Anyone get a notice on their HP computer about Window 10 upgrade?

[Tom Stenzel]

my problem with the windows 10 upgrade is that it will all go horribly wrong. Will all of my programs continue to work afterward? Will the upgrade process hang up and corrupt an already working windows 7 installation? as was mentioned give it 6 months to a year to get the bugs worked out. Funny we still use that expression "get the bugs out".

Do you feel lucky? Well, do you?

We need a .44 magnum icon!

To me a big problem with Win 10 is that auto updates can't be turned off:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonke...matic-updates/

So if you go to use your computer and something doesn't work- too bad!

Which means a computer used for production has to be heavily firewalled or better, off the 'net entirely.

I always thought having a computer you rely on to run mechanical equipment connected to the internet is silly but people do it and sometimes have to.

At work I always said the best firewall was an axe through the coax. I guess that dates me a bit...

-Tom

[Alan Rutherford]

Create an image of the hard drive before running the upgrade. If the roll-back doesn't work, wipe the hard drive and re-install from the image. Here are directions for free disk imaging software that seems to get pretty good reviews. http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/win...th-clonezilla/

Good advice but "wipe the hard drive and re-install" means lose everything you did since you created the image unless you were clever enough to save those things separately and can retrieve them. Not everyone can do that.

...or upgrade it properly by installing Linux..

Note that when you boot Clonezilla (mentioned in the previous quote) from a flash drive or CD/DVD you are running Debian Linux. This message brought to you by Puppy Linux. Would have been OpenSuse but that pc is recovering from a lightning strike.

[Brian Elfert]

Only the home version of windows 10 will force Windows updates. The professional version allows deferring updates up to 8 months and the Enterprise version allows updates to not be installed at all.

I have Windows 7 pro so I could postpone updates if I wanted to. In corporate environments there are often very good reasons they don't want things like new versions of Internet Explorer. I wonder if corporations with Windows 10 enterprise will still be able to pick and choose which updates get installed like today?

[Keith Outten]

Its a bit of a comedy reading all the posts in this thread. Windows OS updates have been a headache for most people since version 3.0

I cut the MS cord several years ago and have never looked back. I still own two Windows XP machines but neither one is connected to the Net and they run fine without upgrades and they don't need virus protection. OSX works best for me with a lot less frustration and no problems in over four years.


.

[Brian Elfert]

Why does someone always have to bring up Macs anytime the word Windows is mentioned? They are uber expensive and don't run any of my Windows programs. If someone makes a post about Macs you didn't get people telling them to use Windows instead.

I have half a dozen Windows programs that simply don't exist on the Mac that I use regularly. A lot of Windows applications have Mac versions, but the Mac version is often several versions behind and missing features of the Windows version. Microsoft Office is only at 2011 while the Windows version is at 2013. (Office 2016 for Mac is available from Office 365, but not paying monthly/yearly to use software. Standalone version is coming by end of year.) I am not aware of any applications that only run on Mac that would make someone buy a Mac. Adobe applications like Photoshop used to be Mac only, but they run equally as well on Windows.

There are things that Macs clearly do better and things that Windows clearly does better. I figure it would cost me between $2,000 and $3,000 to convert to Mac since I would need to buy the hardware plus re-buy all of my commercial applications.

[Gerry Grzadzinski]

Adobe applications like Photoshop used to be Mac only, but they run equally as well on Windows.

Photoshop has been available for Windows for at least 20 year, I think.

Most of what I read here is just paranoia, imo. Do you people really have all these issues with Windows updates? Back in the XP days, I used to turn off automatic updates, and just added service packs. But for the last several years with Windows 7 and 8.1, I've never had an issue, or known anyone else that has.

And for those that use Windows 7, and hate Windows 8. If you spend $2 for a start menu add on like "Start is Back", Windows 8.1 is nearly identical to Windows 7, with just slightly different graphics. I use Windows 7 Pro at work and Windows 8.1 Pro at home, and there's really no difference, other than the fact that Windows 8.1 is supposed to be a little faster than Windows 7.

[Brian Elfert]

Photoshop has been available for Windows for at least 20 year, I think.

Photoshop 1.0 was Mac only and released in 1990. Photoshop 2.5 was Mac and Windows which was released in 1992. I don't know anyone who used Photoshop heavily that ran it under Windows 3.1. Serious users of Photoshop ran it for years on Macs even though it could be run on Windows. My employer mostly ran Photoshop on Macs until the late 2000s. Our company had been standardized on PCs for years and the only Macs were for Photoshop. The Photoshop users are mostly on PCs now against their choice. Most would still be on Macs if their choice.

Most of what I read here is just paranoia, imo. Do you people really have all these issues with Windows updates? Back in the XP days, I used to turn off automatic updates, and just added service packs. But for the last several years with Windows 7 and 8.1, I've never had an issue, or known anyone else that has.

I'm not one who wants to turn off Windows Updates. However, my employer has had a few recent updates cause some PCs to lock up during installation of the updates.

I think most users are more concerned about Microsoft not giving them a choice rather than really wanting to turn off automatic updates. I think it is okay to force security updates. Forcing down new versions of Media Player or Internet Explorer is a whole different thing. I want the choice of being to choose when I update my browser. Some websites only work with older versions of IE. I have a really old application that simply refuses to work with IE 11 no matter what I try. The application has been discontinued for years and really should be retired, but not my choice.

[Jerome Stanek]

Photoshop has been available for Windows for at least 20 year, I think.

Most of what I read here is just paranoia, imo. Do you people really have all these issues with Windows updates? Back in the XP days, I used to turn off automatic updates, and just added service packs. But for the last several years with Windows 7 and 8.1, I've never had an issue, or known anyone else that has.

And for those that use Windows 7, and hate Windows 8. If you spend $2 for a start menu add on like "Start is Back", Windows 8.1 is nearly identical to Windows 7, with just slightly different graphics. I use Windows 7 Pro at work and Windows 8.1 Pro at home, and there's really no difference, other than the fact that Windows 8.1 is supposed to be a little faster than Windows 7.

you don't even have to spend $2 just download Classic start and you get a lot of features including the start button

[paul cottingham]

Photoshop has been available for Windows for at least 20 year, I think.

Most of what I read here is just paranoia, imo. Do you people really have all these issues with Windows updates? Back in the XP days, I used to turn off automatic updates, and just added service packs. But for the last several years with Windows 7 and 8.1, I've never had an issue, or known anyone else that has.

And for those that use Windows 7, and hate Windows 8. If you spend $2 for a start menu add on like "Start is Back", Windows 8.1 is nearly identical to Windows 7, with just slightly different graphics. I use Windows 7 Pro at work and Windows 8.1 Pro at home, and there's really no difference, other than the fact that Windows 8.1 is supposed to be a little faster than Windows 7.

Theres a a whole cottage industry around fixing locked up computers after windows updates. We never allowed them to install (by using policies) until we had a chance to see how stable they were, and how smoothly they installed.

just sound practice.

[paul cottingham]

Why does someone always have to bring up Macs anytime the word Windows is mentioned? They are uber expensive and don't run any of my Windows programs. If someone makes a post about Macs you didn't get people telling them to use Windows instead.

I have half a dozen Windows programs that simply don't exist on the Mac that I use regularly. A lot of Windows applications have Mac versions, but the Mac version is often several versions behind and missing features of the Windows version. Microsoft Office is only at 2011 while the Windows version is at 2013. (Office 2016 for Mac is available from Office 365, but not paying monthly/yearly to use software. Standalone version is coming by end of year.) I am not aware of any applications that only run on Mac that would make someone buy a Mac. Adobe applications like Photoshop used to be Mac only, but they run equally as well on Windows.

There are things that Macs clearly do better and things that Windows clearly does better. I figure it would cost me between $2,000 and $3,000 to convert to Mac since I would need to buy the hardware plus re-buy all of my commercial applications.

I cant actually think of any apps that run better in Windows than their Mac (Or *nix) equivalent. And you trade off security issues (massive ones) using Windows. Of course, if there is only a windows version, I guess you are stuck.

that being said, if I still ran windows at home, I would update, especially if I had the mess that is windows 8. If I had 7, I would consider upgrading, but only after waiting for everyone else to do Microsoft's beta testing for them. 3-6 months is considered a best practice for waiting before upgrading.

[Jerome Stanek]

I cant actually think of any apps that run better in Windows than their Mac (Or *nix) equivalent. And you trade off security issues (massive ones) using Windows. Of course, if there is only a windows version, I guess you are stuck.

that being said, if I still ran windows at home, I would update, especially if I had the mess that is windows 8. If I had 7, I would consider upgrading, but only after waiting for everyone else to do Microsoft's beta testing for them. 3-6 months is considered a best practice for waiting before upgrading.

If 80% of the windows users went over to Mac's then with in a few months windows would be more secure that Mac's. Why rob a piggy bank when you can rob the fed reserve

[Brian Elfert]

Theres a a whole cottage industry around fixing locked up computers after windows updates. We never allowed them to install (by using policies) until we had a chance to see how stable they were, and how smoothly they installed.

just sound practice.

We test the updates before we roll them out. After testing we start with our IT group and then add another group every day. We still ended up with a few problems in recent months. What works in testing doesn't always work on hundreds of PCs.

We don't use automatic updates and control updates through Windows Software Update Services so we control what updates get delivered when.

[paul cottingham]

If 80% of the windows users went over to Mac's then with in a few months windows would be more secure that Mac's. Why rob a piggy bank when you can rob the fed reserve

Not really. The Windows security model is a joke, more of an afterthought. The Unix security model (the Mac runs on a BSD kernel) was developed from the ground up.

for example, a ton of applications in Windows won't run unless they are running as an elevated, privileged user. Unix doesn't need that. Applications can run at different levels of privelege, and thus it is much easier to keep malware isolated, and keeping it from installing or running.

it is a common misconception that the only thing keeping virii off of Unix and macs is the small number of installs. But most of the Internet runs on Unix, most of the routing, mail servers, DNS, and web servers are Unix. So there are lots of machines. They are just very difficult to compromise. We had one running on the Internet for 6 years without patching, it was attacked massively, but never compromised. You should have seem the logs! We ran two packages that the author offered a bounty on for anyone who could compromise them. It has never been collected.

No-one would dare make such an offer on a Windows application.

[paul cottingham]

We test the updates before we roll them out. After testing we start with our IT group and then add another group every day. We still ended up with a few problems in recent months. What works in testing doesn't always work on hundreds of PCs.

We don't use automatic updates and control updates through Windows Software Update Services so we control what updates get delivered when.

You're telling me. I don't miss that at all. Especially the way 20 different -identical- computers in both hardware and software would all take the updates with varying levels of success.

never had that problem in Unix.

[Moses Yoder]

I only use about 5% of my computer's capabilities. Web browsing, Word, Excel, and a little CAD drafting. I am sure the initial version of 10 will work just fine for me. If you are a nerd or geek, not so much. Nerd and geek are complimentary terms. Dweeb is derogatory.