Windows 10....

[Ian]

Perhaps we need a forum name change!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29431412

How about www.windows10forums.com?

 

[Trouble]

Going to be a lot of people scrambling to make that change. I would say yes.
Right away if at all possible.

 

[Ian]

Done

 

[Trouble]

Wow .... that was fast.
Now just some clean up with the Logo header and such.
Man... I can't believe they changed the name and none of the talking heads in the blogosphere had that information in advance.
Did you already have that domain name reserved or are you doing a redirect somehow.

 

[Ian]

If you CTRL+F5 it should show the new graphics

I had the domain name already, just in case... but I didn't expect to need it yet!

 

[Trouble]

Looks like the Preview will be available tomorrow.

While most PC owners won't start using Windows 10 for a while, developers and enthusiasts can get started much sooner. Microsoft will begin to release Technical Previews of Windows 10 tomorrow, starting with a version for laptops and desktops and following later with a version for servers.

SOURCE: http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/30/6868899/windows-10-availability-technical-preview-tomorrow

 

[Ian]

Brilliant! Can't wait to give it a shot

 

[Trouble]

If you CTRL+F5 it should show the new graphics

I had the domain name already, just in case... but I didn't expect to need it yet!

Thanks, sorry I didn't try that first.
Excellent bit of extreme forward thinking on the domain name reservation

 

[ChristineBCW]

And just think - now Microsoft can still say "Windows 9 is free for everyone!" and casually mention, "...but Win10 isn't!"

I still think it sounds like a toilet flushing job. "Flush it. Now flush it again! Really sink it deep so it can't climb back up!"

Or else it's a farsighted view toward Update Version Numbering. "What if we deliver that 5th update? We end up with Win9.5!"

"Is that B or C version?"

 

[davehc]

I dont think Microsoft ever called it Windows 9. It was the media who, logically, got hold of that. MS have, I believe, always referred to it as "the next OS" and their builds as "Threshold.

 

[ChristineBCW]

I've always been interested why Microsoft didn't stick with the internal version number of Windows, all along. 4.164, 6.17xxx, etc. I know these Build Numbers are critical and perhaps this could have led to some torch & pitchfork demands for updated Install Disks at some point for Ordinary Users (yuck! the bane of Microsoft!! USERS!! Nooooo) but still... I have a feeling the consumers really could handle "4.12" or "6.17". If they've called into a serious Tech Support, they have to read that whole number off anyway!

 

[Trouble]

Or maybe they could pick a naming convention that is way more professional sounding like.....
Ice Cream Sandwich 4.0, 4.0.2, 4.0.3, 4.0.4
Jelly Bean 4.1, 4.2, 4.3
Kit Kat 4.4
Or maybe that other guys obsession with Big Cats?
I vote for "Warm Fuzzy Bunnies" great name for an operating system.
I will never understand why people target Microsoft with some of the weirdest critiques... bottom line, does it work, can I use it, does it make my work day easier? If so I really could care less what you call it.

 

[ChristineBCW]

...I really could care less...

Yes.

At least until, at support's inevitable end, they use the threat of opening floodgates of hacker attacks if we don't pay them money for the next upgrade.

 

[Trouble]

OH... I see.
Twelve years of supporting an operating system (for free) is somehow less than optimal in your opinion.
I'm sorry, but the world turns and things move on.
I had a 10 year old car once, which the manufacturer had long before stopped supporting (for free) and the last couple years was a very expensive experience.
And I have never, ever, owned a technology device even approaching 12 years.

 

[ChristineBCW]

less than optimal in your opinion.

You're making an incorrect assumption. I completely understand and agree that Microsoft shouldn't donate expensive support services for free. And they still have teams doing that support for the customers that pay for it.

But what was so different with Microsoft's announcements to terminate support was their openly publicized THREAT to expose all of XP's security flaws. They'd never EVER used that terminology before, even though they've halted support on many other OS's. They've just never used the dire threat of some nuclear-winter prediction.

Heck, I've still got my first Compaq 286-SLT in completely functional mode, too. Of course, I take care of MY stuff. (now THAT you can take as a poke! ha ha)

 

[davehc]

"openly publicized THREAT to expose all of XP's security flaws"

That interested me. I must have missed that one. Could you give a link or reference to it?

 

[ChristineBCW]

Here's a Google list of links for the phrase "microsoft announces end of XP support".

The first three entries are Microsoft's much-watered-down comments but within the first lines, or parapraphs, the comments have been re-written to say, "exposed to vulnerabilities".

In Jan 2014, InfoWorld started tracking all of Microsoft's responses to their "open threats" by listing their new, watered down statements and backtracking attempts.

But I don't remember any article that DIDN'T contain the comments about "you'll be exposed to XP's vulnerabilities" coming out of Redmond or wherever else Ballmer was standing at the time.

By April, 2014, Microsoft was enlisting other speakers and writers to generate the dire warnings so the "open threats" were no longer spilling from MS employees or publications. Except that nagging nuclear-explosion pop-up which SFGate posted on their front page.

I do love Microsoft claiming "five times more vulnerable". Not 4.7, not 6.3, not 8, not 3. But FIVE. Wheeeee... I wish you could get them to cite THAT figure's source! (Actually, it comes from the Joseph McCarthy School Of Marketing. We all know how valuable THAT degree program is, right?)

It's actually harder to find an article without Microsoft quoting "XP vulnerabilities" in it.

 

[clifford_cooley]

It's actually harder to find an article without Microsoft quoting "XP vulnerabilities" in it.

You are making more of it than it actually is. Microsoft wanted to send a strong message that they were no longer patching the vulnerabilities. You say you support this notion but then question their notification methods.

 

[davehc]

I'm Sorry. But, from my viewpoint I see no "THREAT" there. Just a plain statement of fact. I would assume that if they were withdrawing support, then, it would be a natural conclusion that the OS would no longer be kept supplied with security updates. These security.updates are , imo, an excellent perq, not often supplied by other software manufacturers.
If XP users are happy to carry on with their atiquated OS, there is no reason for them to tremble, if they have adequate Anti malware control.

Like any sensible user, i believe, without MS reminding me, that XP could, and is, vulnerable, as are preceeding OSs
.

 

[ChristineBCW]

It's a "big deal" because this was the first time Microsoft led off every comment - and still has that as the leading issue - when no other OS listed "threats to vulnerability". They talked about drivers, hardware performance updates AND then they'd list "no more security updates".

Of course, back then, IE 4 and 6 weren't the arterial flow for hijacker viruses like browsers are now. Most viruses were still downloaded files that had to be executed.

But the selective memory on display is good to witness, too.