[OFFICIAL] Windows 10 Insider Program

[HawkMan]

No one asked if spartan would get touch gestures like modern IE.

 

just upgraded my miix2 11 as well, and one website in I realize how much no gesture back sucks...

[Ian W]

Q: Where did the billion of settings in old IE go in Spartan? Feels like the settings menu is very empty.

A: We thought 1 billion might be too many. Let us know which settings you want to see back! (Link)

Seriously?

[Dot Matrix]

Spartan is a modern application, and wont be on Windows 7...

Seriously?

Options are good, but too many is too many.

[Ian W]

Options are good, but too many is too many.

How many is too many?

[Dot Matrix]

How many is too many?

This many. Seriously, I can't describe how much I HATE this damn window.

 

[Ian W]

This many. Seriously, I can't describe how much I HATE this damn window.

 

Options.PNG

While I agree that the options could be presented in a better manner I would hate to wave goodbye to them. They're not hurting anything, are they?

[Dot Matrix]

While I agree that the options could be presented in a better manner I would hate to wave goodbye to them. They're not hurting anything, are they?

They're legacy options. They should remain with IE, and not be moved to Spartan.

[Ian W]

They're legacy options. They should remain with IE, and not be moved to Spartan.

I must respectfully disagree. I am curious though about your position, though. Would you consider the accessibility options to be legacy? I would hope not.

[Bryan R.]

I must respectfully disagree. I am curious though about your position, though. Would you consider the accessibility options to be legacy? I would hope not.

 

When you start comparing IE to other modern browsers and how they manage to get by without inundating the user with this many options then you might start to agree. Seriously read through all the options and tell me how many really need to be there?

[+Zagadka Subscriber²]

While I agree that the options could be presented in a better manner I would hate to wave goodbye to them. They're not hurting anything, are they?

 

I would imagine they could still be accessed by something like chrome://flags

[Ian W]

When you start comparing IE to other modern browsers and how they manage to get by without inundating the user with this many options then you might start to agree.

No, I won't.

Seriously read through all the options and tell me how many really need to be there?

That really depends on the user, doesn't it? I myself don't need the accessibility options, for example, but I am certain that there are others who do. I don't see how having more options is a bad thing as it makes the browser more customizable . . .

I would imagine they could still be accessed by something like chrome://flags

To be honest that doesn't sound like a bad idea . . . It would certainly be better than removing the options altogether.

[Mugwump00]

WRT pinning IE sites it seems that either actual Tiles (in their smallest form) will come to the Taskbar (and other shell locations) or a major, TV advertised component of Windows 7+ will be FUBAR'd and no longer provide the same convenience or functionality.

As a jaded MS watcher I really hope they have a rabbit left in their hat. What are the chances tho..?

[George P Global Moderator]

There's probably a good number of options in IE that don't apply to Spartan anymore because of legacy code that's been dropped, like for example, the whole "compatibility view" options in IE. That's no longer a thing in Spartan so it's gone, why just copy over options as is from IE?

 

As long as the core options are there then it's fine really. There's also options missing that are coming in a later build, like the download manager options and future extension options.

[Dot Matrix]

I must respectfully disagree. I am curious though about your position, though. Would you consider the accessibility options to be legacy? I would hope not.

Accessibility is different than classic ActiveX and BHO options. There's multimedia options in there yet from Windows 95. Yikes.

 

Some of this stuff just needs to go. Inundating the user with this stuff just really isn't necessary.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

There's probably a good number of options in IE that don't apply to Spartan anymore because of legacy code that's been dropped, like for example, the whole "compatibility view" options in IE. That's no longer a thing in Spartan so it's gone, why just copy over options as is from IE?

 

As long as the core options are there then it's fine really. There's also options missing that are coming in a later build, like the download manager options and future extension options.

 

Most people probably do not feel the importance of compatibility mode unless you live in the Enterprise world.  Just about every work related .mil site I go to has to run in compatibility mode.  Ranging from online training modules to approving my civilians timecards and everything in between.

 

Obviously, by time Windows 10 makes its way to our computers (many...many...many years...if ever) ... the sites could be "fixed" though they are very slow to change.

[Dot Matrix]

Most people probably do not feel the importance of compatibility mode unless you live in the Enterprise world.  Just about every work related .mil site I go to has to run in compatibility mode.  Ranging from online training modules to approving my civilians timecards and everything in between.

 

Obviously, by time Windows 10 makes its way to our computers (many...many...many years...if ever) ... the sites could be "fixed" though they are very slow to change.

You're going to risk the security of your computers by dragging your feet? Please. If the boss wants to update, you'll update. Windows 7 loses support in the next 5 years. IE 11 will retain compatibility mode.

[MikeM97]

Please , can someone check if this is still alive in the 10049 build ?

[George P Global Moderator]

Most people probably do not feel the importance of compatibility mode unless you live in the Enterprise world.  Just about every work related .mil site I go to has to run in compatibility mode.  Ranging from online training modules to approving my civilians timecards and everything in between.

 

Obviously, by time Windows 10 makes its way to our computers (many...many...many years...if ever) ... the sites could be "fixed" though they are very slow to change.

 

That has little to do with Spartan though, it's why IE is still going to be part of windows 10, just for that business support that needs it.

 

You won't be using Spartan for any intranet sites or apps at work, just for the web and mostly for consumers.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

You're going to risk the security of your computers by dragging your feet? Please. If the boss wants to update, you'll update. Windows 7 loses support in the next 5 years. IE 11 will retain compatibility mode.

 

What are you talking about?

 

That has little to do with Spartan though, it's why IE is still going to be part of windows 10, just for that business support that needs it.

 

You won't be using Spartan for any intranet sites or apps at work, just for the web and mostly for consumers.

 

Oh yea...true enough.

[Dashel]

I would imagine they could still be accessed by something like chrome://flags

Is that somehow less obtuse than the current advanced window?  I agree it needs a good degree of cleanup but lets not get ridiculous.  Its funny that the advanced screen is called out and not lower hanging fruit like 'connections', cause we all setup our dialup through there.

[Guest]

It is still infuriating beyond belief. Connecting to the VM in Hyper-V doesn't work half the time. I don't know if this is an issue with 10, or with Hyper-V in 8.1.

 

It is also slow, incredibly slow. Even with 4 CPU cores and 2 GBs of RAM in the VM.

[Bryan R.]

It is still infuriating beyond belief. Connecting to the VM in Hyper-V doesn't work half the time. I don't know if this is an issue with 10, or with Hyper-V in 8.1.

 

It is also slow, incredibly slow. Even with 4 CPU cores and 2 GBs of RAM in the VM.

I've been using Hyper-v heavily for every build thus far and haven't actually had any issues with Hyper-V itself. Some apps like Hulu don't work with Hyper-V installed though.

[Guest]

I've been using Hyper-v heavily for every build thus far and haven't actually had any issues with Hyper-V itself. Some apps like Hulu don't work with Hyper-V installed though.

 

My HDD where the VM is located is at 100% usage all time when running the VM, without ANYTHING at all happening, and it is slowing down so much that any kind of testing is pretty much impossible. It is a non-system HDD where I only store VMs, movies and games, yet still any VM is barely usable. I don't know what I am doing wrong, VMs in VMware were NEVER that slow and I was even playing games in them before switching to Hyper-V where the performance is just terrible at best.

 

EDIT: The connection to the VM also seems to crash from time to time if I try to do too many things at once and the VM cannot catch up. Giving up on this, I don't know what the problem is. Is my 5400 RPM HDD not good enough for a single VM without anything else running on it?

[PGHammer]

It is still infuriating beyond belief. Connecting to the VM in Hyper-V doesn't work half the time. I don't know if this is an issue with 10, or with Hyper-V in 8.1.

 

It is also slow, incredibly slow. Even with 4 CPU cores and 2 GBs of RAM in the VM.

elenarie - that particular issue (with Hyper-V) has more to due with the differences between it and other virtualization solutions.  Both VirtualBox and VMware have very *centralized* networking - Hyper-V does not.  Hyper-V has a virtual switch for every network adapter physically present/enabled - for example, my newest (and also my only portable) Hyper-V box has both a wired AND a wireless adapter - this means two virtual switches; one for each adapter.  While that means that I can actually segregate VM Internet traffic from host traffic (which requires extra effort from VirtualBox or VMware), it's not exactly common thinking in terms of non-corporate virtualization

 

Also, if you are running a quad-core CPU, add an additional core to the VM - the default (all VM solutions) is one core per running VM.

 

Lastly, Hyper-V in 10 (compared to 8.1) will be somewhat slower due to the debug code being still present (and features being in flux - it's why I won't be using Hyper-V in 10 for mobile development just yet - instead, that will remain the provence of Server 2012R2 and my core Hyper-V box.

[Bryan R.]

My HDD where the VM is located is at 100% usage all time when running the VM, without ANYTHING at all happening, and it is slowing down so much that any kind of testing is pretty much impossible. It is a non-system HDD where I only store VMs, movies and games, yet still any VM is barely usable. I don't know what I am doing wrong, VMs in VMware were NEVER that slow and I was even playing games in them before switching to Hyper-V where the performance is just terrible at best.

EDIT: The connection to the VM also seems to crash from time to time if I try to do too many things at once and the VM cannot catch up. Giving up on this, I don't know what the problem is. Is my 5400 RPM HDD not good enough for a single VM without anything else running on it?

As a point of reference, my VM is running Server 2012, handles all of my house multimedia streaming and downloading so it can get pretty intense system-wide during moments of gaming on the same machine. I am running two drives in RAID1, separate from the system as well. They are western digital black drives though. 5400RPM may be your problem.