Anyone with Win7 knows that the update process has been throttled.
MS has now issued a rollup more or less equivalent to an SP2
you can get it here
NOTE: You will need to use Internet Explorer and will probably have to go to "tools" and toggle the Active-X setting... I had to turn it off then back on to get it working
Also note: There is a 64 bit and a 32 bit version
I am downloading both of them now
Says XP, and don't like my iPad.
Greg
| MS has now issued a rollup more or less equivalent to an SP2 |
Anyone considering this needs to be aware that the "rollup" is just a package of updates since SP1 and almost certainly includes Microsoft's spyware ("telemetry") and the various trojan horse updates to force-install Windows 10:
Spyware and trojan horse may seem like strong language, but that's exactly what they are. It's not difficult to find reports online of people who were surprised to find their Windows 7/8 computer converted to Windows 10. And Microsoft is increasing the pressure:
Most people -- people who have default settings for Windows Update -- are in the crosshairs. If you want Windows 10 then the "rollup" is probably a good idea. If you don't want Windows 10 this is a good time to think about disabling the Windows Update service.
If one is a user/supporter of Microsoft products, what /possible/ reason could there be for anyone NOT to want the most up-to-date and efficient Windows operating system?
David B."
In general, because "most up-to-date" does not always equate to "efficient".
I imagine that you have heard of "bugs"? The early releases of any software, be it an OS or an application, often contain software issues that do not become apparent until deployment to the masses. Many would prefer to wait until the issues have been found/resolved before using the new software.
In specific, many users are concerned with the privacy issues that are associated with Windows 10. It gets even more disturbing since MS is basically trying to shove Windows 10 onto our machines, as happened to me. Some think that they are doing it for reasons other than just being nice to us and trying to make us more "efficient".
How much did it cost?
nb
| Because the software you run won't work on it? | | Because it doesn't support your computer hardware? |
Good points. In the past few people would actually install an update. They'd get it when they bought a new computer. With Win10 Microsoft wants to introduce a "software as a service" approach. They want to turn your car into a taxi, providing them with income from some combination of ads, software rental and Microsoft Store purchases. So they're in a hurry to get people onboard. They're not making any more money on Win XP/7/8 users. If you have to leave behind your scanner or your favorite software.... Well, that's the cost of progress. :)
This just happened to me last night. I have been getting the Windows 10 update pop-ups but have been closing/ignoring them.
Last night I noticed my monitor cycling through a full-screen white-green-red-blue background. I couldn't wake the computer up with the keyboard or mouse. I cycled the power, but it just kept coming back to the color-cycling.
I Googled the color-cycling issue and found a post in a forum that just happened to be for my same model computer. I read that if you press the sleep key (crescent moon) on the keyboard, it would wake the system up.
When I did that, I was presented with a "Welcome to Windows 10" screen. Clicking "Next" presented a "Here's the legal stuff..." screen. When I clicked Decline I got a pop-up that asked me to confirm that I was declining my free Windows 10 upgrade. Is stated that it would reinstall my previous OS. I clicked decline and about 15 minutes alter I heard the system reboot with the Win7 music. I haven't had a chance to use the system yet, so I hope everything is intact.
I am not happy at having the upgrade forced onto my machine.
How do you rationalize "up-to-date" and "efficient" in the same sentence? "Efficiency" -- from the user's perspective -- is steadily DECREASING with each new OS release. More CPU cycles and memory are being spent to achieve the same overall effect (getting an application to RUN).
Since the dawn of computing, there has been an oscillation between "big, centralized computer with dumb(er) terminals" and "smart, decentralized computers".
Originally, computers were expensive and terminals (TTY's, glass tty's, etc.) were relatively cheap -- tens of kilobucks vs. fractional kilobucks. So, the thinking tended to be shared and the display, individualized (one display per user).
But, this approach doesn't scale well; if you double the number of users, the "central computer" needs to become twice as powerful. If it is already pushing the state of the art, then that additional performance comes at a greatly (disproportionately) increased cost!
OTOH, when (personal) computers become affordable, you can decentralize all that "thinking" and put it in each user's hands. Now, twice as many users is easy to address -- twice as many computers! it "scales" linearly.
But, maintenance then becomes a hassle. You now have all those scattered computers that have to be kept up to date. So, have to add tools to each to allow for CENTRALIZED (! :> ) maintenance.
And, ad hoc sharing (i.e., my PC making MY files available to you over the network) also becomes a headache.
Eventually, someone realizes that what the user REALLY wants/needs is a good "user interface" (quality display, responsive keyboard, etc.) and that, most of the time, the user's computer is twiddling its thumbs!
So, "power" (speed/storage) moves back to a centralized device with GLORIFIED terminals for the users (e.g., this was the X Windows approach and Sun Ray system). Now, everything can be updated and maintained in one place -- but with user-specific customizations ("environment") to tailor the interface to their requirements/expectations!
Then, the network starts to become a bottleneck as folks start wanting to move more data to their displays (e.g., full motion video). So, you add capabilities at the "workstation" end, again. This leads to more pidgeon-holed data and configuration stuff so you again look to centralize. Esp when you start thinking about sharing across area codes instead of between cubicles...
Eventually, folks will RE-discover some shortcoming of the central service (cloud) -- like the fact that it requires The Internet to be operational -- and will move to the decentralized model, again.
And, the cycle repeats. Over and over.
I'm not sure how relevant your history of computing is to the current situation. Mainframes worked for companies. Affordable PCs meant companies could be more flexible. But there's still a lot of centralization.
But there are differences in who's using the computers now. Security in corporate vs SOHo scenarios is almost reversed. In one the network is trusted but the user is not. In the other, the user is generally trusted but the network is not. In the latter there's rarely a role for centralization, other than software servers in small companies.
There are also big differences in what computers are used for. The corporate and SOHo user might be doing similar tasks, or not. There are varying options in balancing mobility with functionality. In the days of mainframes, computers were only for work, at work.
And there are big differences in terms of ownership and rights. Corporate computers, whether terminals or PCs, are controlled by the company. They have the right to watch you work and limit how you use the computer. You're being paid for using it, after all. SOHo users are in an entirely different world. They expect privacy. They own the files on their computer. Whatever they do is for themselves.
Probably the biggest factor now is a combination of trends:
1) Many people are happy having "consumer" services on a phone. That's their computer.2) Many people are using tablets, again for consumption rather than creation activities. The old computer was mainly a creation device. One did work on it. The new tablet is mainly a consumption device. One reads, shops, gets entertainment media.
3) Computers and software have matured. Neither is now a high-profit market in the way it once was.In many ways things haven't changed. There are still millions of people sitting at computers to do work. But increasingly that's not where the big money is. Microsoft cleaned up when the market was expensive software for business. (And they still clean up at that.) But the rise of Apple has been exclusively tied to consumer services. That's the emerging market. They make over $1 billion/year on sales at iTunes alone. That's stunning, considering they're selling limited rights to mediocre quality music at prices similar to what it costs to actually buy CDs. It's all about convenient entertainment. Microsoft wants in on that market.
The big problem with the Windows 10 software- as-a-service approach is that it's trying to conflate the different uses. You'll own your computer but Microsoft will have a right to change the software and watch what you do on your computer. You may be able to install software, but that ability will become increasingly limited as software goes to a rental model. In short, Microsoft is trying to put sand in your gas tank and sign you up for a taxi service. It would be fine if they just added a taxi service to their business, but that's not what they're doing. They figure they can just shoehorn their billions of Microsoft car owners into their taxi service and start shoveling bucks like Apple is doing.
People need to be aware of these changes. It really has nothing to do with trends toward or away from centralization. It has to do with market trends and the wide availability of high speed access, which are making it very attractive for big tech companies to own your life activities and charge you money for them. It's not always a direct payment, but if Microsoft shows an ad on Windows 10 they make money and they also fundamentally redefine whose computer it is. Just as Google has redefined privacy by spying on gmail users and Facebook has created a whole generation of people who've allowed Facebook to own their social life and are now dependent on Facebook to maintain their social life.
Accepting Windows 10 is not just going along with the ebb and flow of computer trends. It's going along with rental software, loss of privacy, and ubiquitous spyware watching what you do in order to show you ads. It's going along with turning the tool into interactive pay TV.
That sure wasn't true at the dawn or for a long time thereafter. The decentralization didn't start until the era of the minicomputer, ushered in by DEC.
Well, Windows 10 has Direct X 12 which actually cuts CPU cycles in half when playing Direct X 12 games. As a gamer that might be important to me. As I've said before, people should run whatever OS works for them. Getting rid of the Win 10 nag is trivial. I've had no issues with Windows 10. Made the desktop look like Win 7 after some tweaking. Which is the same pool table green as Win 3.1. It's rock solid and as fast as Win 7. Much faster booting. I didn't "like" changing what I was accustomed to, but I didn't "like" any OS change I've done. If my son hadn't convinced me it was the "right" thing to do (Direct X 12) I'd still be running Win 7. But I'm satisfied with Windows 10.
I don't play games on a computer. Nor do I watch TV on one! I have appliances that are *optimized* to play games and display television programs.
If I gave you a set of batteries and some respectible motors to attach to your PC and convert it into a "motorized device", would you give up your car/motorcycle/bicycle/ATV? (just think, you'd be able to play games and browse the internet while cruising around! Progress?)
So, if the nag was gone but the OS is still disclosing your usage habits to MS (and any other party to whom they care to SELL that information), you're fine with that?
Do you receive all your mail on postcards? (Or, don't you "trust" your letter carrier -- and everyone else up the chain of handling?)
Do you have a password on your email accounts -- and your computer, in general? (Why?)
I've found 7even to be slower than XP -- in terms of *use* (I only boot once every few weeks but start applications many times each day)
When you've got many tens of thousands of dollars of licensed software running on a machine -- plus an equivalent amount in peripherals -- you might have reservations about "upgrading" for the sake of upgrading.
[No one has told me anything that I *WANT* to do that I *can't* do in XP but *can* in 10. Having "new" just for the sake of having new isn't a valid reason to justify the expense and risk of loss (ignoring the spying aspect)]
That's interesting - but not addressing the point, which is DX 12.
The Win 10 nag is a Win 7 "issue." "
I'm not buying the Win 10 "spying' scenario. Sorry.
Of course. But those are your issues. I don't have them.
*My* point was that YOU choose to use your PC to play games. Would you ALSO choose to use it as a motorized carriage, given that option? *I* choose to use games as games, TV's as TV's and automobiles as automobiles.
My TV cares little about DX12 -- nor any of the flaws that it might contain now or in the future. Similarly, my game consoles and automobile.
If you tell me W10 is going to let me play games better, I'll point out that I can play games just fine, thankyouverymuch.
Yes. And if your "windows 7" computer was "suddenly" running windows 10 (yet still CLAIMING to be 7even) would you know?
Then you're ignoring what MS has publicly claimed and is present in the W10 EULA.
"I'm not buying the 'smoking causes cancer' scenario. Sorry."
They *become* my issues when enough lemmings deprive me of a choice.
If everyone moved over to PlayStations and MS dropped support for DirectX (because it lost that market), would you buy a PlayStation? Or, just resign yourself to the fact that when your current computer died, all of your games would be useless to you (cuz MS wouldn't be supporting DX on W11)?
Have a copy of "Bob" running anywhere?
Betamax was a far superior technology to VHS. Yet, died because folks opted for VHS technology based solely on cost issues.
The 8086 is a dog of a processor. But, has lived on for 40 years because it fell into the right "application" (the IBM PC) despite the fact that better processors were available at the time. Users and developers have been "paying" for this for 35 years!
[You could run a true multitasking OS with paged memory management on processors that were contemporary with the 8086 -- instead of having to wait until the 386 came along (the 286's VM capabilities were poorly implemented; the 386's only slightly LESS so)]The PC set computing back a LONG time -- but, made it available to the unwashed masses (for far more money than it could have cost).
Well said...BUT...what's the alternative?
| > Accepting Windows 10 is not just going along | > with the ebb and flow of computer trends. It's | > going along with rental software, loss of privacy, | > and ubiquitous spyware watching what you do | > in order to show you ads. It's going along with | > turning the tool into interactive pay TV. | > | > | Well said...BUT...what's the alternative?
I guess that's hard to say. Personally I'm using XP on newish computers that I build myself. If/when I have to move to Win7 I hope I'll be able to do that. It's possible I'd eventually move to Linux, though I don't find that prospect attractive. I'm too used to Windows and have put a great deal of time into programming on Windows. I can write many of the software and utilities that I want, and I have fun doing it. I loathe the thought of eventually losing that facility.
It's hard to know how things will develop. It may be very difficult to have a real computer in a few years. On the other hand, I'm using an OS that's
15 years old. It still supports most software and hardware. And I have no need to rent any software in order to do what I want. (For that matter, I also get about 45 stations with a pair of rabbit ears and haven't had cable TV since the 90s. :)Maybe with any luck Microsoft will fail miserably at their Win10 scam and come crawling back with a respectable product. But I'm not holding my breath. It seems to be closing in from all sides. Phones, tablets, computers... they're all becoming more locked down, less controlled by the owner, and less customizable in terms of privacy, installed software, etc.
For people who are not so techie.... It might be time to start thinking about Linux. Though there are also problems there. Ubuntu, for instance, is very controlling and I think they actually show ads on the Desktop. Linux is not necessarily the wild prairie it was a few years ago. And the wild prairie versions have their own problems. I've always thought of Windows being like a generic car, while Macs are like a sports car with the hood welded shut and Linux is like a car kit. The beauty of Windows is that MS has traditionally provided tools for any level of expertise. Macs won't let you change the oil, or even swap out the radio. And you can't drive them anywhere except on approved Mac roads. Sports cars are fun but not utilitarian. With Windows one can add gizmos to the dashboard and access most of the engine/drivetrain/body. It's fun and very usable. With Linux one has to become a greasemonkey, or just accept what's provided to civilian users. There's not much in between.
From what I see, I don't think most people care very much. Many are happy to buy a Mac and let Apple run their life. A number of people I know are using WinXP still, and I help them keep their systems running. I guess they'll be stuck with Win10 when it comes time to move on. They probably won't want to pay to have a custom Win7 box built. I would think there would be a market for someone to just provide a good, solid system for people to get work done, but there may not be a big enough market for it. A lot of pro photographers are accepting Photoshop as rental software. A lot of companies are accepting Office 365 as rental software. Almost everyone I know uses gmail and doesn't care about the spying. They can't be bothered to set up their ISP email, much less get their own domain. People are already accepting passivity. Remember how different it was during the PC craze? I learned HTML because my ISP gave me
5 MB free space for a website. I was thrilled to have my own front door on the Internet. But most people now don't see it that way. As has happened with so many cities across the US, a private shopping mall is replacing the public square and nobody's noticing.HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.