That makes no sense at all. Why would either company want that? Google apps on WP, maybe, but I don't buy the play store. That wouldn't benefit either party.
While we technically don't know what's going to be announced, Kettch is correct, the expectations/rumors are about Lumia and SP4.
"The size of the downloaded files are 3GB. (this is NOT the full upgrade package despite misleading headlines)"
"Why the issue is being raised again now, almost 2 months after the public launch, really makes you question the source."
It's not new, and Microsoft responded 2 months ago.
I really dislike the delivery, but the message isn't entirely off base. Delivering 3G of files through WU on the off chance the user will want to upgrade does seem wrong. Daniel Rubino's (whom I do respect) admonishment of "bad IT" doesn't really cut it for me. There's not always an IT admin, after all. Not to mention this sort of thing should be opt-in, not opt-out. So, unless I totally don't understand what the three articles have said, I somewhat side with the OP.
That said, as was pointed out in some of the articles, this isn't something new. This was reported several months ago, and Microsoft responded (even if I disagree with the response). So, nothing to see here, move along.
I've had this problem, but have always been able to "fix" it, at least temporarily, just by "fiddling" (IOW, I don't know exactly which click, press, bang, curse, reboot or animal sacrifice fixed the issue).
@ScottWelker: Then why are you here? Just because you think something should be different doesn't make it the right way to do it. If you are unhappy with how things turned out then go someplace else and don't look back. If you think any other company is going to listen to you even a fraction of what Microsoft does then you are severely deluded. You think Apple gives a flip about what you think?
I feel bad for Microsoft at times dealing with all of these spoiled children.
This is dangerously close to calling someone on here names.
Wow, couldn't agree more. Unknown (to me) site, extremely poorly written article, no "real" insight, and some speculation about things that seem unlikely (1 TB drive?) but zero mention of things that seem a given (facial recognition camera). Extremely wild speculation at best, and nothing of real interest even within that. Why did we share this article?
This paragraph is really the root of what you're saying, and a big part of what the OP said as well. And it's simply wrong.
Yes, Windows 7 was popular, as the OS that "fixed Vista". But there were still plenty of complaints. Many of them the same complaints that have been made here. You can easily find posts on this site complaining that the icons in Windows 7 were a mishmash of Win 3.1, Win95 and XP, with no cohesive design.
Win10 has actually improved things here, a LOT. That said, I agree it's still a mess. But, it always has been, and frankly, IMHO, the other platforms aren't really any better, other than they have fewer decades of legacy cruft.
Modern Apps bondsbw has this one correct. Modern apps are not about mobile at all anymore. One could argue they never were, though there's no denying the extremely heavy focus on mobile with all of Win8. If this is your complaint, however, I don't understand why you're on Win8 or how Win10 couldn't be seen as anything but an improvement here?
Edge this is version 1.0, and as such, is actually a really impressive browser. I'd love to know which sites you visit that are improperly rendered, because I've not seen any yet. Since I doubt you use IE, I don't see how your opinion here matters much, however. If you do use IE and actually think Edge is a step back... I doubt you'll find many that agree.
Start Menu some of your complaints here are valid, but the hate on the tiles colors your post for me. Don't like them, then get rid of them. Problem solved, no? I do agree, however, that this is an area where they still have work to do.
Dual Monitor Support I honestly can't comment here. I use dual monitors all the time, but I have yet to install Win10 on such a system. Some of the things you complain about I find surprising, and assuming you're correct this would be a very legitimate complaint.
Cortana Can't agree with much of what was said. Cortana's voice recognition is far better than any other voice recognition I've used. Far from perfect, but no one's gotten this one down yet. It works often enough to be useful... though I'll be honest I type to Cortana far more often than I speak to her. As for her "just returning Bing searches", well, that's what most people would expect. All of the digital assistants mostly just return a web search. Is the complaint that it uses Bing instead of Google? If so, all I can say is "Duh!"
Automatic Driver Updates like everyone else does? Yes, in the PC world this is a whole lot more difficult, but regular uses expect it and can't really be expected to update them themselves. This is mostly a damned if you do and damned if you don't area. What they could do is allow people to opt out. That complaint I get, and mostly agree with.
Multiple Desktops are not really a new feature. They've only exposed it via the shell for the first time. I see little here that I'd consider to be any different than any other OS has done, so I don't get the negativity.
GUI Uniformit I already covered this. You're not wrong, but it's also nothing new, it's better than it has been, and every other platform has problems here.
Nothing wrong with this code, but I do have some criticisms.
1. I dislike the use of the DCL pattern here. You've implemented it correctly on .NET, but there's absolutely no reason to have gone to all this work. A static constructor would have accomplished the same thing with far less code to maintain. In general, this is always the case for "singleton" type designs. For non-singleton designs where you need to create an object in a thread safe manner, Lazy<T> is a better option than rolling your own DCL. The need for rolling your own DCL mechanism in .NET is so rare that I bet most developers never need to, despite the fact that most seem to do it anyway. :S
2. You've over used static here. Other than "instance" none of the static fields should have been static. Honestly, even making Cache a "static" in this way is at least a bit problematic, as there's no way to mock out this service when unit testing other bits that rely on it. Yes, I know lots of framework classes are designed this way, but most of them aren't bits you'd want to mock out and many of them actually just provide implementations for interfaces that you'd supply (inject) anyway, such as the IComparable classes.
3. Cache itself is an extremely thin wrapper around MemoryCache. You may have a reason to need such a wrapper, but I don't see it as being a reusable bit of code considering what little it does.