NoelC

Thanks. As I mentioned, the ability to send the files in-line with the chat is what makes Skype the attractive choice. We already have alternatives that work (and I do see the advantages of the direct sending process of Sync), but the alternatives just turn out to be intrusive (got to get the file name exactly right, got to share the link, got to remember to delete the file later, etc.). Skype is already in use. I wonder whether Microsoft is, as with much of its other work, actively trying to destroy the Skype data transfer process so that people will more and more migrate to their stupid "cloud" services. If this is the case there's little hope for using it in an ongoing way and having it ever be efficient again. Even though it's inconvenient, we may try Sync. Thanks again. Still looking for anyone with specific wisdom on Skype mechanics... -Noel

This doesn't belong in any particular OS section, as multiple operating systems are involved, but this is the sub-forum I'm most active in, so I'll post it here... Occasionally I collaborate with astronomers in other parts of the world and we've used Skype for a long time to send datasets on the order of tens to a few hundred megabytes. Up to recently such transfers would take a reasonable, expected amount of time, given the speeds of our internet connections. Lately our file transfers involve 5x more data crossing the link as they once did - and thus take much longer. Put simply, sending a 30 megabyte file via Skype from a Win 7 system in England to a Win 8.1 system in the USA now causes more than 150 megabytes of actual data transfer on the network. This means a transfer that should take less than 5 minutes takes almost 25. No call or other data transfer is in progress; our systems are not carrying other folks' Skype calls or data. The connection is direct. See this screen grab that shows the actual data transferred. http://community.skype.com/skypec/attachments/skypec/Windows/297572/1/SkypeFileXfer.png My question is: Why? No reasonable protocol has this kind of overhead. Here's the kicker - I've tested file transfers with others and found no such extra data. Do you know of anything we can set to fix this? What can we do to gather more detailed info? Could it be a bum Skype installation at the other end (it's up to date)? Malware? An alien signal embedded in our own satellite communications? Thanks in advance for any wisdom you can share. -Noel P.S., yes, I know of many other alternative solutions - e.g., copying a file to OneDrive, then copying from at the other end, etc. We've tried them, and they work. But since we use Skype chat and voice to communicate it turns out most convenient to do it via Skype. One just sends from the file on one's PC, in-line with the conversation that defines the meaning of the file, then the person at the other end starts the transfer when it's convenient.

While I don't disagree that the Windows Update subsystem in general is precarious ("broken" also comes to mind), I just tried uninstalling and installing Classic Shell on my VM with all the updates in... -Noel

"...extending the aging operating system's life"... It almost sounds like people think it just stopped running after April. Seems to me, in light of recent Windows Update machinations for, ahem, other operating systems, actually NOT getting ongoing support from Microsoft could be a positive thing... -Noel

If it makes you feel better, , just the other day I went through a whole slew of updates to try to bring a fresh, clean Windows 7 x64 VM up to date, and I got into a situation where it just stopped updating with nothing but a cryptic error. The System Update Readiness Tool (brought to my knowledge by Tripredacus) ultimately worked out that particular glitch. But that's only for Windows 7 and earlier as I understand it. -Noel

I tested it first in a VM and it didn't cause core meltdown, nor any additional errors to be logged, so I went ahead and accepted it into my main workstation (without uninstalling the others). So far everything seems fine. The tools I use all the time work. I did some benchmarks and performance is the same. -Noel

Thanks, Jaclaz. I knew I could count on you here. And you've gone and got me free-associating again... Quantum computing... Only works right until observed. Then look at it funny and the perfect waves devolve into particles that fall all over your desktop, requiring application of The Quicker Picker Upper. Reboot, leave the room, and it's all waves again. Until you get back. I wonder the first self-aware machine will be mentally ill... It will almost certainly hate us for that. -Noel

I wonder... Who would actually complain if Microsoft were to just start again with the current Windows 7 code base, then work forward... -Noel

And what the HECK are they actually recommending in the "Known issues with this update" section? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2975719 Is it a correct reading that they feel we should uninstall these four prior updates... KB2982791KB2970228KB2975719KB2975331...then install today's, which I guess replaces the first one listed above? Is it an implication that there will be three more that have been more thoroughly tested? I only have a mere bachelor's degree in engineering. Figuring out what we're supposed to do with these updates to have a stable Windows setup seems to be above my knowledge level. Guess I shoulda gone for that PhD. -Noel

...Optional Update! Do we let this one anywhere near our systems? It's OPTIONAL! Fooled me once... Can you say "Vicious Cycle"? I knew you could. Has the time come to Just Say No to Updates? Or is this the real, final update that fixes all the broken stuff from the last one? I'm actually half serious here. With Microsoft distancing themselves from the acknowledged failure that is Windows 8, is it time to assume we've already seen it at as good as it's gonna get, and all further updates will be released for the sole purpose of making us crave the next version? Right now, Microsoft.com is on my Trusted Sites list. Maybe I need to rethink that... -Noel

That's easy. They just have to put the Work in. But is anyone left at Microsoft who knows how? -Noel

Yes, DPC Latency Checker's usefulness is limited with Windows 8. What problem are you seeing? Audio dropouts / video stuttering? There are members on this forum who are adept at reading performance reports. I suggest the advice for gathering data will be very similar to that given in this thread: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/158252-trace-why-windows-8-boots-shutsdown-or-hibernates-slowly/ -Noel

Something to consider: Something to help the IDRTFM problem may be to pop up the configuration interface automatically after installation and/or the first time the application is run. Classic Shell does this, for example. It would both make it plain to the user that there IS a configuration interface, and those other than complete impatient fools might actually look over the options and set them the way they need right then. I'll bet it would reduce the chatter. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a well-written Help manual to go along with that configuration interface. Big Muscle, I can help some with that if you'd like. I'm fond of the Windows HTML Help Workshop and .chm files myself. -Noel

Did you think to read the guide on the site from which you got the software? -Noel

I believe many of the terms currently being used, like "immersive" (is good), "digitally authentic" (is good), and "skeuomorphism" (is bad) are just a result of the spin doctors at Microsoft trying to justify the turkey after the fact and sway public opinion. Perhaps they're just trying to make the best of a bad situation. -Noel

Do you know what update, specifically, changed Windows' behavior and make life difficult for your application? -Noel

Anyone with computer experience knows that the flashing CMD window is just the tip of the iceberg. A Windows system is barely functional when it looks perfect. If it looks a bit off, it is close to catastrophic failure. "Oi! Command Window Right Ahead, Captain!" -Noel

Just curious: What does the Theme look like with the Embedded edition? Is it a valid Microsoft-signed theme that provides a "Basic"-like UI? -Noel

This doesn't help elite1967 directly, but I'll mention... To this day if I'm going to run a Microsoft Windows OS on a real machine, I require a DVD of that version. This issue seems to affirm that practice. It might be cheaper and easier to just download a new version via the Microsoft Store, but there ARE downsides. At the very least, go through the necessary processes to get an ISO and make your own bootable DVD. I also advocate making a bootable USB Recovery Drive after every update, AND make regular System Image backups. Lastly, it's a good idea to enable the Advance Boot screen at every bootup via these commands: BCDEDIT /set {bootmgr} displaybootmenu yes BCDEDIT /timeout 5 I don't know whether updates in today's environment can break WinRE - possibly since Microsoft seems to want to blur the lines between version releases, service packs, and updates - so it's better to be safe in as many ways as possible. Don't expect disaster, but plan and prepare for it. -Noel

Microsoft themselves now actually recommend removing some of the updates. Perhaps you ought to try their recommendations and see if the problem is solved. Note the Update FAQ section here: https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/ms14-045 -Noel

This just makes me all the more glad I've disabled UAC. And jaclaz, there's nothing wrong with a bit of healthy OCD. It's not a disease, it's what should be considered normal. It's all the sloppy folks who need to be cured. -Noel

As you know, several recent updates have made Windows 8.1 unstable for some folks (I've been spared any crashes, but I have seen quirks). Now, with the very latest "security" update I find that windows are occasionally not popping to the top when they should. More than before. Well, this is irritating! And sure enough, look at Known issue 2 in of the NEWER version of KB2993651: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2993651 Several sites describing the debacle that is the Microsoft August Update saga... http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsoft-windows/microsoft-ships-replacement-patch-kb-2993651-two-known-bugs-249342 http://windowsitpro.com/security/what-you-should-know-about-kb2993651-installing-it Is Microsoft crashing and burning? If not, they're certainly rubbing the paint pretty good on the retaining wall... -Noel

I see another update has just become available... KB2993651, aka MS14-045: Security update for kernel-mode drivers: August 27, 2014 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2993651 I note the Known Issues section again contains a warning about font issues. I put it in a VM and it didn't crash and burn. But maybe I'll leave it a few days before updating my host workstation. -Noel

I'm using the 32 bit setting as well now, and yes, that means mostly things are already set up to work. But it's not the same thing as enabling actual 10 bits / color (30 bit color) processing in the driver, and I'm unclear just what that might affect. Right now, unless you have a high-end setup with a workstation class card and a display driver that offers 10 bits / color, all the colors you actually see by the time they get to your monitor are really only 24 bits in depth (8 bits each for red, green, and blue). You can verify this by looking for visible divisions in a dark gray gradient. Here's an example: http://Noel.ProDigitalSoftware.com/ForumPosts/GrayGradient.png Up to now, only drivers for expensive video cards, like the ATI FirePro, have had the 30 bit color feature, even though the better "gamer" hardware can actually do it (my Radeon 7850 advertised the feature in the sales blurbs, and I have a high-end monitor connected via DisplayPort in anticipation of being able to use 30 bit capability). The goal, in detail, is that when you look at a pure gray gradient such as in the above 16 bits/channel PNG file with a 30 bit color setup (e.g., in Photoshop) you won't be able to see the divisions between the 256 different grayscale levels (i.e., RGB levels 0,0,0, 1,1,1, 2,2,2, ... 255,255,255) since with 2 more bits per color there are 1024 of them. If I recall correctly, 30 bit processing is implemented deep in the GPU code using half-float values where the mantissa is 10 bits. Maybe it will just be as simple as enabling the setting and enjoying smoother gradients. I hope. -Noel

Hey Big Muscle, I have a question for you... I have heard that the next ATI Catalyst driver release is going to enable 30 bit color (10 bits per color) capability on my Radeon HD 7850 (see this). Do you know of any reason that would not work with Aero Glass for Windows 8.1? I don't have the depth of knowledge you have about DWM and desktop operations. It might be that everything you do in Aero Glass depends on an 8 bits per color depth, I don't know. Ideally I would like to enable 30 bit color for use in Photoshop CC, and still have all the functionality of Aero Glass I now have on my desktop. But I suspect it's not going to be as simple as just throwing the switch when the software's released and just have it all work. I'd test it myself, and I have beta tested ATI drivers in the past, but I'm in a situation right now where I need my workstation to remain stable, as it is now with ATI Catalyst 14.4. Honestly, if it comes down to either being able to run Aero Glass or being able to select 10 bit color, I'd probably opt for the former. The stock standard Windows 8.1 desktop theme makes me want to shoot holes in the monitor. -Noel