Windows 10

[juror]

it'll be free for a year as an attempt to claw back some market share

And, as far as I know, this one-year-for-free upgrade-offer is only valid for the PC you own when doing the upgrade.
If your PC or some components(?) pass away, you need to get a new/real license (AFAIK).

Since Windows is licensed per machine, not user, this would be the case with any license e.g. Win 7, 8, wouldn't it?

[ts-soft]

Since Windows is licensed per machine, not user, this would be the case with any license e.g. Win 7, 8, wouldn't it?

You can remove Win 7, 8 ... from one machine and then install on another machine with one key,
but you can't it with the upgrade to win 10!

[juror]

Since Windows is licensed per machine, not user, this would be the case with any license e.g. Win 7, 8, wouldn't it?

You can remove Win 7, 8 ... from one machine and then install on another machine with one key,
but you can't it with the upgrade to win 10!

You may be able to do this sometimes, but that's not the way it's licensed, and it does not necessarily work that way in all cases.

[ts-soft]

That's the way it's licensed (retail version), or you have a OEM license with other rules.

[juror]

The retail version is licensed to a machine configuration installation, not to a user, - thus the need to re-validate the licensing if you make major hardware changes. OEM is licensed to that specific single machine configuration. M$ has been "lenient" in their enforcement of the licensing for full retail licenses, they have generally allowed the licenses to transfer if the hardware changed, but that could change at any time, since the license is specific to the machine on which it was initially installed.

[ts-soft]

Okay, in germany it is allowed. I don't know in other countries, but the different.

[juror]

Okay, in germany it is allowed. I don't know in other countries, but the different.

Interesting - that may well be. Thus who knows how Windows 10 licensing may vary country-to-country?

[Opcode]

Apps written on the current Win32 API simply would not run on lightweight mobile devices

That's hogwash as mobile processors are perfectly capable of running all Win32 software. The only difference is allocated time to complete a said task of a said software. Per example it's going to take a long while to encode a movie on a Atom compared to a desktop i7. The mobile industry is making it's move to x86 and we will see a lot more use of Win32 software on mobile devices as time passes. Android and ARM are both already being pushed out of the tablet ecosystem by the blue giant Intel w/ help from Microsoft. Android in itself with Lollipop updated their runtime to make the OS x86 compatible. In fact we have a few Android phones on the market now that run x86 microprocessors at their core. I personally salute said progress as I would rather have a Windows tablet running a x86 microprocessor and a full fledged version of Windows. I can code, debug and compile software with PB on a small little tablet. This is why AMD themselves are taking 0 interest in the mobile semiconductor industry. They know it wont take long for Intel to monopolize a majority of the market. ARM still holds strong but it's only a matter of time until companies like Qualcomm cannot beat what Intel is offering and at the price that they are offering it. So much that Intel lost $4.5 billion dollars last year investing into the mobile ecosystem. As they are taking a huge hit by marketing their product for pocket change to saturate said market with their label. Long story short is I think you'll come to find that ARM will become confined to select few phone manufactures. Apple could still possibly license ARM and uses it for their products (an ongoing rumor) which are confined to iOS/OS X anyways (irrelevant to Win32). There's a ton of variables as to why Microsoft went with WinRT for their universal applications (primarily because if its uarch support) but also for hardware acceleration and other aspects that Win32 simply does not offer.

[TI-994A]

That's hogwash as mobile processors are perfectly capable of running all Win32 software. The only difference is allocated time to complete a said task of a said software. Per example it's going to take a long while to encode a movie on a Atom compared to a desktop i7. The mobile industry is making it's move to x86 and we will see a lot more use of Win32 software on mobile devices as time passes.

A totally irrelevant paragraph.

When Microsoft took the plunge into the tablet market just a few years ago, they not only stripped down their operating system to the lightweight, now-defunct, Windows RT, but they also went with an ARM-based processor; nVidia's Tegra.

Today, their new Windows Phone 10 is also another stripped-down version of the full Windows 10, and the processors that they have been using in their Lumia line of phones, including the latest 900 series, have all been ARM-based.

x86 processors have been notorious power hogs, but Intel have been doing their best to catch up with the competition. Among their latest offerings is the Atom x3, which is an x86 SoC processor, aimed at the mobile market. Even so, it's said that this processor would not be able to directly support Windows in desktop mode.

The truth of the matter is, the Win32 architecture is simply too big to be efficient on lightweight mobile devices, with many aspects of the API being resource-hogs themselves.

Microsoft knows this, and have thus introduced the Universal Windows Platform in a bid to eventually unify platforms efficiently. UWP apps must be built atop the Windows Runtime, and can only utilise a small subset of the Win32 API.

On the other hand, the full-blown Win32 API is still available for desktop-specific development.

So, to reiterate, apps written on the current Win32 API simply would not run on lightweight mobile devices.

Android and ARM are both already being pushed out of the tablet ecosystem by the blue giant Intel w/ help from Microsoft.

Utter nonsense. iPhones and iPads utilise ARM architecture in their processors. The same go for Samsung, LG, Lenovo, and many others. Even Intel themselves utilise an ARM graphics core in their latest Atom x3 processors. And so far, Microsoft have not supported them in this category.

...I would rather have a Windows tablet running a x86 microprocessor and a full fledged version of Windows.

After the recent demise of Windows RT, all Windows-based tablets only run full versions of Windows on x86 processors.

...it's only a matter of time until companies like Qualcomm cannot beat what Intel is offering ... Intel lost $4.5 billion dollars last year investing into the mobile ecosystem.

No; they lost big in an unfair contra-revenue scheme, trying to undercut the competition by subsidising manufacturers who use their processors.

At just one-sixth of Intel's value, ARM is currently worth about $25 billion. However, they are a 25-year-old purely IP-based company with exponentially smaller overheads, and an army of leading manufacturers licensing their designs; Intel included. It is pretty unlikely that their stronghold on the market would be undermined anytime soon, especially since they have been able to weather Intel's offensives thus far.

There's a ton of variables as to why Microsoft went with WinRT for their universal applications (primarily because if its uarch support) but also for hardware acceleration and other aspects that Win32 simply does not offer.

Microsoft did not go with WinRT; they specifically designed it. And logically, they would have implemented improvements and new features, especially in line with their intended direction, which is a more resource-efficient architecture that would perform well in lightweight mobile devices, and also better-integrate with their managed development languages.

Opinions are really great, and always welcome. But please know your material before refuting others, and spewing poppycock all over the forum.

[tj1010]

I'm one of those people who weren't confused or annoyed by the app startup menu in 8, and mostly upgraded from 7 for the binaries ran through newer more optimized compilers anyway.

I'm not going to mind whatever is in 10. I actually hope there is usability for sand-boxing and usage of Intel's new MPX. I know they are going to do something to make exploit development more expensive so that alone makes it worth it.

[TI-994A]

I'm one of those people who ... upgraded from 7 for the binaries ran through newer more optimized compilers anyway.

Not quite. Many utilities, drivers, and services are still being carried over from Windows 7, and some even from Windows XP.

I know they are going to do something to make exploit development more expensive so that alone makes it worth it.

Not true. The desktop version of Windows 10 would be just as vulnerable as any of its predecessors. And the built-in protection is the very same one used in Windows 7.

[tj1010]

I'm one of those people who ... upgraded from 7 for the binaries ran through newer more optimized compilers anyway.

Not quite. Many utilities, drivers, and services are still being carried over from Windows 7, and some even from Windows XP.

I know they are going to do something to make exploit development more expensive so that alone makes it worth it.

Not true. The desktop version of Windows 10 would be just as vulnerable as any of its predecessors. And the built-in protection is the very same one used in Windows 7.

Windows 8 had internal changes to mitigate some overflows. There were specifics in some BlackHat conference papers and some research blogs. They are obscure to people who don't do exploit or malware research and typically go unannounced. Mostly changes in the heap allocator.

Also the entire 8 repository was ran through newer MS compilers that had fixes and optimizations. This was my main reason for upgrading, and why it has less hard-faults and CPU % on most hardware..

I still don't get the big deal with 7 vs. 8. 8 has a tile menu and slide activated side menus.. That's pretty much it for usability.. Oh and UEFI boot signing which should be on all machine in my opinion because signed boot-chains are a proven mitigation against malware persistence. I'd have full CA based signing even in userland if it was a option..

EDIT: By the way my wife also hates 8 and I can kind of see why people would find the obscurity the start replacement kind of introduces. But overall I think the bads are negatively disproportionate to the goods.

[TI-994A]

Windows 8 had internal changes to mitigate some overflows. There were specifics in some BlackHat conference papers and some research blogs. They are obscure to people who don't do exploit or malware research and typically go unannounced. Mostly changes in the heap allocator.

Not being privy to such information, I wouldn't be able to comment.

[idle]

No shit redmond, you say something happened, as if you're surprised.
(error in the media download tool)

[Fangbeast]

No shit redmond, you say something happened, as if you're surprised.
(error in the media download tool)

Worked here. Got tired of waiting for the "Your computer is ready to activate" so used the media tool on my wife's laptop, made an iso, burned it and installed. No problems at all.