Build 1074 feels like Linux

This machine it's slow to open applications and fast to close. That's why I
prefer older Windows versions, they are much smoother. And it's becoming darker
interface like Linux. People usually don't have 16 GB Ram systems where we could
reserve more than 2 GB for Windows 10. These days, normal users have 5400 rpm
hard disk on their laptop and the manufactures are selling atom processors with
32 GB flash drives and 1 or 2 max GB Ram on affordable netbooks and tablets. How
they expect we could upgrade to Windows 10? In older days hardware had faster
evolution than software. Major affordable machines were quite enough to run
modern software changes. But now they are saving in hardware with the excuse we
need to go mobile and software is growing more in size and requisites. Even
actual Linux Os's need better machines. With these netbooks, tablets and other
smart technologies we can't increase the hardware components because they are
hermetic and when something gets broken we have to buy a new one. Please don't
interpret this as a complaint. I'm just giving my opinion about facts. I think
it's not a good move to upgrade to win 10 a 5 years old machine.

"Joel" wrote in message ...

This machine it's slow to open applications and fast to close. That's why I
prefer older Windows versions, they are much smoother. And it's becoming darker
interface like Linux. People usually don't have 16 GB Ram systems where we
could reserve more than 2 GB for Windows 10. These days, normal users have 5400
rpm hard disk on their laptop and the manufactures are selling atom processors
with 32 GB flash drives and 1 or 2 max GB Ram on affordable netbooks and
tablets. How they expect we could upgrade to Windows 10? In older days hardware
had faster evolution than software. Major affordable machines were quite enough
to run modern software changes. But now they are saving in hardware with the
excuse we need to go mobile and software is growing more in size and
requisites. Even actual Linux Os's need better machines. With these netbooks,
tablets and other smart technologies we can't increase the hardware components
because they are hermetic and when something gets broken we have to buy a new
one. Please don't interpret this as a complaint. I'm just giving my opinion
about facts. I think it's not a good move to upgrade to win 10 a 5 years old
machine.

I forgot to say that this opinion appears after booting. If I play a little bit
more, Ram begins its work of taking care of the system and things goes a little
more smooth.

Joel wrote:
"Joel" wrote in message ...

This machine it's slow to open applications and fast to close. That's
why I prefer older Windows versions, they are much smoother. And it's
becoming darker interface like Linux. People usually don't have 16 GB
Ram systems where we could reserve more than 2 GB for Windows 10.
These days, normal users have 5400 rpm hard disk on their laptop and
the manufactures are selling atom processors with 32 GB flash drives
and 1 or 2 max GB Ram on affordable netbooks and tablets. How they
expect we could upgrade to Windows 10? In older days hardware had
faster evolution than software. Major affordable machines were quite
enough to run modern software changes. But now they are saving in
hardware with the excuse we need to go mobile and software is growing
more in size and requisites. Even actual Linux Os's need better
machines. With these netbooks, tablets and other smart technologies we
can't increase the hardware components because they are hermetic and
when something gets broken we have to buy a new one. Please don't
interpret this as a complaint. I'm just giving my opinion about facts.
I think it's not a good move to upgrade to win 10 a 5 years old machine.

I forgot to say that this opinion appears after booting. If I play a
little bit more, Ram begins its work of taking care of the system and
things goes a little more smooth.

If you played a little bit more, you would run "cleanmgr.exe"
as Administrator, and remove Windows.old. You will find the
OS a bit smoother after completing that step.

That advice applies to installing Win10 Preview upgrades,
over the existing Win10 Preview partition. If you're installing
10074 for the very first time (no Windows on the disk when
you start), then it really shouldn't be that slow.

When you buy or accept a free upgrade offer for Windows 10,
don't be in quite such a rush to use "cleanmgr" and remove
Windows.old. Make sure in that case, that any important
files in Windows.old, are stored elsewhere.

*******

It's unclear at this time, how a WIM-boot tablet will get
upgraded, and what leftover file system will exist when it
is finished. The advice on those could well be different.

Paul

On 2015-06-10, Joel wrote:
This machine it's slow to open applications and fast to close. That's why I
prefer older Windows versions, they are much smoother. And it's becoming darker
interface like Linux.

There is no single "Linux user interface." Linux users have the choice
of quite a few, some very much like Windows, some like nothing else on
Earth. I use Xfce myself which has a pretty traditional look and feel,
and would hardly describe it as "dark."

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Roger Blake" wrote in message
...

On 2015-06-10, Joel wrote:
This machine it's slow to open applications and fast to close. That's why I
prefer older Windows versions, they are much smoother. And it's becoming
darker
interface like Linux.

There is no single "Linux user interface." Linux users have the choice
of quite a few, some very much like Windows, some like nothing else on
Earth. I use Xfce myself which has a pretty traditional look and feel,
and would hardly describe it as "dark."


The command console is usually black as ms-dos. I know Linux users can change
the wallpaper and configure the looks. You can have both on same machine, there
is a lot of options to do with those. Only thing I don't understand is why they
say Linux is safer and open source. Should be closed and safer.

Joel wrote:

"Roger Blake" wrote in message
...

On 2015-06-10, Joel wrote:
This machine it's slow to open applications and fast to close. That's why I
prefer older Windows versions, they are much smoother. And it's becoming
darker
interface like Linux.

There is no single "Linux user interface." Linux users have the choice
of quite a few, some very much like Windows, some like nothing else on
Earth. I use Xfce myself which has a pretty traditional look and feel,
and would hardly describe it as "dark."


The command console is usually black as ms-dos. I know Linux users can change
the wallpaper and configure the looks. You can have both on same machine, there
is a lot of options to do with those. Only thing I don't understand is why they
say Linux is safer and open source. Should be closed and safer.

With Linux you can change everything or just about. Well, even "just
about" can be changed, but you have to get into the code and recompile
it which you can't do with proprietary "closed" software. And that's
one of the reasons that makes Linux "safer:" you can check the code for
"bad" things, edit them out, and recompile. Or fix errors. Or alter
the app to suit your needs.

Stef

On 06/10/2015 09:32 AM, Stef wrote:
Joel wrote:

"Roger Blake" wrote in message
...

On 2015-06-10, Joel wrote:
This machine it's slow to open applications and fast to close. That's why I
prefer older Windows versions, they are much smoother. And it's becoming
darker
interface like Linux.

There is no single "Linux user interface." Linux users have the choice
of quite a few, some very much like Windows, some like nothing else on
Earth. I use Xfce myself which has a pretty traditional look and feel,
and would hardly describe it as "dark."


The command console is usually black as ms-dos. I know Linux users can change
the wallpaper and configure the looks. You can have both on same machine, there
is a lot of options to do with those. Only thing I don't understand is why they
say Linux is safer and open source. Should be closed and safer.

With Linux you can change everything or just about. Well, even "just
about" can be changed, but you have to get into the code and recompile
it which you can't do with proprietary "closed" software. And that's
one of the reasons that makes Linux "safer:" you can check the code for
"bad" things, edit them out, and recompile. Or fix errors. Or alter
the app to suit your needs.

Stef


Hi Stef,

By "dark", I think he means "weird". That would be Gnome,
which has gotten really, really W-I-E-R-D. But, he
has about a bazillion other choices. My favorite is
Xfce. Gets the job done and gets out of your way.
I don't care for the "OS as playground" GUI's". (Apple
drives me nuts!)

-T

T wrote:

On 06/10/2015 09:32 AM, Stef wrote:
Joel wrote:

"Roger Blake" wrote in message
...

On 2015-06-10, Joel wrote:
This machine it's slow to open applications and fast to close. That's why I
prefer older Windows versions, they are much smoother. And it's becoming
darker
interface like Linux.

There is no single "Linux user interface." Linux users have the choice
of quite a few, some very much like Windows, some like nothing else on
Earth. I use Xfce myself which has a pretty traditional look and feel,
and would hardly describe it as "dark."


The command console is usually black as ms-dos. I know Linux users can change
the wallpaper and configure the looks. You can have both on same machine, there
is a lot of options to do with those. Only thing I don't understand is why they
say Linux is safer and open source. Should be closed and safer.

With Linux you can change everything or just about. Well, even "just
about" can be changed, but you have to get into the code and recompile
it which you can't do with proprietary "closed" software. And that's
one of the reasons that makes Linux "safer:" you can check the code for
"bad" things, edit them out, and recompile. Or fix errors. Or alter
the app to suit your needs.

Stef


Hi Stef,

By "dark", I think he means "weird". That would be Gnome,
which has gotten really, really W-I-E-R-D. But, he
has about a bazillion other choices. My favorite is
Xfce. Gets the job done and gets out of your way.
I don't care for the "OS as playground" GUI's". (Apple
drives me nuts!)

I stopped using GNOME years ago when they first released 3. Wouldn't
run on my system. Old graphics card. And I didn't need 3D artsy-fartsy
graphics anyway. Waste of CPU cycles. I now just use a window manager
and a panel. Low overhead. Allows me to run a "modern" Linux on a
mostly 5 to 8 year old system with no performance problems. Even run
Adobe Photoshop and ACR in Windows XP in a VM with no problems.


Stef

Stef wrote:

Joel wrote:

"Roger Blake" wrote in message
...

On 2015-06-10, Joel wrote:
This machine it's slow to open applications and fast to close. That's
why I prefer older Windows versions, they are much smoother. And it's
becoming darker
interface like Linux.

There is no single "Linux user interface." Linux users have the choice
of quite a few, some very much like Windows, some like nothing else on
Earth. I use Xfce myself which has a pretty traditional look and feel,
and would hardly describe it as "dark."


The command console is usually black as ms-dos. I know Linux users can
change the wallpaper and configure the looks. You can have both on same
machine, there is a lot of options to do with those. Only thing I don't
understand is why they say Linux is safer and open source. Should be
closed and safer.

With Linux you can change everything or just about. Well, even "just
about" can be changed, but you have to get into the code and recompile
it which you can't do with proprietary "closed" software. And that's
one of the reasons that makes Linux "safer:" you can check the code for
"bad" things, edit them out, and recompile. Or fix errors. Or alter
the app to suit your needs.


That may be as one that can and understand linux and where the config files
are, but for the rest of the people, linux will be almost impossible for
them to configure without going to some school or class. If their wi-fi
connection doesn't work, what would you think their first reaction to this
will be?

Dell has tried to sell PCs with linux preinstalled and so has HP. Their
efforts were ignored by the public and soon the PCs were pulled from the
market place.

The real problem is computing stagnation. Even HPs CEO recognizes this and
is trying to do something about this. Kind of reminds me of the 70s and
CP/M and S-100 boxes. That market stagnated as well. When IBM came out
with something new, the PC, the CP/M almost died overnight.

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:53:44 -0600, GreyCloud
wrote:

[snip]

The real problem is computing stagnation. Even HPs CEO recognizes this and
is trying to do something about this. Kind of reminds me of the 70s and
CP/M and S-100 boxes. That market stagnated as well. When IBM came out
with something new, the PC, the CP/M almost died overnight.

Ah, no. The Z-80 had been taken about as far as it could go with
general-purpose systems. That is why the IBM pc took over.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On 06/10/2015 09:53 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
Stef wrote:

Joel wrote:

"Roger Blake" wrote in message
...

On 2015-06-10, Joel wrote:
This machine it's slow to open applications and fast to close. That's
why I prefer older Windows versions, they are much smoother. And it's
becoming darker
interface like Linux.

There is no single "Linux user interface." Linux users have the choice
of quite a few, some very much like Windows, some like nothing else on
Earth. I use Xfce myself which has a pretty traditional look and feel,
and would hardly describe it as "dark."


The command console is usually black as ms-dos. I know Linux users can
change the wallpaper and configure the looks. You can have both on same
machine, there is a lot of options to do with those. Only thing I don't
understand is why they say Linux is safer and open source. Should be
closed and safer.

With Linux you can change everything or just about. Well, even "just
about" can be changed, but you have to get into the code and recompile
it which you can't do with proprietary "closed" software. And that's
one of the reasons that makes Linux "safer:" you can check the code for
"bad" things, edit them out, and recompile. Or fix errors. Or alter
the app to suit your needs.


That may be as one that can and understand linux and where the config files
are, but for the rest of the people, linux will be almost impossible for
them to configure without going to some school or class. If their wi-fi
connection doesn't work, what would you think their first reaction to this
will be?

Dell has tried to sell PCs with linux preinstalled and so has HP. Their
efforts were ignored by the public and soon the PCs were pulled from the
market place.

The real problem is computing stagnation. Even HPs CEO recognizes this and
is trying to do something about this. Kind of reminds me of the 70s and
CP/M and S-100 boxes. That market stagnated as well. When IBM came out
with something new, the PC, the CP/M almost died overnight.


Hi GreyCloud,

What ?!?!?!?! I do this stuff all the time. I can use command line
or the build-in GIU utilties. Linux is as easy, if not easier, to
configure that Windows!

I am constantly using my Live USB and direct USB to troubleshoot
Windows machines. And, on live media the wireless works
spectacularly! So does printer-config!

I think you are remember about 10 years ago. Here is a link
to Fedora Core 22's Live Media. You should burn a bunch of
them and see for yourself:

https://spins.fedoraproject.org/

By the way, good luck telling KDE4 apart from Windows 7 (Windows 7
ripped off KDE4).

-T

GreyCloud wrote:

Stef wrote:

Joel wrote:

"Roger Blake" wrote in message
...

On 2015-06-10, Joel wrote:
This machine it's slow to open applications and fast to close. That's
why I prefer older Windows versions, they are much smoother. And it's
becoming darker
interface like Linux.

There is no single "Linux user interface." Linux users have the choice
of quite a few, some very much like Windows, some like nothing else on
Earth. I use Xfce myself which has a pretty traditional look and feel,
and would hardly describe it as "dark."


The command console is usually black as ms-dos. I know Linux users can
change the wallpaper and configure the looks. You can have both on same
machine, there is a lot of options to do with those. Only thing I don't
understand is why they say Linux is safer and open source. Should be
closed and safer.

With Linux you can change everything or just about. Well, even "just
about" can be changed, but you have to get into the code and recompile
it which you can't do with proprietary "closed" software. And that's
one of the reasons that makes Linux "safer:" you can check the code for
"bad" things, edit them out, and recompile. Or fix errors. Or alter
the app to suit your needs.


That may be as one that can and understand linux and where the config files
are, but for the rest of the people, linux will be almost impossible for
them to configure without going to some school or class. If their wi-fi
connection doesn't work, what would you think their first reaction to this
will be?

Linux isn't for everyone. And it takes relearning. But Windows users
who try it, for some reason, expect it to be Windows, look like
Windows, and work like Windows. Why? I don't know. But they do. And
they quickly become frustrated and give up.

You don't need to go to school or class to learn Linux. I didn't.
Completely self taught. And my educational background isn't
computers. In fact, ALL my computer expertise I learned from books,
HOWTOs, research, and doing. So, if I can do it, anyone can. If they
try. Most don't. Too much work. They want it easy. Everything handed to
them in a nice neat pretty package. A sad commentary on the state of
contemporary education. And its failure. No one is taught to think
anymore.

What do Windows people do when the wifi doesn't work? They call tech
support. A Linux user will find out why it doesn't work and fix it.

Dell has tried to sell PCs with linux preinstalled and so has HP. Their
efforts were ignored by the public and soon the PCs were pulled from the
market place.

Linux (Ubuntu, I think) still available on Dells, and HPs, too.
Lenovos as well. They just make it hard to find on their web sites.
Probably due to pressure from Microsoft. But it's there.

The real problem is computing stagnation. Even HPs CEO recognizes this and
is trying to do something about this. Kind of reminds me of the 70s and
CP/M and S-100 boxes. That market stagnated as well. When IBM came out
with something new, the PC, the CP/M almost died overnight.

Microsoft and Windows have too much control over the market. That's
where the stagnation lies. Why improve when you have 90% of the market?
Linux, and to a certain extent Apple, are constantly changing and
improving, but they have too little marketshare to have any meaningful
effect. But MS has slowly been loosing ground to Linux. Mainly in the
server area among businesses and governments. They're pricing
themselves out of that market with outrageous licensing and fees.

Stef

Joel wrote:
This machine it's slow to open applications and fast to close. That's
why I prefer older Windows versions, they are much smoother. And it's
becoming darker interface like Linux. People usually don't have 16 GB
Ram systems where we could reserve more than 2 GB for Windows 10. These
days, normal users have 5400 rpm hard disk on their laptop and the
manufactures are selling atom processors with 32 GB flash drives and 1
or 2 max GB Ram on affordable netbooks and tablets. How they expect we
could upgrade to Windows 10? In older days hardware had faster evolution
than software. Major affordable machines were quite enough to run modern
software changes. But now they are saving in hardware with the excuse we
need to go mobile and software is growing more in size and requisites.
Even actual Linux Os's need better machines. With these netbooks,
tablets and other smart technologies we can't increase the hardware
components because they are hermetic and when something gets broken we
have to buy a new one. Please don't interpret this as a complaint. I'm
just giving my opinion about facts. I think it's not a good move to
upgrade to win 10 a 5 years old machine.
On version 10130 I don't have sound on My AMD box and no way to
configure it.It was working OK until it updated the video driver.No way
to control updates so it being Windows breaks it.
I was thinking the same thing this is Linux but with no tools to fix
stuff. Basically all I can say is what a mess.

Joel wrote:

This machine it's slow to open applications and fast to close. That's why I
prefer older Windows versions, they are much smoother. And it's becoming darker
interface like Linux. People usually don't have 16 GB Ram systems where we could
reserve more than 2 GB for Windows 10. These days, normal users have 5400 rpm
hard disk on their laptop and the manufactures are selling atom processors with
32 GB flash drives and 1 or 2 max GB Ram on affordable netbooks and tablets. How
they expect we could upgrade to Windows 10? In older days hardware had faster
evolution than software. Major affordable machines were quite enough to run
modern software changes. But now they are saving in hardware with the excuse we
need to go mobile and software is growing more in size and requisites. Even
actual Linux Os's need better machines. With these netbooks, tablets and other
smart technologies we can't increase the hardware components because they are
hermetic and when something gets broken we have to buy a new one. Please don't
interpret this as a complaint. I'm just giving my opinion about facts. I think
it's not a good move to upgrade to win 10 a 5 years old machine.

Unfortunately, what you're describing people today call progress. And
the fact that W10 is running at all on a 5 year old machine is
surprising.

Another thing to consider is that you're dealing with, at best, beta
software. Wait for the final release of W10 the end of July before
making a final decision on its usefulness on your machine.

Also, run the W10 compatibility app. It will tell you if your hardware
is suitable for W10.

Stef

On 2015-06-10 11:07 AM, Joel wrote:
This machine it's slow to open applications and fast to close. That's
why I prefer older Windows versions, they are much smoother. And it's
becoming darker interface like Linux. People usually don't have 16 GB
Ram systems where we could reserve more than 2 GB for Windows 10. These
days, normal users have 5400 rpm hard disk on their laptop and the
manufactures are selling atom processors with 32 GB flash drives and 1
or 2 max GB Ram on affordable netbooks and tablets. How they expect we
could upgrade to Windows 10? In older days hardware had faster evolution
than software. Major affordable machines were quite enough to run modern
software changes. But now they are saving in hardware with the excuse we
need to go mobile and software is growing more in size and requisites.
Even actual Linux Os's need better machines. With these netbooks,
tablets and other smart technologies we can't increase the hardware
components because they are hermetic and when something gets broken we
have to buy a new one. Please don't interpret this as a complaint. I'm
just giving my opinion about facts. I think it's not a good move to
upgrade to win 10 a 5 years old machine.

Companies are under no obligation to optimize their code to make sure
that people who are unwilling to buy new hardware can use the latest
version. If you used a computer in the 1990s like I did, you would
already have been accustomed to this.

They cater to those who buy hardware as they are also the people who are
more likely to buy software and increase their profits. If you don't
want to spend, enjoy Linux.

--
Slimer
Encrypt.