The article is about windows 10 insider preview ISO. It's not meant to be used by anyone more than crazy techies who are prepared for it to explode at any point. Not grandmas, like this article would like to imply.
If you can't figure out how to create a bootable USB from ISO, this version is not for you.
> The article is about windows 10 insider preview ISO.
Windows 7/8 are equally ridiculous and they RTM'd. There's a tool from MS but it won't be able to crate a bootable USB if you run EFI, because the part that's supposed to write the MBR to USB will output an error (because why would you need to write MBR if you don't have BIOS..). So instead I found a working solution which is to copy files in Linux and then install LILO on USB key which is smart enough to know how to boot windows installer.
I have no idea why they don't produce hybrid isos like all other distros, where dd is a sure-fire way of getting a bootable usb.
We're about five weeks from public launch. It should be close to finished. If they are planning on making big changes to the install process then it's a little late to be doing that. It's not a good idea to have a very technical beta version and say at the last second "righto we're switching to something easy top use at the last second!".
Why wouldn't they? This is one part which is not related to the system itself. If they're scheduling changes, then core system stuff definitely goes in before installers. Who knows, they may even have a better installer ready and just don't care enough to give it to early access - good way to filter out non-technical testers.
Basically what I'm saying is - it's closed development with closed invisible schedule and unknown list of final features and changes. If you're an insider and think installer can be improved, report a bug. I believe the insider program exists exactly for that reason.
Also, no "normal person" will install this from an ISO. People will get 10 either preinstalled or as an upgrade. The recovery disks will be more important for them.
I don't agree that a clean Windows installation is a process for experts and can therefore withstand being overly technical. If anything it should be the complete opposite - a clean install should be so incredibly smooth that the most basic of users can do it.
I'm also not convinced that ordinary people will never do a clean Windows install - unless of course it's so damn hard that they can't.
You also don't have me convinced that five weeks out from release that the very first step of the installation process should not be finalised - it should be. If anything this first point of user contact should almost be the first thing finalised when an operating system like Windows is developed. This is the point that my blog posts make - Microsoft just doesn't understand what matters, which in my opinion, is the user experience from step one. What the heck is being testing in a gigantic public beta test if not the users first point of contact with the OS?
"a clean install should be so incredibly smooth that the most basic of users can do it."
That's ridiculous.
A "clean" install (at least one intended for any end-user population) has a very complex path to traverse. First, it has to check for existing partitioning, O/S content and version, and the presence of any user data files so that the installing party has the option of 1) aborting the install, in case he wasn't aware of legacy content on the drive(s), and 2) whether to do an update-install (preserving user data files) or a destructive install.
If this install is going on a bare, never-formatted drive, then I think that hardly applies to the "ordinary (non-computer-savvy) people" case... as I think such a user would be daunted by having to decide partitioning, boot record placement, reservations for recovery or other proprietary partitions, swap space, etc.
Now, an intelligent install can give suggested configurations based on available space and scope of features being installed, as any good Linux distro does... but I think a total beginner will be given pause by the prompt to confirm that they are destroying all existing data... and rightfully so.
He says he used an "old" Windows 7 machine in creating the bootable USB3 stick... but did that old machine and its drivers even properly support USB3?
He then gripes about the relative ease of use of Linux in contrast to Windows 10... but nowhere does he say that he used a USB3 stick with the Linux prep also. Is he comparing apples to oranges?
Has the author done a Windows 7 or 8 install from scratch to allow a basis for comparison to Win10-specific complaints? (Frankly, I find Windows 8/8.1 factory installs to be more messed up than any install/upgrade I've done from scratch... including MSXML missing, and "class not registered" errors on every first backup attempt.)
If you can't figure out how to create a bootable USB from ISO, this version is not for you.