JorgeA

A fantastic post, the effect of which is ruined by the title which I will therefore leave out so that you can get the maximum effect: I also omitted the link (which is another giveaway) so that you could read the above without spoiling the effect. Here's the link: --JorgeA

Another lukewarm review for Windows 10: Windows 10: A SYSADMIN speaks his brains – and says MEH --JorgeA EDIT: typo

Hahahaha, depending on which way the photons are traveling when you go in to check, Defender could turn out to be -- or not be -- a resource hog that time. (A resource hog) to be, or not to be -- THAT is the question... --JorgeA

Looks like it's been fixed since the time you linked to it (see "Update 1"). (EDIT: Maybe it was already fixed when you saw it, and you're simply noting how close a call it was.) But that update brings up a question. It says: This is an area of computing I'm not very familiar with at all, so maybe I'm reading this incorrectly, but -- If the "rogue Google certificates" are "not included" in the "Disalllowed CTL," doesn't that mean that therefore the rogue certificates ARE allowed? To simplify the question, if they are not included in the disallowed list, are they not then allowed? That "updated CTL" in the last line, is is something different from the "Disallowed CTL" in the first line, or is it merely a shortened reference to it? If it's something different, then excluding the rogue certificates makes sense to me. Explanations welcome. --JorgeA

Just to confirm how only because you are paranoid it doesn't mean that they are not after you. Sure you have it , but just like the opinions of those participating to the testing of Windows 10 each and every one is either deemed useful or ignored independently from their actual merit, and development follows the original pre-set agenda. We sure do get that impression about the Insider program... Can't say about Defender being needed, but in terms of resource usage, I just checked my Win10 machine and its RAM usage was 58.3MB. (Recall that the same parameter for the Norton products on my other systems were ~10MB and ~6MB.) Definitely greater, but in PCs with 4GB or 16GB RAM I'm not sure how significant the effect would be of the extra 40-50MB of RAM taken up by Defender relative to Norton. Still, I'd prefer having the choice to disable Defender completely. No sense in letting it continually take up resources if the user has no interest in the program. --JorgeA

Nice rundown! Thank you for going into the depths to explore. Are you running an alternative AV? When I get the chance to, I'll go into my Win10 system and install a different one, see if Defender gets disabled completely. And as always, the bottom line is exactly what you said: --JorgeA

You're right, very few people have everything that's needed to build their own OS, even from ready-made parts. So the issue comes down to one of trust -- whether we can trust the people who actually do build the OSes that we use. If I understand it, the difference is that in principle anyone can go into the code for Linux and the open-sources applications that run under it, and see what's going on. The idea is that this will help to keep the developers honest, so to speak. (As to how well this concept works in practice, that's for others to assess.) By comparison, with Windows and the closed-source applications that run under it, there's no way really to tell what they are doing behind the curtain, so the user has to decide whether to trust them. And of course Microsoft has done a number of things recently to make people wonder just how trustworthy the company is. Putting these two factors together, to my mind the trust factor has tilted significantly toward Linux in recent years. --JorgeA

I guess someone must establish a "common line" , EITHER Windows Defender is a resource hog (as Dedoimedo and Techie007 believe) OR it is not (as NoelC believes). And no , anyone that used on his/her machine *any* version of - say - Norton Antivirus and particularly Norton 360 for more than 1 (one) week in the last 10 years is not admitted to cast his/her vote, let alone someone that actually *liked* it. jaclaz Well, it looks like the voter qualifications were designed specifically to exclude me. Maybe I can't vote, but I still have my freedom of speech and I'll use it to provide the following informational graphic. These are screenshots of the working memory used acccording to Task Manager from two of my PCs, one running Norton Internet Security and the other Norton 360: I'll let the eligible voters decide whether ~10MB and ~6MB of RAM usage qualify these Norton products as "resource hogs." --JorgeA

Thanks very much, GrofLuigi!! This paragraph confirms it... ...but the next one suggests Microsoft is up to more than being merely a nuisance: [emphasis added] I'll see if I can confirm those reports: I'll uninstall the app first. Then, if it comes back, I'll follow the instructions to disable the notification. --JorgeA

^^ I'm reminded of the old question: if they really are after you, can you be called paranoid? --JorgeA

Aha! We're starting to get pestered by ads in Windows 10: And to think that oh-so-wise-and-worldly Windows cognoscenti have scoffed at my concern that precisely such a thing would happen on Win10. Hah!! --JorgeA

My mileage has varied from yours. Back during the Windows 8 Consumer Preview, my lightly used Win8 CP test machine, which relied on Defender, got infected by a Trojan. I found out only because, based on published AV test results, I mistrusted Defender's effectiveness and ran the ESET Online Scanner on the drive. --JorgeA

^^ Everything up there sounds eminently reasonable to me, except maybe for one thing: That one surprised me. According to AV testing services, the great majority of security applications offer better protection than does Windows Defender. There's no question that no AV solution is perfect, but based on tests from various labs, could we say that Defender is rather "less perfect" than most others? --JorgeA

And how can you tell them apart…? --JorgeA

Fed-up sysadmins beg Microsoft to improve p*sspoor Windows 10 update notes --JorgeA

A few posts upthread, I quoted Dedoimedo's claim that you can't turn off Windows Defender in Win10. Well, there seems to be something to this claim. I'm still skeptical, but... --JorgeA

Hmm, never thought about it, but you're right: with the IoT, your investment accounts could conceivably get hacked into via your fridge. --JorgeA

I see what you mean , but no, what I had in mind was the very idea of "joining a light bulb to a computer network." BTW, if this IoT thing does catch on, imagine the limitless possibilities for mischief that it will present for both terrorists and governments... --JorgeA

There is something that's simply bizarre about the second sentence (highlighted) below: --JorgeA

Windows: it's always the next version The whole piece is chock-full of quotable observations giving the gory details of the Windows 10 concept. A devastating critique. Here's an example: As for the refrain that Windows 10 is but a work in progress: --JorgeA

^^ So the inference would be that that 6x Windows Store traffic among all those new Win10 users will quickly drop to 5x, then 3x, then 1x. Maybe even to 0.5x eventually. It would be interesting to see a graph charting Store traffic among Win8 users over the last three years. --JorgeA

Dedoimedo issues his verdict on Windows 10: Windows 10 upgrade & review: You don't need it His take on forced Windows Updates is so sensible, you gotta wonder what Microsoft was thinking: An interesting idea that I don't remember being suggested on MSFN (maybe I missed it or forgot) is to disable the update service: He goes on to claim that you can't turn off Windows Defender. The way he puts it, it sounds to me like he thinks it's impossible to install any other AV (which of course requires turning Defender off), but I doubt that even Microsoft in its infinitesimal wisdom would go that far. [emphasis added] That can't be right, can it?? Regarding Win10's performance, Igor says, in his trademark pull-no-punches fashion, that Lots of other good stuf in there. --JorgeA

7 things I still hate about Windows 10 A missed opportunity, though: He passed up a chance to say that "Universal" apps have "universally" ugly interfaces. --JorgeA

The guy's idea: Not to sound snarky, but after seeing the following line... ...where he misspelled "marshal;" forgot the apostrophe in "taxpayers' money;" left out the hyphen in "de-risks;" and omitted the "and" before the final item on his list of items ("and removes us from the upgrade procurement cycle"), I would say that he demonstrates that we still need much more desperately to focus on actual literacy than on "software literacy." --JorgeA

Yeah, enough already with this paternalistic "we know what's best for you and you don't need to know what's going on" B.S. There's a couple of applications where I, too, stay with a previous version and decline all invitations to "up"grade to the latest and greatest because important functionality was removed. I can't imagine living in a cyberworld where everything is done for me and I have no control over my own computing environment. --JorgeA