Done with testing -- Not yet fit for prime time

davehc said:

I had an urge to express my observations, so far, on the latest OS from Microsoft. This is strictly my own opinion. Other users are free to disagree or pass comment.

After a lot of trial and error, and investigation, I am drawn back to my initial comment of some time ago, that this is, truthfully, the suddenly cancelled Windows 8, upgrade 2, or services pack 1 - what's in a name.

Many entries in the registry and the GPs, point, even now, to 8.1 or windows 8. System files in the Windows folder, in many cases, have the same size as in the previous OS. This appears to back my suspicion.

That out of the way, all I see in Windows so-called 10, are some add-ons, which could easily, possibly without my non programming knowledge, have been added to Windows 8.1.

I would like to see more posts on performance comparison, in all its aspects. I am not an intensive and demanding game player, but I have read opposing reports that this is much better, about the same, ore even a little inferior. From my own point of view, I am mainly what could be described as an Office user. I am afraid, in this case, I cannot really see any performance improvements which could lead me to recommend the cost of upgrading. Frankly, I do not see a future in attempts to improve the speed of software packages. That future will only lie with hardware improvement - not Microsoft's path.

The posts today seem to be mainly composed of 1. Navigational issues, many of which have existed since Windows 8, or 2. Discussion on the very few extras, or, 3, A little mention of an improved start up speed. This last point is one which, since Windows 7, many agree is not really such a bug issue, as it is not a function which is in constant daily use.

The overwhelming posts are, of course, focussed wrongly on the inclusion of a start menu and the change in access to the "Metro" start. By the time the Windows 10 tech release was available, most users had found ways to deal with these two items, and are now reasonably happy with their adaptions.

Having got that out of the way, I must say that this is not an uncommon phenomena with Windows OS updates.

Vista, rightly or wrongly, was condemned outright. It was, for many, to big a leap into the unknown, with new navigational and usage options. Again, by the time Windows 7 was sent out for testing, the average users were beginning to be familiar with the new approach to the OS. Windows 7 dealt with many of the objections to Vista, and, as a result, Windows 7 was received favourably by the public.

Then came Windows 8! Another leap into the dark with the introduction of the ";Metro screen and , strangely called, "Charms" bar. Microsoft, to their loss, made little mention of how easily the OS could be quickly customised to make it look and operate , in an identical manner, to Windows 7.

So, here we are again, with another relatively minor update, planted as a new OS.

Whenever I express the views stated above, on forums, the common response is that this is still in Beta stage, and it is too early to judge. Fair comment. But I do not see any area for progress from what is already on the table.

"Quantum Leaps" are pretty rare in this IT business when it comes to OS, I wasn't expecting any "earthquake" from Win 9 at first and not even when they called it Windows 10. There's just so much that can be changed in an OS and to be able to maintain full or even so-so compatibility with to less extent HW and much larger extent with SW. I mean, software compatibility, there's only few ways to change whole OS and to keep older SW compatible. It's either emulation or complete, extra OS subsystem, all of which would make an awfully complicated and clumsy OS worth many GB.