[ Closed ] Windows 10? Anything we should know? (Page 2 of 2)

Very accurate analysis.  The Linux Action Show reviewed it.  They actually paid about $300.00 for the complete version because they had no old version of WinDO$ to upgrade.  They reported just as you have that it has an unfinished look with a mix of old and new style icons.  In fact, they say the actual completion date isn't until October or after.  So what's available now is more or less a pre-release version according to them.  I have several versions of WinDO$ sitting around on drives that have never been booted, but I don't have enough interest to waste time fooling with it.  Pianoteq runs perfectly on Linux Mint 17.2 so there just isn't a need.  Plus I would never have purchased Pianoteq if it didn't run on Linux in the first place.  I think Pianoteq is one of the finest software programs I have ever seen and the developers have done a wonderful job.  It's just great they have made a version that's Linux native.  Not to offend any WinDO$ fan dragons, but often we Linux users get the short end of the stick when quality software is not released in a native Linux version.  You really can't discuss WinDO$ without bringing up Linux because Linux is in fact a very viable choice so the real question might be:  "Is it better to upgrade to WinDO$ 10 or to a more secure user friendly alternative that would be more enduring and less costly over the long haul?"

For me, my OS of choice would be BSD... I'll try if Pianoteq runs on it. For the near future, I don't see myself leaving the Windows ecosystem; my job requires it and already made significant investment on software...

It's totally possible, of course. Multitasking is just fine in Windows. It's been the case for quite a long time now.

um, that would be true for just about anything else.... but (1) when you know how microsoft work and how they do things, ....no. Just no. They will however tone down the complete deficiency in their products ONLY if it brings them more money and strangle grip over the IT market in the long run.

Also (2) notice he said he hasn't "used" it in 10 years. Not "checked to see if it sucks donkey balls as usual". Or "been stuck helping someone with a w**dows problem"

/* edit */

Please keep us updated if it does work.

Yeah, if Linux didn't exist, i'd say probably a system like FreeBSD, or maybe OpenBSD, would have filled the same role, with about the same results. FreeBSD became less popular because it started a few years after Linux did, but it's still a very viable system with lots of potential.

Renoise here. The advantage of running multiple instances in a DAW or plugin host is that you don't have to reload presets in each instance, you just save your project file, and reload it, and all this is taken care of by the DAW / host.

Sonar is a windows program. It "might" work in other systems using WINE, but that would add a bunch of complications on top of being a windows program, and it would really not be the ideal as far as audio latency goes.

Apparently yes, according to EvilDragon. Not very difficult to find out, just run it once and then try to run it again.

It's just basic multitasking. Linux does have a much better, more stable, and more optimized multitasking engine than windows, and the reason is simple: thousands of people across the world have been working hard to improve it in the last 20 years. It's all about improving and creating the best you can create. On the other hand, you have a completely sh*tty, selfish, monopolistic corporation selling either complete junk or stolen products and ideas for about 35 years, and they'll make their products only "good" enough to sell, sell, and sell - in order to make even more money on "upgrades" and on tech support. It's all about the money, marketing, presentation, and facade. And of course grabbing control of pretty much everything they can.

/* edit */ Someone mentioned BSD earlier.... on the topic of selling stolen products, did you know that most of windows's network functionality, at least as of about 5-10 years ago, was stolen directly from a BSD system? (no one really knows which exactly) ...this was proven by a vulnerability in the BSD tcp/ip code, which also affected all windows versions in the exact same way. I don't remember the exact details, but you can look it up.

Source, numbers, benchmarks? Anything CONCRETE to back up your claim apart from subjective bias?

More stable? I don't remember when Windows crashed over multitasking. Even XP was pretty good, but W7 is rock-solid. As for efficiency, W10 is really extremely efficient.

You're proposing the claim, the onus is on you to submit the evidence.

This imbecile (raises hand) maybe can't play the piano/keyboards as well as you Piet, but still can certainly make the claim that, in spite of being an imbecile, has helped many people who were, as mentioned earlier, FED UP with microsoft and all their bull...uh, crud.. to get rid of this rather dodgy company and their deficient products, by simply installing a free distro of a free OS on their computer. (this imbecile's own parents, neighbour's mother, friends, etc) For the several weeks/months/years since then, these people have been very happy with their computer, occasionally asking this imbecile for advice/assistance on certain points, but still very happy overall.

(btw, childish name calling is where it's officially no longer censorship, but good practice to lock down a thread. No idea if you did this on purpose, but anyway)

Please read the above posts more carefully.

Sounds like a personal attack on forum members and their opinions to me.  It's one thing to criticize WinDO$ and another thing to start throwing insults at forum members who are highly contented Pianoteq owners expressing honest and well founded opinions.  It's amazing that the monopoly O$ includes many whiners, but then again it's totally understandable.

Really?? That's awesome!!!

Exactly the kind of fact i've been pointing out all along this thread, and for which i've been called a "dick", a "linuxified microsoft-bashing imbecile", accused of mindless, unsubstantiated ranting, and so on.

But what do you want to hear guys, it's the truth.

Actually the title of the thread is: "Windows 10? Anything we should know?"  We haven't been off topic, we've been talking about WinDO$.  Having reflected on the subject, it's a bit ridiculous that apparently there is or was a high probability that there could be problems running Pianoteq on WinDO$ 10.  I would never start a thread entitled.  "Upgrading to the latest version of Linux Mint, anything I should know?"  Generally there are no significant problems upgrading Linux distributions at least when it comes to running an application like Pianoteq.  But as WinDO$ users have pointed out, 10 is just a partially finished facelift of 7, so basically it's the same baggage as before, but with a new identity tag.  I wonder if M$ has in its plans the development of a virtual piano so they can monopolize that market too?  One scenario I can envision is that M$ buys out Modartt, and calls it "M$piano," at which point they would pull the Linux version off the market.  This would be in line with their past practices.

THANK YOU for pointing that out to whoever thinks that

Incidentally, as i mentioned in another thread, windows still lugs around with it TONS of issues from its "prehistoric" DOS days. And M$ business practices haven't varied much over the last 30 years.

Has happened to many programs before. Is likely to happen to pianoteq sometime soon? Is something the OP of this thread would be interested in knowing? Apparently such points of interest are "off topic" and "mindless, unsubtantiated ranting" in this thread.....

...and none of them are running linux

The reason medical applications sometimes end up staying on legacy applications is because the regulatory industry (sic) has such onerous audit requirements for medical devices, the device manufacturers often simply cannot afford/don't have the resources to fully re-test things every time and upgrade is available.  That was certainly something I encountered when working in software engineering in that sector.

I've also worked in IT depts on NHS Trusts in the UK, however, and aside from these legacy applications, all the basic server and desktop infrastructure was generally well up to date (eg the one I worked at was doing its Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 roll-out in Q1/2 of 2010, which was pretty prompt.

That's what they said with windows 95. Then with 98. Then with pretty much every version since then. It's true that since XP, the whole windows core + graphic shell isn't just a DOS application like it was before. Actually that was the case with NT as well even before XP, NT was proven to be heavily based on code stolen from IBM that was left over from MS dropping their half of the OS/2 project and deciding to dominate the world with windows - they just slapped the windows UI and the microsoft name on top of it. You can easily look this up on wikipedia or elsewhere on the web, before you point the finger at me and start your childish name-calling this time. (personally, i clearly remember this little incident from my high school / college days) Then they re-used that same "kernel" code in pretty much every windows since then. (a kernel in a DLL file, lmao)

The whole unix mentality is that you develop a tool that does one job, does that job reliably, and does it well. Then, for more complex tasks, you combine such tools. So if a tool or piece of code that was written, and written well, 60 years ago is still being used today, so what? We're still at the exact opposite of microsoft's failed jell-o of broken functionality attempt at the "swiss army knife" of computing that doesn't know if it's a browser, an OS, a word processor, or any or none or all of the above.

The Unix model was designed to be able to adapt to future technologies. That's why it's still used today, not because some greedy corporation is forcing it down everyone's throat. Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD etc. along with the GNU project are complete rewrites of this model, so they obviously don't have any common source code with the original Unix from Bell Labs / AT&T, even though of course much of the functionality is the same. I can't say about OS X or other commercial Unix-based systems, because most of their components are closed-sourced and therefore there's no easy way of knowing if they re-used/stole code from the original AT&T Unix.

Nah, they both serve their intended purpose very well.

Open-source/GNU Unix systems:

* Give freedom to the user
* Create open, well-documented standards that everyone can freely use and improve
* Be free of charge
* Be free as in free speech
* Be easily adapted to new technologies

Microsoft products:

* Put a cage around the user
* Corrupt the IT market with closed, proprietary standards that are purposely designed to not work with anything non-microsoft
* Bring even more money to microsoft
* Bring even more power to microsoft over their user base, among other things forcing them in a perpetual "upgrade cycle"
* Clobber and destroy any technologies that go against microsoft's strangle grip of the IT market (fortunately a few technologies have escaped this fate)
* Use their existing monopolies to creep into other markets (gaming, cell phones, non-computer/broadcast/printed media...)
* Start the same cycle again in those markets

btw, do you always see thing so black-or-white, or are you joking? Windows wasn't originally based "only" on stolen unix code. As i mentioned before, it started out as a "pretty face" for DOS. DOS was first known as QDOS, which stood for Quick'n Dirty Operating System. This was heavily based on a system called CP/M which was popular in the 1970's for those early intel-based computers you plugged on a TV - CP/M in turn was a cheap imitation of the first Unix systems from the late 1960's. As for stolen unix code, around the 3.1x / NT times, windows also "acquired" networking functionality from BSD systems (a few other systems also did, but at least these credited and made the source code of these networking components available) I've said all this before, but here it is again with links to references.

dude, you really need to (1) read the whole post before replying and (2) think of a better comeback.