I like Windows 7 and 8.1, but I think Windows 10 is far superior. I have had a few updates that messes stuff up on my main computer, but that is mostly because I'm an idiot and I'm running the Slow Ring Windows Insider builds on it. I have had fewer problems on my laptop, which is running production builds.

Though I don't see why there is so much hate for the Apps from the store I use 53 to some extent, and have tried far more than that, which are decent app, but I don't have the time to use any longer.

=============================================

1.       Audible

2.       An app for my bank

3.       Alarms and clocks

4.       Amazon

5.       Back to the drawing board

6.       Calendar

7.       Camera

8.       Cortana

9.       Dropbox

10.   Elements: The periodic Table

11.   Facebook

12.   Fallout Shelter (GAME)

13.   Feedback Hub

14.   Figure

15.   Halo 5: Forge (GAME)

16.   GoPro Channel

17.   Groove Music

18.   Hulu

19.   Instagram

20.   Khan Academy

21.   Knowledgebase Builder

22.   KVADPhotos +Pro

23.   Lighthouse (GAME)

24.   Mail

25.   Maps

26.   Messenger

27.   Minecraft: Story Mode (GAME)

28.   Minecraft Windows 10 Edition (GAME)

29.   Movie and Tv

30.   Napster/Rhapsody

31.   Netflix

32.   Newegg

33.   OfficeLens

34.   OneNote

35.   OneDrive

36.   Pandora

37.   People

38.   Readit

39.   ReCore (GAME)

40.   REDCON (GAME)

41.   Roku

42.   Sketchable

43.   Skype

44.   Starwalk 2

45.   Star Wars Commander (GAME)

46.   TED

47.   Todoist

48.   Translator

49.   Twitter

50.   Voice Recorder

51.   Wolfram Alpha

52.   Xbox

53.  Xbox One smartglass

=============================================

Some of these apps are also available on my phone or on my Xbox One, which I appreciate. Many of the apps are also useable through a website, but the apps are more convenient to me. I also appreciate that UWP apps seem to install and uninstall much cleaner than Win 32 apps.

I know many people find the automatic updates annoying, but that is necessary in the age of cyber crime, botnets, hacking, etc.

Since I have had few issues with updates, they seem to be working well and I am all for them. At times I wish Microsoft was iterating faster than it current is to add new features to Windows 10. As long as they leave in robust support for Win 32 applications and programs I don't see what the big deal is. UWP apps and games may or may not be the future, but as long Microsoft makes sure older programs run well on Windows 10, to me it's the best of both worlds.

I mean I currently have Fallout from 1997, which I bought for this computer from GOG (but I have my original disks for Fallout, Fallout 2, and Fallout:Tactics somewhere around my house) installed alongside Fallout Shelter, which I downloaded from the store. On steam I have X-Com: UFO Defense, which steam says came out on Dec. 31, 1993 and X-COM 2 from 2016. Though SMAC isn't working (though a quick search shows at least some people with Windows 10 have it working...worse comes to worse I can set up a Windows 98 virtual machine. I still have my disk and windows key. I knew it would come in handy sometime lol), so there is room from Windows 10 to improve their backwards compatibility, which I hope Microsoft continues to do.

It's good that you provide a different perspective. I really mean it. It's possible to have different opinions without one being right and the other being wrong. I am not here to convince anyone about anything. I post mainly to entertain myself and also vent some frustration because tech didn't develop the way I wanted.

The “hate” (or my “hate” I should say) for Store apps stems from a feeling of being dumbed down.

To be given the smartphone treatment on a desktop platform. To be served inferior tools because Google/Apple/Microsoft/any company think this is “good enough”.

When someone mentions sandboxed apps (Store apps) this comes to my mind:

Apps that cannot access filesystem properly, apps that cannot be themed/skinned properly, apps that don't support mouse/keyboard as primary control method, apps that are slow/lag because of a heavy framework, apps that are generally restricted in what they can accomplish, apps that either come with a price tag or are ad supported.

How many Windows Store apps have I tried? Not that many. I tried VLC, thought it was ugly and pretty useless compared to the desktop program. I tried Mail, thought it was nowhere near as useful as Windows Live Mail (now retired). I tried some games which reminded me of Android games. I tried Contacts or People and Calendar which reminded me of Outlook.com. I tried Calculator and then decided to install the old Win32 Calculator.

My “hate” for Store apps stems from my “hate” for Android (and iOS). And touch. It's pretty simple; I am old-school and the whole smartphone thing (meaning touch) went over my head. Why would I want to touch a screen if I can touch a button instead and feel something, getting physical feed-back? Touching a screen is a lifeless, mind-numbing experience. Well, I am joking, but I am surprised that touch caught on in such a big way.

Needless to say I wasn't happy when Microsoft decided to create a hybrid OS for both touch and traditional use. I think Apple has the winning strategy here, having a desktop/laptop OS and a separate touch OS. For me, Windows Store is a pure touch store with sandboxed (limited) apps and that's the reason I stay away from it.

Someone should pick up the Impulse client from the software graveyard (I imagine the price is a lot lower now) and start a real Windows store. Who should do this? Microsoft of course. However, this will not happen and I think it's a big mistake. I think most developers want to have their software in an easy accessible store, they just don't want to pay 30 % for the privilege.

I am disappointed how tech developed in the last 8-9 years. The iPhone and Android changed everything. Nokia had pretty cool smartphones (with keyboards) and Blackberry and Microsoft too.

People a lot older than me have embraced the “Modern” touch trend and sandboxed apps. I prefer the sweet memories of instant responsiveness of Windows 98 on a Pentium II 450 MHz. It felt like code was closer to hardware those days or maybe it's just silly thoughts from someone unwilling to adapt to current reality. Windows was running on top of DOS those days which actually is a bit weird when one thinks about it. Maybe Windows 98 wasn't that good after all. But it was fast. When 7200 rpm drives were introduced (or was it SATA?) Microsoft had to patch Windows 98 because it shut down too fast, before the hardware had time to power off properly.

Compare this with Android which uses some kind of virtual machine on top of the Linux kernel and is generally slow even on modern hardware. I think it's the world's most disturbing OS and it's sad that it killed practically every other smartphone OS except iOS. Windows Store is the “Android mindset” baked into Windows. Just disturbing. But maybe there actually is someone enjoying Android. No. Not possible. Android is for robots, not humans.

First I would like today I like windows 10. I hate windows eight. Dido with some above if you were being polite. 

Windows stable huh tell that to Linux, and apple users. It crashed on me last year. The only advantage I can see is simplicity, as far as versatility, or stability it is lacking. Not giving us what we want. Just what they want us to want. IF we were going to compare free programs. Linux environment is made to run this way, where most free programs on windows don't do much, and pull you out of your programs to register every five minutes. Linux distributions inspect software to decide what you can download. This sounds like kgb, but most of what is free on windows does jack, or is a virus. Because of this not much if any anti malware programs will let you download free programs unless you do hoops to allow it. Not an easy learning curve on this. Linux just will make you use free programs that work instead. Linux is a virtual machine where a virus will not bring down the computer. A virus on windows can freeze windows where on linux all you can bring down is an account. 

My biggest issue with touch is I have to press a key umteen times to get it to work, scrolling my screen keeps popping up when I'm just scrolling down, like going back to read, and answer old forums. Totally inferior to a mouse. A lot of times it spell checks things that should not be spelled checked. Also it keeps shrinking what I enlarge to see. That would not be a problem if I had good eyes. As if I was done it would be nice to be able to shut off my phone without it trying to play metal on the bus, thumbing down one of my favorite songs just; because I have to shut it down when the bus comes, or playing a game loud when I'm trying to sleep. Running my apps for no reason, or excessive advertising when I'm trying to watch a movie. Running apps running down my battery when I'm doing something else. Why did anyone think it was better to run umteen apps you probably use only rarely to run down your battery is better than pushing on a app to start I have no idea.

What I'm trying to say is that the phone environment,or purpose is none thing like a computer. The operating systems should never tried to be consolidated. This is as retarded as scaling down Dos, not upgrading the environment for a modern computer. Dos offer more flexibility than windows. This would be more compared to windows 95; because, of the lack of support for a modern system.   

A smart phone interface is a upgraded cell phones which was done because the desktop wouldn't fit on the screen. It makes no sense to make a limited screen on something that can do so much more. Ie. windows 8. 

If you thought this was enough they hid the start screen. I'm glad they brought it back. This is a user friendly problem. I'm glad they dumped user accounts for file explorer. I should not have to download another program to fix what eight should never have removed.

Apps are fine if you don't do much with them. Apps are miny programs, so they have to decide what they wan't to ditch, and not everyone likes what they ditch. I wouldn't want this to replace free programs on the Pc though. I'm talking about free, not expiring demos.

With windows 8.0 it makes no sense to buy something that should already be there. 

You guys have read where this processor is comparable to the I5 right.

I don't hate the store apps, it's just that I have no use for them.

anotherside

Great response. Some of the best Windows 10 criticism I've read, because I understand where you're coming from. I guess the current shape of Microsoft's store, along with windows 8 and windows 10 is in part to blame because of the stagnation of the x86 CPU. Think about it, there is as much distance from a Pentium MMX 166 processor to a Core 2 Duo E6700 process as what there is from a Core 2 Duo E6700 to today. Plus intel has basically hinted that the 10nm refresh is delayed, so we'll get coffee lake later in 2017, and who knows when we'll get something better.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/02/intel-coffee-lake-14nm-release-date/


I think that Microsoft looked around in 2010 or so and realized intel was stagnating and ARM was undercutting them on price and power, and MS truly thought the Post PC era was on us, with ARM everywhere. If RT had of taken off and Windows Phone or Mobile or whatever they want to call it hadn't of been a dud marketwise, I think they would be congratulating themselves right now. That is not the case. Poor execution on MS's part, along with Win 32 programs having a stronger base, and Nadella diverting from phones has left MS in a bad place right now and that is why the store is more like the google play or Apple's App store than it is like Steam or Origin.

I assume that Microsoft still assumes that UWP is the future and that is why they are continuing to build out their Windows 10 store on that concept. There is little hope of them dislodging steam or Origin or Gog. They would have to pay billions and billions to take over valve, but at some point as Gabe ages I think somebody will eventually buy out Valve if Valve doesn't see VR success in the next few years, and continue to become more of a Steam middle ware company instead of a successful game developer.

Windows on Arm along with more UWP adoption may drive Windows 10 to have more success in the tablet and small touch screen market. If all goes right, by late 2018, you could have an Arm powered Windows 10 device with approximately the same dimensions as a Nintendo Switch, but with more power, able to run many Xbox Play Anywhere games, as well as UWP and Win 32 productivity apps. If all goes wrong we have about the same as what we have now, except Android replacing Chromebooks and spreading further up the laptop chain.

I think the only thing I truly disagree with you is about Pentium II powered Windows 98 computers. I had one with a P2 400, and a whopping 128MBs of ram along with an enormous 10GB hard drive. I am almost positive my phone is more power than that computer, and there is no way I'd give up my current computer for that thing. I think your memory is speeding it. Just like my memory upscales old super Nintendo and N64 games to at least 4k at 120fps on Ultra, when in reality Zelda OoT was probably lucky to hit 30 FPS at 720×480 with super low res textures.

Anyway I hope if nothing else, that by next year intel even if its chips are just another rehash, drop the gpu and replace it with either more cores, or just smaller, cooler chips. Currently I have a Haswell era i5 chip and an amd gpu. It would be nice that ninth generation intel chips that come out in 2018, even if they aren't at 10nm, would have something like and i3 with 2 cores and hyper threading, an i5 with 4 cores and ht and finally an i7 with 6 or 8 cores and ht at similar or lower power, because they have dropped the gpu.

What I would really like to see (I'm saying this as a guy who bought an amd chip just two months before Core 2 came out in 2006), is a resurgent AMD, where Ryzen or a 2018 Ryzen refresh is not just cheaper, but hands outperforms a current intel i7 processor.

I really think AMD needs to be competitive on ipc and clock speed, because if they are not, the somebody that has a program that really benefits from 6 or more cores might choose Ryzen for performance, but everybody else will choose intel if they need performance and AMD if they want something cheap. Then all intel has to do is cut prices for a while, they could still cost more than Ryzen and it would cap any growth AMD would see on the CPU market. However, if Ryzen has more cores, along with similar ipc and clock speeds and is cheaper as well, intel may be in trouble.

Sadly, too many PC users think of the 'every millisecond of 'extra' power, and because Intel has ben able to provide that in recent years, AMD has stuggle sale-wise when ibn actual fact it has developed more than adequate CPUs that more than adequately power any average home machine and better.

Sure, Intel CPUs have been faster with clock speeds and etc, but seriously, unless you're an absolute enthusiatist with a need for the absolute fastest speed possible, what difference is there, really?

I mean, seriously, how many home/regular users , even some gamers, really need a 4.00ghz CPU?  The truth is, not many, but while we have these so-called CPU discrepancies between manufacturers, and Intel seemingly coming out on top all the time, we are always going to have these so-called CPU wars that divide users.

The truth is, for the majority of users, it don't matter a rat's anus, cos really, most never ever need the power of a high-end CPU that runs off the charts. 

Frankly, it does'nt matter to most day to day users just how powerful a CPU is, so long as they can access their emails and surf the net, that's all that matters, and certainly no reason to run a 4.00 ghz CPU.  In the past I have wanted the most powerful and fastest hardware there was within my budget, but these days I accept that I cannot keep up with the Jonses any more and that I have to budget more within my means.

I have pretty much accepted that my next new build/upgrade will be my last, cos at 63 going on 64 I'm not getting any younger, and I'm going to get the best I can afford for my last ever new build [except the case] with an AMD Ryzen CPU and compatible components.  My final build may not be as powerful as the latest Intel offering, but I really don't give a rat's arse anymore... it'll do all I need it to.

So there!!!!!

Guess what I are trying to say: I are too tired of getting into dick measuring contests and losing.

I disagree. If you have a task that is CPU limited you want to buy the cheapest item that meets your minimum requirements. Amd may be cheaper, but if intel out performs it, and I need a certain level of performance AMD doesn't provide, then I have to skip it for intel. Because if all you need to do is check email and browse the web, then there are perfectly acceptable 80 dollars tablets or 60 dollar phones running cheap ARM SOCs on the market. Either AMD is fairly competitive, unlike now, or I think the cpu market will continue to stagnate.

I may end up building my desktop with AMD, because of pricing. I think AMD probably dominates low end cPUs cause of pricing. But if I have the money I usually go Intel. If speed doesn't count. Besides pricing what else is AMD currently doing better on the CPU end. When I buy a computer I want my best bang for my buck. Otherwise why waste your money. I usually have better computers than John, and Jane do who don't care about having the latest gadget that comes out, but usually behind anything you read about.

Yes I think so too. AMD said Ryzen had been tested with both Windows 7 and Windows 10 so it's probably just a political thing.

haha, you are probably right. Windows 98 was a long time ago. The phone is more powerful than Pentium II for sure. But software was much lighter then so you could have a good experience on a Pentium II. Mine was P2 450 MHz, 128 MB RAM (kid you not) and a 10 GB HDD so almost identical to yours. It's long gone.

If you wrote all that on a touch screen, then you are a touchscreen wizard.

Regarding OSes and kernels, it's possible to build both good stuff and bad stuff on any kernel. Some things are kernel specific but many things are just layers on top. Windows has had the advantage because of more mature technologies and a bigger ecosystem. Windows disadvantage was huge amount of malware.

Someone could argue that a UWP-only version of Windows is more secure and to some extent that may be true. However, it's the perfect example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Not understanding what (and who) made Windows successful.

That's my feeling too. Ultimately, it's consumers who decide. I do want touch-screens on laptops. It's useful if you are writing something and have the touchpad turned off. But I don't want a touch UI.

I hope so too.

It's all that matters.

You may have a greater need for CPU power than most, and yes, you would disagree, but for the majority of users, an AMD CPU would more than suffice.  However, people have their preferences and will opt for the hardware that pleases them most, whether it be Intel or AMD.  My main requirement is enough GPU power to edit, create and dub video, and I'm sure an AMD Ryzen will be more than man enough.

Any new chip needs a reason to exist...if it's not speed then there's a cheaper option than a cheaper brand....

....simply sticking with the old chip...

I think maybe in a nutshell ^^^^ simple and to the point. My laptop runs an AMD dual processor. It runs pretty good. All I need to do is add another 4 gigs of ram and it'll be even gooder. 

Looks very promising. I guess we'll know more in two weeks or so.

The AnandTech headline is "AMD Launches Ryzen: 52% More IPC, Eight Cores for Under $330, Pre-order Today, On Sale March 2nd."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11143/amd-launch-ryzen-52-more-ipc-eight-cores-for-under-330-preorder-today-on-sale-march-2nd

Arstech said that according to AMD, which I admit may be overpromising once again, that

The top-end part is the R7 1800X. This $499 chip will have a 3.6GHz base speed and a 4.0GHz boost speed, with a 95W TDP. AMD is positioning it against Intel's i7-6900K, a $1,050 processor using the Broadwell-E core running at 3.2 GHz, and turboing up to 3.7GHz.

In the Cinebench R15 multithreaded rendering test, AMD says that its new processor scores about 9 percent higher than Intel's. In the single threaded version of the same test, it's a dead heat.

Anyway, I hope that AMD really is back to an extent.

I also hope that AMD is back with a competitive CPU range that gives Intel cause to think... not about bettering it but about its own pricing.  For too long now, Intel has been top dog and has charged consumers in line with that market position, so yeah, let's hope that Ryzen really is AMD's best chip yet.  I have nothing against Intel or its chips, nor am I an AMD fanboi, but I would like to see CPUs in general become more affordable for the average user.

I have some priorities to consider first, but I would like to build a new PC sometime later in 2017, and it likely will be with a new Ryzen CPU at it's core.  I had hoped to build one around an Intel i7 6950X, but I could build a more than decent machine for considerably less using a new Ryzen at a fraction of the cost.

Here's another article on Ryzen....