So what's going on with Windows-10, and why do we ('I') hate it ????

[Ampera]

I run Server 2016 which doesn't have forced updates, and when put into test mode (which it is always in for me),  I can load unsigned drivers.

[amspire]

So our company, which makes very uncommon, specialised hardware, has to pay Verisign the money to say we are Definitely A Real Company (for two years). It seems like protection money. And hobbyists or open source people who can't cough up the five hundred USD are out of luck.

Any reason you have to pay Verisign? For example, Digicert  have driver signing certificates for $178/year. I assume there are other CAs (Certificate Authorities) selling driver certs.

https://www.digicert.com/code-signing/driver-signing-certificates.htm

The cost is related to the work involved in verifying the identity of the certificate owner and also the responsibility taken on by the CA. If there is a disaster relating to issued certificates and the industry deems that the CA company did not meet their responsibilities adequately, the CA may be removed from the CA stores by Microsoft and browser companies. That basically means the CA company is instantly dead. Just ask DigiNotar.

[Zero999]

Honestly, Microsoft hit a high they never got close to returning to with Windows 2000/NT 5. It was a professional, simple, but powerful operating system that could with the stability of DOS. I remember it fondly, and try to use it when I can, but forced obsolescence makes that a bit hard.

I agree with you about Windows 2000, but DOS? That was probably one of the most unstable OSes ever produced. A program crashing would crash the entire OS, unless it used a DOS extender, which would normally stop that. There was no security: any program could own the OS and write whatever it wanted to any part of the memory or the hard drive. Viruses spread quickly, even without the Internet to help!

I don't particularly like some of the new interfaces, especially the ribbon (nothing to do with 10) and the window design (everything to do with 10), but it's a pretty minor thing. Younger guys I work with LOVE the new interface, so I just chalk it up to me being an old fuddy duddy that doesn't like new things.

I hate ribbon too. I thought it was me getting older, but there's an 18 year old where I work who also finds MS Office 2003 easier to use, than the latest version. Personally I don't like the way it takes more clicks of the mouse to perform the same operation, with the newer versions.

[ciccio]

I'm really upset with the latest Windows 10 updates/upgrades.
I carried my laptop to a friend's office as a temporary solution to drive a special printer whose driver had been crashed by one Windows 7 update.
I was in a hurry, and even if I was able to restore (easily) the Win 7 machine, I left the laptop connected to allow them to finish some urgent work.
They could not: Windows 10 wanted to update (some hours), and the result was that the update went bad, and it was automatically removed, and the day after the cycle began again: update, remove update, and so on... Windows did not gave me an explanation (or maybe it did, but where can I find it?).
After one full week I was really VERY upset, so I took my Win 7 DVD and installed Win7....
What I saw was a total loss of respect for the paying customer. The want MY computer to do what THEY want..
I'm not a real IT tech, but I have some experience, and this is unacceptable.
STOP.

[Halcyon]

What I saw was a total loss of respect for the paying customer. The want MY computer to do what THEY want..

Now you know what Apple users have to deal with. But I agree with you, as Windows/PC users, this is unacceptable.

[ovnr]

The whole "Yes, you're the customer, but I'm going to do whatever I want and you'll just have to put up with it" is a massive load of shit, whether it's games or OSes or anything else. You want to install a patch or update? Not unless I want you to install the patch or update. I always set everything to manual updates.

I get pretty angry about games forcing updates before you can play them too. Fine, disable multiplayer and online shit - not using it anyway! - but let me play the singleplayer bit at whatever version I like, thank you very much. And yes, I'll happily pirate something just to retain control, and not feel bad for a moment. No respect for me? No money for you.

[Mr. Scram]

The whole "Yes, you're the customer, but I'm going to do whatever I want and you'll just have to put up with it" is a massive load of shit, whether it's games or OSes or anything else. You want to install a patch or update? Not unless I want you to install the patch or update. I always set everything to manual updates.

I get pretty angry about games forcing updates before you can play them too. Fine, disable multiplayer and online shit - not using it anyway! - but let me play the singleplayer bit at whatever version I like, thank you very much. And yes, I'll happily pirate something just to retain control, and not feel bad for a moment. No respect for me? No money for you.

The difficult bit is that this attitude leads to people being very lax to applying updates to their system. This does not only pose huge risks to their own system, but also to that of others. Add to that the issue of literally millions of different configurations existing, which all needed to be supported. This often resulted in very complex and shaky situations. This is what Microsoft needed and intended to fix by forcing everyone into the same upgrade scheme.

I fully agree with having the final say over your own system, but also have to concede that there was an issue that needed to be addressed. There doesn't really seem to be a way to solve both issues without compromise.

[Ampera]

Honestly, Microsoft hit a high they never got close to returning to with Windows 2000/NT 5. It was a professional, simple, but powerful operating system that could with the stability of DOS. I remember it fondly, and try to use it when I can, but forced obsolescence makes that a bit hard.

I agree with you about Windows 2000, but DOS? That was probably one of the most unstable OSes ever produced. A program crashing would crash the entire OS, unless it used a DOS extender, which would normally stop that. There was no security: any program could own the OS and write whatever it wanted to any part of the memory or the hard drive. Viruses spread quickly, even without the Internet to help!

Bad example. DOS will idle forever though...

Windows 2000 is amazingly stable though. It was a blue moon series of things that Microsoft managed to accidentally do right.

[ovnr]

I fully agree with having the final say over your own system, but also have to concede that there was an issue that needed to be addressed. There doesn't really seem to be a way to solve both issues without compromise.

As for OS-level updates, the issue would be much smaller if MS was a bit more honest about what's a critical security update with low probability of messing up your system, and what was essentially fluff.

I wouldn't mind if it aggressively prompted me to install an actual important update for a vuln that was being actively exploited. But full OS updates that add/remove features, reset settings, and so on? No. That can be done when it's convenient for me. I'm aware that it fragments the user base and complicates MS's job, but I'm not going to shed any tears over that.

[Mr. Scram]

As for OS-level updates, the issue would be much smaller if MS was a bit more honest about what's a critical security update with low probability of messing up your system, and what was essentially fluff.

I wouldn't mind if it aggressively prompted me to install an actual important update for a vuln that was being actively exploited. But full OS updates that add/remove features, reset settings, and so on? No. That can be done when it's convenient for me. I'm aware that it fragments the user base and complicates MS's job, but I'm not going to shed any tears over that.

You can defer updates for up to a year.

[gnif]

I have more trouble installing software on Linux than on Win10. 

The APT Linux installer suffers from the 'DLL Hell' problem of Windows, but on steroids. Not only that, it's often impossible to install an app without all kinds of other crap being pulled in along with it. The reverse can also be true, try to apt-get remove something you don't want or need, and it threatens to remove something totally unrelated but vital along with it. 

I can install Office 97 on Windows 10, or any combination of versions so long as the OS is not too much older than the Office version. When I upgraded Debian from Etch to Jessie, my entire KDE3 desktop went down the tubes, and there was no way I could get it back. I was forced to use KDE4, which was not only a pile of poo but didn't have the things I needed anyway. It was a total disaster and I had to restore from a backup.

When I upgraded Jessie to Wheezy, a similar thing happened in that K3B was replaced by a new version that didn't work. I couldn't get the version that worked back, either. In the finish I just decided to forget it use the Windows box for optical disk burning.

Basically, there is way too much interdependence of components in Linux distros.

I really wish there was something like http://portableapps.com for Linux. Use their stuff all the time on Windows, not so much because I need the app to be portable but because I know it won't knacker-up the OS by pumping a ton of sh*t into the system folders.  Though, being able to transfer the app to another box without losing its settings is another plus point. 

I am sorry but I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with this assessment of APT. If you do not ask stupid things of apt, such as mixing 'stable' and 'testing' or trying to add Ubuntu repositories to a Debian install, or visa versa, or using third party repositories, there are no problems at all.

APT doesn't suffer from 'DLL Hell'. Applications use shared objects to prevent code re-use, the application developer decides what libraries they are going to use, and link against. The application will refuse to run at all if the libraries are not there as the preloader (LD) will not be able to satisfy the dependencies. In short, it's not a whole lot of other crap, its a whole lot of required dependencies to make the application function.

The KDE upgrade issue you had was not Debian's fault, you chose to upgrade your entire operating system which means that code that KDE3 relies on will no longer exist in supporting libraries. It would be like trying to keep using the Windows XP shell on Windows 10, it simply would not work. There is no incentive for developers to maintain prior versions of software like this either. Debian dropped KDE3 because the developers dropped it, as such it was un-maintained, it's that simple.

It honestly sounds like you upgraded for upgrade sake... did you need to? Debian continue to back port and provide security updates for prior releases for a very long time, which is why it gets used in commercial environments on production servers.

Don't get me wrong, I cringed at what happened to Gnome with Gnome Shell and all that junk too, I moved to Mint for a while for my desktop due to that mess. But again it wasn't Debian's fault, it was the idiots that were in control of the Gnome project.

Apt also tracks auto added packages. When you remove a package that auto installed packages, and nothing depends on those packages anymore, apt will tell you what they are and tells you that you can run 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them.

If a package is missing a dependency as part of it's install, contact the package maintainer and let them know of their mistake. To be honest though in my 20 years of professional use of Debian I have NEVER seen apt do this when using the official repositories. The only times I have seen this kind of problem is when the system has been screwed with, as mentioned above (usually ubuntu repositories on debian), or it is some third party program such as skype or steam, which are not part of the official debian repository, and for damn good reason.

The deb packaging scripts when building ensure that all shared library dependencies are satisfied and will refuse to build the package if they are not. They even warn when linking against shared objects that are not in use.

And finally... it can't be that bad if my novice 12 year old daughter installed Debian from scratch, messes around, installs games, apps, etc, and has no problems at all. My wife who is not a tech head at all has been using Debian on her laptop for 8 years now, not a single complaint or problem.

[amspire]

I am sorry but I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with this assessment of APT. If you do not ask stupid things of apt, such as mixing 'stable' and 'testing' or trying to add Ubuntu repositories to a Debian install, or visa versa, or using third party repositories, there are no problems at all.

The trouble is that if you have one O/S, and you have to run something, you do what it takes to run it. That is the reason people end up enabling options that then cause problems.

I have the Maya 2012 animation program. Say I was running Ubuntu 16.04 and I absolutely need my Maya 2012 running. I go to Autodesk and it says that 64 bit Maya runs on Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® 5.5 WS and Fedora™ 14. I am going to have many, many hours or days or weeks of "fun" trying to make it run on my Ubuntu 16. Down the track, the library gymnastics I used to patch a solution will haunt me.

I am not bagging Linux, because you can have the same problem in Windows.

It is just that neither is a good representation of what an O/S could be in 2018. Windows 10 was a 6 year filler to give Microsoft time to develop a new type of O/S that will be more maintainable, compatible and securable. Win10 is not the start of anything, it is hopefully the end of the archaic  Windows O/S model.

[Mr. Scram]

It is just that neither is a good representation of what an O/S could be in 2018. Windows 10 was a 6 year filler to give Microsoft time to develop a new type of O/S that will be more maintainable, compatible and securable. Win10 is not the start of anything, it is hopefully the end of the archaic  Windows O/S model.

Judging by how Microsoft is doing things at the moment, a new OS can only mean pain. Forget control over your own data, expect required online and cloud services everywhere, forget keeping things on your network private and expect paying continuously. People don't want the desktop variant of what mobile OSs already do, yet that's where we're heading.

[amspire]

It is just that neither is a good representation of what an O/S could be in 2018. Windows 10 was a 6 year filler to give Microsoft time to develop a new type of O/S that will be more maintainable, compatible and securable. Win10 is not the start of anything, it is hopefully the end of the archaic  Windows O/S model.

Judging by how Microsoft is doing things at the moment, a new OS can only mean pain. Forget control over your own data, expect required online and cloud services everywhere, forget keeping things on your network private and expect paying continuously. People don't want the desktop variant of what mobile OSs already do, yet that's where we're heading.

The trouble is the you cannot see the O/S they have been working for 4 years on now, so you are judging based on things like Office 365 and Windows 10 who's main purpose is to wean us off Windows XP, 7 and 8.1. I am sure Microsoft absolute hate Windows 10 and cannot wait to send it into retirement.

When you have grown to accept the absurdities of Windows 7 and friends, you get numb to the issues:

The junk, including 3rd party drivers in the kernel, that can crash the O/S and that has no reason to be there.
The need to install programs as Administrator.
The need to screw up the base O/S by adding all the comparatility junk there.
The absolute nightmare that is Windows Updates. (It is a nightmare for Microsoft)
The time it takes to install Windows fully or repair Windows.
The impossibility of trying to secure an O/S full of junk in the kernal.
The lack of any truly efficient way to back up Windows and programs.
The need to have to install programs. (Installation is not a necessary step.)
The impossibility of moving an installed program simply to a new Windows or to the cloud without any re-installation.
The registry that keeps growing like a memory leak.
The way an old Windows usually never starts and runs as fast as it did when first installed.

Ok. You indirectly paid Microsoft $50 when you bought your bundled Windows 7 PC seven years ago and you haven't paid Microsoft a cent since including the Windows 10 update. You have never paid anything for the free upgrades. I get it - you like not paying for the services you are using from a commercial company and want it to continue forever.

I hate the idea of paying for a new O/S, but with all the capabilities Microsoft now has, I am fascinated to see how well they do. They probably will not get it 100% right in 2020, but I think they will get it over 50% right with a path to improve. If they get to 50% on the first try, and they do not force us to use the cloud unsafely, I will probably give them go.

[Zero999]

It is just that neither is a good representation of what an O/S could be in 2018. Windows 10 was a 6 year filler to give Microsoft time to develop a new type of O/S that will be more maintainable, compatible and securable. Win10 is not the start of anything, it is hopefully the end of the archaic  Windows O/S model.

Judging by how Microsoft is doing things at the moment, a new OS can only mean pain. Forget control over your own data, expect required online and cloud services everywhere, forget keeping things on your network private and expect paying continuously. People don't want the desktop variant of what mobile OSs already do, yet that's where we're heading.

The trouble is the you cannot see the O/S they have been working for 4 years on now, so you are judging based on things like Office 365 and Windows 10 who's main purpose is to wean us off Windows XP, 7 and 8.1. I am sure Microsoft absolute hate Windows 10 and cannot wait to send it into retirement.

When you have grown to accept the absurdities of Windows 7 and friends, you get numb to the issues:

The junk, including 3rd party drivers in the kernel, that can crash the O/S and that has no reason to be there.
The need to install programs as Administrator.
The need to screw up the base O/S by adding all the comparatility junk there.
The absolute nightmare that is Windows Updates. (It is a nightmare for Microsoft)
The time it takes to install Windows fully or repair Windows.
The impossibility of trying to secure an O/S full of junk in the kernal.
The lack of any truly efficient way to back up Windows and programs.
The need to have to install programs. (Installation is not a necessary step.)
The impossibility of moving an installed program simply to a new Windows or to the cloud without any re-installation.
The registry that keeps growing like a memory leak.
The way an old Windows usually never starts and runs as fast as it did when first installed.

Ok. You indirectly paid Microsoft $50 when you bought your bundled Windows 7 PC seven years ago and you haven't paid Microsoft a cent since including the Windows 10 update. You have never paid anything for the free upgrades. I get it - you like not paying for the services you are using from a commercial company and want it to continue forever.

I hate the idea of paying for a new O/S, but with all the capabilities Microsoft now has, I am fascinated to see how well they do. They probably will not get it 100% right in 2020, but I think they will get it over 50% right with a path to improve. If they get to 50% on the first try, and they do not force us to use the cloud unsafely, I will probably give them go.

Why do you seem to have so much optimism? Going on their previous track record, MS will just make it more difficult for the average user, to keep control of their PC. Windows will just get worse, not better.

[amspire]

Why do you seem to have so much optimism? Going on their previous track record, MS will just make it more difficult for the average user, to keep control of their PC. Windows will just get worse, not better.

Because the new CEO is not Steve Balmer, and the fact that he was bought at a time of a failing  Windows. Because they have employed brilliant non-Microsoft people. Because they now absolutely love Docker, Kubernetes and lots of other OS stuff. Because they are massively running Linux. The guys designing the future of Windows know Linux backwards. (Don't be surprised if the new O/S can run Linux programs perfectly.) Because they are prepared to almost give Windows 10 away over 6 years to create the opportunity to make a new O/S. Because with the release of Windows 10, one of the chief Microsoft guys said it was that last Windows version. Because they said on initial release that Windows 10 ends in 2020 and long term support ends in 2025 or earlier for all current Windows versions and in the last 4 years, that has never changed.

Microsoft is not a stupid company - they have done a brilliant job keeping Windows going for 25+ years. Their problem has been that to fix Windows, they need to take a big leap and that could never happen under any previous CEO. Steve Gates was too tied to the old Windows and Balmer was only a business man - he couldn't drive technical revolution. Windows 8 is his legacy.

I get the impression that some people think that the results of 6 years work by a massive company and with the smartest people in the industry will be another pathetic Windows 8 attempt. I don't know why.

[Mr. Scram]

Why do you seem to have so much optimism? Going on their previous track record, MS will just make it more difficult for the average user, to keep control of their PC. Windows will just get worse, not better.

Exactly. I don't really share the issues taken either. Windows updates are a problem, but are addressed by the new approach. I don't quite see how things like installing a program again on another sytem are an issue. macOS and Android don't do that any differently.

[Mr. Scram]

Because the new CEO is not Steve Balmer, and the fact that he was bought at a time of a failing  Windows. Because they have employed brilliant non-Microsoft people. Because they now absolutely love Docker, Kubernetes and lots of other OS stuff. Because they are massively running Linux. The guys designing the future of Windows know Linux backwards. (Don't be surprised if the new O/S can run Linux programs perfectly.) Because they are prepared to almost give Windows 10 away over 6 years to create the opportunity to make a new O/S. Because with the release of Windows 10, one of the chief Microsoft guys said it was that last Windows version. Because they said on initial release that Windows 10 ends in 2020 and long term support ends in 2025 or earlier for all current Windows versions and in the last 4 years, that has never changed.

Microsoft is not a stupid company - they have done a brilliant job keeping Windows going for 25+ years. Their problem has been that to fix Windows, they need to take a big leap and that could never happen under any previous CEO. Steve Gates was too tied to the old Windows and Balmer was only a business man - he couldn't drive technical revolution. Windows 8 is his legacy.

I get the impression that some people think that the results of 6 years work by a massive company and with the smartest people in the industry will be another pathetic Windows 8 attempt. I don't know why.

Historically, Microsoft has been about backwards compatibility in a major way. Many of the issues we see today are a result of choices made in the past and kept for the sake of backwards compatibility. Microsoft understand like no other that when you start cutting the compatibility, people have no reason not to go somewhere else. If you have to start anew, why not start somewhere else?

This means that if they come up with something else, it needs to be massively compatible with the past. That's what they have done so succesfully all these years and what they will undoubtedly continue to do so. This means being stuck with the same choices once more.

[Electro Detective]

...Going on their previous track record, MS will just make it more difficult for the average user, to keep control of their PC.

Windows will just get worse, not better.

Already there, Windows 10 

I wonder how many software authors are in the poor house and or or nuthouse  keeping up with MS BS

[gildasd]

It is just that neither is a good representation of what an O/S could be in 2018. Windows 10 was a 6 year filler to give Microsoft time to develop a new type of O/S that will be more maintainable, compatible and securable. Win10 is not the start of anything, it is hopefully the end of the archaic  Windows O/S model.

Judging by how Microsoft is doing things at the moment, a new OS can only mean pain. Forget control over your own data, expect required online and cloud services everywhere, forget keeping things on your network private and expect paying continuously. People don't want the desktop variant of what mobile OSs already do, yet that's where we're heading.

The trouble is the you cannot see the O/S they have been working for 4 years on now, so you are judging based on things like Office 365 and Windows 10 who's main purpose is to wean us off Windows XP, 7 and 8.1. I am sure Microsoft absolute hate Windows 10 and cannot wait to send it into retirement.

When you have grown to accept the absurdities of Windows 7 and friends, you get numb to the issues:

The junk, including 3rd party drivers in the kernel, that can crash the O/S and that has no reason to be there.
The need to install programs as Administrator.
The need to screw up the base O/S by adding all the comparatility junk there.
The absolute nightmare that is Windows Updates. (It is a nightmare for Microsoft)
The time it takes to install Windows fully or repair Windows.
The impossibility of trying to secure an O/S full of junk in the kernal.
The lack of any truly efficient way to back up Windows and programs.
The need to have to install programs. (Installation is not a necessary step.)
The impossibility of moving an installed program simply to a new Windows or to the cloud without any re-installation.
The registry that keeps growing like a memory leak.
The way an old Windows usually never starts and runs as fast as it did when first installed.

Ok. You indirectly paid Microsoft $50 when you bought your bundled Windows 7 PC seven years ago and you haven't paid Microsoft a cent since including the Windows 10 update. You have never paid anything for the free upgrades. I get it - you like not paying for the services you are using from a commercial company and want it to continue forever.

I hate the idea of paying for a new O/S, but with all the capabilities Microsoft now has, I am fascinated to see how well they do. They probably will not get it 100% right in 2020, but I think they will get it over 50% right with a path to improve. If they get to 50% on the first try, and they do not force us to use the cloud unsafely, I will probably give them go.

Why do you seem to have so much optimism? Going on their previous track record, MS will just make it more difficult for the average user, to keep control of their PC. Windows will just get worse, not better.

I have bought three licenses of Win7... One stand alone, the other two OEM with laptops.
The last one the 29th of December 2017 because the clients security requirements made Win10 a no go and I have not sufficient experience with Win8 to leant to learn and test it in a basically no internet environment (emails and basic websites, no downloads).
A bit of a last minute despair buy...

Also had to get crap a android phone devoid of camera and GPS...

[orin]

Historically, Microsoft has been about backwards compatibility in a major way. Many of the issues we see today are a result of choices made in the past and kept for the sake of backwards compatibility. Microsoft understand like no other that when you start cutting the compatibility, people have no reason not to go somewhere else.

Indeed.  They used to and no doubt still do have long lists of 'apps that must run' before a new version of Windows can be released.

As I pointed out before, build something for XP with a current compiler and it will run on Windows 10.  Can you even build an application for a 17 year old Linux release with a current compiler and have it run on all current distributions, without having to install any dependencies in either case?  If so, details please.

[senso]

It is just that neither is a good representation of what an O/S could be in 2018. Windows 10 was a 6 year filler to give Microsoft time to develop a new type of O/S that will be more maintainable, compatible and securable. Win10 is not the start of anything, it is hopefully the end of the archaic  Windows O/S model.

Judging by how Microsoft is doing things at the moment, a new OS can only mean pain. Forget control over your own data, expect required online and cloud services everywhere, forget keeping things on your network private and expect paying continuously. People don't want the desktop variant of what mobile OSs already do, yet that's where we're heading.

The trouble is the you cannot see the O/S they have been working for 4 years on now, so you are judging based on things like Office 365 and Windows 10 who's main purpose is to wean us off Windows XP, 7 and 8.1. I am sure Microsoft absolute hate Windows 10 and cannot wait to send it into retirement.

When you have grown to accept the absurdities of Windows 7 and friends, you get numb to the issues:

The junk, including 3rd party drivers in the kernel, that can crash the O/S and that has no reason to be there.
The need to install programs as Administrator.
The need to screw up the base O/S by adding all the comparatility junk there.
The absolute nightmare that is Windows Updates. (It is a nightmare for Microsoft)
The time it takes to install Windows fully or repair Windows.
The impossibility of trying to secure an O/S full of junk in the kernal.
The lack of any truly efficient way to back up Windows and programs.
The need to have to install programs. (Installation is not a necessary step.)
The impossibility of moving an installed program simply to a new Windows or to the cloud without any re-installation.
The registry that keeps growing like a memory leak.
The way an old Windows usually never starts and runs as fast as it did when first installed.

Ok. You indirectly paid Microsoft $50 when you bought your bundled Windows 7 PC seven years ago and you haven't paid Microsoft a cent since including the Windows 10 update. You have never paid anything for the free upgrades. I get it - you like not paying for the services you are using from a commercial company and want it to continue forever.

I hate the idea of paying for a new O/S, but with all the capabilities Microsoft now has, I am fascinated to see how well they do. They probably will not get it 100% right in 2020, but I think they will get it over 50% right with a path to improve. If they get to 50% on the first try, and they do not force us to use the cloud unsafely, I will probably give them go.

I have crashed my GPU drivers a lot due to unstable OC, they recover, Windows shows me message on the corner that they crashed and recovered, or there are no drivers for linux, it works with magic.
Because on Linux you dont have sudo...
Windows sells precisely due to that compability and removing it makes people angry.
Maintaining multiple OS versions is always a pain, but there are tons of linux flavors, up to then, or you also bitch about that?
Get an SSD, Win 7 installs in less than 15 minutes, Win10 in less than 10 minutes, spinning rust is your problem, not the OS.
True on that, also the clusterfuck that is the registry.
You can do full disk images, easy to do with lots of different software, from Macrium to rsyncing the drive.
Lots of programs run without being installed, blame the company that makes then and the feels the need to litter the registry with crap from top to bottom because MUH licences.
Thats on the 3rd parties as well, they hard link tons of crap on registry. Same on linux, install something and move the folder, kaput..
Already addressed above.
I have Win8 installs with over 3 years, the same 20 seconds boot time, its user error, not an OS problem.

[TerraHertz]

Debates about the functionality or otherwise of Windows versions are of little interest to me, since I long ago came to the conclusion that Microsoft itself, as a corporate entity, is poison. The social philosophy and objectives of Microsoft's upper management, and hence the company, are toxic. Making Microsoft a direct, hostile enemy of Humankind, Freedom and technological progress.

I could go into lengthy detail about why, but that's not the point here. I just came to post a link to an interesting story. It's one small example of Microsoft's evil bullshit.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/innovative-man-facing-prison-recycling-old-computers-instead-throwing-away/
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/environment/recycling/news.php?q=1519149575
Innovative Engineer Sentenced to Prison for Recycling Old Computers Instead of Trashing Them


Incidentally that story misses the point. They attribute Microsoft's legal objections to his recycling efforts to 'lost profits'. But I think that's incorrect.

Microsoft is trying to force the world onto the Win10 'arse-rape platform.' In which the App-rental, media pay-to-play, DRM-enforcement and Cloud-storage models are bad enough, but really only a distraction from the primary objective. That is the Big Brother surveillance hidden spyware built into the platform, plus the facility to apply even more spyware in future, via the forced auto-updates channel. And this is being done hand-in-hand with government spy agencies, who LOVE the whole idea of digital enslavement of the people.

Any attempts to recycle old PCs back into use, with old Microsoft OSs, lessens the market share of the MS-Gov spyware-OS project that is Win10 (and future versions), running on newer Intel CPUs with backdoors built into the CPU itself.

And so recycling must be stamped out. And they'll NEVER admit the real reasons.

[GlennSprigg]

WOW!!!  Thank you ALL for your contributions. This was unexpected !!!   
Especially, to the young ones that have been involved more than I gave them credit for !!
To the many, who commented on the 'merits' of "this/that", I would like to clarify something !
I was NOT in any way 'knocking' the benefits/needs of/for "change", because that is ALWAYS
the case....  Hardware/software/demands/details/graphics/diversification... etc, always dominate
regarding the needs of 'tomorrow', irrespective of the 'OS', hardware, or software versions....
I was MAINLY trying to emphasize the trend towards TOUCH screens these days, like phones &
tablets etc, and for THAT reason 'Win-10' was trying to bridge that 'gap' to the 'Future'....

[senso]

Debates about the functionality or otherwise of Windows versions are of little interest to me, since I long ago came to the conclusion that Microsoft itself, as a corporate entity, is poison. The social philosophy and objectives of Microsoft's upper management, and hence the company, are toxic. Making Microsoft a direct, hostile enemy of Humankind, Freedom and technological progress.

I could go into lengthy detail about why, but that's not the point here. I just came to post a link to an interesting story. It's one small example of Microsoft's evil bullshit.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/innovative-man-facing-prison-recycling-old-computers-instead-throwing-away/
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/environment/recycling/news.php?q=1519149575
Innovative Engineer Sentenced to Prison for Recycling Old Computers Instead of Trashing Them


Incidentally that story misses the point. They attribute Microsoft's legal objections to his recycling efforts to 'lost profits'. But I think that's incorrect.

Microsoft is trying to force the world onto the Win10 'arse-rape platform.' In which the App-rental, media pay-to-play, DRM-enforcement and Cloud-storage models are bad enough, but really only a distraction from the primary objective. That is the Big Brother surveillance hidden spyware built into the platform, plus the facility to apply even more spyware in future, via the forced auto-updates channel. And this is being done hand-in-hand with government spy agencies, who LOVE the whole idea of digital enslavement of the people.

Any attempts to recycle old PCs back into use, with old Microsoft OSs, lessens the market share of the MS-Gov spyware-OS project that is Win10 (and future versions), running on newer Intel CPUs with backdoors built into the CPU itself.

And so recycling must be stamped out. And they'll NEVER admit the real reasons.

Big boy Intel ME is present from Sandy Bridge and up, play with FITC and an ME dump if you dont believe, it can be disabled by corrupting it at least in Sandy Bridge based systems.

All OS's do that, even Windows 7 as telemetry, and lots of it with the latest updates, as does lots of Linux distros, with Ubuntu saying that they will do almost the same as MS.

If you dont want forced updates, disable them, and then complain how you are part of a botnet