Cookie settings
Privacy policy.
Login / Register
Anybody else tried the tech preview yet?
I have been using it for around a week now. My first impressions are very good overall. It has the speed and stability of Windows 8 and many of the features. Live tiles and things like that. Been testing it with different programs and games and haven't ran into any real issues with it.
It has the Windows 7 taskbar/start menu style and you can add tiles to the Start Menu if you wish. It does not use the Aero interface, but the Windows 8 one, whatever it is called. The only things I have noticed so far that needs to be fixed is some performance issues while doing certain things. For example trying to change the desktop background took 3 tries as the window became slow and unresponsive or causing explorer to crash. It could have been due to my background image folder being gigantic though.
I have been using things like Open Broadcasting Software to stream a little bit, recording with FRAPS, playing demanding games all with no issues whatsoever.
I was worried there were no drivers available for it but turns out the Windows 8 drivers work. So my R9 280 and X-Fi XtremeGamer has full functionality. OFC if you use an SSD, it has all the proper support built in for that as well.
I feel that if the tech preview runs this well, I am excited to see how it works when it is released. It isn't perfect and needs some optimizations and polish, im curious what you guys think about it. However right now it does seem like Windows 8 with the most demanded features finally added. If this is the case then it is no wonder it works so well as Windows 8 is already extremely fast and stable. Adding in a few more features seems trivial.
Windows 10 Tech Preview
Board Index »
Chit-chat »
Windows 10 Tech Preview
Sinxar
Cruguey (18)
Cruguey (18)
Posted 9 years ago.
Roguey
Trueguey (22)
Trueguey (22)
Posted 9 years ago.
hey there sinxar
I been looking at it today, when I saw your post. Myself I feel little disappointed to be honest; it looks and feels very much like Windows 7. I skipped Windows 8 and stayed with 7, as am happy with Windows 7 at the moment - it runs everything I want. I guess if you started with 8, then I could see 10 being a nice upgrade.
I do like the quad-snapping but feel it could of been rolled backwards onto 7.
It did automatically install the nvidia drivers for me, which was nice. I could see that feature being useful for people.
I am in a mixed feeling about the online inter-connection; in one way its good to be able to access things easier but on the other hand it feels like Microsoft are monopolize you to use their stuff; like hotmail, MS store etc. Im not a fan of MS app store at all - feels like they trying to make your PC like a tablet/phone.
So for me atm, I see little point upgrading to Windows 10; unless I missed something?
I been looking at it today, when I saw your post. Myself I feel little disappointed to be honest; it looks and feels very much like Windows 7. I skipped Windows 8 and stayed with 7, as am happy with Windows 7 at the moment - it runs everything I want. I guess if you started with 8, then I could see 10 being a nice upgrade.
I do like the quad-snapping but feel it could of been rolled backwards onto 7.
It did automatically install the nvidia drivers for me, which was nice. I could see that feature being useful for people.
I am in a mixed feeling about the online inter-connection; in one way its good to be able to access things easier but on the other hand it feels like Microsoft are monopolize you to use their stuff; like hotmail, MS store etc. Im not a fan of MS app store at all - feels like they trying to make your PC like a tablet/phone.
So for me atm, I see little point upgrading to Windows 10; unless I missed something?
Sinxar
Cruguey (18)
Cruguey (18)
Posted 9 years ago.
That is what my thought was too, don't see much point in Windows 7 users upgrading. I still have my copy of Vista for this PC. Honestly I am not a huge fan of 7 but that is mainly because Vista works just fine and it is more 'classic' Windows. My mom got 8 on her new PC and while it is quite snappy and easy to use, the lack of the normal Windows interface made me feel sorta left out as I need access to things 8 hides from view.
It is my understanding there will be some form up discount for Windows 7 users. Wish they would offer a free upgrade for Vista users but it isn't really a big deal as I am working on building a new PC anyway and will have to buy a new OS. I think I picked the worst possible time to build a PC as so many things are changing right now. DDR4 is out now and Windows 10 is coming some time next year I believe. I think Microsoft's main concern is that Windows 7 will become the next XP. Nobody will want to upgrade.
Considering Windows 7 mainstream end of life is in January, I can't see much point in upgrading to 7 for myself. If you already have 7 and don't plan on building a new PC then you are good to go at least until 2020.
It is my understanding there will be some form up discount for Windows 7 users. Wish they would offer a free upgrade for Vista users but it isn't really a big deal as I am working on building a new PC anyway and will have to buy a new OS. I think I picked the worst possible time to build a PC as so many things are changing right now. DDR4 is out now and Windows 10 is coming some time next year I believe. I think Microsoft's main concern is that Windows 7 will become the next XP. Nobody will want to upgrade.
Considering Windows 7 mainstream end of life is in January, I can't see much point in upgrading to 7 for myself. If you already have 7 and don't plan on building a new PC then you are good to go at least until 2020.
Roguey
Trueguey (22)
Trueguey (22)
Posted 9 years ago.
Very much true; for me Windows 7 was at an era when quite a few things changed for the PC. Firstly we had DirectX11, which communicated to the graphic card in a different way (giving speed increases). Then we had 64bit (which was finally trouble free), as there used to be a lot of problems/lack of support on previous windows. Then finally, it looked/felt a bit like XP - so it was familiar in some way.
I discount for Win7 users would be good idea, but knowing MS it wont be much.
Myself I never tried Vista - as I heard a lot of issues with it. What would you say was bad with it?
Maybe MS are simply changing the OS too often; at one point the technology was changing a lot, so it had to keep up. However in the past few years it hasnt much. Sure, its a little faster and that. So I could agree that 7 could be the next XP, however unlike XP its far less limiting. This going back to 7 for me reforces they screwed-up on Win 8 (they even tried to remove the start-bar).
Windows 7 Home Premium limits the maximum memory to 16gb, although if you got professional or higher, 192gb isnt going to be hit that quickly. The memory limits are kind-of stupid although, cos 64bit should be able to cope with a lot more (I guess its MS trying to limit its future). Unless some new tech comes on the market, then I cant see a lot changing for awhile, 16/32gb of memory is still a lot. We dont need 128bit CPU's; heck the chip manufacturers were pushing out 64bit chips for a long time before windows caught up, and I doubt we see 64gb modules soon (arent 16/32gb modules kind-of rare at the moment?).
I discount for Win7 users would be good idea, but knowing MS it wont be much.
Myself I never tried Vista - as I heard a lot of issues with it. What would you say was bad with it?
Maybe MS are simply changing the OS too often; at one point the technology was changing a lot, so it had to keep up. However in the past few years it hasnt much. Sure, its a little faster and that. So I could agree that 7 could be the next XP, however unlike XP its far less limiting. This going back to 7 for me reforces they screwed-up on Win 8 (they even tried to remove the start-bar).
Windows 7 Home Premium limits the maximum memory to 16gb, although if you got professional or higher, 192gb isnt going to be hit that quickly. The memory limits are kind-of stupid although, cos 64bit should be able to cope with a lot more (I guess its MS trying to limit its future). Unless some new tech comes on the market, then I cant see a lot changing for awhile, 16/32gb of memory is still a lot. We dont need 128bit CPU's; heck the chip manufacturers were pushing out 64bit chips for a long time before windows caught up, and I doubt we see 64gb modules soon (arent 16/32gb modules kind-of rare at the moment?).
Sinxar
Cruguey (18)
Cruguey (18)
Posted 9 years ago.
There was a new build released today or yesterday that fixes a few issues and enables some of the GUI eye candy. First thing I noticed is that windows are animated.
I never really understood the hate on Vista really. I got it right when it came out. There was bug that caused large file transfers to take forever (and was fixed immediately), but most of the issues was due to people simply not wanting to upgrade their PCs. One big 'issue' was that the sound subsystem was rewritten from scratch. This alone caused a huge uproar because suddenly unsupported hardware from 1995 didn't work properly anymore (specifically the Sound Blaster series of sound cards). The facts on why it no longer worked was ignored. It was because many add-on cards accessed OS resources inappropriately causing BSODs and security issues. A huge security hole was patched and it made the OS extremely stable as a result. Instead of rejoicing that Windows suddenly became faster, and many many times more stable, people just hated on it because their single core Pentium 4 and 1 GB of RAM couldn't run it properly. It wasn't until CPUs took a huge leap (the Core and K10 architectures for Intel and AMD respectively) AND their use was widespread and by that time Windows 7 was on the shelves. Again ignoring the fact that they had new much better PCs on which to run the new shiny OS. If you try to take the same PC that had problems with Vista and try to run 7, the same thing happens. It doesn't work. Old hardware doesn't work. Superfetch still uses all your RAM by default (which was another huge complaint, 1GB of RAM used sitting idle was too much).
So overall, I personally believe that Vista got a bad rep because of the unfortunate timing of release. At the time, the Pentium 4 and 1 GB of RAM was the norm. People who built their own PCs had a huge advantage here. You have to realize that at the time 32 bit was standard. Why on Earth would you ever need more than 4GB of RAM or more than 1 core? Just look at what we use now. Quad and Octo-core CPUs are the norm. 8 GB is considered the minimum. Graphics cards are orders of magnitude more powerful than the top end card in '06.
I never really understood the hate on Vista really. I got it right when it came out. There was bug that caused large file transfers to take forever (and was fixed immediately), but most of the issues was due to people simply not wanting to upgrade their PCs. One big 'issue' was that the sound subsystem was rewritten from scratch. This alone caused a huge uproar because suddenly unsupported hardware from 1995 didn't work properly anymore (specifically the Sound Blaster series of sound cards). The facts on why it no longer worked was ignored. It was because many add-on cards accessed OS resources inappropriately causing BSODs and security issues. A huge security hole was patched and it made the OS extremely stable as a result. Instead of rejoicing that Windows suddenly became faster, and many many times more stable, people just hated on it because their single core Pentium 4 and 1 GB of RAM couldn't run it properly. It wasn't until CPUs took a huge leap (the Core and K10 architectures for Intel and AMD respectively) AND their use was widespread and by that time Windows 7 was on the shelves. Again ignoring the fact that they had new much better PCs on which to run the new shiny OS. If you try to take the same PC that had problems with Vista and try to run 7, the same thing happens. It doesn't work. Old hardware doesn't work. Superfetch still uses all your RAM by default (which was another huge complaint, 1GB of RAM used sitting idle was too much).
So overall, I personally believe that Vista got a bad rep because of the unfortunate timing of release. At the time, the Pentium 4 and 1 GB of RAM was the norm. People who built their own PCs had a huge advantage here. You have to realize that at the time 32 bit was standard. Why on Earth would you ever need more than 4GB of RAM or more than 1 core? Just look at what we use now. Quad and Octo-core CPUs are the norm. 8 GB is considered the minimum. Graphics cards are orders of magnitude more powerful than the top end card in '06.
Roguey
Trueguey (22)
Trueguey (22)
Posted 9 years ago.
Ah, thanks for explaining about Vista. It does sound like MS jumped further than the average PC. I could see the SoundBlaster thing being annoying if you owned one at the time. The other day we installed Win7 onto a P4, and it took ages (it took like 10-20mins even for the first screen to come up). It was clearly not upto the job, so im guessing it a similar experience with Vista. Maybe MS tried to guess what was going to come out, and got it a bit wrong.
I agree that PC's have jumped a lot since then; Windows 7 made good use of it all 64bit, quad-core+, 4gb+ etc. Although from that point we havnt really seen a big leap from there, and feel they are changing the O/s too often. Although our modern o/s surely can keep us going for 5/10+ years now? I dont think we be seeing 64gb DDR4 that soon, maybe im wrong?
I agree that PC's have jumped a lot since then; Windows 7 made good use of it all 64bit, quad-core+, 4gb+ etc. Although from that point we havnt really seen a big leap from there, and feel they are changing the O/s too often. Although our modern o/s surely can keep us going for 5/10+ years now? I dont think we be seeing 64gb DDR4 that soon, maybe im wrong?
Sinxar
Cruguey (18)
Cruguey (18)
Posted 9 years ago.
It is hard to say what will happen in the next 10 years, but Samsung just released DDR4 32GB modules for the enterprise market. I can see the usefulness in that area but for people like us? Then again look how quickly RAM and HDD capacity increased from 2000 - 2010 and developers made use of that extra power.
I also agree that there hasn't been any major leaps recently. Even major changes in CPUs has equaled a minor speed increase. Maybe they are focusing on the die shrink instead. I know in 2006 my CPU used 90nm process. Now Intel is down to 22 nm with excellent yields. Memory manufacturers are doing the same thing to squeeze more into a chip.
I have no doubt that our current OSs and hardware will be sufficient in 10 years. Guess it really depends on software devs using the resources available or just targeting the broadest audience. As consumers we get told what we want, and unfortunately it is usually the thing that is cheapest to make with the highest profit margins. That practice seems to lead to stagnation in the industry and IMO that is what is happening right now.
I also agree that there hasn't been any major leaps recently. Even major changes in CPUs has equaled a minor speed increase. Maybe they are focusing on the die shrink instead. I know in 2006 my CPU used 90nm process. Now Intel is down to 22 nm with excellent yields. Memory manufacturers are doing the same thing to squeeze more into a chip.
I have no doubt that our current OSs and hardware will be sufficient in 10 years. Guess it really depends on software devs using the resources available or just targeting the broadest audience. As consumers we get told what we want, and unfortunately it is usually the thing that is cheapest to make with the highest profit margins. That practice seems to lead to stagnation in the industry and IMO that is what is happening right now.
Roguey
Trueguey (22)
Trueguey (22)
Posted 9 years ago.
True, when there is demand for new tech I bet things will change quickly however at the moment I feel the tech has leaped further than the developers. Some developers are doing some amazing things with the current tech.
I remmeber like 10-15 years ago thinking the CGI then might be what in-game graphics might be, however now in-game graphics is better than some CGI; take tomb-raider, which looks better on my PC than the pre-recorded sections.
I guess the consoles havnt helped things, normally the next-gen consoles cause the PC to catch-up, however they were a bit lazy (since they are basically mid-range pc's). I dont know when the next push for tech will be, but when it does im sure a new Windows will be required. Atm it just feels like they are changing the colour of the wall-paper so-called-to-speak.
And with die-reduction, it seems Intel are trying to make them more efficient and cheaper, unlike AMD which have gone a bit silly; a TCP 220w CPU?!
I remmeber like 10-15 years ago thinking the CGI then might be what in-game graphics might be, however now in-game graphics is better than some CGI; take tomb-raider, which looks better on my PC than the pre-recorded sections.
I guess the consoles havnt helped things, normally the next-gen consoles cause the PC to catch-up, however they were a bit lazy (since they are basically mid-range pc's). I dont know when the next push for tech will be, but when it does im sure a new Windows will be required. Atm it just feels like they are changing the colour of the wall-paper so-called-to-speak.
And with die-reduction, it seems Intel are trying to make them more efficient and cheaper, unlike AMD which have gone a bit silly; a TCP 220w CPU?!
1
You need to log-in to post here.