Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 108 posts

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#61

Post by vetinari »

tremon wrote: post #55
mistermann wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> battery drained in ~6 hours So, parity with Android then? (I kid, I kid....kinda.)

My Galaxy Note 2 still has a battery life of about a week, still running on the original battery. I just need to remember to enable Wifi only on when needed, or it'll drain the battery in two days.

Actually in my experience, leaving Wifi on saves the battery, compared to telco network. Wifi seems to be more power-efficient than 3G or LTE.

Of course, if you want a week on the battery, you must have data off, both wifi and mobile.

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#62

Post by doodpants »

iancarroll wrote: post #42
gnu8 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would this comment be voted down? Software that tries to mislead and nag the user into taking an action that damages their computer is malware. The only reason Microsoft doesn't forcibly apply the update to all Windows computers without permission is because that would undeniably be malware. But the net effect is the same - Windows 10 is installed without the owner's knowledge or consent. Windows 10 IS malware.

Windows 10 doesn't (edit: intentionally) damage a computer. Calling it malware is ridiculous.

My coworker's home machine upgraded itself to Windows 10 without his consent, and afterwards he couldn't reliably connect to the internet, or do a few other things that he previously could. He eventually restored the machine back to Windows 7 to get it working again. Sounds like "damage" to me.

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#63

Post by ralfd »

davidf18 wrote: post #40

In real dollars, the cost of Macs are extremely low. $1 in 2000 is about $1.40 now. So the cost of a $1000 13" Mac Air which is a very respectable laptop is about $700 in 2000 dollars. Even IBM has gone to using Macs today. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2998315/apple-mac/every... So the machines are very cheap, even to IBM they are easier to use and require less tech support. For those that want to do some sof…

If only Apple would update them! Grrr! waitingforshellingoutcash

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#64

Post by jtuente »

tedunangst wrote: post #51
adevine wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In real dollars, the cost of Macs are extremely low. $1 in 2000 is about $1.40 now. So the cost of a $1000 13" Mac Air which is a very respectable laptop is about $700 in 2000 dollars. This comparison makes no sense to me. It's 2016, not 2000, so the fact that a Mac Air is $700 in 2000 dollars is a completely random and arbitrary number.

You couldn't buy any laptop of any quality for $700 in 2000. Macs have the reputation of being overpriced, but they are much more affordable than computers at the turn of the century. Of course, PCs are still available for less, but the point is that many people previously unable to afford a Mac can.

That's a pointless metric to use for affordability, because that $300 difference is purely inflation. It has absolutely nothing to do with Apple making their products cheaper.

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#65

Post by jjawssd »

SyneRyder wrote: post #54
davidf18 wrote: post #40

In real dollars, the cost of Macs are extremely low. $1 in 2000 is about $1.40 now. So the cost of a $1000 13" Mac Air which is a very respectable laptop is about $700 in 2000 dollars. Even IBM has gone to using Macs today. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2998315/apple-mac/every... So the machines are very cheap, even to IBM they are easier to use and require less tech support. For those that want to do some sof…

As much as I like my Macs, I don't think you can claim a Mac is cheap now. I was in the market for a new MacBook Pro, but the machine I was looking at was going to cost me over $4000 (Australian, but at today's exchange rates that's still about $3200 USD). Apple really price gouge on SSD & RAM upgrades - there is no way a 1TB SSD costs $800. I ended up buying a fully-spec'd 2012 MBP instead (more affordable, better k…

tl;dr my friend's mac broke all macs suck

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#66

Post by j_s »

nimos wrote: post #57

I think a big part of the problem is Windows 7 is so good. I have very little incentive to switch at all. I'll probably do it sometime in the next week because free upgrades end July 29th but only because I have Windows 10 on a laptop and I've been happy with it. If I hadn't had that experience I wouldn't risk it.

Make a 32GB-ish partition and activate Windows 10 there. You might need to find something that can defrag at boot to relocate system files to make a big enough space... AOMEI offers their partition resizing tools free even for commercial use: http://www.aomeitech.com/freeware.html

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#67

Post by sickbeard »

NobleSir wrote: post #25
muraiki wrote: post #13

I read another article that said that the failure to reach this metric was due to the lack of sales of Win10 on phones. When I tried a pre-Win10 Lumia in a store I actually found it very impressive, but I heard that the Win10 mobile launch had a rocky start. It seems strange to me that Microsoft was pushing for universal apps, and now that it's close enough to finally happening they've given up on mobile. Somewhat of…

>given up on mobile I don't know about that, they sure have been pushing a lot of new builds lately : https://www.reddit.com/domain/blogs.windows.com/search?q=bui... though I guess they did sell part of Nokia or something.. Sad because those phones are super durable for someone like me who breaks devices constantly

They gave up by not mentioning it even once at the last BUILD. That's when even as a dev, I realized the platform had been virtually abandoned.

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#68

Post by Piskvorrr »

jasonkostempski wrote: post #34
muraiki wrote: post #13

I read another article that said that the failure to reach this metric was due to the lack of sales of Win10 on phones. When I tried a pre-Win10 Lumia in a store I actually found it very impressive, but I heard that the Win10 mobile launch had a rocky start. It seems strange to me that Microsoft was pushing for universal apps, and now that it's close enough to finally happening they've given up on mobile. Somewhat of…

"Your files are exactly where you left them" I found something very HALish about that screen. A vague somewhat reassuring statement with an ominous tone. I mean, great, they're right where I left them but will you grant me access them?

"...but for an hour, you can't get at them. haha.gif"

Priceless. (Especially when you actually need to use the computer and the files. Business hours? Nope, YOU WANT THE X)

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#69

Post by WaxProlix »

jjawssd wrote: post #65
SyneRyder wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I like my Macs, I don't think you can claim a Mac is cheap now. I was in the market for a new MacBook Pro, but the machine I was looking at was going to cost me over $4000 (Australian, but at today's exchange rates that's still about $3200 USD). Apple really price gouge on SSD & RAM upgrades - there is no way a 1TB SSD costs $800. I ended up buying a fully-spec'd 2012 MBP instead (more affordable, better k…

tl;dr my friend's mac broke all macs suck

Did you even read the comment?
Post reply on HN