NoelC

You're missing the point - you CAN order special things at McDonalds now. There was a time they wouldn't be able to handle it. But they've quietly changed to be more flexible for the few customers who prefer specific changes. Maybe it's an individual store thing, but I've seen it happen first hand. -Noel

The takeaway from this little sub-conversation is that we differ in the way we combine UI features to reach our goals. We don't really work the "Windows" way, we have developed over time a "Jorge" way and a "Noel" way. I imagine either of us, if placed suddenly in front of the other's computer, might struggle for a while to get our bearings - as though it were a completely foreign system. We would certainly be sorely tempted to reconfigure it. Up until a few years ago, it was considered a Good Thing to be able to customize one's work environment to work the way you like. There's a certain (recurring) pleasure in having your system set up to be just so. Now the options are systematically being removed, with the clear intent to herd us all into one way, which presumably was the darling of some twisted mind at Microsoft a few years ago. THIS attempt at "herding" cuts to the heart of why Microsoft is failing! Anyone noticed that if you go to McDonald's you can actually ask them to make whatever you order your way? -Noel

I never had to do anything special; I've kept up with updates and the (donation key-activated) Aero Glass for Win 8.1 product just downloads the symbols itself from Microsoft online and works. -Noel

I can run the ClearType tuner and choose settings for them all, no problem. Then Windows just proceeds to use the primary monitor settings for them all. I'm not sure where the limitation or failure is. Since I've turned two monitors up sideways to serve as "ears" on both sides of the main larger monitor, it makes sense to turn off all the color components of the ClearType rendering just for the side monitors, but on it remains. I photographed and screen grabbed the image off of my primary monitor, which has vertical RGB stripes, and did the same for my right monitor, which has horizontal RGB stripes because it's turned 90 degrees. This is what I got: Surprisingly, even though the right photo above looks a bit nasty, in practice the problem is virtually unnoticeable. I wouldn't have realized the ClearType settings weren't effective on the side monitors if I hadn't just been curious and gone through this detailed a check. Note that Internet Explorer does NOT use color in its font rendering under any conditions - I wonder if this is because they realize that handling font rendering on rotated displays isn't implemented properly... -Noel

Some of us saw that window once after the latest set of Windows Updates, then not again. Try logging off/on and see that it doesn't return. -Noel

I rarely have more than 5 or 6 browsers open at once. And when I do go beyond that and get extreme, the Taskbar just gathers them all into one button. I do research things. As I mentioned above I don't use open tabs to keep track of things. I guess I'm just more serial about it, and I'm pretty good about closing windows when I'm done with them. As an exercise I did open about 100 IE windows once, each one navigated to a different site from my favorites list. Not too far past 100 some resource got exhausted and they all crashed out. It's a bit ludicrous to be able to exceed anything on a big system like mine. Oh, and I run almost no add-ons. -Noel

No sarcasm intended. I've honestly never understood the interest in tabs at all. I open all browser sessions in separate windows, which is still quite doable with IE11 and a very minor reconfiguration. Is it to help you get back to something quickly? My system is tuned up to the point where browser windows open pretty much instantly, Google searches come up pretty much instantly, and web pages load quickly (fiber connection). I find I don't need to keep much open - I just go find it again if I need it. I have 3 monitors, by the way. Desktop is 4960 x 1600 pixels. I Really, Really Like being able to see a lot of information at a glance. A typical session... Visual studio on the center monitor, with extra windows not used as much on the left monitor, IE and VS Help on the right monitor sometimes tiled, sometimes overlapping. Or Photoshop's main editing area on the center monitor and all the panels on the side monitors, with browsers or other reference material sometimes coming in front of the stuff on the sides, as needed. Or a few Excel spreadsheets open on various monitors, and/or Word. I find the vertically oriented 1200 x 1600 side monitors are pleasant for putting up page-shaped documents. I might have an even bigger desktop if I could fit more monitors. -Noel

Jonny, I'm trying what you described in a fully updated Win 8.1 Pro virtual machine on which an Aero Glass for Win 8.1 donation key is in use. Before the DISM command, C:\Windows and all subfolders had: 124,860 files in 21,959 folders, size 21.4 GB. After the DISM command: 99,497 files in 21,011 folders, size 20.1 GB I had no problem at all with Aero Glass for Win 8.1. I saw no pop-up after a reboot and it functions fine. My conclusion: Resetting the base with DISM does not disrupt the functioning of Aero Glass for Win 8.1. Something else is wrong. -Noel

Hey jaclaz, do you think maybe they have an initiative to convince people not to take Windows too seriously? I'm not joking... If you wanted to take the pressure off your company to have to work hard to make serious things, you could try to get the public to think of you as the maker of toys - not the maker of serious, difficult-to-engineer stuff - then life would be better, and you'd still make a ton of money making toys, right? That's just the kind of thinking id*** executives might do. -Noel

Why would you want to have tabs when you could have web pages in separate windows? -Noel

In my opinion, it's just another half-baked feature that should be avoided to get the best Windows experience. Windows 8.1 boots up fairly quickly anyway, and a real, honest bootup reinitializes everything instead of being a hibernation trying to act like a real shut down / bootup. My advice: Disable hybrid/fast bootup and don't look back. Frankly I'd suggest avoiding the use of "sleep" type features in general, as drivers in Windows traditionally just don't manage power transitions very well. -Noel

TELVM, you're saying if they didn't pull a miracle out of their... hats and make a Windows 9 that was actually more useful than Windows 7 you wouldn't try it? Or more realistically, what if within a year of release some poor slobs finally put the finishing touches on a few dozen tweakers, functionality restorers, and utilities that make WIndows 9 more like a useful Vista? What happens when the poor slobs who keep saving Microsoft's butt get too old to tweak the latest Windows any more, and no one's left who remembers the golden age and how computers once could be made to do just what you want and look nice doing it? I know the feeling. During the early years of Windows 8 we were almost holding on to hope that something surprising and amazing was being held back, and that the bad dream would actually end. Now... -Noel

Thanks for your thoughts, HNx. The controller is a HighPoint 2720SGL dedicated hardware RAID controller, though rather a lower-end model that doesn't embody its own cache. It can easily sustain virtually the full SATA III bandwidth on all four ports at once, and has been an utterly reliable device. I originally formatted the array during Windows 7 installation and the partition configuration is optimal. Notably the Highpoint driver does not support TRIM operations, but this doesn't matter. Without TRIM the SSDs manage their own free storage erasure via their internal Garbage Collection algorithms, and these really work. Over the 1.5 years I used this array with Windows 7 my benchmarks and practical I/O experiences actually got faster and faster as time went on. That has reversed with Windows 8.1. The SSD experts on the OCZ forum confirmed that a lot of people reported long-term speedups, and it has to do with the in-drive SandForce controllers getting familiar with usage patterns and organizing things to be most efficient. Part of succeeding at using SSDs long term is maintaining a sufficiently large amount of free space - counterintuitive given the hardware cost, but it really works. My observation, since moving up to Windows 8.1, is that most I/O operations have been getting incrementally slower and slower. Not terribly much so in the general case - from applications I still get about 1.5 gigabytes/second throughput (though it was 1.8 GB/sec under Windows 7), and a few operations faster than ever. File Explorer is an exception, it's much less efficient. Everything I can measure implies the drives are just fine - it's the Windows software that's becoming less efficient. No one can say whether it's on purpose. And apparently not everyone sees the same performance. Some folks report they can enumerate tens of thousands of files per second in Explorer, though it's always possible they are still running Windows 8(.0) which was fast. There is clearly something very specific being done in Windows 8.1's File Explorer that TREMENDOUSLY slows down operations, as compared to prior versions (e.g., Windows 8's File Explorer). I say watch what they pull out of their, er, hat with the file system implementations in Windows 9 - I'll bet Microsoft magically somehow makes it fast again, and they'll exclaim what heroes they are for speeding things up so amazingly. -Noel

Yes, your point that Microsoft (and others) have been trying to do no less than redefine the language has been a sore one with me. Another example: "Search" means "search", not "pop up something interesting to relieve my boredom". Oh, and speaking of UAC, remember when this was indicative of computer failure? -Noel

I noticed, but you DID say "it is for your own good". You didn't say "they say it's for your own good". Subtle difference. -Noel

With all due respect, I'll be the judge of what's good for me. And you should know better than to mess with a hangin' judge. -Noel

So... Windows 9, and all the recent leaked screenshots and info... Is it too soon to expect look and feel differences yet? Microsoft tends to migrate the look and feel of their systems lately through a series of public previews. Clearly they haven't fully developed the first one yet. Will they add a bit of style back into the desktop? Re-introduce Aero Glass or other gee whiz features (animations? new buttons to enhance usability?) to the desktop? They seem to have gotten the message from the public that the system ought to be better to use before people will adopt it. I think in general that means it will have to be better certainly than Windows 8.x and probably better than Windows 7, which is still popular. As one who has (reluctantly but successfully) adopted Windows 8.1 myself, I have my perspective and will likely figure out how to use Windows 9 right away and adopt it for my main operations within about a year of its release. How do those of you who might have chosen to remain on an older system feel? What would it take to make you a Windows 9 user? -Noel

You can probably boil the whole debate down to this: Different people expect different things from their systems. Certainly different people DO different things with their systems. -Noel

Good idea. I had alluded to that on the discussion board for ProcExp already, but coming from you and with more specific goals, I'm sure he'll see the merit. -Noel

It's probably best to stop. We agree on too many things to let a difference of opinion on this one thing sour things between us. -Noel

Andre, your FAQ is a nice little blurb, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I respect your skills, and I don't want to insult you nor get into ad hominem, but we're talking on very different levels here. Judging from your FAQ you have some technical understanding of UAC, but clearly only a limited idea of the practical issues it causes. You were simply wrong about what it helps with when you wrote: >And by running with standard user rights UAC also protects you against viruses and Trojans. Baloney! That's exactly what I've already spoken to in this thread above. It's proven utterly ineffective at that. For a person who knows what they're doing, running as a non-privileged user is just silly, because all it does is throw up roadblocks to what you need to do. No matter how many permissions you reconfigure or set up to Run As Administrator, you get to places where you're trying to do something (trying to change a file or a registry key or something) and realize you can't get there from here without going back and starting over, which breaks your concentration. I don't need that! I need to keep my mind on the work at hand, and so I choose to disable the "feature" that helps me with NOTHING and only hinders. I don't know whether you are toeing the Microsoft line for some unspoken reason, but please know that I already had years of professional experience with the DEC operating systems whose architecture ultimately became Windows before you were born. I might just have a perspective on this that you don't. I have given UAC a proper try with every new OS release. I know that it's better not to paddle against the current. But UAC simply proves itself to be a poor implementation of a questionable idea every time, and this is coming from a person who understands all aspects of Windows security intimately. And regarding my products, we do exactly what's prescribed to work properly within the constraints of UAC. I can go into more detail about what we do with our installers, manifests, etc. if you'd like. Just because I personally prefer to disable it as a user doesn't mean I write software that requires that. The world is not that simple, my friend. -Noel

Oh, and I've not even touched on the ridiculousness that is the "file system virtualization" portion of UAC. Where did that data just get written? Most likely not where you think! GOD, what a strikingly bad idea it is to have the file system magically do something different than specifically what it was told to do! The whole thing has the feel of "The operation was a great success! But the patient died." -Noel

Sorry Andre, but that's a load of baloney (I was going to use a stronger word). That whole argument makes the tacit assumption that a user needs to run things as a non-Admin, which in turn implies the user doesn't know what he's running or what he's doing. Baloney! >When you run an action, which requires admin rights, you get an error message (Access denied) No, I don't! That's the whole reason for chucking this BS UAC "feature"! Someone somewhere said it's best to run as a non-privileged user and I guess a whole bunch of sheeple agreed, because it just sounds like a good idea. I have a better idea: Think for yourself! It's easy to name a small handful of things that will protect a user 1000% better than the status quo. Start with blocking parasite web sites (including ads) with the MVPS hosts file topped with OpenDNS, add a sprinkle of changing IE's promiscuous default configuration by disabling ActiveX from the Internet Zone, throw in a pinch of better anti-malware software as a safety net, research what you're going to run before you run it, and bake it all with a healthy dose of discipline - think first, do second. A person armed with this strategy and with UAC disabled is FAR less likely to have any problems than someone who blindly thinks they're well-protected by mother UAC, and their system won't keep awkwardly stepping in the way and trying to block what they need it to do. Jorge has it right - non-technical users just "click through" to run whatever stupidware they've downloaded. So UAC hinders knowledgeable users and irritates non-techies who just proceed to get infected anyway. -Noel

By the way, the assumption that everyone wants or needs to run "low integrity level" software should be questioned. Don't embrace mediocrity, avoid it. -Noel

No, I understand it just fine. I just don't need nor want it, Andre. All it does - ALL IT DOES - for me is to get in the way of things I need to do. You might say that I should just learn how to live with it, to take it in stride... And I in return will say that I have done that, THEN chosen to toss it out. It just turns out to be an ongoing waste of time. I'm not going to change my opinion on this particular item any time soon, but that's okay; I'm not arguing that it ought to be removed, just that the option to turn it off needs to remain in place. I appreciate your strong opinions; I see you fixing other people's problems. But know this: I do understand how operating systems work. I've been around a long time, and I've written a few of them myself. I'd be willing to go along with a statement such as "Most everyone who disables UAC doesn't understand it". I'm not arguing that UAC is a bad thing for the general public, who don't realize that not every piece of software is made with their best interests at heart. But even for them, is UAC actually making things more secure? Um, no. Look around - It's not working. Is there a lack of malware infections? UAC is no more than a false sense of security. That's the worst kind of security. Extra baggage without actual extra protection. I suspect at least some of Microsoft's own developers feel the same way I do, which is why the capability to turn it off is still there. But there's a new crew who's disconnected from reality doing the Metro/Modern stuff who I imagine are more rebellious than smart. I believe the fact that Microsoft has been using their own OS to develop with is one of the reasons it has remained possible to configure it into a serious computing platform, though that's getting harder and harder. Nothing says they will continue to follow this policy, however. There is no reason to assume they will be compelled to release the configurations on which they develop to the public. At some point their management may feel that it gives them a competitive advantage to produce their consumer OSs with an internal computing platform that they alone will have. So far, I have not needed anything programmed for the Metro/Modern realm. But that's not going to keep. Sooner or later Microsoft will start to eliminate desktop capabilities and only provide them via Metro/Modern Apps, after which it will be necessary for me to leave UAC enabled. I'll find a way to live with it, once the door is closed. But until then, UAC can go pound sand. Thing is, Microsoft's continued survival is not a given. They pound the nails into their own coffin one by one by removing the options that people want. Note the number of folks not willing to accept the reduced functionality of Windows 8. A large part of the business world is staying with Windows 7, and if you think it's just because there's no Start menu you're naïve indeed. -Noel