When you buy a smart tv the smart starts becoming obsolete as soon as you get it. The networking hardware will never upgrade, the apps will upgrade occasionally but will start to drop off as the manufacturer loses interest in your older model, and so forth. So it's not a good decision to get a smart tv for the "smarts". And you don't have to be computer savvy to plug in a Roku or AppleTV, and then hide it behind the tv with a piece of velcro tape. In 5 or 10 years when there's a new superduper wi-fi protocol then you can keep the tv and just upgrade the media box.
Just consider all those people stuck with an expensive 3D TV...
Even if the smart features are ok on the TV you can often get better performance by using an external device. The TVs won't upgrade the hardware and for the cost you're paying you don't want to replace it for a long time, so if the wifi sucks then it's stuck that way for a decade or more. The Roku handles 802.11N with MiMO, 5GHz, etc.
I got my tv a year and a half ago or so. The dumb tvs were cheaper. I don't know if it's still the case though, but the smart features do require some extra hardware and some back end support so it's not free.
Yes, you need to shop around these days I think. They exist but you gotta pay close attention to the features listed. The big tv's on display in the stores will all be smart tvs, because they display the expensive tvs and not the bargains. Look up and down the aisle instead, or search online for particular brand/models and search for those. When I looked all the smart tvs had stickers showing which built in services it had (ie, advertising youtube or netflix support). Possibly if desparate ask one of salespeople for help. I got a Seiki which I like, but I don't know if they make the huge 60"+ ones designed to impress the friends. Definitely make sure there is no camera in the TV!
Yup, I was lent a Chromecast from a friend when I got a new TV, and it was very clumsy to use. So I gave it back and got a Roku which does more than I need. The only drawback is the remote control which uses wi-fi instead of infrared, which means it works no matter where you point it, but also it is always on and using power so the batteries only last half a year.
It makes sense. Why pay $100 for a smart tv when you can get a basic tv with the same size and resolution and attach a $100 device that is easier to upgrade and replace?
Create an API for a driver and then don't change it, and old hardware will work with new OS versions. It's not hard. In some cases Microsoft sticks with their API, but in many cases Microsoft loves changing and breaking things.
Broadcom is known for being very secretive about its chips and drivers. Half of a driver development I did for one chip was spent getting the legal agreements in place and signed.
Sounds like another Microsoft product to avoid. If they can't accept basic username and password distinct from other accounts then they're never going to get lots of people to use it, except younger generation who don't see any problems with security of privacy, probably using Facebook login to log in everywhere they go. When it comes to Windows, third party applications are the way to go.
The thing is, if Roku changes, you dump it and get Chromecast. If that changes you dump it and get AppleTV. Etc. Those devices are cheap. Someone else will come along and make yet another competitor to them. Dumping an expensive smart tv is a lot harder and wasteful.
For a tiny minority of gamers. And almost no game is supporting it at the moment, it's not worth creating a new game that only works with W10 if your customer base is not upgrading to W10. Besides, if it's such a great idea, then Microsoft would have to plead, beg, and trick us into upgrading.
Except that with Windows 10 it may be better to switch operating systems. Or just stop using desktop computers altogether. Most people seriously can get along with just a web browser, which leaves many options open.
People are promoting W10 with the logic that there is no choice except to upgrade, but remember having a captive customer base with no options was the same reasoning cable companies used and they still had a surge of people cutting the cord. So Microsoft may find itself in the position of customers doing the equivalent of cutting the cord.
That's the thing. If Windows 10 is so awesome why do they have to resort to pleading and begging and subterfuge to get people onto it? If someone followed me around all day saying "please try my pies, they're the tastiest ever!" then I would not want to try those pies since I'd think something was wrong with them. And besides it's amazingly creepy to have someone follow you all day begging you to try something.
For the relatives, what about an android or iOS tablet? A chromebook or something like that? Saves a lot of money and you can still do what most people do with computers at home. If money's not the problem then consider OSX. The primary reason home computer users like to have Windows is because that's what their neighbors use and so it's easy to get help when something goes wrong. So the best reason to have them not upgrade to Windows 10 is to tell them that none of their neighbors will be able to help them if they update.
Android doesn't advertise towards me all the time. I've only seen one ad in the last month that I recall. Of course I'm not loading up hundreds of apps either and have disabled a lot of features.
Who wants a unified OS where the same applications on the desktop are on the phone? What masses? It's a stupid idea and I've rarely heard anyone say that they want it (ok, they want to see Word or PDF docs on the phone, but they don't say they want exactly the same application to do it as on the desktop). Reminds me of when a boss of mine was bragging that he had a new HP PDA that ran Office and was showing it around and telling us that we should dump our palm pilots. Then a month later he recanted and called the PDA a waste of money because it was so painful to use Office on it. A desktop application is not at all suitable for a hand held device. And besides The Microsoft "universal" applications are not universal as they won't run on anything that's not Microsoft, and their Windows phone business is essentially dead.
No, not all updates are there for you. Why should I be forced to waste time on a patch for Windows Server 2012 when I'm not running that OS, yet that shows up for me as important updates. There are reasons why one would voluntarily and with good judgement not want to update a particular update. The very fact that Windows is ramming down all sort of subversive software onto older operating systems that present advertisements or windows upgrades, even going so far as to be misleading to users or to include ads in a "security" udpates, is proof that Microsoft can not be trusted to only supply useful or benign upgrades. I do not trust Microsoft to know or do what is best for me because they have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they don't.
I am permanently deferring a lot of updates at the moment. They are hidden and when Windows un-hides them I hide them again.
I agree with you on one point. Windows 10 was not designed for power users. It was designed for home users. And yet it is marketed with a fury to everyone, dire warnings if you don't upgrade, pleeds and begging, etc. Microsoft's core market is the corporation, it is where the vast majority of their money comes and will come. Windows is dying out in the home market as people start using phones and tablets. But they're marketing the home OS to professionals! That is where power users live. The professionals use this OS every day and know how it works, they have an IT team to advise them, and yet they're being treated like petulant children for not being submissive enough. The reason for all this is because Microsoft is hoping that its corporate users are fully a locked in so that they won't dump Windows no matter how badly they're treated, while chasing a pipe dream of staying relevant in the home user market.
In Enterprise edition (which not all businesses will use) you can defer updates, but not forever. If there is ever any useful feature that shows up someday (ha!) they will not be able to get that update on Enterprise edition without getting all prior updates. There is no plan in current Windows to opt out of a single update without jumping through lots of hurdles (you can hide them, but you can't hide them if they've never been installed for some reason). Windows Pro only has a temporary deferral, it doesn't solve any problems except that if millions of home computers get bricked then there's hope MS will remove that update before it's mandatory to Pro users. None of this is friendly to business or IT (except for those IT groups who've all been brainwashed by taking MS Certificate courses).
I'm on Windows 8.1, and I prefer the flat look. I never liked aero, it was too flashy and shiny for my tastes, and when it was new quite a lot of people complained about the look versus XP. I use the OS to get work done, not to be dazzled by how much work my graphics card has to do.
I did not like the super wide flat borders though, that was fixed with a registry setting to make it 1 pixel wide. I'd prefer no borders at all, which is how OSX does it. To change border width I had to use a registry setting, I presume that setting is still there on W10 to make them wider if needed (it was stupid of Microsoft to remove this as a setting and forcing the user of a registry).
The inconsistencies in UI look is inherent in Windows 8 and 10 family. They rushed out the new look and haven't yet managed to make the look consistent. Trying to apply that look to older applications doesn't work smoothly (but Microsoft hates you for using old applications, and they especially hate you for not using applications from Microsoft).
Windows 8.1 doesn't shove metro at you. It came out after Microsoft apologized for the Windows 8 screw up so they were being a bit careful with the customer impressions, unlike with Windows 10.
I haven't seen anything in Windows 10 that improves on it, except the start menu that I've learned to live without, and virtual desktops which I can get elsewhere. So what am I missing? Is there any reason to upgrade other than the common answer that "you'll have to upgrade eventually so why not do it now"? I don't want cortana, edge (or any other MS browser), apps, app store, I've already got bash with cygwin, don't care about notifications, xbox integration, etc. Meanwhile it comes with spyware, is insulting me constantly by trying to sneak in adware, forces me to have updates (even on a Pro edition which I qualify for), and is going down a misguided road of continuous updates like Mozilla on crack.
Seriously, I have asked before but still was given no real reason to upgrade other than that my version will expire in the future.
I upgraded from 7 to 8 on the same machine. The performance increase was noticeable (though applications ran the same speed of course). It was not due to the typical fresh-install speedup because I had the windows 7 machine for less than a month before upgrading. The bootup is of course faster, but that's because it plays a trick and actually hibernates the OS when you tell it to shutdown.
Why leave it plugged in? I don't have a laptop at home and I amke sure it is powered off every night, and flipping off the power switch to make sure it's OFF and not going to wake up just because something is scheduled.
I think Microsoft does not understand this concept (or is like apple and assumes everyone is on a laptop with battery power). Because now with 8.1 when I shutdown the screen goes dark for half a minute usually before it actually powers down, sometimes the shutdown has taken over a full minute after the screen has gone dark. So I have to be careful when I hit the physical power button.
The times for some updates are not always due to disk space. When I'm waiting for a Windows update I can see the hard disk light, and it is not constantly on. I have sat there at times waiting 20 minutes or more, with several reboots, and that disk light gets the most activity on reboot but rather light activity during the wait. SSD would not help it much.
I like Windows 8.1 and all that is there. Flat look instead of aero, less memory usage than 7, improvements in the tools. I see nothing that's improved from 8.1 to 10, but lots of things to be concerned about instead.
Slashdot Mirror
When you buy a smart tv the smart starts becoming obsolete as soon as you get it. The networking hardware will never upgrade, the apps will upgrade occasionally but will start to drop off as the manufacturer loses interest in your older model, and so forth. So it's not a good decision to get a smart tv for the "smarts". And you don't have to be computer savvy to plug in a Roku or AppleTV, and then hide it behind the tv with a piece of velcro tape. In 5 or 10 years when there's a new superduper wi-fi protocol then you can keep the tv and just upgrade the media box.
Just consider all those people stuck with an expensive 3D TV...
Even if the smart features are ok on the TV you can often get better performance by using an external device. The TVs won't upgrade the hardware and for the cost you're paying you don't want to replace it for a long time, so if the wifi sucks then it's stuck that way for a decade or more. The Roku handles 802.11N with MiMO, 5GHz, etc.
I got my tv a year and a half ago or so. The dumb tvs were cheaper. I don't know if it's still the case though, but the smart features do require some extra hardware and some back end support so it's not free.
Yes, you need to shop around these days I think. They exist but you gotta pay close attention to the features listed. The big tv's on display in the stores will all be smart tvs, because they display the expensive tvs and not the bargains. Look up and down the aisle instead, or search online for particular brand/models and search for those. When I looked all the smart tvs had stickers showing which built in services it had (ie, advertising youtube or netflix support). Possibly if desparate ask one of salespeople for help. I got a Seiki which I like, but I don't know if they make the huge 60"+ ones designed to impress the friends. Definitely make sure there is no camera in the TV!
Yup, I was lent a Chromecast from a friend when I got a new TV, and it was very clumsy to use. So I gave it back and got a Roku which does more than I need. The only drawback is the remote control which uses wi-fi instead of infrared, which means it works no matter where you point it, but also it is always on and using power so the batteries only last half a year.
It makes sense. Why pay $100 for a smart tv when you can get a basic tv with the same size and resolution and attach a $100 device that is easier to upgrade and replace?
Roku 4 apparently does 4K now and presumably supports Netflix as it's their key app.
Create an API for a driver and then don't change it, and old hardware will work with new OS versions. It's not hard. In some cases Microsoft sticks with their API, but in many cases Microsoft loves changing and breaking things.
Broadcom is known for being very secretive about its chips and drivers. Half of a driver development I did for one chip was spent getting the legal agreements in place and signed.
Sounds like another Microsoft product to avoid. If they can't accept basic username and password distinct from other accounts then they're never going to get lots of people to use it, except younger generation who don't see any problems with security of privacy, probably using Facebook login to log in everywhere they go. When it comes to Windows, third party applications are the way to go.
The thing is, if Roku changes, you dump it and get Chromecast. If that changes you dump it and get AppleTV. Etc. Those devices are cheap. Someone else will come along and make yet another competitor to them. Dumping an expensive smart tv is a lot harder and wasteful.
This was not the case in the past at least, as there were reports of this in the news as evidence that the dotcom economy was insane.
For a tiny minority of gamers. And almost no game is supporting it at the moment, it's not worth creating a new game that only works with W10 if your customer base is not upgrading to W10. Besides, if it's such a great idea, then Microsoft would have to plead, beg, and trick us into upgrading.
Except that with Windows 10 it may be better to switch operating systems. Or just stop using desktop computers altogether. Most people seriously can get along with just a web browser, which leaves many options open.
People are promoting W10 with the logic that there is no choice except to upgrade, but remember having a captive customer base with no options was the same reasoning cable companies used and they still had a surge of people cutting the cord. So Microsoft may find itself in the position of customers doing the equivalent of cutting the cord.
Where are the speed tests so I can verify your assertion?
That's the thing. If Windows 10 is so awesome why do they have to resort to pleading and begging and subterfuge to get people onto it? If someone followed me around all day saying "please try my pies, they're the tastiest ever!" then I would not want to try those pies since I'd think something was wrong with them. And besides it's amazingly creepy to have someone follow you all day begging you to try something.
For the relatives, what about an android or iOS tablet? A chromebook or something like that? Saves a lot of money and you can still do what most people do with computers at home. If money's not the problem then consider OSX. The primary reason home computer users like to have Windows is because that's what their neighbors use and so it's easy to get help when something goes wrong. So the best reason to have them not upgrade to Windows 10 is to tell them that none of their neighbors will be able to help them if they update.
No calculator? At least it's still in Windows 8. It's practically the only decent software calculator out there.
Android doesn't advertise towards me all the time. I've only seen one ad in the last month that I recall. Of course I'm not loading up hundreds of apps either and have disabled a lot of features.
Who wants a unified OS where the same applications on the desktop are on the phone? What masses? It's a stupid idea and I've rarely heard anyone say that they want it (ok, they want to see Word or PDF docs on the phone, but they don't say they want exactly the same application to do it as on the desktop). Reminds me of when a boss of mine was bragging that he had a new HP PDA that ran Office and was showing it around and telling us that we should dump our palm pilots. Then a month later he recanted and called the PDA a waste of money because it was so painful to use Office on it. A desktop application is not at all suitable for a hand held device. And besides The Microsoft "universal" applications are not universal as they won't run on anything that's not Microsoft, and their Windows phone business is essentially dead.
No, not all updates are there for you. Why should I be forced to waste time on a patch for Windows Server 2012 when I'm not running that OS, yet that shows up for me as important updates. There are reasons why one would voluntarily and with good judgement not want to update a particular update. The very fact that Windows is ramming down all sort of subversive software onto older operating systems that present advertisements or windows upgrades, even going so far as to be misleading to users or to include ads in a "security" udpates, is proof that Microsoft can not be trusted to only supply useful or benign upgrades. I do not trust Microsoft to know or do what is best for me because they have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they don't.
I am permanently deferring a lot of updates at the moment. They are hidden and when Windows un-hides them I hide them again.
I agree with you on one point. Windows 10 was not designed for power users. It was designed for home users. And yet it is marketed with a fury to everyone, dire warnings if you don't upgrade, pleeds and begging, etc. Microsoft's core market is the corporation, it is where the vast majority of their money comes and will come. Windows is dying out in the home market as people start using phones and tablets. But they're marketing the home OS to professionals! That is where power users live. The professionals use this OS every day and know how it works, they have an IT team to advise them, and yet they're being treated like petulant children for not being submissive enough. The reason for all this is because Microsoft is hoping that its corporate users are fully a locked in so that they won't dump Windows no matter how badly they're treated, while chasing a pipe dream of staying relevant in the home user market.
In Enterprise edition (which not all businesses will use) you can defer updates, but not forever. If there is ever any useful feature that shows up someday (ha!) they will not be able to get that update on Enterprise edition without getting all prior updates. There is no plan in current Windows to opt out of a single update without jumping through lots of hurdles (you can hide them, but you can't hide them if they've never been installed for some reason). Windows Pro only has a temporary deferral, it doesn't solve any problems except that if millions of home computers get bricked then there's hope MS will remove that update before it's mandatory to Pro users. None of this is friendly to business or IT (except for those IT groups who've all been brainwashed by taking MS Certificate courses).
I'm on Windows 8.1, and I prefer the flat look. I never liked aero, it was too flashy and shiny for my tastes, and when it was new quite a lot of people complained about the look versus XP. I use the OS to get work done, not to be dazzled by how much work my graphics card has to do.
I did not like the super wide flat borders though, that was fixed with a registry setting to make it 1 pixel wide. I'd prefer no borders at all, which is how OSX does it. To change border width I had to use a registry setting, I presume that setting is still there on W10 to make them wider if needed (it was stupid of Microsoft to remove this as a setting and forcing the user of a registry).
The inconsistencies in UI look is inherent in Windows 8 and 10 family. They rushed out the new look and haven't yet managed to make the look consistent. Trying to apply that look to older applications doesn't work smoothly (but Microsoft hates you for using old applications, and they especially hate you for not using applications from Microsoft).
Windows 8.1 doesn't shove metro at you. It came out after Microsoft apologized for the Windows 8 screw up so they were being a bit careful with the customer impressions, unlike with Windows 10.
I haven't seen anything in Windows 10 that improves on it, except the start menu that I've learned to live without, and virtual desktops which I can get elsewhere. So what am I missing? Is there any reason to upgrade other than the common answer that "you'll have to upgrade eventually so why not do it now"? I don't want cortana, edge (or any other MS browser), apps, app store, I've already got bash with cygwin, don't care about notifications, xbox integration, etc. Meanwhile it comes with spyware, is insulting me constantly by trying to sneak in adware, forces me to have updates (even on a Pro edition which I qualify for), and is going down a misguided road of continuous updates like Mozilla on crack.
Seriously, I have asked before but still was given no real reason to upgrade other than that my version will expire in the future.
I upgraded from 7 to 8 on the same machine. The performance increase was noticeable (though applications ran the same speed of course). It was not due to the typical fresh-install speedup because I had the windows 7 machine for less than a month before upgrading. The bootup is of course faster, but that's because it plays a trick and actually hibernates the OS when you tell it to shutdown.
Why leave it plugged in? I don't have a laptop at home and I amke sure it is powered off every night, and flipping off the power switch to make sure it's OFF and not going to wake up just because something is scheduled.
I think Microsoft does not understand this concept (or is like apple and assumes everyone is on a laptop with battery power). Because now with 8.1 when I shutdown the screen goes dark for half a minute usually before it actually powers down, sometimes the shutdown has taken over a full minute after the screen has gone dark. So I have to be careful when I hit the physical power button.
The times for some updates are not always due to disk space. When I'm waiting for a Windows update I can see the hard disk light, and it is not constantly on. I have sat there at times waiting 20 minutes or more, with several reboots, and that disk light gets the most activity on reboot but rather light activity during the wait. SSD would not help it much.
I like Windows 8.1 and all that is there. Flat look instead of aero, less memory usage than 7, improvements in the tools. I see nothing that's improved from 8.1 to 10, but lots of things to be concerned about instead.