Windows 10 updates

Here's a screenshot of an update to Mint 18.2 I got only today. The icon being pointed to told me it was available. It shows a tick mark when the system is up to date and shows an 'i' when there is an update to do. Without this icon showing, perhaps some updates are being missed?

At the bottom of my screen, in common with most systems, is an information bar, (just as pictured on your picture ). Immediately to the left of the time  is a shield shaped icon. If I place my "arrow" on it tells me "Your system is up to date" (or signifies otherwise if any updates are  up for grabs). This latter rarely occurs because I normally get a message telling that "updates are available now" but only when updates are available.

I find this paradise when compared to Bill's abomination that he has the gall to call "a system".

Linux Mint does work well but I can accept and work with W.10 too. I think it's a good operating system personally. However, I might be coming to a decision not to write about it anymore (I know ...Hooray!). I'll just get on and quietly use our smoothly running W.10 computers. Why? ..because it seems as though trying to be helpful or give information about W.10 just brings about moans and displeasure from people. I don't want to be the cause of that anymore.

I am very happy with Windows 10 - it is on both our laptops and my desktop. I also have a Windows 10 Lumia phone but it is sitting in a drawer and has been replaced by a Samsung Android phone because my new car will only sync with Android or Apple. 

Mart - I don't think that people intend to moan and groan about our choice of Windows 10 but perhaps feel that they need to defend their choice of Linux. We are all entitled to chose whichever O.S suits us best and I for one would miss your Win10 contributions and advice.

I have tried Linux in the past but didn't invest enough time with it to feel comfortable. Over the years I have built a few computers for friends, neighbours and family - so they expect me to know more than I do about computers. I no longer build them - it is not now economically feasible because component prices are so high. I keep a Linux emergency boot disc in my locker which is useful to bring to life a computer that will not otherwise boot up. Our grandkids are regularly stuffing up their laptops with malware and other rubbish and bring it round to me to get it working.

I too have a Lumia phone running on W.10 and a Samsung running on Android. I now read that Microsoft are giving up on smartphones, which I think is a pity because I prefer the Windows phone to the Samsung.

The Lumia was my first smartphone. I wasn't sure I actually needed one at all, so bought the cheapest I could find. I should have got a better one in retrospect and then I might have used it until it broke ..supported by Microsoft or not. Mine works OK but doesn't connect to the Internet very readily when I'm out and about, perhaps because it was cheap. The Samsung has no trouble with this.

Regarding Microsoft operating systems (including W.10), they have been the most criticised operating systems ever, even though most people keep using them. I've spent many years defending Windows operating systems on various forums and it has been a mostly solitary uphill battle. Forget the millions who use the Windows platform without issue. Apart from me and a few others, not many come forward strongly to say that Windows is not a load of rubbish.

It's the same everywhere. Windows, Bill Gates, M$ (as people cleverly put it) always brings out criticism and emotion in people. However, when I think what this company has done for the computer world, it seems most unjustified to me.

Microsoft has been a very major player in us all sitting in front of our computers and being on the Internet. Microsoft is a company formed by one man who happened to come up with the right product at the right time. This is most admirable in my opinion. We have all benefited from what the company has achieved and I think this should be realised by a sometimes too critical public.

Bill Gates and the company he founded have made money and will continue to want to do so. However, money has been made not by charging lots to individuals but by charging a reasonable price to millions upon millions of people. When you think how many days, months and years we use an operating system for, I'd say it is pretty inexpensive. Without doing the maths, it could be be less than a penny a day. This represents good value as far as I can see.

Anyway, because I have these opinions, it is a bit painful for me to keep reading that Microsoft is a rip-off merchant and/or that the product is awful. Also how they should be doing better. I really am going to try and stop debating it endlessly.

AlanHo wrote:

Over the years I have built a few computers for friends, neighbours and family - so they expect me to know more than I do about computers. I no longer build them - it is not now economically feasible because component prices are so high. I keep a Linux emergency boot disc in my locker which is useful to bring to life a computer that will not otherwise boot up. Our grandkids are regularly stuffing up their laptops with malware and other rubbish and bring it round to me to get it working.

A bit the same here Alan. I've never built computers but friends and family expect me to fix them because they know I mess around with computers a bit. The fact is that I'm only very good at keeping our own computers running smoothly. I always worry that it might turn into a 'slippery slope' job if I start trying to fix other people's computers.

I think it stems from being a fixer of most domestic electronics items in my working life. Perhaps people still think of me as a repairer of things, stretching as far as computers.

"However, when I think what this company has done for the computer world, it seems most unjustified to me."

As things were with Gates, I.B.M., and one or two others, he had a virtual monopoly and the scene was set for his virtually monopolistic clean sweep.

Right place, right time with the right products. If people didn't like what was on offer, then those businesses would have failed.

Bill Gates had the product, brains and business acumen to get the company off the ground selling a product that people wanted. He gave the complexities of a computer an interface that could be used by the general public. No wonder the product took off. He deserved the success in my opinion.

I agree Mart. Furthermore Microsoft left the front door ajar to allow people to load non - Microsoft products and even tweak the operating system. Unlike Apple who make this very difficult.

However - there have been instances where Microsoft have taken perhaps unfair advantage of their strong market presence. Linux - being open source cannot be accused of this and those who use it and are familiar with its idiosyncrasies are probably less exposed to malware. I have a virtual friend on another forum who is a Linux expert and has tweaked its code to suit his own requirements. He would use nothing else because he gets satisfaction from being able to use his creativity. He does tend to rib us Windows users from time to time for being so conventional though.

My brother, who was into computers long before me, said that Bill Gates hawked his ideas around various companies in Britain trying to get backers but he was unsuccessful. Hindsight is a wonderful thing eh? How those he approached must have kicked themselves later. :) I also heard that, in the early days, keen employees weren't paid in cash but in shares. What a good outcome that must have had for them!

I think Windows certainly was the best option at the time it came out (Windows 3.11 being the best version before Windows 95) and lots of new companies sprung up around it because the system allowed 3rd party programs to be installed. This aspect of Windows hasn't changed too much over the years, so giving us the diversity and choice of all the software we can install and use on Windows today.

One change has occurred regarding this though. Third party security programs are no longer allowed to change the kernel (the deep works) of Windows. I believe this is something Microsoft reckoned could make Windows unstable and potentially cause conflicts and crashes (research 'patchguard'). Also, updates are mandatory now unless willing to find ways of stopping them. This is a good thing in my opinion. It makes sure that the system is up to date, patched and therefore more stable and secure ..even for ordinary users who just use their computers and never give such things a thought.

The monopoly exists because Microsoft was first in the door with an affordable OS sporting a user-friendly interface. I suppose they have taken advantage of that from time to time but maybe we would have done the same if we'd had the opportunity.

There is the choice of operating systems to be had these days but they are kind of late on the scene, so I think they will find it difficult to equal the popularity of Windows in the foreseeable future. Windows is now so much the norm that people do not think of going to an alternative platform, even though critical of Windows. It would be too much of a change to make.

All I would say is: See what other platforms are like. You might find one better ..or come gratefully back to Windows thinking that it isn't so bad after all. We all make our choices.

Had a wipe off a few weeks ago -on picking up the chap informed me he had put windows 10 on --just getting used to it.

A few of us have had Windows 10 for a while ourjimmy. If you get any usage problems, post about them here. I'm not sure you'll get good answers but we can try. :)

Don't believe all the crap you read about Windows 10 Jimmy, I, just like Mart, think it's excellent.

Have you tended to keep up with new MS operating systems as they have been released Malcolm? I always have been an early adopter of them, out of interest rather than need.

As I tried and got used to them, I'd always read what others had to say. Quite often, opinions and comments were about how awful these new operating systems were. It made me wonder if people were writing about the same OS as I was using because they always seemed to work OK to me.

The introduction of tiles was a bit of a shock but if approached with the intent of learning to work with them instead of how to avoid them, they weren't so bad to get on with. I think the current W.10 interface with its combination of tiles, desktop and alphabetical list has become preferable to the Windows 7 type cascading menus.

I think that the tiles are possibly OK if you have touch screen. My previous laptop had a touch screen and I learned to live with them

My latest laptop - A lightweight Acer S13 with an Intel Core i5 processor does not have a touch screen and I have found myself reverting to the Windows 7 interface courtesy of Stardock Start10 which is well worth the one-off $5 it costs.

Like others here, I have had every version of Windows since 3.1 and have almost always appreciated the improvement with each new version. The only exception was Vista, which was a great concept but badly executed. I was pleased to see the back of it.

I abandoned Windows about several years ago (about 10 of them) and changed to Linux. I ran Ubuntu for about six years and it was superb until they started trying to Jazz things up and it became much like an illegal imitation of what I had try to escape.
I found Mint and have been very content with it since. There is a distinct absence of the constant stream of "up-dates" which seemed to be an intrinsic part of the others I had used.