Windows 10 will include a command line package manager

With Windows 10, however, we are finally getting an official package manager: OneGet. In the current build of Windows 10 Technical Preview, you can open up PowerShell and use OneGet to install thousands of applications with commands such as Find-Package VLC and Install-Package Firefox. OneGet seems to implement all of the usual functions that you’d expect from a package manager. You can search for packages, add new sources/repos, uninstall packages, install packages, and so on. OneGet uses the same package format as Chocolatey, one of the most popular third-party package managers for Windows (and indeed, you can add the Chocolatey repo to OneGet if you so wish).
Source : Windows 10 will come with a command line package manager, much to the lament of Linux users | ExtremeTech
 
This might end up being one of those features I think will be neat, and I'll try it, and I'll be glad it's there because it achieves parity with Linux in that respect, and then maybe never use again. But on the other hand I can see that for some specific pieces of software or components, or maybe for power users it would actually be easier to do it this way rather than using a GUI setup wizard or whatever. Perhaps the command line would be more flexible/powerful.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 Pro x64
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Custom built/assembled myself
    CPU
    AMD FX-8350 Black Edition
    Motherboard
    ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0
    Memory
    16 GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3 1866
    Graphics Card(s)
    Gigabyte Radeon R9 280X Windforce
    Sound Card
    On-board audio
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 27" LCD
    Screen Resolution
    2560 x 1440
    Hard Drives
    Samsung 840 EVO 250 GB SSD
    Western Digital Caviar Black 2.0 TB SATA-3
    PSU
    Corsair HX850W
    Case
    Cooler Master HAF XM
    Cooling
    Stock
    Keyboard
    Logitech MK520 wireless
    Mouse
    Logitech MK520 wireless
    Internet Speed
    22 Mbps
    Browser
    IE/Chrome/Firefox
    Antivirus
    Windows Defender, Malwarebytes
Ew ew ew... It reeks of Linux. The single thing that pissed me off the most about 7/8 was explorer. It had a whole Linux feel to it, including the address breadcrumb, which I'd only seen in Ubuntu prior to 7. The whole MS trying to make Windows look and behave like Linux cheapened the Windows experience for me... XP was the only true windows for me.

The reason why Microsoft became a successful company in the first place was b/c they made computers accessible to non-geek types. Linux is pure geekiness, and this would be Microsoft's latest attempt at emulating nerdism...
 
Last edited:

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 7
Reeks of Linux? Cannot understand why somebody would not want to use a utility that could update almost everything on your computer with a single command.

XP was what it was at the time. Security was terrible, boxes were infected with all kinds of bad stuff. Blue screens were more prevalent. Boxes would slow down and get reinstalled every couple of months. Versions of IE were terrible. It's very old, it doesn't take advantage of changes in underlying hardware. I cannot imagine all being on XP.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 7
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Self-Built in July 2009
    CPU
    Intel Q9550 2.83Ghz OC'd to 3.40Ghz
    Motherboard
    Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R rev. 1.1, F12 BIOS
    Memory
    8GB G.Skill PI DDR2-800, 4-4-4-12 timings
    Graphics Card(s)
    EVGA 1280MB Nvidia GeForce GTX570
    Sound Card
    Realtek ALC899A 8 channel onboard audio
    Monitor(s) Displays
    23" Acer x233H
    Screen Resolution
    1920x1080
    Hard Drives
    Intel X25-M 80GB Gen 2 SSD
    Western Digital 1TB Caviar Black, 32MB cache. WD1001FALS
    PSU
    Corsair 620HX modular
    Case
    Antec P182
    Cooling
    stock
    Keyboard
    ABS M1 Mechanical
    Mouse
    Logitech G9 Laser Mouse
    Internet Speed
    15/2 cable modem
    Other Info
    Windows and Linux enthusiast. Logitech G35 Headset.
Reeks of Linux? Cannot understand why somebody would not want to use a utility that could update almost everything on your computer with a single command.

XP was what it was at the time. Security was terrible, boxes were infected with all kinds of bad stuff. Blue screens were more prevalent. Boxes would slow down and get reinstalled every couple of months. Versions of IE were terrible. It's very old, it doesn't take advantage of changes in underlying hardware. I cannot imagine all being on XP.

Pardon me? I can get up to 8X the fps in DirectX 9 games in XP (compared to 7/8). Also, my NET 3.5 apps run 8X more smoothly in XP compared to 7/8 (I've benchmarked it to 7/8 using the NET 4.5 version, which is more "native" to 8). So, you're telling me all these stats indicate XP is an inferior OS to 7/8? Note: The latter is the real reason why I'm on XP most of the time on any win 7/8 machine that has XP drivers.

I wish I could approach a Windows exec and show them: This is how my app behaves in XP. This is how it behaves when recompiled for the latest .NET framework in 7/8. Why has my computer gone back to the stone age when I retarget the same source code for the latter OSes?
 
Last edited:

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 7
Well what a miracle: Very old DX9 games run more smoothly on the very old os they were designed for (Win XP) than they do on the latest os. Why is it that I am not really surprised by this result? How many FPS do you get running a DX 10 or 11 game on XP? Oh wait, they do not run on XP? Oh, that's a shame, isn't it? I for my part am very happy that XP is finally dead. XP was designed in the pre-internet era and was one big security threat to all pc's out there.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 Update 1
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    self built
    CPU
    AMD FX-8350
    Motherboard
    Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 Rev. 3
    Memory
    16 GB
    Graphics Card(s)
    Zotac GTX 770 Amp 2 GB
    Browser
    Firefox
    Antivirus
    GDATA Internet Security
Well what a miracle: Very old DX9 games run more smoothly on the very old os they were designed for (Win XP) than they do on the latest os. Why is it that I am not really surprised by this result? How many FPS do you get running a DX 10 or 11 game on XP? Oh wait, they do not run on XP? Oh, that's a shame, isn't it? I for my part am very happy that XP is finally dead. XP was designed in the pre-internet era and was one big security threat to all pc's out there.


1. Wow, somebody clearly didn't read the rest of my post.
2. I'm not a gamer. I only used some DX 9 games for benchmarking
3. I'm re-compiling (edit: RECOMPILING, can't emphasize enuf) some .NET apps for W7/8. In "gaming terms", it would be something akin to taking some DX9 game's source code and make it run on DX11, except I don't have to edit anything b/c the source code doesn't use any "legacy" libraries only found in "older" WinXP. My computer gets sent back to the stone age in "DX11"...
4. I used to joke (elsewhere) that in 10 years, Windows [ ] on some future machine will have the same performance as my current rig on XP...
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 7
In fact I did read your entire post. And I do understand what compiling means. But this does not mean your examples are meaningful at all. We don't know the specs of your pc, we don't know how well you recompiled the apps and we don't know how you intend to measure the smoothness of your apps so you can compare how well they run on XP and Windows 8. What's more there is a significant flaw in your approach of comparing performance. In order to compare XP to Windows 8 you would have to take hardware that was designed for Windows XP (say a very old pentium single core cpu, a very old gpu plus say 500 MB of Ram) and compare that hardware to current hardware that is designed to run Windows 8. Then run your apps on those machines, this way you would get a meaningful comparison. I can also take a program that was written for Windows 95 (say a very old version of MS Word), install Windows 95 on relatively new pc. Then I could run that very old version of MS Word on Windows 8 on the same machine (probably I would also have to adapt it's code) and it would most likely perform very poorly. No, such a comparison would by no means say anything more than the fact the the days of Windows 95 are long gone.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 Update 1
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    self built
    CPU
    AMD FX-8350
    Motherboard
    Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 Rev. 3
    Memory
    16 GB
    Graphics Card(s)
    Zotac GTX 770 Amp 2 GB
    Browser
    Firefox
    Antivirus
    GDATA Internet Security
In fact I did read your entire post. And I do understand what compiling means. But this does not mean your examples are meaningful at all. We don't know the specs of your pc, we don't know how well you recompiled the apps and we don't know how you intend to measure the smoothness of your apps so you can compare how well they run on XP and Windows 8. What's more there is a significant flaw in your approach of comparing performance. In order to compare XP to Windows 8 you would have to take hardware that was designed for Windows XP (say a very old pentium single core cpu, a very old gpu plus say 500 MB of Ram) and compare that hardware to current hardware that is designed to run Windows 8. Then run your apps on those machines, this way you would get a meaningful comparison. I can also take a program that was written for Windows 95 (say a very old version of MS Word), install Windows 95 on relatively new pc. Then I could run that very old version of MS Word on Windows 8 on the same machine (probably I would also have to adapt it's code) and it would most likely perform very poorly. No, such a comparison would by no means say anything more than the fact the the days of Windows 95 are long gone.

None of it really matters. The end result is XP runs circles around 7/8/9 many times over on the same hardware...
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 7
Those running Windows 10 Tech Preview, here's the tut on our sister site Ten Forums on how to get testing PowerShell OneGet: PowerShell OneGet - Install Apps from Command Line

It uses Chocolatey's repository, Chocolatey itself works well from command line even in Windows 8 & 8.1. Eight Forums Tutorial: http://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/56275-chocolatey-install-apps-command-line.html

I like both and use them as much as I can, in repository already 2,300+ applications.

Cannot understand why somebody would not want to use a utility that could update almost everything on your computer with a single command.
Exactly :). New installation, as soon as you arrive to Desktop first time you want to install your usual stuff, let's be modest and install only WinRAR, Adobe Reader, VLC, Chrome, Firefox and Opera, latest versions of each except I do not like the latest versions of FireFox so let's install version 28 of that. Some prefer to do this by browsing to respective sites, clicking this and that to get download, then unselect all "Do you also want to install this excellent piece of software?" offers, installing then all one by one accepting licenses and repeatedly clicking Next.

I prefer giving one command instead...
Code:
Install-Package -Name WinRAR, AdobeReader, VLC, Chrome, Firefox -RequiredVersion 28.0, Opera
... and go get some coffee, all apps installed when I come back.

Or do you prefer to select apps to install from a list:
Code:
Find-Package | Out-GridView -PassThru | Install-Package
Now select the apps you want to install and click OK to install all of them.

The above was Windows 10 PowerShell OneGet. In Windows 8.1 using Chocolatey my usual apps could be installed with:
Code:
Choco Install WinRAR, AdobeReader, VLC, Chrome, Firefox, Opera
Want to update all your installed apps at the same time:
Code:
Choco Update All

Kari
 
Last edited:

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 Pro with Media Center
    Computer type
    Laptop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    HP ENVY 17-1150eg
    CPU
    1.6 GHz Intel Core i7-720QM Processor
    Memory
    6 GB
    Graphics Card(s)
    ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5850 Graphics
    Sound Card
    Beats sound system with integrated subwoofer
    Monitor(s) Displays
    17" laptop display, 22" LED and 32" Full HD TV through HDMI
    Screen Resolution
    1600*900 (1), 1920*1080 (2&3)
    Hard Drives
    Internal: 2 x 500 GB SATA Hard Disk Drive 7200 rpm
    External: 2TB for backups, 3TB USB3 network drive for media
    Cooling
    As Envy runs a bit warm, I have it on a Cooler Master pad
    Keyboard
    Logitech diNovo Media Desktop Laser (bluetooth)
    Mouse
    Logitech MX1000 Laser (Bluetooth)
    Internet Speed
    50 MB VDSL
    Browser
    Maxthon 3.5.2., IE11
    Antivirus
    Windows Defender 4.3.9431.0
    Other Info
    Windows in English, additional user accounts in Finnish, German and Swedish.
Pardon me? I can get up to 8X the fps in DirectX 9 games in XP (compared to 7/8).
8x as many FPS? So, if you only get 30 frames per second under Windows 7, you were getting 240 frames per second under Windows 8. That seriously doesn't sound right. I could see a little swing in either direction, but not 8x as many.

Also, my NET 3.5 apps run 8X more smoothly in XP compared to 7/8 (I've benchmarked it to 7/8 using the NET 4.5 version, which is more "native" to 8).
I don't know what to tell you there. While I work for a software development company, I do systems admin stuff for a living. But I don't have any developers in house grumbling about wanting to get XP machines back because it did everything better.

So, you're telling me all these stats indicate XP is an inferior OS to 7/8?
Yes, I do feel XP is inferior and you are better suited with a new OS on your newer hardware. For example, 32bit Windows XP won't do much with that 8GB or 16GB of RAM, it will only provide you access to 3.25GB of it. And 64bit Windows XP was just terrible. There is a lack of TRIM support for SSD's under XP, you have to get support from the hardware vendor if they have it. Dual monitor support is far better in 7 and 8. Accounts were actual admins in Windows XP and thus boxes were often attacked. The newer limited user model is much improved in that respect. Not perfect, but a step in the right direction.

The biggest reason I find that people like to continue running XP is that it was easier to pirate by having a VLK.

If it's working better for you, I'm happy for you. I didn't love XP when it was out and the second that 7 came out, I was done with XP.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 7
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Self-Built in July 2009
    CPU
    Intel Q9550 2.83Ghz OC'd to 3.40Ghz
    Motherboard
    Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R rev. 1.1, F12 BIOS
    Memory
    8GB G.Skill PI DDR2-800, 4-4-4-12 timings
    Graphics Card(s)
    EVGA 1280MB Nvidia GeForce GTX570
    Sound Card
    Realtek ALC899A 8 channel onboard audio
    Monitor(s) Displays
    23" Acer x233H
    Screen Resolution
    1920x1080
    Hard Drives
    Intel X25-M 80GB Gen 2 SSD
    Western Digital 1TB Caviar Black, 32MB cache. WD1001FALS
    PSU
    Corsair 620HX modular
    Case
    Antec P182
    Cooling
    stock
    Keyboard
    ABS M1 Mechanical
    Mouse
    Logitech G9 Laser Mouse
    Internet Speed
    15/2 cable modem
    Other Info
    Windows and Linux enthusiast. Logitech G35 Headset.
Back
Top