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

On 6/5/15 2:48 PM, Neil wrote:
On 6/4/2015 9:15 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 6/4/15 3:43 PM, Neil wrote:
On 6/4/2015 2:37 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:49:29 -0400, ". . .winston"

wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 02:41:07 -0400, ". . .winston"


My replies are based on the purpose of the 'Get Windows 10' app
deployed
via KB 3035583.

In case you haven't realized - installing or not installing the
app has
significance regardless of how it is interpreted as value-added,
non-value added, marketing-ware, junk-ware, etc.

1. The app includes the replacement for the Upgrade Assistant
(i.e. it
replaces earlier versions).
2. The only route to obtain a readiness for an existing system
(device
and applications) is to install the app **and** Reserve Windows 10
3.The app provides the option to 'Cancel' any reservation
4. The app can easily be removed by uninstalling the KB via
Programs and
Features/View Installed Updates
5. Windows 7 OEM and Full version media *and* OEM Pre-built units
will
disappear from the marketplace(look for that to happen shortly or
immediately after July 29, 2015) - Home is already gone, Pro will
soon
follow.

So far, I see no significant value in the things you've listed above.

There is no other route for folks who wish to move from Win7/8.1 to run
a system readiness check. If you see no value, how would you counsel
those people who do wish to move to Win10 when device and application
issues may be present ? Do nothing and cry later ?

As you've done in multiple other posts, you've got the cart before the
horse. The first step should be to educate oneself about Win 10 and
what it
brings to the table. That doesn't have to be done now; it can be done in
bits during the coming year. If, and only if, there's something
compelling
in Win 10 then that's the time to worry about 'system readiness'.
This bit
of education is by far the most important step, but you consistently
skip
over it and jump right to 'readiness'.

I would agree with you if this was 2005, but many things have changed
since then. Perhaps the most significant is that most people are not
likely to be able to educate themselves about what a new OS brings to
the table. For most of the two decades between 1985 and 2005, people
used their computers in pretty much the same way. But, during that
period, a paradigm shift in the way people work was taking place, and to
accommodate those changes, a lot of new devices were introduced along
with unique UIs and features requiring users to be a lot more
knowledgeable than before in order to do their jobs and manage their
content.

IME, starting with Vista, things became increasingly technically
complex, beyond the ability of users to understand the implications well
enough to determine whether an upgrade was in their best interests.

Not sure if I agree or not. LOL Are you saying the can't do it because
they simply can't understand it, or because they lack the knowledge to
understand it? I'd say the second part is the most likely reason.

For
example, how many do you think understood the implications of relative
resource allocation?

But, does the average user need to?

I'd say that if average folks did understand those implications, they'd
have known beforehand that many of their apps may not run reliably on
Vista, and they might have dumped those apps for apps created by
developers that followed the specs regarding system resource addresses,
(which was instituted for Win2k, btw).

H E double hockey sticks, even I don't know what you're talking about
using those terms. LOL

A lot of users I run across don't have a clue of where their data is on
their hard drive, from a file organization perspective. :-(
Smartphones and tablets make it even harder, and each version of Windows
Explorer makes it less clear how things are organized.



--
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 6/6/2015 6:43 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
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.

I think your disagreement may be based on the "downsides" of my snipping
content for brevity. In the above, I'm strictly addressing Mayayana's
claim that storing work files on-line is a revision of computer
functionality. It is not, and the analogy I drew is to the aspects of
apps and files being located somewhere other than at your desk and under
your control.

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.

The essence of Mayayana's view seems to be that this is a possible
future for PCs, and I don't think it's very likely.


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?

I think that depends on a lot of factors, but, the underlying
presumption of user-created files is that they are relevant to their
needs and that they'll need to access them regardless of whether they're
using the app that created them. My guess is that companies that think
otherwise will have a very short lifespan.

There are apps for some devices that do not provide the user with any
access to the data created from them, but the data isn't the same
concept as user-created files; they're usage stats and so forth. Even
that data is stored locally, and in some cases can be relocated by the
user, though it's often not important to have that ability. The analogy
here is the difference between word processing documents and settings
such as dictionary and style information.
--
Best regards,

Neil

On 6/6/2015 12:59 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 6/5/15 2:48 PM, Neil wrote:
On 6/4/2015 9:15 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 6/4/15 3:43 PM, Neil wrote:
On 6/4/2015 2:37 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:49:29 -0400, ". . .winston"

wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 02:41:07 -0400, ". . .winston"


My replies are based on the purpose of the 'Get Windows 10' app
deployed
via KB 3035583.

In case you haven't realized - installing or not installing the
app has
significance regardless of how it is interpreted as value-added,
non-value added, marketing-ware, junk-ware, etc.

1. The app includes the replacement for the Upgrade Assistant
(i.e. it
replaces earlier versions).
2. The only route to obtain a readiness for an existing system
(device
and applications) is to install the app **and** Reserve Windows 10
3.The app provides the option to 'Cancel' any reservation
4. The app can easily be removed by uninstalling the KB via
Programs and
Features/View Installed Updates
5. Windows 7 OEM and Full version media *and* OEM Pre-built units
will
disappear from the marketplace(look for that to happen shortly or
immediately after July 29, 2015) - Home is already gone, Pro will
soon
follow.

So far, I see no significant value in the things you've listed
above.

There is no other route for folks who wish to move from Win7/8.1
to run
a system readiness check. If you see no value, how would you counsel
those people who do wish to move to Win10 when device and application
issues may be present ? Do nothing and cry later ?

As you've done in multiple other posts, you've got the cart before the
horse. The first step should be to educate oneself about Win 10 and
what it
brings to the table. That doesn't have to be done now; it can be
done in
bits during the coming year. If, and only if, there's something
compelling
in Win 10 then that's the time to worry about 'system readiness'.
This bit
of education is by far the most important step, but you consistently
skip
over it and jump right to 'readiness'.

I would agree with you if this was 2005, but many things have changed
since then. Perhaps the most significant is that most people are not
likely to be able to educate themselves about what a new OS brings to
the table. For most of the two decades between 1985 and 2005, people
used their computers in pretty much the same way. But, during that
period, a paradigm shift in the way people work was taking place,
and to
accommodate those changes, a lot of new devices were introduced along
with unique UIs and features requiring users to be a lot more
knowledgeable than before in order to do their jobs and manage their
content.

IME, starting with Vista, things became increasingly technically
complex, beyond the ability of users to understand the implications
well
enough to determine whether an upgrade was in their best interests.

Not sure if I agree or not. LOL Are you saying the can't do it because
they simply can't understand it, or because they lack the knowledge to
understand it? I'd say the second part is the most likely reason.

For
example, how many do you think understood the implications of relative
resource allocation?

But, does the average user need to?

I'd say that if average folks did understand those implications, they'd
have known beforehand that many of their apps may not run reliably on
Vista, and they might have dumped those apps for apps created by
developers that followed the specs regarding system resource addresses,
(which was instituted for Win2k, btw).

H E double hockey sticks, even I don't know what you're talking about
using those terms. LOL

And, therein lies the value of the Win10 readiness app. It's not
reasonable to think that folks who are not programmers have the vaguest
clue about such things, even when the consequences are non-trivial.

A lot of users I run across don't have a clue of where their data is on
their hard drive, from a file organization perspective. :-( Smartphones
and tablets make it even harder, and each version of Windows Explorer
makes it less clear how things are organized.

The kinds of issues I've described above are not accessible to users via
file managers and so on. They're embedded in program compilers or
hardware (CPU/ROM etc.) configurations. That's why one needs a tool that
knows where to ferret out those issues. There will be a good number of
Win7 machines that will never run Win10, but how else would the typical
user know?

--
Best regards,

Neil

On 6/5/2015 6:02 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
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?

Have you seen the "tiny house" movement? =8-0

http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/making-it-home/6-ideas-for-sensible-homes?gclid=CMDd5_PR-8UCFcMWHwodKLwAVA

In some ways, caves may be more hospitable!
--
Best regards,

Neil

Mayayana wrote:
| 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.

Then, they simply need to learn the definition of 'default' and set up
their software to do otherwise.

| 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.

I wasn't referring to the "loss of control of one's own PC", but to
address that straw man; I don't know why people concerned about such
things installed XP, much less anything newer. I was strictly speaking
of the unlikely scenario that an OS would prevent people from storing
their files wherever they wanted. When using mainframes, there was no
choice about file storage, ergo the analogy.

| 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.

Tablets and phones that I've used have internal storage and allow you to
put your files where you want them. Even that is unlikely to change, as
manufacturers keep adding storage capacity, not reducing it.

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.

Again, that's a different issue. I can see where the use of some
company's applications may require internet access. That's the
"mainframe model" of UIs I was talking about elsewhere, and I'll simply
avoid such applications when possible. I suspect that such companies
would be short-lived, too.

--
best regards,

Neil

Stormin' Norman wrote:


The cost of migrating (not upgrading) desktop operating systems throughout an
enterprise or even a small business can be very significant. The least
expensive line item in the migration is usually the cost of the operating
system. Intelligent CIO's and IT managers resist buying OEM licensed versions
of operating systems, but rather they insist on buying enterprise, or at the
very least, retail licenses so the copy of the OS can be legally transferred to
replacement machines without having to purchase a replacement license. This
enables businesses to easily upgrade hardware without having to deal with
licensing bull****. It also makes the process of workstation deployment much
simpler.

Just a note to add:
Windows 10 Enterprise is 'upgrade ware' unlike Windows 10 for the
Consumer and Mobile arena.
- i.e. Existing licenses need to be available to deploy Win10
Enterprise...thus business on the path need to 'pay' twice (the original
o/s license and the Enteprise upgrade license)

--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On 6/6/15 11:27 AM, Neil wrote:
On 6/6/2015 6:43 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
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.

I think your disagreement may be based on the "downsides" of my snipping
content for brevity. In the above, I'm strictly addressing Mayayana's
claim that storing work files on-line is a revision of computer
functionality. It is not, and the analogy I drew is to the aspects of
apps and files being located somewhere other than at your desk and under
your control.

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.

The essence of Mayayana's view seems to be that this is a possible
future for PCs, and I don't think it's very likely.

Guess I'm more cynical than you, but I think he's right. But, not in
the near future. LOL


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?

I think that depends on a lot of factors, but, the underlying
presumption of user-created files is that they are relevant to their
needs and that they'll need to access them regardless of whether they're
using the app that created them. My guess is that companies that think
otherwise will have a very short lifespan.

There are apps for some devices that do not provide the user with any
access to the data created from them, but the data isn't the same
concept as user-created files; they're usage stats and so forth. Even
that data is stored locally, and in some cases can be relocated by the
user, though it's often not important to have that ability. The analogy
here is the difference between word processing documents and settings
such as dictionary and style information.



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

Hi, ...winston,

Try as we might, we can't duplicate the episodes of me being asked to
sign in a second time for viewing/sharing a photo from OneDrive. But
that doesn't negate the fact that it happened.

Of course, there are the variables we can't duplicate:

1. I'm not sure either one of us are 100% sure of the *exact* steps
that were taken for this to happen.

2. The problem may have been caused by a different program. She's
received a lot of updates at her end, but almost no updates at my end.

3. There could have been some obscure bug in Skype that MS has fixed.
The Android versions change quite often from MS updates.

4. When this happened, we were on a video call, and circumstances
didn't allow us to do that for the testing.

So, I think the best route is to go "Huh. Wonder why that happened..."
and get on with things.

Thanks for the help.



--
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 6/6/15 11:48 AM, Neil wrote:
On 6/6/2015 12:59 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 6/5/15 2:48 PM, Neil wrote:
On 6/4/2015 9:15 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 6/4/15 3:43 PM, Neil wrote:
On 6/4/2015 2:37 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:49:29 -0400, ". . .winston"

wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 02:41:07 -0400, ". . .winston"


My replies are based on the purpose of the 'Get Windows 10' app
deployed
via KB 3035583.

In case you haven't realized - installing or not installing the
app has
significance regardless of how it is interpreted as value-added,
non-value added, marketing-ware, junk-ware, etc.

1. The app includes the replacement for the Upgrade Assistant
(i.e. it
replaces earlier versions).
2. The only route to obtain a readiness for an existing system
(device
and applications) is to install the app **and** Reserve Windows 10
3.The app provides the option to 'Cancel' any reservation
4. The app can easily be removed by uninstalling the KB via
Programs and
Features/View Installed Updates
5. Windows 7 OEM and Full version media *and* OEM Pre-built units
will
disappear from the marketplace(look for that to happen shortly or
immediately after July 29, 2015) - Home is already gone, Pro will
soon
follow.

So far, I see no significant value in the things you've listed
above.

There is no other route for folks who wish to move from Win7/8.1
to run
a system readiness check. If you see no value, how would you counsel
those people who do wish to move to Win10 when device and application
issues may be present ? Do nothing and cry later ?

As you've done in multiple other posts, you've got the cart before the
horse. The first step should be to educate oneself about Win 10 and
what it
brings to the table. That doesn't have to be done now; it can be
done in
bits during the coming year. If, and only if, there's something
compelling
in Win 10 then that's the time to worry about 'system readiness'.
This bit
of education is by far the most important step, but you consistently
skip
over it and jump right to 'readiness'.

I would agree with you if this was 2005, but many things have changed
since then. Perhaps the most significant is that most people are not
likely to be able to educate themselves about what a new OS brings to
the table. For most of the two decades between 1985 and 2005, people
used their computers in pretty much the same way. But, during that
period, a paradigm shift in the way people work was taking place,
and to
accommodate those changes, a lot of new devices were introduced along
with unique UIs and features requiring users to be a lot more
knowledgeable than before in order to do their jobs and manage their
content.

IME, starting with Vista, things became increasingly technically
complex, beyond the ability of users to understand the implications
well
enough to determine whether an upgrade was in their best interests.

Not sure if I agree or not. LOL Are you saying the can't do it because
they simply can't understand it, or because they lack the knowledge to
understand it? I'd say the second part is the most likely reason.

For
example, how many do you think understood the implications of relative
resource allocation?

But, does the average user need to?

I'd say that if average folks did understand those implications, they'd
have known beforehand that many of their apps may not run reliably on
Vista, and they might have dumped those apps for apps created by
developers that followed the specs regarding system resource addresses,
(which was instituted for Win2k, btw).

H E double hockey sticks, even I don't know what you're talking about
using those terms. LOL

And, therein lies the value of the Win10 readiness app. It's not
reasonable to think that folks who are not programmers have the vaguest
clue about such things, even when the consequences are non-trivial.

I don't question the value of the readiness app. I do wonder why MS
didn't call it the "Windows 10 upgrade advisor", so it would be more
clear to users what the program's main purpose is.

I still think Char's approach is correct. :-)


A lot of users I run across don't have a clue of where their data is on
their hard drive, from a file organization perspective. :-( Smartphones
and tablets make it even harder, and each version of Windows Explorer
makes it less clear how things are organized.

The kinds of issues I've described above are not accessible to users via
file managers and so on. They're embedded in program compilers or
hardware (CPU/ROM etc.) configurations. That's why one needs a tool that
knows where to ferret out those issues. There will be a good number of
Win7 machines that will never run Win10, but how else would the typical
user know?

In my limited technical knowledge, I have no clue. Not only do you need
a tool, you have to know what to be looking for in the first place. G



--
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!"

| As to whether someone wants or needs the
| capabilities of a new OS is another, unrelated question, and I don't
| think it is the intention of this tool to answer that one.

From the mouths of babes...

The whole intention of the "tool" is to lead you into
thinking that Win10 is a natural progression that you
unquestionably *do* want. That's why Winston is bending
over backward, while he bends credibility, in order to
cook up any sort of logic to justify the KB patch having
some kind of honorable purpose.

What it is is simply a connecting ramp to transition
from the old way of allowing MS to provide updates
automatically, to the new way of accepting Windows
as a subscription service. If you get Win10 you can't
stop updates. If they end support for TXT or add
support for MP4, none of that is up to you. From Win10
on it's a subscription. Initially it's a free upgrade. Do
you suppose they'll just keep updating it for years at
no cost? Maybe, if they make a lot of money on services
and ads. Otherwise they may eventually phase in monthly
payments. Then you'll have to *pay* to no longer be able
to read TXT files.

Looked at that way, imposing the patch is a natural
step on the way to Win10. If you plan to get Win10
then you'd better plan to see a lot more balloon ads
that you have no control over. Things that install without
your permission will likely be the daily norm.

It almost makes me nostagic for the unsophisticated
sleaze of the old AOL ads. Remember those? When one
logged in there would be a popup saying, "Would you like
to apply for a credit card?" One had to click a button in
order to proceed. The options were Yes and Ask Me
Later.
AOL was way ahead of their time, redefining
the Internet as a domain of snake oil salesmen and
sleazy carnival barkers at a time when less visionary people
still thought it was merely a scientific marvel and an
information super-highway. It wouldn't surprise me a bit
if Windows gradually became just as tasteless as AOL
and late-night TV:

"Your Windows updates are finished for today. We've
installed new experiences that we think you'll love.....

.... Has you or a loved one died from cervical cancer
recently? Did you use vaginal mesh products? Apply
today to join a class action lawsuit instigated by the
firm of Dewey, Cheatem and Howe. You may be able to
share in a billion dollar settlement."

|Yes, I Want To Join The Lawsuit!|
|Ask Me Later After I've Enjoyed Other Great Microsoft Experiences!|

Ken Springer wrote:
On 6/6/15 11:48 AM, Neil wrote:
[...]
I'd say that if average folks did understand those implications, they'd
have known beforehand that many of their apps may not run reliably on
Vista, and they might have dumped those apps for apps created by
developers that followed the specs regarding system resource addresses,
(which was instituted for Win2k, btw).

H E double hockey sticks, even I don't know what you're talking about
using those terms. LOL

And, therein lies the value of the Win10 readiness app. It's not
reasonable to think that folks who are not programmers have the vaguest
clue about such things, even when the consequences are non-trivial.

I don't question the value of the readiness app. I do wonder why MS
didn't call it the "Windows 10 upgrade advisor", so it would be more
clear to users what the program's main purpose is.

Folks would probably complain that the "advisor" is really a "salesman"
trying to get you to buy something you don't need. ;-)

I still think Char's approach is correct. :-)

It's not a matter of her approach being incorrect. I think it is good
advice for someone to ask themselves what they need before they go out
and spend money on computers. The issue here is that folks have already
spent money (otherwise they wouldn't see this tool in the first place),
and one question that needs an answer is whether they need to spend more
to take the next step. As to whether someone wants or needs the
capabilities of a new OS is another, unrelated question, and I don't
think it is the intention of this tool to answer that one.

A lot of users I run across don't have a clue of where their data is on
their hard drive, from a file organization perspective. :-( Smartphones
and tablets make it even harder, and each version of Windows Explorer
makes it less clear how things are organized.

The kinds of issues I've described above are not accessible to users via
file managers and so on. They're embedded in program compilers or
hardware (CPU/ROM etc.) configurations. That's why one needs a tool that
knows where to ferret out those issues. There will be a good number of
Win7 machines that will never run Win10, but how else would the typical
user know?

In my limited technical knowledge, I have no clue. Not only do you need
a tool, you have to know what to be looking for in the first place. G

No, the user doesn't need to know those things. The tool can determine
whether the hardware is capable of running Win10, as well as several
other factors that Winston listed in other threads on this topic. I
really don't understand why some folks have a problem with that.

--
Best regards,

Neil

Ken Springer wrote:
On 6/5/15 12:00 PM, . . .winston wrote:
I'm still waiting for additional feedback on the Skype pw request.

Hi, ...winston,

Try as we might, we can't duplicate the episodes of me being asked to
sign in a second time for viewing/sharing a photo from OneDrive. But
that doesn't negate the fact that it happened.

Of course, there are the variables we can't duplicate:

1. I'm not sure either one of us are 100% sure of the *exact* steps
that were taken for this to happen.

2. The problem may have been caused by a different program. She's
received a lot of updates at her end, but almost no updates at my end.

3. There could have been some obscure bug in Skype that MS has fixed.
The Android versions change quite often from MS updates.

4. When this happened, we were on a video call, and circumstances
didn't allow us to do that for the testing.

So, I think the best route is to go "Huh. Wonder why that happened..."
and get on with things.

Thanks for the help.



Hi, Ken.
Thanks for the follow-up and 'test' results.
We've all had those 'Huh' episodes.


--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

Mayayana wrote:

What it is is simply a connecting ramp to transition
from the old way of allowing MS to provide updates
automatically, to the new way of accepting Windows
as a subscription service.

Not known, only hypothesized by those who don't know.


If you get Win10 you can't stop updates.
Not true - only W10 Core (Home) has the limitation.
3 other Windows Updates controllable options are available for
Consumers and Business.

Initially it's a free upgrade. Do
you suppose they'll just keep updating it for years at
no cost?
For the life of the device Win10 remains free including all future
updates.


If you plan to get Win10
then you'd better plan to see a lot more balloon ads
that you have no control over. Things that install without
your permission will likely be the daily norm.

Pure hypothesis, no credible source can validate that theory.




--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On 6/7/2015 1:43 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| As to whether someone wants or needs the
| capabilities of a new OS is another, unrelated question, and I don't
| think it is the intention of this tool to answer that one.

From the mouths of babes...

The whole intention of the "tool" is to lead you into
thinking that Win10 is a natural progression that you
unquestionably *do* want.

Really? You got that information from where?

It is undeniable that people "upgrade" without giving it a lot of
thought or research, and it creates problems for everyone and bad PR for
MS. If such a tool had existed for XP prior to Vista's release, there
might have been a lot less whining about Vista from folks that didn't
understand the implications, "upgraded" and found that it broke some of
their apps or wouldn't run at all on their old hardware. Same for Win7
to Win8. The tool's intent is simpler than your implication.

What it is is simply a connecting ramp to transition
from the old way of allowing MS to provide updates
automatically, to the new way of accepting Windows
as a subscription service. If you get Win10 you can't
stop updates.

Here's a hot bulletin for you. That train left the station 2 OSes ago.
Stopping updates in current versions of Windows can have consequences,
especially if the apps one relies upon are subscription-based.

If they end support for TXT or add
support for MP4, none of that is up to you. From Win10
on it's a subscription. Initially it's a free upgrade. Do
you suppose they'll just keep updating it for years at
no cost? Maybe, if they make a lot of money on services
and ads. Otherwise they may eventually phase in monthly
payments. Then you'll have to *pay* to no longer be able
to read TXT files.

The problem with this notion is that the ability to read txt files or
play MP4s is not restricted by an OS that runs apps. If it's important
to do it, there will be an app that can do it, just as there are
numerous apps to replace WMC, IE, OE, and everything else that was once
a part of Windows. If you think that some future version of Windows will
no longer run apps, then it's past time to move on to another platform.
But, I'm not wearing that tin hat!

--
Best regards,

Neil

Am 07.06.2015 um 21:30 schrieb . . .winston:
Mayayana wrote:

What it is is simply a connecting ramp to transition
from the old way of allowing MS to provide updates
automatically, to the new way of accepting Windows
as a subscription service.

Not known, only hypothesized by those who don't know.


If you get Win10 you can't stop updates.
Not true - only W10 Core (Home) has the limitation.

If I were to upgrade from my seven weeks old Windows 8.1
Home, which W10 would I get?