Announcing Windows 10 Insider Preview Build 10166 Insider

Originally Posted by MrQueely
Am I the only one here who has not found any bugs to report?

blutos cousin said:

You ain't taxing it then ...☻ I'll let you all know when I test the hdd and memory I/O throughput and see if they got it back to Win 7 x64 /8.1 levels

OTOH I havent found any bugs in 10166 aside from the usual lame unified web/local task bar search ......give me a few minutes

OK I taxed 10166 a little with PassMark the hdd and memory I/O throughput remains significantly depreciated from Win 7 x64 while the Graphics marks are improved on the Same NTFS drive (dual boot) configuration here :

Windows 10 Test Build 10166 Pass Mark x64 performance summary

Pass Mark system 1134.2

CPU 3334

2D Graphics 636

3D graphics 344.6

Memory Mark 957

Metal hdd
Memory Mark 784

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


Pass Mark x64 Summary Win 7 x64 sp1 to Windows 10 Test buld 10166 variance

Pass Mark Rating = 1284 / 1134.02 result = W10x64 -149.8

CPU 3531 / 3334 AMD (Athlon II x4 630) result = 10x64 +5

2D Graphics 393.1 / 636 (Radeon HD 6450) result = W10x64 +242.9

3D Graphics 299.4/ 344.6 (Radeon HD 6450) result = W10 x64 +45.2

Memory Mark 1284 / 957 (4GB DDR3 PC3 10600 Samsung ) result = W10 x64 -327

Disc Mark 1130 / 847 ( Seagate 1GB ST100013 result = W10 x64 -283

=================================================================
=================================================================
Results Summary :

Pass Mark Memory Mark and hdd Disc Mark I/O throughput remain significantly depreciated
fron win 7 x64 to Win 10 10166 on the Same NTFS hdd here on *this configuration *.

Passmark system Rating CPU mark remains a little depreciated while 2D Graphics
is substansially improved and 3D Graphics has some improvement .

The CPU, Memory Mark and HDD I/O throughput result variences are are consistant with prior
test buildswhile the 2D and 3D Graphics are improved

===================================================================
===================================================================
Test System Specs
HP S5302f Slimline w newer 7500 RPM Seagate Sata III hdd Athlon II x4 630 and descrete sound
and video. 4 GB Ram and Win 7x64 and Windows 10 test build 10166 on the same NTFS dual boot
hard drive .


Both OS were tested on the same configuration and same hdd. Results within satistical
rounding errors and variences from Widows 7 x64 are repeatable and consistant with prior

W 10 Test build testing by me and other Windows Insider members on earlier W10 vs Win 7x64
test builds is consiatant except the new improved Graphics scores on W 10 10161 .

quevon24 said:

I've been trying to update the 10130 build to 10166 from windows update but i cant, the installation always fails, this also happened when i tried to update from 10162 iso, i get an error. Anyone knows how can i update to the latest build from windows update? or the only choice is a clean install?

You could try doing a build to build upgrade using the ISO
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/i...7-f40096ec3085

Successful upgrade complete, copied the ESD to make an ISO. I will stay with the upgrade unless I have issues

OK, guys, back to my PC.

This is the other issue I referred to a couple of pages ago: (I'm quoting myself )

I've found a weird minor bug affecting both, builds 10162 and 10166. In both cases, I've observed this after performing a clean install.
This is what I've learned:
Wrong time format is displayed on the Lock Screen under the following circumstances: When I switch on my computer, restart it or sign out.

In my case, I have properly set up the time to always display the 24-hour format, but in those cases it is shown in the 12-hour one.
Once I have signed in with my Microsoft account and I manually lock the screen by pressing (Winkey+L), the right time format is displayed, in my case the 24-hour one.
Again, this did also happen in build 10162; but not in builds 10158 and 10159, in those two it worked as expected.

I've already sent the feedback through the appropriate channels, but I wanted to know if somebody else has bumped into this of if you can reproduce it.
Thanks!
Cheers!