NoelC

I don't see anything disturbing among today's updates for Win 8.1. There's even one that purports to disable the Metro/Modern mode of Internet Explorer. Seems like a good trend if anything. -Noel

If you ever do dream of changing it to 7, I have been there, done that, and had it work out to be a more productive experience. Actually, I think you have my book on the subject. -Noel

Right. -Noel

I think it was just a bug - one that was eliminated in later releases. -Noel

Looking over the various updates, those in the aforementioned thread are all those of course known to have some tie-in with Windows 10. I don't know if that means they should ALL be eliminated. Several of them - e.g., those purporting to update Windows Update itself - I read as the process having been improved by the things learned by Microsoft in the preparation of the Windows 10 update. At least one has been described by a Microsoft guy as something everyone will need (I know, I know, it's them talking, but still) because Windows Updates will rely on it moving forward... One extreme might be to just remove the GWX update itself and leave all the others intact. I myself have hidden only some of them. -Noel

Regarding how aggressively Microsoft will be pushing Windows 10 to existing users... Ed Bott: http://www.zdnet.com/article/get-windows-10-microsofts-hidden-roadmap-for-the-biggest-software-upgrade-in-history/ Emphasis mine. It is my opinion that the process of "Reserving a Win 10 Upgrade" will be considered by Microsoft as explicit consent to install Windows 10 when they feel like it. What do you think? -Noel

Just in case you missed it, Win 7 does allow you to disable UAC - which would make it unnecessary for you to run anything "As Administrator". The ability to turn it off was provided primarily for compatibility with suites of older programs that require access to things Microsoft no longer thinks you should have access to. There are those who think UAC is essential, and will predict doom and gloom if you turn it off. It's not a given. There are those of us who have run systems for years without it and guess what, we're still here. If someone advises against disabling it, ask them to explain just what will happen, and weigh that against what you've been experiencing all along since before using Windows 7 and having UAC to begin with. Then make your own choice. -Noel

Been a while since I used Vista daily, but I have to say I do remember that happening to me as well. -Noel

I find myself less apt to accept WIndows 10 because even if I can and have hacked it into something useful today, I just can't say that it will remain useful. With every version before, there were a few years where you could say, "this is what it is and it's stable". I already don't agree with the direction Microsoft is going. What happens on the day they choose to roll something out that just shuts off the desktop, makes my particular hardware stop working, or makes some software I rely on incompatible. What then? There's no "pull over to the side of the road", no "stop the ride, I feel nauseous and need to be still for a while". -Noel

Geez, don't hope for them to change it. Every time they change something it gets worse. -Noel

Can you think of Anything wrong with reading the build number from the registry at the following? [HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion] CurrentBuildNumber REG_SZ -Noel

Don't worry about that. It's just the NSA. I agree, I don't see Win 7 and Vista as being fundamentally different. Win 7 was mostly just refinement. Vista.1. Don't get me wrong, it was high time to refine things, though some could say it was the beginning of the modern trend where virtually nothing of real substance is being done to Windows. One thing I particularly liked about older Windows versions was that Explorer windows were oriented more toward presenting higher information density and getting useful things done, rather than reducing cognitive load at the expense of productivity. Just look, for example, at how much extra chrome and whitespace are in the Win 7 and newer File Explorer windows, vs. say, XP or Vista. With every version they've been spreading things out, and removing features (arrange your own icons, anyone?). If they keep it up, some future Explorer will show only one file at a time in a big sea of whitespace. I think even way back in the late 2000s they knew they'd be trying to shove a new big-font system down people's throats, and started trying to lubricate the passage. Not that the new versions can't be tweaked to put more information on the screen closer together - I've been doing that a long time. But it can't be done with system-provided configuration options - you need 3rd party software. -Noel

I imagine they'll bump that up to 10.0 when Win 10 goes to RTM, but only for applications with a Win 10 manifest. And I wouldn't put it past them to change the GUID for the "Compatible with Win 10" line in the manifests either. The point being the version into APIs aren't what you need if you want to know the real version. Dencorso, you're probably right - especially since it looks like there will never again be a way to hide updates that deliver new versions of those components. -Noel

I'd like to be able to read the real version number for logging purposes (e.g., someone sends in a log from software where they've seen a failure, and we can tell what OS they were running it on - that kind of things). I believe I'll be adding something that reads the registry to do this. -Noel

What do you mean by "similarly broken"? It returns the system version of whatever the latest version your application is manifested for. The change is by design (however twisted the thinking). You're no longer supposed to care what version of Windows you're running on. Windows is in control, not you. Didn't you get the memo? You'd think you could craft an iterative function based on IsWindowsVersionOrGreater and I've tried it. At the moment it reports version 6.3 service pack 0 on Windows 10 build 10130 with an application built in Visual Studio 2013 and manifested for Windows 8.1. That reminds me to try a VS2015 build. Edit: Tried it. The iterative IsWindowsVersionOrGreater routine just appears to return the highest version number the application is manifested for. -Noel P.S., See: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/11/why-windows-10-isnt-version-6-any-more-and-why-it-will-probably-work/

If Microsoft were doing things that were actually making it better this would be an exciting time. As it is, it seems to have ground down to just a repeating process of grim discovery of what's been removed or reduced in functionality. Because of the lack of positive things to focus on, people are now singing praise for icons that aren't quite as bad as the first set. Microsoft has promised that it will continue to develop Windows 10 after release and roll out update after update. How does this make you feel about the future of Windows? -Noel

So? Where is it written that making something mobile-capable means destroying the parts that make it computer-capable? Who said desktop development has to stop (and actually be reversed), in order to develop some other part? What leads to that? Single-mindedness of administrators who are literally incapable of grasping complex products? What are those people doing in charge? In an ideal world, the Metro/Modern subsystem would be developed along side the ongoing improvement of the other parts until such time as the new stuff actually gets better and supersedes the "legacy" stuff. Forcing that to happen when the new parts are only capable of half of what the "legacy" parts can do just leads to... 2015. -Noel

I take it Microsoft hasn't yet published symbols for 10130. I keep expecting that any time now, as they're claiming they're going to move to the Slow ring with it if only they can fix one or two more bugs. -Noel

Most folks may not have the ability to put it into terms that can be communicated, but virtually everyone has the ability to "feel" when something is "right". Metaphorically, virtually everyone could identify a perfect circle, though they may have no knowledge of math. Technically savvy people may even be able to say why something is "right". They could describe a circle mathematically. Some brilliant, special people can design things that are "right", though the ability to do so with complex systems lies right at human limits. It often takes a chance assembly of a special team giving everything they've got, plus refinement for a time afterward. These people can make a machine that creates perfect circles and make money with it. If it was easy, it would have been done 50,000 years ago. With systems up through Windows 7 we have had many brilliant people thinking up ideas and incorporating others' ideas, plus some three decades of refinement. Throwing all that out by arbitrarily calling it "legacy" (and implying that term is negative) is just irresponsible. Arbitrary, undisciplined, disparate, disjointed work cannot and does not lead to designs that are "right" without incredible strife and much time for refinement (thinking, for example, of nature and evolution). Nor can a poor design be MADE "right" by any number of Marketing campaigns. -Noel

To whomever said that, I respond: YOUR computer?!? Whatever gave you the idea that the computing experience belongs to YOU? -Noel

I wonder if Microsoft might make your 8.1 license no longer valid when you "upgrade"? I think arguments of "they wouldn't dare do that" are all pretty much moot. -Noel

Mildly interesting that someone not savvy enough to have foreseen Microsoft's moves is now ranting. We have had people around here foreseeing Microsoft doing bad things with Windows Updates for a very long time. -Noel

There's probably an algorithm for spreading out the pain. Other people are definitely seeing the "Reserve Windows 10" prompts from GWX. -Noel

Outrageous, yes, I agree. You might want to look at this thread: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173752-how-to-avoid-being-upgraded-to-win-10-against-your-will/ -Noel

Hm, KB3046480 for Windows 7 and 8.1 isn't listed in this thread. It updates one file, ahcache.sys, specifically. Has this one been found to be benign? -Noel