Announcing Windows 10 Insider Preview Build 16226 for PC Insider

Wow, what contortions I had to go thru to install .NET 3.5 !!! Finally had to resort to using Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Offline Installer.

CountMike said:

Wow, what contortions I had to go thru to install .NET 3.5 !!! Finally had to resort to using Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Offline Installer.

Glad you got it, but did you try the Safe Boot trick Waltc posted? Worked perfectly here. Just curious.

f14tomcat said:

Glad you got it, but did you try the Safe Boot trick Waltc posted? Worked perfectly here. Just curious.

Yes I did it in safe mode but still had to use that program. Although internet was working in safe mode (wired connection) update wouldn't recognize it saying it's not connected. Luckily I had W10 installation on a USB stick so just pointed it to Sources/sxs folder on it and than it installed.
Incidentally, F8 didn't work for safe mode as it did before.

linw said:

Strange as mine updated fine with .NET 3.5 installed.

Programs and Features - Turn windows features on/off and all went well - anxious to see what happens with next build - update issues or not?

Sorry. Misunderstood the question. Seemed like there was a discussion about upgrading to build 16226 using an ISO. It would be helpful, perhaps, if one could mark a question as being answered so people can't inadvertently continue on a closed thread.

martyfelker said:

Sorry. Misunderstood the question. Seemed like there was a discussion about upgrading to build 16226 using an ISO. It would be helpful, perhaps, if one could mark a question as being answered so people can't inadvertently continue on a closed thread.

Sorry, Marty, but I gotta say it . . . There are just too many variables to questions in these forums. What if someone misinterprets the question (as you did) and gives the wrong answer (not that your answer was wrong; it was just the wrong answer for the question asked).

I don't think I need to add any more "variables" for you to understand where I'm going with this. I think TC's question is just about as good as could be asked; he quoted the person wanting an answer.

And yep, I've found myself in your position more times that I care to admit.

Wynona said:

There are just too many variables to questions in these forums. What if someone misinterprets the question (as you did) and gives the wrong answer (not that your answer was wrong; it was just the wrong answer for the question asked).

Can't even count how many times it has happened to me, replying to wrong issue or even to wrong post. It just highlights the importance of quoting the OP, to show that I am replying to this question, comment or statement in that post.

BTW quoting, I hope you fellow geeks do not take this in a wrong way: When you quote long posts, especially a post with several screnshots, please edit the quote. It is quite annoying to scroll through extremely long quotes when the actual one sentence reply then shows that it was just a few words or a sentence in original post a member replies to.

Go through everything between [QUOTE] and [/QUOTE], remove screenshots and unnecessary paragraphs. Although certainly not a good example but please compare the above quote of Wynona's post to her original post; I only left the part which I am directly replying to.

On another topic, can some of you more educated and civilized members please tell me how much / how many is %s? I am referring to this:



Kari

Kari said:

On another topic, can some of you more educated and civilized members please tell me how much / how many is %s? I am referring to this:



Kari

The "Windows Defender Antivirus successfully took action on %s threats since your last summary" statement is almost understandable; I don't, however, understand the s behind the percentage sign. My interpretation would be that of 100% of threats found, WD successfully took action on a certain percentage of them. It would be nice to know how many threats were found and exactly what the percentage (or number) of successful action was.

As to "Your device was scanned %s times" statement, that one's beyond me. Was it scanned 100% of the time threats were found? If it was scanned 25 (hypothetical number) times, then it must have been scanned 100% of the 25 times.

I know I'm not making sense, because none of that makes any sense to me.

And my last WAG is that maybe something had to be lost in the translation from another language to English?