NoelC

True, the PCIe card solution can't really be compared to the less expensive multi-SSD solution, since the latter delivers far more capacity and is more expandable. -Noel

Actually, to me it seems a fair comparison in that you can plug, say 3 "traditional" SSDs into the SATA III ports on any given (modern) motherboard and make a super high performance RAID 0 array out of them. Traditionally that's been cheaper and leaves the PCIe slot(s) free for your favorite game playing room heater. Edit: Furthering the thought... Kingston HyperX Predator 480 GB at NewEgg.com today: $484.99 Kingston HyperX Savage 240 GB "Traditional" SATA III SSD: $91.99 Put three of the latter in a RAID 0 arrangement with Intel RST and spend the other $200 on a big RAM upgrade, and not only will you have half again more storage but I'm willing to bet the system will run better overall than with one of the "dollar a gigabyte" PCIe cards. -Noel

That there is so much difference between read and write speed clearly means write-back caching is involved, which means those numbers aren't worth as much as the publisher would like you to believe they are. Any system with Intel RST drivers and sufficiently large RAM will show very high numbers for write speeds because of write-back RAM caching. Conversely, no device you will encounter will be able to sustain much higher tiny I/O rates until something fundamentally changes in the PC architecture. Never forget that there are limitations based on the operating system itself that influence the speed at which a tiny I/O request can be turned around. That's why you'll notice that even the tiny I/O write speed shown is still topping out at less than 100 MB/second. I've mentioned this before - 4K bytes divided into 94.91 megabytes is 24,297 I/O operations in 1 second, or about 0.041 milliseconds per operation. Even with today's giga processors 41 microseconds isn't a whole lot of time to do 1 I/O operation. It simply takes some base time for the CPU to call through the proper layers to do an I/O operation. Assuming a virtually zero latency operation for the write-back cache, the difference you're seeing between the actual reads and the (instantaneous writes) is 112 microseconds - 41 microseconds == 71 additional microseconds to do the I/O from the flash memory. 71 microseconds to complete an I/O operation across ANY interface is phenomenally fast. That 0.071 milliseconds round trip. I don't know the specifics for this card, but I'm willing to bet the lion's share of that time is actually getting the data across the various interfaces. You are simply NOT going to see a separate device be able to return I/O data to a CPU a whole heckuva lot faster than that. NVMe will help, as the stack is shortened. But the data is still out on the PCIe bus, which takes time to use. Now, when gargantuan blobs of flash memory are integrated right into the processor chipset, THEN we'll see much greater tiny I/O throughput. -Noel

I think it's funny that people regard what's said by the shills and pundits as worth reading. For other than entertainment value, I mean. I'm not being critical of any of you fine folks, mind you, but never - ever - forget that they're paid to write BS copy to suit some business goals. How anyone manages to land a job like that is beyond me, but a few lucky ones clearly do. The rest of us must do honest work. They're trying to influence you - don't let them! Never forget the words of Watto: "No, they won't-a. What? You think you're some kind of Jedi, waving your hand around like that? I'm a Toydarian. Mind tricks don't work on me." -Noel

As they say in my circles, "That's not a bug, that's a feature!" Thanks for trying it. See if you can do a System Restore, assuming you really do want to be able to use the Windows Store again. -Noel

No. But I have neutered the entire Metro/Modern side of Windows 10 by running it with UAC disabled (EnableLUA = 0). There are still a number of Win 10-specific applications running, and I will systematically be trying things to see what can be disabled long-term without problems. Things I don't want/need, like: SearchUI.exeRuntimeBroker.exeSettingSyncHost.exeShellExperienceHost.exe A few minutes after a fresh boot, this is what's running for me right now. I'm sure this list can be trimmed further, at least a little. -Noel

Windows Defender has presumably already automatically scanned it if it's on your disk, and will scan it if you're looking to run or copy it from some other (e.g., removable / network) media. Not sure if you've seen it, but I've written up some suggestions here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173660-anti-malware-suggestions/ -Noel

Who knows? Windows is too new to know how everything interacts. At this point you need to be telling us what happens when you end it / remove it. -Noel

Not a lot of people understand the significance of this, Formfiller. The "beast which can be tamed" is a "devil we know". Its features are given, and will not be summarily removed. CANNOT be, based on the business model in which it was made. Now we have a shapeshifting beast in the form of Win 10. We have been promised "continuous updates". The word "update" has been perverted; Microsoft deletes things at will now that don't suit their Borg philosophy. Backup has been returned to the system, but it's called "Windows 7 Backup". Where did we see that before? Oh, that's right, it was in Windows 8.0. Then it was DELETED from Windows 8.1. Though right now Microsoft has clearly put effort into maintaining compatibility on the desktop with older applications, they've also stated that they want everyone off the desktop by, what was it, 2019? How do we think that's going to happen? Do we think Modern is going to become suddenly fantastic and all kinds of new Apps that get everything done are going to show up?I'm going to continue to use my tamed beast for now. -Noel

Do we believe everything we read by the company that's turned evil and devious? I'd certainly pay to license 1 or 2 copies of Enterprise if that were possible. -Noel

I have a PC running Win 7 that boots to the desktop in under 15 seconds, and that's a genuine bootup, no fast/hybrid construct. Microsoft tries to take credit for computers getting faster. Regarding what's better, I started out somewhere up above saying "for me" in at least one or several places. I belabored the point because what a system can be made into is different than what it is out of the box. Way different. The modern Windows Kernel is good and has been getting better. What Windows 10 is out of the box is some kind of turnkey-wannabe for IQ 90 ADHD phone users. That being said, right now, save for some bugs, it's already capable of being turned into something usable. I have a test system set up with all my engineering and business tools and it really does work. Quite well. BUT (and it's a big one), Microsoft has promised continuous updates, which will no doubt turn it into something else. Thus we cannot trust what it will become, and Microsoft hasn't any good track record at all of taking Windows in a direction I need it to go lately. Of course you have to make your own judgment about that. It boils down to this: When I enter into a partnership with someone (or a company), I need to see that their goals and my goals have some similarity in direction. That's simply not been the case at all since around the time of Windows 7. With Windows 8.1 I found it possible to spend extra effort to dredge back up the things Microsoft was de-emphasizing. Virtually all of them. I've already accomplished that with Windows 10, but it's pretty clear it's not going to last, and once I've chosen to partner with Microsoft, when they delete a feature I really do need, I'll have no recourse. For example, what do you think they mean to do with the feature that they "deprecated" out of Win 8.1 - but "brought back" in Win 10 called "Windows 7 Backup". If they intended to keep it long term don't you think they'd have dropped the 7? What does "brought back" mean when we've been promised "continuous updates"? No, they couldn't win hearts and minds with Win 8 so now they're trying to trick people into falling through the trap door. Then when they've got us, it's time to lead the sheep to shear (or maybe it's lambs to slaughter). -Noel

Well, I see translucency at the top of the one Modern App I can run with UAC disabled (the Settings App), but... 1. The title text is doubled, with black or dark gray text to the left, and white (my chosen color) text to the right. 2. The title text "glow" (for me it's gray, darker than the text) is offset to be above the text. 3. The caption buttons do not always activate when I hover over them. I seem to have to slide over to the minimize or restore buttons before the close button will work. 4. The title bar height is larger than other windows, yet the caption buttons are short yet wider than on other windows. 5. The caption indicators within the buttons (e.g., the X) don't gray out on inactive windows like they do on normal windows. I don't know which of these issues Big Muscle can improve or rework, but Modern Apps are not fully integrated looking by the previously released ModernFrame.dll. -Noel

Something to note here... This tool will show you updates that are available for your system without your having to install them. That's significant. Run it, choose the Hide updates option, and voila... It shows you the list of updates available. Let that sink in for a moment... Coupled with the group policy setting that doesn't allow Windows to install updates until such time as you request it to, this suddenly makes management of the application of Windows Updates manageable once again with Windows 10. Something like: Set your system to update only when you ask it to.Check for updates at times appropriate to you by running this tool.Vet each update by researching it online.Maybe hide an update reported to bork a system or deliver unwanted functionality.Start the Windows Update process via the Settings App. -Noel

Use the Testing version of GUI application to modify Aero Glass parameters from this page: http://www.glass8.eu/download.html -Noel

It appears to function in a fashion, yes. However, I'd suggest waiting for another release that's made to work with the latest Aero Glass components. You'll notice it's no longer available for download on Big Muscle's site. -Noel

Based on my own professional experience, which involved running a pretty good sized engineering organization. We wouldn't have upgraded to XP if it didn't offer advantages and enable us to do things we couldn't previously do. FYI, we adopted XP x64 when it came out. Regarding your example about previous versions... I have Win 8.1, do regular system image backups, and can restore any previous version I want, using user interfaces better than the Previous Versions tab in the Properties dialog. Discovering how to do that figured in my decision to call it "better" and to adopt it for my work. Now having used it for years after having used Win 7 for years, I know it was the right decision. Like I said, it's all about knowing how to get the things you need done. In my mind there's little sense in judging an OS by what's delivered alone. It's a set of cogs in a bigger machine. It's about what you can make that whole machine do. -Noel

It's a debug build, for testing. You can expect to see a DWM.exe debug window. Just minimize it and ignore it. -Noel

I have numbers better than those in many categories using an array of "traditional" SATA III SSDs that are now 3 years old, and the ATTO numbers shown where reads and writes differ markedly imply that there are problems. That being said, the numbers published above for that Kingston HyperX Predator are a good bit better than mine with regard to accessing tiny data blocks, and THAT's very significant. High 4K numbers implies low latency. The lower the better. Note the comment about it not being NVMe. That's significant too - it says that the hardware could potentially perform even better. In practice, RAM caching - which Windows provides - makes small I/O numbers less an issue, though when reading a buttload of tiny (or fragmented) files that are not already in the cache a low-latency device will really shine. This will equate to the system feeling more responsive on the first run of applications that haven't been run yet. I'm imagining 1 second Photoshop cold startup times, for example (that happens for me in 3 seconds). I'd love to see what the timing (in files enumerated per second) doing Properties on the contents of the root folder in drive C: would be on a system with that HyperX Predator serving as the boot volume. 480 GB is too small to be practical, though (says the man with 6 x 480 GB SSDs in his array). -Noel

I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but no. Not saying Win 2000 wasn't good - it was. But its time came and went. I used Win 2000 for everything it was worth. Then I used XP, which was better. Vista as initially released was NOT better. Then I used Vista after SP2 (I think it was), which was better. Then I used Win 7, which was better. Win 8.0 was NOT better. Then I used Win 8.1, which was better. Only in Vista was I first able to achieve the kind of "runs for weeks without fault" stability that I needed. All predecessors ground down over time, using up resources, and ultimately starting to get flaky - Win 2000 and XP included. This was on systems, for example, that were engineering workstations or had no other function than to do software build after software build, or machines in server type roles. I made all these judgments to adopt the newest system with eyes open, by being critical of needs and doing return-on-investment analysis each time, after learning what I could do to tweak and augment each system and whether it would meet my needs and the needs of the engineers in my groups. At this point I rank Win 10 with Win 8.0 and pre-service pack Vista - not yet ready to support serious work. It has no advantage I can detect over, say, Win 7 or 8.1, but it is not without promise. Trouble is, Microsoft doesn't really want it to be a General Purpose OS - and THAT's a problem. -Noel

Yes I read the post. Yes, I know what the point is. And neither do I like that serious features (Windows 7 Backup, anyone?) are being systematically removed. But that doesn't mean the functionality is not there. You just need to know how to get to it. It's been true all along that 3rd party software is often better than Microsoft's own implementations (Classic Shell, anyone?). As a professional software engineer who uses my systems for highly technical and complex things I can unreservedly say that I get more out of Windows (I'm presently running Win 8.1 x64 Pro/MCE) now than I got back when DOS was still involved. Way more. Bear in mind that I've been tweaking and augmenting operating systems to get the most they can give going back since well before Windows was even Bill Gates' wet dream. I'm not even remotely talking about an "out of box" experience nor "technically challenged user" experience. At the expert level an argument that Win 9x is even remotely in the same league as an NT-based OS is just ludicrous. At the top of the list of things that I clearly remember held me back in "the bad old days": The inability to trust a computer to just run right for more than a short time and not corrupt data. The inability to process a LOT of data without some failure. Having to be distracted by things like de-corrupting disks on bootup, or even just booting up at all. Dealing with a poor quality display. Having stuff just degrade for no apparent reason. And that was with computers 1,000 times less powerful than we enjoy today. Now, even though we do thousands or even millions of times more things, I get my work done and the OS just runs for weeks, stepping out of the way and doing what I need. I find paying attention to it is FAR less necessary now than ever before once it's set up well. It's not about running the OS. It's about the system facilitating what you need to get things done. And for that - for me at least - there's none better than an adeptly configured and augmented Win 8.1 system. Windows 10 is still too new to fill those shoes, but who knows what it will become? Your mileage may vary. -Noel

I wonder what tricks they have up their sleeves for making running older systems, under the old "bought a license, run it as long as you want" model, less attractive. I'm sure their management thought that all the wonderful new Modern Apps that could only be run played on Win 10 would be the carrot, and who knows, for a large number of people maybe that'll be the case. You'd be amazed the lengths to which some folks will go to buy coffee instead of supporting adware. -Noel

Well said, with a minimum of words! -Noel

The point is to remove the distraction and useless waste of space. But it's a losing battle. Microsoft keeps putting back what we disable with every update, it seems. -Noel

If a modern version of Windows on a modern gigacomputer would only run, on the average, the number of instructions those old DOS-based Windows systems would run on their megacomputers before crashing or needing a reboot, you'd get at most a few minutes of run time. -Noel

Nice job, seems to hang together here. Seems to work with my theme atlas (which by the way you're welcome to distribute with the product if you want). I seem to have lost the ability to adjust my FrameMargin setting somewhere along the way. Borders are all very thin now. Here's the debug.log, if it's useful to you: -Noel