As far as I know Windows 10 will come with DirectX 12, considering most game devs want maximum sales they usually take 1-2 years before focusing on new DirectX versions so they wont leave older Windows version gamers out in the cold.
There are some games like Crysis series which support new Direct X as soon as they can but Crysis was basically a tech engine demo that was turned into a game.
They said Epic are now using DirectX 12 now in the Unreal engine.
I did a quick upgrade on this computer a few days back using windows 10 tech preview, My system is backed up with Acronis, so easy to get back. It did not go well, I could not access any files as the explorer window would not stay on the screen. i expect something went wrong with the upgrade, so I went back to 8.1 pretty quick.
Like you i prefer fresh installs, which is why when 8.1 came out, I got the ISO and done it fresh, but to be honest I do not think i could be bothered to do it again, so much software on this computer with so many plug ins. So even if I liked the look of 10, which I don't, that is a good reason for staying with 8.1
There were some known bugs causing Explorer to crash in some of the earlier builds of Windows 10 Technical Preview. I expect it was related to that, rather than specifically an issue with the upgrade process.
I can still see it coming, where the only way you will be able to install software onto your windows machine is via their app shop.
Will never happen. Big business require the ability to run bespoke, in-house developed software on Windows. So long as that is true, Microsoft will never force all app purchases to be from the store.
Its possible we might see cut-down versions of Windows that would be like this (Windows RT is already like this, after all). Microsoft are shipping versions of Windows 8.1 for free to OEMs building devices with screens smaller that 8". I wouldn't be surprised if a later release of Windows locked them down to the store only.
But for the standard Windows OS, they can't go doing something that would guarantee no major organisation would upgrade. They've learned that lesson from Windows 8, hence why Windows 10s initial announcement last year was all about the desktop and why it would fit in the enterprise.
No doubt they will make every effort to get people to use the store over other application delivery methods. But outright remove more traditional methods? If it happens, it will be reversed long before the product makes it to market!
Why Windows 10 isn't named 9: Windows 95 legacy code? Many of you should be old enough to remember that there have already been two versions of Windows that began with the number 9, specifically Windows 95 and Windows 98. To save time, some third-party Windows desktop developers used a shorthand to check the version name (not number) of Windows they were installing their app to. Instead of coding apps to check for Windows 95 or Windows 98, developers coded instructions to check for "Windows 9." http://www.pcworld.com/article/2690724/why-windows-10-isnt-named-9-windows-95-legacy-code.html
Not sure I believe that is the reason. Nobody is going to be running 95 / 98 applications on windows 10 machine. Microsoft dropped the old MSDOS kernel after XP which broke 1,000 of applications you think they would care about a few 95 / 98 apps still going. I think it is more of a marketing issue.
Microsoft have always had an odd system for naming the products windows 3.11, windows 95 then windows 98 then windows xp, windows me, windows vista, windows 7, windows 8 and Windows 8.1. So it is hardly anything new and I suppose if they count 8.1 as a release it would make it the 10th version. I think maybe I have missed some could never keep up with them all.
Not sure I believe that is the reason. Nobody is going to be running 95 / 98 applications on windows 10 machine. Microsoft dropped the old MSDOS kernel after XP which broke 1,000 of applications you think they would care about a few 95 / 98 apps still going. I think it is more of a marketing issue.
Microsoft have always had an odd system for naming the products windows 3.11, windows 95 then windows 98 then windows xp, windows me, windows vista, windows 7, windows 8 and Windows 8.1. So it is hardly anything new and I suppose if they count 8.1 as a release it would make it the 10th version. I think maybe I have missed some could never keep up with them all.
If you hit the link in the article it returns a lot of relatively recent Java libraries that made exactly that basic error trying to parse the product name string (which is the wrong property to check anyway):
If you hit the link in the article it returns a lot of relatively recent Java libraries that made exactly that basic error trying to parse the product name string (which is the wrong property to check anyway):
Well, parsing a version this way would downgrade Windows 10 to Windows 1. Although there (probably) wasn't JavaScript back then But this is just the OS name, there's another, intern version that programmers should use. MS should take consideration when a version is changed, but one can only do so much before it becomes a toleration of programmers' stupidity.
Well, parsing a version this way would downgrade Windows 10 to Windows 1. Although there (probably) wasn't JavaScript back then But this is just the OS name, there's another, intern version that programmers should use. MS should take consideration when a version is changed, but one can only do so much before it becomes a toleration of programmers' stupidity.
Yes, it's absolutely the wrong property. But it's likely the sheer number of libraries that contained this legacy mistake fed into their decision to change the product name.
It's all very well breaking backwards compatibility, but when you upgrade the OS and your badly-written business-critical program (where the vendor has long since gone out of business) fails to work any more, people will blame the OS and Microsoft regardless - that's why Microsoft go to such great lengths to allow old code to run (most of is is done through shims in the AppCompat toolkit, where various APIs can be made to return the same result as a previous OS - but that relies on MS being able to identify enough of the buggy code that's out there before it gets a bad rep for "breaking" legacy apps.)
There were some known bugs causing Explorer to crash in some of the earlier builds of Windows 10 Technical Preview. I expect it was related to that, rather than specifically an issue with the upgrade process.
Fair enough, It works on the laptop, but did not on this machine. If i could be bothered, I would put one of my old 120Gb drives in and stick it on that, but that is too much hassle.
Will never happen. Big business require the ability to run bespoke, in-house developed software on Windows. So long as that is true, Microsoft will never force all app purchases to be from the store.
But most of these businses use a a enterprise version of windows, so MS can allow that version to have software installed from any source.
Its possible we might see cut-down versions of Windows that would be like this (Windows RT is already like this, after all). Microsoft are shipping versions of Windows 8.1 for free to OEMs building devices with screens smaller that 8". I wouldn't be surprised if a later release of Windows locked them down to the store only.
I thought Windows RT was done away with? I know someone with a RT surface and to be honest, it is pretty limited, he got it to get away from Viruses, why he had so many on his desktop I have no idea.
I would not like a OS like that, i know I use Mint linux and most of the software I use on it comes from the repositories, but i still have a choice to download and install form other sources.
But for the standard Windows OS, they can't go doing something that would guarantee no major organisation would upgrade. They've learned that lesson from Windows 8, hence why Windows 10s initial announcement last year was all about the desktop and why it would fit in the enterprise.
But nothing to stop them doing it for Windows pro or home, if they bring those out. I do not think they have learned their lesson to be honest, windows 10 is still a mis match, now it is more difficult to see what is a modern UI app and what is a desktop app.
No doubt they will make every effort to get people to use the store over other application delivery methods. But outright remove more traditional methods? If it happens, it will be reversed long before the product makes it to market!
Well they seem to be doing that already with 10, as i said above, it is not easy to see where the desktop stops and the moden ui ends. This is what MS wants, they want us to use modern UI and have adverts plastered all over the place. This machine have not got any modern UI apps installed, well it says it have not, but I bet they are still taking up space on the drive.
So if they were naming in binary does that mean Windows 8 was Windows 1? God, it feels like the 1980s all over again I've never seen Windows 1 or Windows 2 from the 80s in action, but I saw screenshots of them and let me say they made Windows 8 look slick and sexy in comparison Is there anyone on here who has used those antiques?
I did use Windows 2.0 but it was little more that a utility you would run in order to do use some Windows-specific applications but software still worked under DOS. Windows 3.1 was the first real operating system where you could spend most of your time in it and had decent third party software available but computers still booted into DOS and you had to start Windows manually.
Many of us got Windows 8.0 for £20 or something like that which was a promo for several months. (I must have bought 4 or 5 licences!)
If they do the same for standalone Windows 10 licences i might pick one up as a "just in case". Although, having been Windows-free for almost 15 years, i can't imagine what i'd actually use Windows for.
Not sure I believe that is the reason. Nobody is going to be running 95 / 98 applications on windows 10 machine. Microsoft dropped the old MSDOS kernel after XP which broke 1,000 of applications you think they would care about a few 95 / 98 apps still going. I think it is more of a marketing issue.
Microsoft have always had an odd system for naming the products windows 3.11, windows 95 then windows 98 then windows xp, windows me, windows vista, windows 7, windows 8 and Windows 8.1. So it is hardly anything new and I suppose if they count 8.1 as a release it would make it the 10th version. I think maybe I have missed some could never keep up with them all.
There are organisations that still use 32-bit Windows, even on systems with more than 4GB of RAM, because they have ancient 16 bit software that they refuse to modernise or upgrade. That may still fall foul of that check.
Windows is renowned for its backwards compatibility. I think if you find a copy of the original Windows 1.x utilities, they will run on the latest 32 bit Windows if you wanted to.
There is also the fact that there used to be two different strains of Windows, the 3.1/9x line vs the business/server oriented NT/2000, that only really merged with XP onwards
Yes, it's absolutely the wrong property. But it's likely the sheer number of libraries that contained this legacy mistake fed into their decision to change the product name.
It's all very well breaking backwards compatibility, but when you upgrade the OS and your badly-written business-critical program (where the vendor has long since gone out of business) fails to work any more, people will blame the OS and Microsoft regardless - that's why Microsoft go to such great lengths to allow old code to run (most of is is done through shims in the AppCompat toolkit, where various APIs can be made to return the same result as a previous OS - but that relies on MS being able to identify enough of the buggy code that's out there before it gets a bad rep for "breaking" legacy apps.)
I think everybody got enough time to check their software compatibility and if they didn't they can set the compatibility level as you mention, too and it will probably work.
As soon as I see that something is "Free" the alarm bells start to ring.
Microsoft isn't a charity, they need to make money, so how do they benefit by making Windows 10 free to many people for the first year?
As already suggested, maybe those who get it for free will be forced to pay a subscription after the first year?
Perhaps those who get it for free will find themselves restricted in terms of any new features that are added?
More worringly, perhaps Windows 10 users will be forced to obtain everything through the app store, so limiting what people can install?
In short, if something is free, question it. Then question it again ....... and again.
Every internet browser - IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari has been free for ages. Microsoft upgraded Windows 8 to Windows 8.1 for free (Phone and PC). Google Android updates are free. Apple gave OS X Mavericks upgrades for free.
Microsoft are just doing what is normal to the current market. They obviously see advantages from everyone being on Windows 10 - including early curtailment of Vista, Win 7, Win 8 and Win 8.1 support, and being able to sell via the store.
They want a high level of adoption for apps. Windows 7 and Vista/XP diehards have no access to this platform. But to extend the range of the free upgrade to Vista/XP capable hardware would result in compatibility issues, i.e. 32-bit CPUs and lack of NX/PAE/SSE2.
Free for a year to encourage quick adoption for same reason, access to app platform / store. Who will write apps for a small audience? Buy the audience with free software.
This is where MS see the chargeable aspect growth, developer licensing and app royalties. Their own products strip the OS down to what the OS should be, an OS. Software / apps as service, subscription or micro-purchase based like Office 365 or games.
My own concerns are that the 10 upgrade shouldn't apply to Windows with Bing devices. With 8.1 it didn't matter, these devices will make 10 look just as bad. Free on free sounds great, but if people look at 10 on these devices most alternatives will run rings around them.
The fine print needs addressing or the licence model should be clear. I have Windows 8.1 Pro OEM with 7 Pro downgrade rights and Windows 8.1 Core Retail on my two machines.
What are the Windows 10 SKUs and which will I be entitled to in each instance? Will I exchange licences or be allowed to downgrade again? I can't see it, based on the first two points. Plus 8.1 is good until 2023. When will 10 no longer be lifetime of the device? I would guess 5 years, the same period in which OSes officially become 'uncurrent'.
So, 2020 is OK for a Windows 7 upgrader, nothing to lose. For Win 8.1 I can see losing potentially 3 years.
Just thinking out loud as this news has caught me by surprise.
As soon as I see that something is "Free" the alarm bells start to ring.
Microsoft isn't a charity, they need to make money, so how do they benefit by making Windows 10 free to many people for the first year?
As already suggested, maybe those who get it for free will be forced to pay a subscription after the first year?
Perhaps those who get it for free will find themselves restricted in terms of any new features that are added?
More worringly, perhaps Windows 10 users will be forced to obtain everything through the app store, so limiting what people can install?
In short, if something is free, question it. Then question it again ....... and again.
How many times need it be said? They are not going to introduce a subscription to the OS after a year. Read the Microsoft statements and not forum speculation
If you are that 'Worried' don't upgrade, just sit on your old OS and live worry free (??).
Windows 8 and 8.1 were free to upgrade to on all my machines and i haven't been forced to subscribe to anything. You don't have to use Office365.
MS wants to get people using the new OS and the App store to generate money so giving it away seems a good idea as it'll probably encourage people to get App versions of the software they use which may mean MS doesn't have to try and keep supporting lord knows how many different layers of backwards compatiability.
Obviously the devil will be in the details but i'll expect that once the lawyers have checked over every word, but with Apple giving away a major release already they won't be able to try and stall it complaining about competition
Indeed. Much easier going forward if the bulk of your users are on the latest platform. Giving away W10 free for the first year will ensure that happens. As mentioned Apple for example hasn't charged for OS upgrades for a few years now. But that is of course a different ball game as they sell all their own hardware.
Microsoft have always had an odd system for naming the products windows 3.11, windows 95 then windows 98 then windows xp, windows me, windows vista, windows 7, windows 8 and Windows 8.1.
I think the mess started with Gates when he decided to call Windows 4 Windows 95. Since then it's been a mismash. All the end user needs to know is that a later year or a higher number is a later version. (That breaks down with XP, Me and Vista but then they usually had a version number in subtitles, e.g., version 2002.)
Yes, I am wondering if they are going to lock in consumer users like how Apple do it with IOS. Business certainly will get 32 bit so 32 bit should exist but locking it down makes sense for monetary control(app) reasons.
I'm curious like to see how they are going to wind down 32 bit, Apple having the luxury of an off switch sometimes in the future via forcing all new versions of apps to have a 64 bit version. It really makes sense to abandon one to get rid of all the overheads introduced running 32 bit and 64 bit together.
That would be the most stupid move ever, the huge amount of negative feedback it would create would kill the trust in the company forever! There is just no way they would offer it for free for the first year (with the limited time frame designed to encourage people to upgrade sooner, great word of mouth for people to tell their friends that it's not Win 8), then force people to pay a subscription.
I guess what will happen is that once you're on Windows 10, free features and updates will apply until Windows 11. At that point, if you don't pay to upgrade to 11 then windows 10 will get bug fixes only until end of life. It will be as if you are on the Windows 10 enterprise "bug fixes only" channel, similar to Firefox ESR.
Also, the period between 10 and 11 will most likely be shorter than between previous major versions, say, every 2 years instead of every 3 years.
Comments
They said Epic are now using DirectX 12 now in the Unreal engine.
There were some known bugs causing Explorer to crash in some of the earlier builds of Windows 10 Technical Preview. I expect it was related to that, rather than specifically an issue with the upgrade process.
Will never happen. Big business require the ability to run bespoke, in-house developed software on Windows. So long as that is true, Microsoft will never force all app purchases to be from the store.
Its possible we might see cut-down versions of Windows that would be like this (Windows RT is already like this, after all). Microsoft are shipping versions of Windows 8.1 for free to OEMs building devices with screens smaller that 8". I wouldn't be surprised if a later release of Windows locked them down to the store only.
But for the standard Windows OS, they can't go doing something that would guarantee no major organisation would upgrade. They've learned that lesson from Windows 8, hence why Windows 10s initial announcement last year was all about the desktop and why it would fit in the enterprise.
No doubt they will make every effort to get people to use the store over other application delivery methods. But outright remove more traditional methods? If it happens, it will be reversed long before the product makes it to market!
Not sure I believe that is the reason. Nobody is going to be running 95 / 98 applications on windows 10 machine. Microsoft dropped the old MSDOS kernel after XP which broke 1,000 of applications you think they would care about a few 95 / 98 apps still going. I think it is more of a marketing issue.
Microsoft have always had an odd system for naming the products windows 3.11, windows 95 then windows 98 then windows xp, windows me, windows vista, windows 7, windows 8 and Windows 8.1. So it is hardly anything new and I suppose if they count 8.1 as a release it would make it the 10th version. I think maybe I have missed some could never keep up with them all.
If you hit the link in the article it returns a lot of relatively recent Java libraries that made exactly that basic error trying to parse the product name string (which is the wrong property to check anyway):
https://searchcode.com/?q=if%28version%2Cstartswith%28%22windows+9%22%29
Well, parsing a version this way would downgrade Windows 10 to Windows 1. Although there (probably) wasn't JavaScript back then
Yes, it's absolutely the wrong property. But it's likely the sheer number of libraries that contained this legacy mistake fed into their decision to change the product name.
It's all very well breaking backwards compatibility, but when you upgrade the OS and your badly-written business-critical program (where the vendor has long since gone out of business) fails to work any more, people will blame the OS and Microsoft regardless - that's why Microsoft go to such great lengths to allow old code to run (most of is is done through shims in the AppCompat toolkit, where various APIs can be made to return the same result as a previous OS - but that relies on MS being able to identify enough of the buggy code that's out there before it gets a bad rep for "breaking" legacy apps.)
Fair enough, It works on the laptop, but did not on this machine. If i could be bothered, I would put one of my old 120Gb drives in and stick it on that, but that is too much hassle.
But most of these businses use a a enterprise version of windows, so MS can allow that version to have software installed from any source.
I thought Windows RT was done away with? I know someone with a RT surface and to be honest, it is pretty limited, he got it to get away from Viruses, why he had so many on his desktop I have no idea.
I would not like a OS like that, i know I use Mint linux and most of the software I use on it comes from the repositories, but i still have a choice to download and install form other sources.
But nothing to stop them doing it for Windows pro or home, if they bring those out. I do not think they have learned their lesson to be honest, windows 10 is still a mis match, now it is more difficult to see what is a modern UI app and what is a desktop app.
Well they seem to be doing that already with 10, as i said above, it is not easy to see where the desktop stops and the moden ui ends. This is what MS wants, they want us to use modern UI and have adverts plastered all over the place. This machine have not got any modern UI apps installed, well it says it have not, but I bet they are still taking up space on the drive.
I did use Windows 2.0 but it was little more that a utility you would run in order to do use some Windows-specific applications but software still worked under DOS. Windows 3.1 was the first real operating system where you could spend most of your time in it and had decent third party software available but computers still booted into DOS and you had to start Windows manually.
If they do the same for standalone Windows 10 licences i might pick one up as a "just in case". Although, having been Windows-free for almost 15 years, i can't imagine what i'd actually use Windows for.
There are organisations that still use 32-bit Windows, even on systems with more than 4GB of RAM, because they have ancient 16 bit software that they refuse to modernise or upgrade. That may still fall foul of that check.
Windows is renowned for its backwards compatibility. I think if you find a copy of the original Windows 1.x utilities, they will run on the latest 32 bit Windows if you wanted to.
There is also the fact that there used to be two different strains of Windows, the 3.1/9x line vs the business/server oriented NT/2000, that only really merged with XP onwards
Microsoft Confirms that Windows 10 will also be Version 10 Internally
I think everybody got enough time to check their software compatibility and if they didn't they can set the compatibility level as you mention, too and it will probably work.
Microsoft isn't a charity, they need to make money, so how do they benefit by making Windows 10 free to many people for the first year?
As already suggested, maybe those who get it for free will be forced to pay a subscription after the first year?
Perhaps those who get it for free will find themselves restricted in terms of any new features that are added?
More worringly, perhaps Windows 10 users will be forced to obtain everything through the app store, so limiting what people can install?
In short, if something is free, question it. Then question it again ....... and again.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/22/angler_ek_exploits_flash_0day/
Windows 7 and below is currently being exploited via IE and a Flash Zero Day. Chrome is immune though. (via Flash + IE 10 and below)
Every internet browser - IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari has been free for ages. Microsoft upgraded Windows 8 to Windows 8.1 for free (Phone and PC). Google Android updates are free. Apple gave OS X Mavericks upgrades for free.
Microsoft are just doing what is normal to the current market. They obviously see advantages from everyone being on Windows 10 - including early curtailment of Vista, Win 7, Win 8 and Win 8.1 support, and being able to sell via the store.
They want a high level of adoption for apps. Windows 7 and Vista/XP diehards have no access to this platform. But to extend the range of the free upgrade to Vista/XP capable hardware would result in compatibility issues, i.e. 32-bit CPUs and lack of NX/PAE/SSE2.
Free for a year to encourage quick adoption for same reason, access to app platform / store. Who will write apps for a small audience? Buy the audience with free software.
This is where MS see the chargeable aspect growth, developer licensing and app royalties. Their own products strip the OS down to what the OS should be, an OS. Software / apps as service, subscription or micro-purchase based like Office 365 or games.
My own concerns are that the 10 upgrade shouldn't apply to Windows with Bing devices. With 8.1 it didn't matter, these devices will make 10 look just as bad. Free on free sounds great, but if people look at 10 on these devices most alternatives will run rings around them.
The fine print needs addressing or the licence model should be clear. I have Windows 8.1 Pro OEM with 7 Pro downgrade rights and Windows 8.1 Core Retail on my two machines.
What are the Windows 10 SKUs and which will I be entitled to in each instance? Will I exchange licences or be allowed to downgrade again? I can't see it, based on the first two points. Plus 8.1 is good until 2023. When will 10 no longer be lifetime of the device? I would guess 5 years, the same period in which OSes officially become 'uncurrent'.
So, 2020 is OK for a Windows 7 upgrader, nothing to lose. For Win 8.1 I can see losing potentially 3 years.
Just thinking out loud as this news has caught me by surprise.
Tinfoil hats at the ready.
How many times need it be said? They are not going to introduce a subscription to the OS after a year. Read the Microsoft statements and not forum speculation
If you are that 'Worried' don't upgrade, just sit on your old OS and live worry free (??).
Windows 8 and 8.1 were free to upgrade to on all my machines and i haven't been forced to subscribe to anything. You don't have to use Office365.
Obviously the devil will be in the details but i'll expect that once the lawyers have checked over every word, but with Apple giving away a major release already they won't be able to try and stall it complaining about competition
I think the mess started with Gates when he decided to call Windows 4 Windows 95. Since then it's been a mismash. All the end user needs to know is that a later year or a higher number is a later version.
Otherwise I will not. Even if W10 is offered to me at £20 one-off payment after that I don't see the need.
The language and exact pricing is not clear yet.
I'm curious like to see how they are going to wind down 32 bit, Apple having the luxury of an off switch sometimes in the future via forcing all new versions of apps to have a 64 bit version. It really makes sense to abandon one to get rid of all the overheads introduced running 32 bit and 64 bit together.
I guess what will happen is that once you're on Windows 10, free features and updates will apply until Windows 11. At that point, if you don't pay to upgrade to 11 then windows 10 will get bug fixes only until end of life. It will be as if you are on the Windows 10 enterprise "bug fixes only" channel, similar to Firefox ESR.
Also, the period between 10 and 11 will most likely be shorter than between previous major versions, say, every 2 years instead of every 3 years.