Why would I change from Windows 7 to Windows 10

Emma said:

Edwin, it's nice to know someone is bored besides me. I guess that is why re installs don't bother me.

:) It's pretty much the whole reason we're here, isn't it?

Lady Fitzgerald said:

Could not disagree more. Rebooting to a clone thats already installed takes 20-30 seconds. Images are not faster and not easier than a clone if it is set up right, meaning hot. This does not mean I don't also do images, I do. I am over run with backups, that have saved my butt more than once...

By hot clone, are you referring to RAID 1? If so, that is NOT a backup! It is merely redundancy to help protect you from HDD failure. There are other things that can kill your data besides HDD failure. If by hot clone you mean you just have it idling in your computer but not actually using it, you are still subject to the same dangers as when relying on RAID 1. If you mean you just use the clone to replace the drive that died after it died, yes, it is faster but you no longer have a backup. If something goes pear sheaped before you can make a new clone, then you are out of luck. Also, it takes longer to make a clone than it does an image and you can't store multiple clones on a drive like you can images.[/QUOTE]

No not RAID. Hot in my meaning it is up and running,(in my case D: I do have a back up as mentioned before as a clone on another drive and some images which are not powered up. 3 month intervals, swap out a HDD in my offsite storage. Maybe overkill, but worth it. Copying over the D: back to C: is in the background assuming physically the C: is ok. takes usually 8 minutes to do that, meanwhile you can continue computing. You do not have to "make" another clone, you just write/verify it back to C: or where ever you want.

More data info. Just did a image using Casper to my data drive 38Gb 18 minutes, using Macrim image to same drive 42 Gb 32 minutes. My SSD C: is 232Gb with 146 Gb free meaning 86Gb of windows stuff, gets compressed down pretty much minus page files etc. The last clone using Casper took 11 minutes. This is what Casper calls "smart clone", only writes the data that has been changed, keeps the data that has not changed. (in laymen's terms)

lehnerus2000 said:

Lady Fitzgerald said:

Same here. So far, I haven't seen anything I would want or need that I can't do with Win 7, occasionally using third party programs. Upgrading to Win 10, at least at first, would probably mean upgrading some programs and hardware; why should I do that when what I have meets my needs? Then there is the extra hassle of dealing with M$ accounts.

The Desktop Windows Snapping (in b9841) and the Command Prompt improvements were nice.

Of course Desktop Windows Snapping has been broken in every preview since.
At least the Command Prompt improvements still work.

I was pretty impressed with b9841 (I can't recall any operational issues).
After the last 3 previews I'm feeling apprehensive.

I use a free program called Divvy that is far more flexible than the win 10 snapping program. It works extremely well with multiple monitors.

I don't use Command Promps very often.

Lady Fitzgerald said:

futurdreamz said:

...I should go to Disneyland. The lineups will be nonexistent and they might sell little rubber gloves in the gift shops.

Rubber gloves won't protect you from measles. The only thing that will is to either get vaccinated or survive the disease (I had it when I was a child, roughly 60 years ago, when they didn't have measles vaccinations).

yada, yada.......

Layback Bear said:

My basic question is still the same.
What does W-10 bring new to the table that I want or can use?

And that continues to be the wrong question to ask.

First, how the heck does anyone know what YOU want? Simply put, we don't.. so by definition, the question is impossible for anyone but you to answer.

Second, it's a strawman argument. Because YOU control the answer, and nobody else can know what it is, you will always be right no matter what anyone answers. All you have to do is claim "I don't want that" to anything anyone says.

Let me ask a different question. When Windows 7 came out, did you ask "what does it bring to the table that I want?" And if so, did you claim you didn't want things which later on, when you actually started using Windows 7 you found you actually liked?

It's hard for you to know what you want when you haven't actually used it. Simply hearing people talk about something isn't enough to make a judgment about it in most cases. I mean, describe jumplists to people and they'll go "that sounds stupid" but when they actually use them, they start to find them useful.

Windows 7 was a very minor upgrade over Windows Vista, but yet it was, by most peoples accounts, a significantly better user experience. Meanwhile, Vista was a HUGE upgrade over XP, but people really didn't see much value in it. So go figure.

Mystere said:

Layback Bear said:

My basic question is still the same.
What does W-10 bring new to the table that I want or can use?

And that continues to be the wrong question to ask.

First, how the heck does anyone know what YOU want? Simply put, we don't.. so by definition, the question is impossible for anyone but you to answer.

Second, it's a strawman argument. Because YOU control the answer, and nobody else can know what it is, you will always be right no matter what anyone answers. All you have to do is claim "I don't want that" to anything anyone says.

Let me ask a different question. When Windows 7 came out, did you ask "what does it bring to the table that I want?" And if so, did you claim you didn't want things which later on, when you actually started using Windows 7 you found you actually liked?

It's hard for you to know what you want when you haven't actually used it. Simply hearing people talk about something isn't enough to make a judgment about it in most cases. I mean, describe jumplists to people and they'll go "that sounds stupid" but when they actually use them, they start to find them useful.

Windows 7 was a very minor upgrade over Windows Vista, but yet it was, by most peoples accounts, a significantly better user experience. Meanwhile, Vista was a HUGE upgrade over XP, but people really didn't see much value in it. So go figure.

I skipped Vista mostly because I would have had to replace a scanner, a printer, and an expensive piece of software. I finally migrated from XP to win 7 when those three issues had been dealt with (on my terms). I had no issues with Win 7 even before I finally upgraded (unlike Vista). I still don't use all of the features in Win 7 (such as jump lists, and yes I tried them; they were mostly a nuisance for me), mostly because I haven't needed them so far or I didn't like them (such as transparency). So far, I see no compelling reason to leave Win 7 yet.

then its settled. may you and your legacy stuff have a happy life together :}
microsoft is in a war and must make a decision to allow for a bunch of casualties in order to save the Mother Ship!

cognus said:

then its settled. may you and your legacy stuff have a happy life together :}
microsoft is in a war and must make a decision to allow for a bunch of casualties in order to save the Mother Ship!

That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Are you and M$ going to pay for those "casualties"? Those "casualties" were one of the several reasons Vista and Win8.x were flops, especially with businesses, which had a bottom line to be concerned with. It was the idea of allowing for casualties that killed Commodore Business Machines.

lets not go ad hominem
Technically and strategically, you be the MS Boss: you can salvage your corporate stake, Or you can salvage your SOHO stake. Which would you like to salvage?

Lady Fitzgerald said:

cognus said:

then its settled. may you and your legacy stuff have a happy life together :}
microsoft is in a war and must make a decision to allow for a bunch of casualties in order to save the Mother Ship!

That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Are you and M$ going to pay for those "casualties"? Those "casualties" were one of the several reasons Vista and Win8.x were flops, especially with businesses, which had a bottom line to be concerned with. It was the idea of allowing for casualties that killed Commodore Business Machines.