'll roll back to 10049; I don't need the aggravation
>>> of this release that much LOL!
>>
>>
>> I think it is time to wipe and reinstall 10041
>
> I did a "Refresh" from the Settings/Recovery menu. It of course
> uninstalled all of the non-native programs, but then the Start menu
> started doing what Marti and John posted- going away after ~3 clicks. I
> installed the latest Classic Shell, and it cured that problem (and my
> original one), but "All Apps" is empty. You may be right about wiping
> and starting over. I may just load an image I have of it and let that
> one fast track to 10061.

Hi Tom,

Originally, I started with a 20 GB virtual drive. Then all the new
releases clogged to works. They even leave a Windows.old directory
kicking about.

This last wipe, I moved it up to 40 GB. After installing 10041 and
fast tracking 10061. I am now up to, oh poop, it was suppose to
dynamically expand and it took the whole 40 GB. Windows Explorer
says I have used 20.7 GB. What a waste of space!

Windows.old is taking up 10.2 GB. Last time I tried to get rid
of Windows.old, I had to boot into Xfce Linux Live CD.

M$ ... mumble ... mumble ... mumble

Every so often Windows need to be reinstalled. It is what it
is. I solve the issue by making a copy of my gold virtual
drive so I can revert back whenever I want.

-T

Never once in my 20 years of doing this have I had to reinstall
Linux. As I said, Windows is what it is. I just have to not
let it get to me. (Not doing too good a job at that ...)

[Bill[_40_]]

In message >, SC Tom > writes
>None of the apps pinned to the Start menu work either, unless they're
>native Win10 apps.
It's weird. If I click on a non-10 program that I've put into the start
menu ( a good example is Control Panel), nothing happens.
If I look at the start menu entry, it points to a shortcut to Control
Panel. If I click the shortcut, Control Panel appears as normal.
So there seems to be a disconnect between the start menu and what it
points to.

I've still not seen a clear and definitive answer anywhere about whether
the release version is going to have selective updating enabled. That's
my "line in the mud".
--
Bill

[SC Tom[_3_]]

"T" > wrote in message ...
> On 04/24/2015 05:24 PM, SC Tom wrote:
>>
>>
>> "T" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 04/24/2015 08:56 AM, SC Tom wrote:
>>>> Just had it installed about an hour ago (took about 90 minutes to DL
>>>> and
>>>> install over my wifi connection).
>>>>
>>>> Seems a lot slower than the previous preview, and has added a major
>>>> problem for me: if I click on Start, All Apps, and then try to run any
>>>> non-Win10 program, it won't start. I have to go back, right-click on
>>>> the
>>>> app, and select Run as Admin. But, if I click on Start, then type the
>>>> name of the app I want to run, select it from the list, then it starts
>>>> just fine.
>>>>
>>>> None of the apps pinned to the Start menu work either, unless they're
>>>> native Win10 apps. If I had the .iso for this version, I'd do a wipe
>>>> and
>>>> reinstall, but I don't really feel like wiping and reinstalling 10049,
>>>> then re-updating :-( Maybe I'll try Classic Shell again and see if that
>>>> fixes it. If not, I'll roll back to 10049; I don't need the aggravation
>>>> of this release that much LOL!
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it is time to wipe and reinstall 10041
>>
>> I did a "Refresh" from the Settings/Recovery menu. It of course
>> uninstalled all of the non-native programs, but then the Start menu
>> started doing what Marti and John posted- going away after ~3 clicks. I
>> installed the latest Classic Shell, and it cured that problem (and my
>> original one), but "All Apps" is empty. You may be right about wiping
>> and starting over. I may just load an image I have of it and let that
>> one fast track to 10061.
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Originally, I started with a 20 GB virtual drive. Then all the new
> releases clogged to works. They even leave a Windows.old directory
> kicking about.
>
> This last wipe, I moved it up to 40 GB. After installing 10041 and
> fast tracking 10061. I am now up to, oh poop, it was suppose to
> dynamically expand and it took the whole 40 GB. Windows Explorer
> says I have used 20.7 GB. What a waste of space!
>
> Windows.old is taking up 10.2 GB. Last time I tried to get rid
> of Windows.old, I had to boot into Xfce Linux Live CD.
>
> M$ ... mumble ... mumble ... mumble
>
> Every so often Windows need to be reinstalled. It is what it
> is. I solve the issue by making a copy of my gold virtual
> drive so I can revert back whenever I want.
>
> -T
>
> Never once in my 20 years of doing this have I had to reinstall
> Linux. As I said, Windows is what it is. I just have to not
> let it get to me. (Not doing too good a job at that ...)
>

What are the parameters for the fast track update to start? Does the PC have
to be idle for x minutes/hours, or some other trigger? I restored my image
of 10049, booted up, and a download immediately started for a total of
4.5GB*. That was over 90 minutes ago, and the only thing I've been doing is
streaming a tennis match. I have a file,
"10061.0.150410-2039.fbl_impressive_CLIENTPRO_RET_x64fre_en-us.esd", that's
2.5GB, which I assume is the update/upgrade file. Any way to make it
run/install, or do I have to wait for some arbitrary signal for it to start?

* I think it's 4.5GB instead of 2.5GB because of a network interruption.
--
SC Tom

[SC Tom[_3_]]

"SC Tom" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> "T" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 04/24/2015 05:24 PM, SC Tom wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "T" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 04/24/2015 08:56 AM, SC Tom wrote:
>>>>> Just had it installed about an hour ago (took about 90 minutes to DL
>>>>> and
>>>>> install over my wifi connection).
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems a lot slower than the previous preview, and has added a major
>>>>> problem for me: if I click on Start, All Apps, and then try to run any
>>>>> non-Win10 program, it won't start. I have to go back, right-click on
>>>>> the
>>>>> app, and select Run as Admin. But, if I click on Start, then type the
>>>>> name of the app I want to run, select it from the list, then it starts
>>>>> just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> None of the apps pinned to the Start menu work either, unless they're
>>>>> native Win10 apps. If I had the .iso for this version, I'd do a wipe
>>>>> and
>>>>> reinstall, but I don't really feel like wiping and reinstalling 10049,
>>>>> then re-updating :-( Maybe I'll try Classic Shell again and see if
>>>>> that
>>>>> fixes it. If not, I'll roll back to 10049; I don't need the
>>>>> aggravation
>>>>> of this release that much LOL!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it is time to wipe and reinstall 10041
>>>
>>> I did a "Refresh" from the Settings/Recovery menu. It of course
>>> uninstalled all of the non-native programs, but then the Start menu
>>> started doing what Marti and John posted- going away after ~3 clicks. I
>>> installed the latest Classic Shell, and it cured that problem (and my
>>> original one), but "All Apps" is empty. You may be right about wiping
>>> and starting over. I may just load an image I have of it and let that
>>> one fast track to 10061.
>>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> Originally, I started with a 20 GB virtual drive. Then all the new
>> releases clogged to works. They even leave a Windows.old directory
>> kicking about.
>>
>> This last wipe, I moved it up to 40 GB. After installing 10041 and
>> fast tracking 10061. I am now up to, oh poop, it was suppose to
>> dynamically expand and it took the whole 40 GB. Windows Explorer
>> says I have used 20.7 GB. What a waste of space!
>>
>> Windows.old is taking up 10.2 GB. Last time I tried to get rid
>> of Windows.old, I had to boot into Xfce Linux Live CD.
>>
>> M$ ... mumble ... mumble ... mumble
>>
>> Every so often Windows need to be reinstalled. It is what it
>> is. I solve the issue by making a copy of my gold virtual
>> drive so I can revert back whenever I want.
>>
>> -T
>>
>> Never once in my 20 years of doing this have I had to reinstall
>> Linux. As I said, Windows is what it is. I just have to not
>> let it get to me. (Not doing too good a job at that ...)
>>
>
> What are the parameters for the fast track update to start? Does the PC
> have to be idle for x minutes/hours, or some other trigger? I restored my
> image of 10049, booted up, and a download immediately started for a total
> of 4.5GB*. That was over 90 minutes ago, and the only thing I've been
> doing is streaming a tennis match. I have a file,
> "10061.0.150410-2039.fbl_impressive_CLIENTPRO_RET_x64fre_en-us.esd",
> that's 2.5GB, which I assume is the update/upgrade file. Any way to make
> it run/install, or do I have to wait for some arbitrary signal for it to
> start?
>
> * I think it's 4.5GB instead of 2.5GB because of a network interruption.

Never mind. I "checked for updates" and now it's starting to install. Oh
boy, I can't hardly wait for it to finish <wink wink>.
--
SC Tom

[SC Tom[_3_]]

"SC Tom" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> "SC Tom" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> "T" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 04/24/2015 05:24 PM, SC Tom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "T" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 04/24/2015 08:56 AM, SC Tom wrote:
>>>>>> Just had it installed about an hour ago (took about 90 minutes to DL
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> install over my wifi connection).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems a lot slower than the previous preview, and has added a major
>>>>>> problem for me: if I click on Start, All Apps, and then try to run
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> non-Win10 program, it won't start. I have to go back, right-click on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> app, and select Run as Admin. But, if I click on Start, then type the
>>>>>> name of the app I want to run, select it from the list, then it
>>>>>> starts
>>>>>> just fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of the apps pinned to the Start menu work either, unless they're
>>>>>> native Win10 apps. If I had the .iso for this version, I'd do a wipe
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> reinstall, but I don't really feel like wiping and reinstalling
>>>>>> 10049,
>>>>>> then re-updating :-( Maybe I'll try Classic Shell again and see if
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> fixes it. If not, I'll roll back to 10049; I don't need the
>>>>>> aggravation
>>>>>> of this release that much LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is time to wipe and reinstall 10041
>>>>
>>>> I did a "Refresh" from the Settings/Recovery menu. It of course
>>>> uninstalled all of the non-native programs, but then the Start menu
>>>> started doing what Marti and John posted- going away after ~3 clicks. I
>>>> installed the latest Classic Shell, and it cured that problem (and my
>>>> original one), but "All Apps" is empty. You may be right about wiping
>>>> and starting over. I may just load an image I have of it and let that
>>>> one fast track to 10061.
>>>
>>> Hi Tom,
>>>
>>> Originally, I started with a 20 GB virtual drive. Then all the new
>>> releases clogged to works. They even leave a Windows.old directory
>>> kicking about.
>>>
>>> This last wipe, I moved it up to 40 GB. After installing 10041 and
>>> fast tracking 10061. I am now up to, oh poop, it was suppose to
>>> dynamically expand and it took the whole 40 GB. Windows Explorer
>>> says I have used 20.7 GB. What a waste of space!
>>>
>>> Windows.old is taking up 10.2 GB. Last time I tried to get rid
>>> of Windows.old, I had to boot into Xfce Linux Live CD.
>>>
>>> M$ ... mumble ... mumble ... mumble
>>>
>>> Every so often Windows need to be reinstalled. It is what it
>>> is. I solve the issue by making a copy of my gold virtual
>>> drive so I can revert back whenever I want.
>>>
>>> -T
>>>
>>> Never once in my 20 years of doing this have I had to reinstall
>>> Linux. As I said, Windows is what it is. I just have to not
>>> let it get to me. (Not doing too good a job at that ...)
>>>
>>
>> What are the parameters for the fast track update to start? Does the PC
>> have to be idle for x minutes/hours, or some other trigger? I restored my
>> image of 10049, booted up, and a download immediately started for a total
>> of 4.5GB*. That was over 90 minutes ago, and the only thing I've been
>> doing is streaming a tennis match. I have a file,
>> "10061.0.150410-2039.fbl_impressive_CLIENTPRO_RET_x64fre_en-us.esd",
>> that's 2.5GB, which I assume is the update/upgrade file. Any way to make
>> it run/install, or do I have to wait for some arbitrary signal for it to
>> start?
>>
>> * I think it's 4.5GB instead of 2.5GB because of a network interruption.
>
> Never mind. I "checked for updates" and now it's starting to install. Oh
> boy, I can't hardly wait for it to finish <wink wink>.

No change. Apps and Start menu are still screwed up. Guess I'll wait until
there's an update to fix it. Since it's just a screw-around-with PC, it's no
big deal for now.
--
SC Tom

[T]

On 04/25/2015 11:46 AM, SC Tom wrote:
>
>
> "SC Tom" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> "SC Tom" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>> "T" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 04/24/2015 05:24 PM, SC Tom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "T" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 04/24/2015 08:56 AM, SC Tom wrote:
>>>>>>> Just had it installed about an hour ago (took about 90 minutes to
>>>>>>> DL and
>>>>>>> install over my wifi connection).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seems a lot slower than the previous preview, and has added a major
>>>>>>> problem for me: if I click on Start, All Apps, and then try to
>>>>>>> run any
>>>>>>> non-Win10 program, it won't start. I have to go back, right-click
>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>> app, and select Run as Admin. But, if I click on Start, then type
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> name of the app I want to run, select it from the list, then it
>>>>>>> starts
>>>>>>> just fine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of the apps pinned to the Start menu work either, unless
>>>>>>> they're
>>>>>>> native Win10 apps. If I had the .iso for this version, I'd do a
>>>>>>> wipe and
>>>>>>> reinstall, but I don't really feel like wiping and reinstalling
>>>>>>> 10049,
>>>>>>> then re-updating :-( Maybe I'll try Classic Shell again and see
>>>>>>> if that
>>>>>>> fixes it. If not, I'll roll back to 10049; I don't need the
>>>>>>> aggravation
>>>>>>> of this release that much LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is time to wipe and reinstall 10041
>>>>>
>>>>> I did a "Refresh" from the Settings/Recovery menu. It of course
>>>>> uninstalled all of the non-native programs, but then the Start menu
>>>>> started doing what Marti and John posted- going away after ~3
>>>>> clicks. I
>>>>> installed the latest Classic Shell, and it cured that problem (and my
>>>>> original one), but "All Apps" is empty. You may be right about wiping
>>>>> and starting over. I may just load an image I have of it and let that
>>>>> one fast track to 10061.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>
>>>> Originally, I started with a 20 GB virtual drive. Then all the new
>>>> releases clogged to works. They even leave a Windows.old directory
>>>> kicking about.
>>>>
>>>> This last wipe, I moved it up to 40 GB. After installing 10041 and
>>>> fast tracking 10061. I am now up to, oh poop, it was suppose to
>>>> dynamically expand and it took the whole 40 GB. Windows Explorer
>>>> says I have used 20.7 GB. What a waste of space!
>>>>
>>>> Windows.old is taking up 10.2 GB. Last time I tried to get rid
>>>> of Windows.old, I had to boot into Xfce Linux Live CD.
>>>>
>>>> M$ ... mumble ... mumble ... mumble
>>>>
>>>> Every so often Windows need to be reinstalled. It is what it
>>>> is. I solve the issue by making a copy of my gold virtual
>>>> drive so I can revert back whenever I want.
>>>>
>>>> -T
>>>>
>>>> Never once in my 20 years of doing this have I had to reinstall
>>>> Linux. As I said, Windows is what it is. I just have to not
>>>> let it get to me. (Not doing too good a job at that ...)
>>>>
>>>
>>> What are the parameters for the fast track update to start? Does the
>>> PC have to be idle for x minutes/hours, or some other trigger? I
>>> restored my image of 10049, booted up, and a download immediately
>>> started for a total of 4.5GB*. That was over 90 minutes ago, and the
>>> only thing I've been doing is streaming a tennis match. I have a
>>> file,
>>> "10061.0.150410-2039.fbl_impressive_CLIENTPRO_RET_x64fre_en-us.esd",
>>> that's 2.5GB, which I assume is the update/upgrade file. Any way to
>>> make it run/install, or do I have to wait for some arbitrary signal
>>> for it to start?
>>>
>>> * I think it's 4.5GB instead of 2.5GB because of a network interruption.
>>
>> Never mind. I "checked for updates" and now it's starting to install.
>> Oh boy, I can't hardly wait for it to finish <wink wink>.
>
> No change. Apps and Start menu are still screwed up. Guess I'll wait
> until there's an update to fix it. Since it's just a screw-around-with
> PC, it's no big deal for now.


Hi Tom,

I like to put a shortcut to "wuapp.exe" (Windows Updates) on
my desktop. I can usually get it to start doing things if
I press the check for updates button. Sometimes I
have to press it twice.

-T

[T]

On 04/25/2015 03:30 AM, Bill wrote:
> In message >, SC Tom > writes
>> None of the apps pinned to the Start menu work either, unless they're
>> native Win10 apps.
> It's weird. If I click on a non-10 program that I've put into the start
> menu ( a good example is Control Panel), nothing happens.
> If I look at the start menu entry, it points to a shortcut to Control
> Panel. If I click the shortcut, Control Panel appears as normal.
> So there seems to be a disconnect between the start menu and what it
> points to.
>
> I've still not seen a clear and definitive answer anywhere about whether
> the release version is going to have selective updating enabled. That's
> my "line in the mud".

Hi Bill,

My non-authoritative source says that updates will be
mandatory. But it is non-authoritative, so don't
quote me.

My technical opinion is that mandatory updates are
a huge mistake given M$'s track record on updates.
(W7 had another botched one last week.)

-T

[T]

On 04/25/2015 06:43 PM, Marti van Lin wrote:
> Therefore kudos to Microsoft for implementing the shiny new "Progress
> Screen" including the "Progress Circle". It's a big step forward IMHO.

1+

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:19:01 -0700, T > wrote:

>My non-authoritative source says that updates will be
>mandatory. But it is non-authoritative, so don't
>quote me.
>
>My technical opinion is that mandatory updates are
>a huge mistake given M$'s track record on updates.
>(W7 had another botched one last week.)

Mandatory updates will be a huge mistake unless the provision of
adequately fast internet with huge download allowances for the entire
world can be made mandatory too, which it almost certainly can't.

Rod.

[Nil[_5_]]

On 26 Apr 2015, Roderick Stewart > wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10:

> Mandatory updates will be a huge mistake unless the provision of
> adequately fast internet with huge download allowances for the entire
> world can be made mandatory too, which it almost certainly can't.

I would certainly be upset if the computer decided to install a large
update at a time when it wasn't convenient for me, say if I was
rendering a large video file, or when the cab was at the door waiting
to take me to the airport.

[Big_Al[_4_]]

Roderick Stewart wrote on 4/26/2015 6:51 AM:
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:19:01 -0700, T > wrote:
>
>> My non-authoritative source says that updates will be
>> mandatory. But it is non-authoritative, so don't
>> quote me.
>>
>> My technical opinion is that mandatory updates are
>> a huge mistake given M$'s track record on updates.
>> (W7 had another botched one last week.)
>
> Mandatory updates will be a huge mistake unless the provision of
> adequately fast internet with huge download allowances for the entire
> world can be made mandatory too, which it almost certainly can't.
>
> Rod.
>
The internet speed is just a tiny part of the issue. I have a 50MB connection and the download didn't take time. The
install took the time. Even though my 8G mem and 2.4gh quad core PC had some punch, it still took 1 hour +.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:41:14 -0400, Big_Al > wrote:

>>> My non-authoritative source says that updates will be
>>> mandatory. But it is non-authoritative, so don't
>>> quote me.
>>>
>>> My technical opinion is that mandatory updates are
>>> a huge mistake given M$'s track record on updates.
>>> (W7 had another botched one last week.)
>>
>> Mandatory updates will be a huge mistake unless the provision of
>> adequately fast internet with huge download allowances for the entire
>> world can be made mandatory too, which it almost certainly can't.
>>
>> Rod.
>>
>The internet speed is just a tiny part of the issue. I have a 50MB connection and the download didn't take time. The
>install took the time. Even though my 8G mem and 2.4gh quad core PC had some punch, it still took 1 hour +.

Indeed, but those who are connected at low speeds, such as 1Mb/s or
less, will have the additional time taken to download 3GB or
thereabouts. Those on dial-up won't be able to use their landline
phones for a long time, and those on wireless dongle services may find
themselves using up all their data allowances and then either being
cut off or paying a fortune for the excess. None of this is good.

Rod.

[Chris S[_6_]]

"Big_Al" > wrote in message
...
> Roderick Stewart wrote on 4/26/2015 6:51 AM:
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:19:01 -0700, T > wrote:
>>
>>> My non-authoritative source says that updates will be
>>> mandatory. But it is non-authoritative, so don't
>>> quote me.
>>>
>>> My technical opinion is that mandatory updates are
>>> a huge mistake given M$'s track record on updates.
>>> (W7 had another botched one last week.)
>>
>> Mandatory updates will be a huge mistake unless the provision of
>> adequately fast internet with huge download allowances for the entire
>> world can be made mandatory too, which it almost certainly can't.
>>
>> Rod.
>>
> The internet speed is just a tiny part of the issue. I have a 50MB
> connection and the download didn't take time. The install took the time.
> Even though my 8G mem and 2.4gh quad core PC had some punch, it still took
> 1 hour +.
>

I think you mean 50Mbit!

I have 50/50 Mbps FiOS, and it averages >60Mbps, up and down.

chris

[Big_Al[_4_]]

Chris S wrote on 4/26/2015 4:06 PM:
>
> "Big_Al" > wrote in message ...
>> Roderick Stewart wrote on 4/26/2015 6:51 AM:
>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:19:01 -0700, T > wrote:
>>>
>>>> My non-authoritative source says that updates will be
>>>> mandatory. But it is non-authoritative, so don't
>>>> quote me.
>>>>
>>>> My technical opinion is that mandatory updates are
>>>> a huge mistake given M$'s track record on updates.
>>>> (W7 had another botched one last week.)
>>>
>>> Mandatory updates will be a huge mistake unless the provision of
>>> adequately fast internet with huge download allowances for the entire
>>> world can be made mandatory too, which it almost certainly can't.
>>>
>>> Rod.
>>>
>> The internet speed is just a tiny part of the issue. I have a 50MB connection and the download didn't take time.
>> The install took the time. Even though my 8G mem and 2.4gh quad core PC had some punch, it still took 1 hour +.
>>
>
> I think you mean 50Mbit!
>
> I have 50/50 Mbps FiOS, and it averages >60Mbps, up and down.
>
> chris
>
I should just write 50M and leave it at that. Most people know what that is without the bit and byte. My bad.