Why would I want to pre "register" Windows 10 anyway?

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:14:54 -0400, Neil wrote:

On 6/4/2015 11:07 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| To deny the user the option to save files to locations of their choice
| would be an enormous revision of computer functionality for at least the
| last 6 decades. Is it reasonable to think that such a disabling
| "feature" is likely to be implemented in Windows, or any other OS for
| that matter?
|

It's not impossible. Adobe Creative Suite
subscription stores files online by default.

Adobe Creative Suite is not an OS. So, it's merely up to the user to
look up the definition of the word "default" and make a decision about
how they want to move on from there.

[...]

Most of these things happen through a kind
of soft coercion rather than straightforwardly.
Microsoft doesn't have people arrested for
installing the same copy of Windows to two
machines. Instead, they make it nearly
impossible to do that. It's passive enforcement.
Adobe doesn't hold peoples' file hostage. But
it does require some effort and knowledge to
not be held hostage to their service.

It requires a lot less effort and knowledge than is required to use any
of Adobe's apps. If users can't handle it, they might do better to
restrict their graphic creativity to their smart phone selfies.

It's not farfetched to think that MS might just
make it unreasonably complex for most people
to control their files.

Well, we'll just have to disagree about that. There is nothing in the
history of the company that suggests such a thing. In fact, it's just
the opposite; people have *more* options than before, which is why I
find it so curious that there's so much whining about it.

[...]
Storing your work files online in any capacity is already
an "enormous revision of computer functionality".

Perhaps my age will show, but that capacity is all that existed when I
started using computers. Of course, what we actually used were dumb
terminals connected to a mainframe, but that is directly analogous to
networked cloud storage. Everything you've referred to w/r/t app rental
and cloud storage is a return to that modality, not a revision at all.
But, unless we wind up only with devices that have no internal storage,
I don't see any OS denying the user the ability to use that storage.

So if everyone gave up housing as we know it and moved into caves, would
that be an enormous difference or just a return to a previous modality?
Perspective and perception are everything, eh?

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:56:00 -0400, Neil wrote:

On 6/4/2015 10:23 PM, Paul wrote:
Neil wrote:

We're in the beginning stages of a new work model.

You can believe that if you want.

Drab window decorations and bigger fonts, don't make it so.

Can I speak to the computer, and have it do the
work for me ?

"Hey Cortana, draft a report about the last business
quarter, placing several charts and graphs
showing gross and net profit. Use the same sort
of business English sentence structure you know
I'm famous for."

That would be a new work model.

That would be a new UI modality based on a work model that was typical
until about a decade ago. What I'm referring to is concurrent
collaboration on a world-wide basis, the ability to continue working
collaboratively as one travels long distances, accessing the same
content on a variety of devices and so on.

Incremental, or perhaps evolutionary, at best. Hardly a new work model.

On 6/5/2015 6:06 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:56:00 -0400, Neil wrote:

On 6/4/2015 10:23 PM, Paul wrote:
Neil wrote:

We're in the beginning stages of a new work model.

You can believe that if you want.

Drab window decorations and bigger fonts, don't make it so.

Can I speak to the computer, and have it do the
work for me ?

"Hey Cortana, draft a report about the last business
quarter, placing several charts and graphs
showing gross and net profit. Use the same sort
of business English sentence structure you know
I'm famous for."

That would be a new work model.

That would be a new UI modality based on a work model that was typical
until about a decade ago. What I'm referring to is concurrent
collaboration on a world-wide basis, the ability to continue working
collaboratively as one travels long distances, accessing the same
content on a variety of devices and so on.

Incremental, or perhaps evolutionary, at best. Hardly a new work model.

I'll go with evolutionary. ;-)

Still, it's new at the level of those needing to work in this way, and
it's made possible by technology that is still in the early stages of
implementation.

--
Best regards,

Neil

| It's not impossible. Adobe Creative Suite
| subscription stores files online by default.


| Adobe Creative Suite is not an OS.

So what? People are more likely to have files
created with Adobe CS that they want to keep
than with Windows.

| Storing your work files online in any capacity is already
| an "enormous revision of computer functionality".
|
| Perhaps my age will show, but that capacity is all that existed when I
| started using computers. Of course, what we actually used were dumb
| terminals connected to a mainframe, but that is directly analogous to
| networked cloud storage.

Not really. Mainframes were in companies, with
people doing work on them. That scenario might
still hold today in corporate intranets, but that's
not the issue. What we're talking about here is loss
of control of one's own PC, and a PC is like someone's
desk at home.

| But, unless we wind up only with devices that have no internal storage,
| I don't see any OS denying the user the ability to use that storage.
|

Tablets and phones already limit control and access
to the file system. If all software is an online service
then your computer doesn't need to be any more
accessible to you than your cable box.

Maybe that will never come to pass, but that
is the direction things are headed in. If you don't
care that's fine. I do care. I don't want any corporate
entity controlling what I can do or requiring me to go
online to their server in order to do whatever work
I want to do.

Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:09:45 -0400, ". . .winston"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 14:53:41 -0400, ". . .winston"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

Indeed. I've seen over a half dozen posts recently advising people to run
the Win 10 readiness check under the guise of deciding whether to upgrade.
For some of them, they may not realize that the readiness check does
absolutely nothing toward helping them make a decision. Clearly, they should
be ignoring that tool until after they've decided to upgrade, making that
advice useless.


Imo, you missing the boat.

Agreed, one of us is, and it appears to be you.

Here's what I've seen so far:
Q: Should I upgrade to Win 10?
A: (you) Run the app to see if you're good to go. If so, reserve your copy.

You don't seem to see anything wrong with that advice. You even defend it.

The question has typically been, 'should I upgrade', not 'is my system
compatible'. Those are two completely different questions, but you're
applying answer B to question A and calling it a day. That's really bad
advice, useless advice, IMHO. So I'm just out here having a bit of fun,
countering your bad advice when I see it, hoping to help someone along the
way.


The readiness check is the only route for those considering Win10 to
determine if the system has or does not have device(s) and application
issues.

A stand-alone assistant will not be made available.


In case you haven't realized it yet...
With WU being the deployable method for Win10 it's one big integration
with a common foundation - WU
The Get Win10 App, Upgrade Assistant (UA), new WU Update, WU
compatibility updates for W7/8.1, WU offering optional drivers for UA
readiness issues, UA tool running monthly.

And what should also be obvious - telemetry feedback on the above.

NONE of that is relevant, none of it, until a person has decided that they
want to upgrade. As I've said before, you've got the cart before the horse.

If you think it's worthwhile to upgrade to Win 10, that's fine, please share
your thoughts. Maybe others will agree with you, even me, but simply passing
the readiness test is absolutely NOT a reason to upgrade. If that's all
you've got, go ahead and stick a fork in it, it's done.



Read it again
"only route for those considering Win10"

I've read it numerous times in numerous posts.

It's as I said above. People ask "Should I?" and you respond with the
readiness check. Read it again. There's no way to dodge it at this point.


Here's how I see your point

Jane: I'm using Windows 7 and thinking of switching to Windows 10.
Should I upgrade to Windows 10? I heard it's free.
Char: Research and learn what Win10 does or does not bring to the table.
Jane: OK, I've read everything under the sun, looks like I'd like to
take advantage of the free upgrade but still uncertain if my system will
work with Windows 10. How can I find out if my system will work with
Windows 10 ?
Char: You have to run the Windows 10 Upgrade Assistant tool. It's
included in the Get Windows 10 app.
Jane: Where do I find that ?
Char: It's only available after you install KB 3035583 which is
available from Windows Updates. It will place a Get Windows 10 icon on
your Task Bar. Double click that icon and reserve Windows, once done it
will perform a system readiness check.
Jane: Ok, did that. Too bad, it tells me my system would have problems
with devices and applications, especially one I use for recording with
my TV tuner - it will remove Windows Media Center.
Char: You should probably stay with Windows 7
Jane: Yes, too bad I wasted two days reading about Windows 10 and what
it brings to the table.


Here's how I see mine.
Jane: I'm using Windows 7 and thinking of switching to Windows 10.
Should I upgrade to Windows 10 ? I heard it's free.
Winston: It's probably a good idea to run the Windows 10 Readiness tool.
It's only available after you install KB 3035583 which is available from
Windows Updates. It will place a Get Windows 10 icon on your Task Bar.
Double click that icon and reserve Windows, once done it will perform
a readiness check.
Jane: Ok, did that. Too bad, it tells me my system would have problems
with devices and a lot of applications, especially one I use for
recording with my TV tuner - it will remove Windows Media Center.
Winston: You should probably stay with Windows 7
Jane: Thanks, I guess Windows 10 is not for me.
Winston: At least you didn't waste any time trying to learn anything
about Windows 10 and what it brings to the table.




--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

Neil wrote:
On 6/5/2015 12:58 AM, . . .winston wrote:

Now, imo, it's not been a good idea to use Windows Update for drivers
and the preferred route is to obtain directly from the manufacturer's
site...and that has been long standing good advice but it would be
unreasonable to expect that every possible Win7Sp1/Win8.1 user will
follow the manufacturer path (nor would it be possible to even
considering counseling that same population to obtain drivers from the
manufacturer).

As I understand it, MS had required manufacturers to supply device
drivers to them for inclusion in the OS beginning with XP, which is one
reason XP was so bloated compared to Win2k. However, in many cases,
older hardware could be made "XP-compatible" with little effort because
the the underlying OS functionality was essentially unchanged. With the
introduction of Vista, that was over.

That may have been the case but there are just too many reported cases
of Windows Update installed drivers not performing properly once
installed (some reasons are abridged code with out all the features of
the manufacturer versions which can be quite sizeable and may included
update to existing supporting application beyond just the driver update.

In any event...Good plan, poor execution and reliability using Windows
Update drivers for some folks.

Bottom line, the app is the Upgrade Assistant/Advisor and capable of
measuring readiness of the current state and again in the future after
devices have been updated with later drivers.

However, with the declining use of hardware that is capable of being
upgraded, I think it's adequate to simply inform the user about the
incompatible aspects and leave it up to them how (or whether) to proceed.


Your last point is one reason the Win10 Upgrade Assistant Readiness tool
was included in the Get Windows 10 app. It also has the flexibility to
monitor and rerun if hardware changes are made to ensure any efforts to
correct incompatible aspects are accounted (for).

--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 00:03:53 -0400, ". . .winston"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:09:45 -0400, ". . .winston"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 14:53:41 -0400, ". . .winston"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

Indeed. I've seen over a half dozen posts recently advising people to run
the Win 10 readiness check under the guise of deciding whether to upgrade.
For some of them, they may not realize that the readiness check does
absolutely nothing toward helping them make a decision. Clearly, they should
be ignoring that tool until after they've decided to upgrade, making that
advice useless.


Imo, you missing the boat.

Agreed, one of us is, and it appears to be you.

Here's what I've seen so far:
Q: Should I upgrade to Win 10?
A: (you) Run the app to see if you're good to go. If so, reserve your copy.

You don't seem to see anything wrong with that advice. You even defend it.

The question has typically been, 'should I upgrade', not 'is my system
compatible'. Those are two completely different questions, but you're
applying answer B to question A and calling it a day. That's really bad
advice, useless advice, IMHO. So I'm just out here having a bit of fun,
countering your bad advice when I see it, hoping to help someone along the
way.


The readiness check is the only route for those considering Win10 to
determine if the system has or does not have device(s) and application
issues.

A stand-alone assistant will not be made available.


In case you haven't realized it yet...
With WU being the deployable method for Win10 it's one big integration
with a common foundation - WU
The Get Win10 App, Upgrade Assistant (UA), new WU Update, WU
compatibility updates for W7/8.1, WU offering optional drivers for UA
readiness issues, UA tool running monthly.

And what should also be obvious - telemetry feedback on the above.

NONE of that is relevant, none of it, until a person has decided that they
want to upgrade. As I've said before, you've got the cart before the horse.

If you think it's worthwhile to upgrade to Win 10, that's fine, please share
your thoughts. Maybe others will agree with you, even me, but simply passing
the readiness test is absolutely NOT a reason to upgrade. If that's all
you've got, go ahead and stick a fork in it, it's done.



Read it again
"only route for those considering Win10"

I've read it numerous times in numerous posts.

It's as I said above. People ask "Should I?" and you respond with the
readiness check. Read it again. There's no way to dodge it at this point.


Here's how I see your point

Jane: I'm using Windows 7 and thinking of switching to Windows 10.
Should I upgrade to Windows 10? I heard it's free.
Char: Research and learn what Win10 does or does not bring to the table.
Jane: OK, I've read everything under the sun, looks like I'd like to
take advantage of the free upgrade but still uncertain if my system will
work with Windows 10. How can I find out if my system will work with
Windows 10 ?
Char: You have to run the Windows 10 Upgrade Assistant tool. It's
included in the Get Windows 10 app.
Jane: Where do I find that ?
Char: It's only available after you install KB 3035583 which is
available from Windows Updates. It will place a Get Windows 10 icon on
your Task Bar. Double click that icon and reserve Windows, once done it
will perform a system readiness check.
Jane: Ok, did that. Too bad, it tells me my system would have problems
with devices and applications, especially one I use for recording with
my TV tuner - it will remove Windows Media Center.
Char: You should probably stay with Windows 7
Jane: Yes, too bad I wasted two days reading about Windows 10 and what
it brings to the table.


Here's how I see mine.
Jane: I'm using Windows 7 and thinking of switching to Windows 10.
Should I upgrade to Windows 10 ? I heard it's free.
Winston: It's probably a good idea to run the Windows 10 Readiness tool.
It's only available after you install KB 3035583 which is available from
Windows Updates. It will place a Get Windows 10 icon on your Task Bar.
Double click that icon and reserve Windows, once done it will perform
a readiness check.
Jane: Ok, did that. Too bad, it tells me my system would have problems
with devices and a lot of applications, especially one I use for
recording with my TV tuner - it will remove Windows Media Center.
Winston: You should probably stay with Windows 7
Jane: Thanks, I guess Windows 10 is not for me.
Winston: At least you didn't waste any time trying to learn anything
about Windows 10 and what it brings to the table.

That was awesome! Seriously, I'm impressed. You've done a great job of
almost making it look like you're doing people a favor rather than
misleading them. I like it. Thanks for doing that.


--

Char Jackson

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 19:46:11 -0400, Mayayana wrote:

Tablets and phones already limit control and access
to the file system. If all software is an online service
then your computer doesn't need to be any more
accessible to you than your cable box.

It's the future though isn't it. Files are irrelevant, that kind of
detail should be invisible to the user. Information /Data is what
people want access to. Hard to imagine in 2040 we will worry about
formats for documents or email protocols.

On 6/5/15 2:14 PM, Neil wrote:
On 6/4/2015 11:07 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| To deny the user the option to save files to locations of their choice
| would be an enormous revision of computer functionality for at least the
| last 6 decades. Is it reasonable to think that such a disabling
| "feature" is likely to be implemented in Windows, or any other OS for
| that matter?
|

It's not impossible. Adobe Creative Suite
subscription stores files online by default.

Adobe Creative Suite is not an OS. So, it's merely up to the user to
look up the definition of the word "default" and make a decision about
how they want to move on from there.

[...]

Most of these things happen through a kind
of soft coercion rather than straightforwardly.
Microsoft doesn't have people arrested for
installing the same copy of Windows to two
machines. Instead, they make it nearly
impossible to do that. It's passive enforcement.
Adobe doesn't hold peoples' file hostage. But
it does require some effort and knowledge to
not be held hostage to their service.

It requires a lot less effort and knowledge than is required to use any
of Adobe's apps. If users can't handle it, they might do better to
restrict their graphic creativity to their smart phone selfies.

It's not farfetched to think that MS might just
make it unreasonably complex for most people
to control their files.

Well, we'll just have to disagree about that. There is nothing in the
history of the company that suggests such a thing. In fact, it's just
the opposite; people have *more* options than before, which is why I
find it so curious that there's so much whining about it.

[...]
Storing your work files online in any capacity is already
an "enormous revision of computer functionality".

Perhaps my age will show, but that capacity is all that existed when I
started using computers. Of course, what we actually used were dumb
terminals connected to a mainframe, but that is directly analogous to
networked cloud storage. Everything you've referred to w/r/t app rental
and cloud storage is a return to that modality, not a revision at all.
But, unless we wind up only with devices that have no internal storage,
I don't see any OS denying the user the ability to use that storage.

Respectfully, I would have to disagree on your analogy, Neil.

Then:

When you were using the dumb terminal, you weren't using a computer
sitting on the floor by your desk. You were using a computer that was
in another room, the software was on that computer, and the files were
on that computer. And you had no control over that computer.

Today:

You are beginning to have two choices.

First, the traditional PC, where the computer is under your desk, the
software is on that computer, and the files are on the computer under
your desk. And most importantly, under *your* control. Your keyboard
and monitor is, in reality, your dumb terminal for that computer. But
you control the installed software, and can choose where and how to
store your data on that computer under your desk.

Second, new way, seems to be leading towards using software installed on
the cloud (a computer sitting who knows how far away), data stored on
the cloud (on possibly a different computer sitting who knows how far
away), and you do *not* have any control over those computers. That
computer under your desk simply allows your keyboard and monitor to be a
dumb terminal for the remote computers. You have no control over the
software installed, and no control over where the data is stored.
Operationally, you're going back to the way it was "then".

In the second scenario, why must a web or cloud based app *have* to
allow you to store your files locally?




--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 6/5/15 12:00 PM, . . .winston wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 6/4/15 11:22 PM, . . .winston wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 6/4/15 9:42 PM, . . .winston wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 6/4/15 8:54 AM, . . .winston wrote:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2015-06-04 8:59 AM, Slimer wrote:
On 2015-06-03 9:44 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2015-06-03 8:04 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , . . .winston
escribió:

Windows Store app developers will be very strongly
encouraged to
default
to the cloud for data storage.


The Store is not an archiving location for saving locally
created
files
to one's machine or the cloud.

Are you being deliberately dense?

People developing apps for the Store will be "encouraged" to
write
their
apps such that those apps store the data they generate in the
cloud by
default, rather than locally.

Does that make more sense?

I won't use an app that doesn't have a local storage option.

You'll probably be forced to migrate to Linux eventually as a
result.
When even Office saves to OneCloud automatically, you know that
it's
just a matter of time before more applications take advantage of
the
fact that users are more or less forced to use a Microsoft Passport
within Windows 8 and above to save to the cloud.

I like it myself, but I have to admit that I encrypt my
documents to
prevent theft.

What's OneCloud? ;-)

When my sis-in-law got her new Win8 machine, she emailed links to
her
pictures stored in OneCloud, a PITA to retrieve. She's gone back to
proper attachments.



Have a good day,

OneDrive provides the option to send a link for sharing. If done
properly the recipient has to do nothing but click the link.
Options to
view or save the files will be present.

e.g.
http://1drv.ms/1H4o1N2

Clicking the above link will open the destination in a browser window
for viewing and option (upper left) to download the picture.
- this is just a simple example of a single pic but the same can be
done
for an entire folder of pictures (for view and/or download).

I don't use OneDrive, but a friend of mine does. She sometimes sends
photo links to me in Skype, and when I click on the link, I'm
invariably
asked to sign in with my Skype password, even though I'm already
signed in.

Where do point her to read the correct instructions so I can open a
link
the way your link does?



You sure about that. OneDrive doesn't require a Skype password to
access.

As sure as "God didn't make the little green apples, and it don't rain
in Indianapolis in the summer time." LOL

After it happened the 2nd time, we quit doing it. From the screen, I
know I was signing into something MS related, and it asked for my Skype
password.

Since we don't do this anymore, it's not that important. But if you're
curious, we can do an experiment, and keep track of what we do, and let
you know.

Fyi...if she uses OneDrive and obtains those links from One Drive she
has only two options
- send a link via email using her OneDrive account which means
Skype
is not in the sending equation
- share the file, obtain a link and provide it to you in any form
(email, IM, sticky note, whatever)

http://1drv.ms/1FY6zb4
- does this OneDrive picture require your Skype account password to
view.

That's a helluva fire!!!! But this test isn't valid, as I get the link
via text inside Skype.


I sent the link via Skype to another Skype contact before posting it
here. They didn't have to provide anything to view the picture and they
don't have use OneDrive or have MSFT Account (which provides them
OneDrive access)


It is a amazing fire...I just want to know who took the picture or even
painted the picture. Pretty Amazing

http://forestry.about.com/od/fireinf...Ever-Taken.htm


Next time you Skype with someone send them the link in an email or a
Skype conversation, have then skype it back to you and click on
it...I'll leave it shared for a month so you've time to test it or until
you report back your results.

The link opened fine for her. We'll be doing some experimenting later,
and I'll get back to you. Not sure if the testing will be today or
another day.




Thanks, I thought the link would work (as it should and did at this end).

I'm still waiting for additional feedback on the Skype pw request.

As soon as we can find the time to try it. I'm in the midst of my work
week at the moment.

One comment received recently was(though clearly stated that it
shouldn't cause the Skype pw request for the recipient) had the sender
installed the Skype plugin for Outlook.com to Skype with the recipient
and inserted the link while using that plug-in from the Outlook.com (aka
Hotmail) Inbox.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

Am 06.06.2015 um 12:43 schrieb Ken Springer:
Respectfully, I would have to disagree on your analogy, Neil.

Then:

When you were using the dumb terminal, you weren't using a
computer sitting on the floor by your desk. You were using
a computer that was in another room, the software was on
that computer, and the files were on that computer. And you
had no control over that computer.

Today:

You are beginning to have two choices.

First, the traditional PC, where the computer is under your
desk, the software is on that computer, and the files are on
the computer under your desk. And most importantly, under
*your* control. Your keyboard and monitor is, in reality,
your dumb terminal for that computer. But you control the
installed software, and can choose where and how to store
your data on that computer under your desk.

Second, new way, seems to be leading towards using software
installed on the cloud (a computer sitting who knows how far
away), data stored on the cloud (on possibly a different
computer sitting who knows how far away), and you do *not*
have any control over those computers. That computer under
your desk simply allows your keyboard and monitor to be a
dumb terminal for the remote computers. You have no control
over the software installed, and no control over where the
data is stored. Operationally, you're going back to the way
it was "then".

In the second scenario, why must a web or cloud based app
*have* to allow you to store your files locally?



Even more important.
In those ancient times, secret services and rival companies
had to get physical access to that mainframe in order to
steal the files and read their contents.

Nowadays, secret services and hackers can access contents in
the cloud much more easily. I'm sure that they've been doing
it for years. And the content owner is much less likely to
find out that the data have been stolen, let alone who did it.

Another point: quite a few people had stored and shared
files for _legitimate_ purposes with Megaupload. When did
they get _their_ files back?

| First, the traditional PC, where the computer is under your desk, the
| software is on that computer, and the files are on the computer under
| your desk.

In addition to your points and Jonas's, the
modern computer typically houses some
combination of your bills, taxes, diary, hobby
work, professional work, family photos and
correspondence. It's your desk.

Whether I bought a desk from
Ace Woodworking or rented one from
Furniture-R-Us, I'd be very surprised if those
companies felt they had a right to come in
and rifle through my papers. I'd be surprised
again if, when caught, they said, "Oh, don't
worry. We're just gathering information about
you for advertising purposes." By that point I
expect I'd be incredulous and screaming, "Get
out of my house, you psychopath!"

Common courtesy and ethics haven't changed.
What's changed is only the ease with which your
desk can now be accessed by strangers.

| Winston: At least you didn't waste any time trying to learn anything
| about Windows 10 and what it brings to the table.
|

Translation:

Winston: No sense worrying your pretty little head trying
to understand anything. Papa Microsoft can take
care of that.... But you will, of course, need to
buy a new computer so that you can take advantage
of Microsoft's latest and greatest, Media-Center-Free
Subscription Terminal.

Jane: Someone told me Windows 10 also doesn't
play DVDs. Is that a concern?

Winston: DVD playing? No, it doesn't have that. But you
don't need it. You can rent streaming movies online
through any one of Microsoft's certified app partners.

Jane: I also heard that I won't be able to control
updates in Windows 10. What if Microsoft updates away
something I want?

Winston: You're worrying your pretty little head again...

Jane: I also heard that the bland, useless, 80s-retro
GUI will still be in Windows 10. Tell me it isn't so!

Winston: Jane. PLEASE. Let Microsoft do the thinking.
The Metro giant-button-no-color interface will, of
course, be in Windows 10. You'll want that for getting
up-to-the-minute sports scores and stock quotes. That's
what Windows 10 specializes in.

Jane: OK. But my computer can't run Windows 10,
though it does everything I need. So what do I do?

Winston: As I said, there's no sense worrying your pretty
little head about it. The main thing is to just buy
a Windows 10 computer and throw away your Win7
computer before August 1st when Windows 7 will
magically become inadequate and insecure.

Jane: OK. Thanks Winston. Gee, you're so smart.
Would you have sex with me?

Winston: Sure. Would you like to get your pretty little
head about it?

On 2015-06-06 7:06 AM, Jonas Klein wrote:
Am 06.06.2015 um 12:43 schrieb Ken Springer:
Respectfully, I would have to disagree on your analogy, Neil.

Then:

When you were using the dumb terminal, you weren't using a
computer sitting on the floor by your desk. You were using
a computer that was in another room, the software was on
that computer, and the files were on that computer. And you
had no control over that computer.

Today:

You are beginning to have two choices.

First, the traditional PC, where the computer is under your
desk, the software is on that computer, and the files are on
the computer under your desk. And most importantly, under
*your* control. Your keyboard and monitor is, in reality,
your dumb terminal for that computer. But you control the
installed software, and can choose where and how to store
your data on that computer under your desk.

Second, new way, seems to be leading towards using software
installed on the cloud (a computer sitting who knows how far
away), data stored on the cloud (on possibly a different
computer sitting who knows how far away), and you do *not*
have any control over those computers. That computer under
your desk simply allows your keyboard and monitor to be a
dumb terminal for the remote computers. You have no control
over the software installed, and no control over where the
data is stored. Operationally, you're going back to the way
it was "then".

In the second scenario, why must a web or cloud based app
*have* to allow you to store your files locally?



Even more important.
In those ancient times, secret services and rival companies had to get
physical access to that mainframe in order to steal the files and read
their contents.

Which is why, even though I find OneDrive and other such cloud services
very convenient, I'm considering placing my most sensitive data on a USB
key instead.

Nowadays, secret services and hackers can access contents in the cloud
much more easily. I'm sure that they've been doing it for years. And the
content owner is much less likely to find out that the data have been
stolen, let alone who did it.

It would be to everyone's advantage to encrypt their data before
submitting it onto a cloud service. It's the perfect compromise between
convenience, security and privacy. For a typical text document, every
word processor allows you to put a password on the file which
essentially encrypts the data. For e-mail, it would be a good idea to
get a PGP key and encrypt by default even if you use a free service like
Outlook.

Another point: quite a few people had stored and shared files for
_legitimate_ purposes with Megaupload. When did they get _their_ files
back?

The United States government has no right to go after MegaUpload or Kim
Dotcom since the service and the person are not located in American
territory. Of course, they don't care and no country is willing to
refuse American access to anyone the American government deems a
criminal (without actually proving this in court). As a result, the man
behind the service will be extradited to the United States, his service
and its content will remain in American hands and everyone is a loser
because the United States rules the world.

--
Slimer
Encrypt.

"Figuring that linux has only 1.5% of any market share as a desktop os,
it also implies that the end user is stupid enough to fiddle with an old
WWII bomb that didn't go off." - GreyCloud

On 6/5/15 10:03 PM, . . .winston wrote:
Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:09:45 -0400, ". . .winston"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 14:53:41 -0400, ". . .winston"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

Indeed. I've seen over a half dozen posts recently advising people to run
the Win 10 readiness check under the guise of deciding whether to upgrade.
For some of them, they may not realize that the readiness check does
absolutely nothing toward helping them make a decision. Clearly, they should
be ignoring that tool until after they've decided to upgrade, making that
advice useless.


Imo, you missing the boat.

Agreed, one of us is, and it appears to be you.

Here's what I've seen so far:
Q: Should I upgrade to Win 10?
A: (you) Run the app to see if you're good to go. If so, reserve your copy.

You don't seem to see anything wrong with that advice. You even defend it.

The question has typically been, 'should I upgrade', not 'is my system
compatible'. Those are two completely different questions, but you're
applying answer B to question A and calling it a day. That's really bad
advice, useless advice, IMHO. So I'm just out here having a bit of fun,
countering your bad advice when I see it, hoping to help someone along the
way.


The readiness check is the only route for those considering Win10 to
determine if the system has or does not have device(s) and application
issues.

A stand-alone assistant will not be made available.


In case you haven't realized it yet...
With WU being the deployable method for Win10 it's one big integration
with a common foundation - WU
The Get Win10 App, Upgrade Assistant (UA), new WU Update, WU
compatibility updates for W7/8.1, WU offering optional drivers for UA
readiness issues, UA tool running monthly.

And what should also be obvious - telemetry feedback on the above.

NONE of that is relevant, none of it, until a person has decided that they
want to upgrade. As I've said before, you've got the cart before the horse.

If you think it's worthwhile to upgrade to Win 10, that's fine, please share
your thoughts. Maybe others will agree with you, even me, but simply passing
the readiness test is absolutely NOT a reason to upgrade. If that's all
you've got, go ahead and stick a fork in it, it's done.



Read it again
"only route for those considering Win10"

I've read it numerous times in numerous posts.

It's as I said above. People ask "Should I?" and you respond with the
readiness check. Read it again. There's no way to dodge it at this point.


Here's how I see your point

Jane: I'm using Windows 7 and thinking of switching to Windows 10.
Should I upgrade to Windows 10? I heard it's free.
Char: Research and learn what Win10 does or does not bring to the table.
Jane: OK, I've read everything under the sun, looks like I'd like to
take advantage of the free upgrade but still uncertain if my system will
work with Windows 10. How can I find out if my system will work with
Windows 10 ?
Char: You have to run the Windows 10 Upgrade Assistant tool. It's
included in the Get Windows 10 app.
Jane: Where do I find that ?
Char: It's only available after you install KB 3035583 which is
available from Windows Updates. It will place a Get Windows 10 icon on
your Task Bar. Double click that icon and reserve Windows, once done it
will perform a system readiness check.
Jane: Ok, did that. Too bad, it tells me my system would have problems
with devices and applications, especially one I use for recording with
my TV tuner - it will remove Windows Media Center.
Char: You should probably stay with Windows 7
Jane: Yes, too bad I wasted two days reading about Windows 10 and what
it brings to the table.


Here's how I see mine.
Jane: I'm using Windows 7 and thinking of switching to Windows 10.
Should I upgrade to Windows 10 ? I heard it's free.
Winston: It's probably a good idea to run the Windows 10 Readiness tool.
It's only available after you install KB 3035583 which is available from
Windows Updates. It will place a Get Windows 10 icon on your Task Bar.
Double click that icon and reserve Windows, once done it will perform
a readiness check.
Jane: Ok, did that. Too bad, it tells me my system would have problems
with devices and a lot of applications, especially one I use for
recording with my TV tuner - it will remove Windows Media Center.
Winston: You should probably stay with Windows 7
Jane: Thanks, I guess Windows 10 is not for me.
Winston: At least you didn't waste any time trying to learn anything
about Windows 10 and what it brings to the table.

I see flaws in both hypothetical conversations.

Your description of a conversation between Char and Jane does not
acknowledge the possibility Jane may find one or more things about Win
10 in her research that she wants. But the ending says that since her
existing system will not support Win 10, she's not going to go for the
free upgrade. Even if the problem with her system could be fixed for
$25. Even though it will cost Jane money to get Win 10, she may still
want to upgrade, even if she has to wait to buy a Win 10 computer, or
buy a new Win 8.1 computer and take advantage of the free upgrade.

Your conversation with Jane makes a similar mistake, it assumes Jane
will not upgrade because the hardware fails, regardless of whether Win
10 offers her any advantages.

As Char has noted, the question is "Should I upgrade?", not "Can my
hardware support the upgrade?"

Whether or not the hardware supports Win 10 is irrelevant to the
question of upgrading to Win 10. The question should be, "Does Win 10
offer me anything I want/need?" Once the individual knows whether Win
10 is worth it, it now becomes a question of how much of a financial hit
you are willing to absorb to have the upgrade.

And that's exactly the reason I'm 2 versions behind in OS X. My
hardware will support it. The upgrades from Mountain Lion to Mavericks
to Yosemite are free. But neither of the two newer versions of OS X
offer me anything that is of value to me.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"