NoelC

Time to get the new ATI R9 graphics card you've been craving. -Noel

Resistance is truly futile (though the struggle can be fun). Why do we know this? 1. Microsoft is making it harder to continue using older Windows versions. The savvy amongst us are already doing things like limiting or stopping entirely the updates, but everyone is going to get tired (as we saw above). 2. If enough of the world adopts Windows 10 (and we may already be there), new things will start to be developed that will only work on Windows 10. Even desktop applications. There will probably ultimately even be must-have Apps, so not only will you have to consider Win 10, but also confront being a full card-carrying member of "the cloud". 3. Old computers will start to fail. While TODAY you can still get a few new systems with Windows 7, and with some effort you can get Windows 7 installed on new hardware, one day that won't be possible. Either licenses will dry up, or the hardware will just not provide what older Windows versions need. 4. Old systems will become too weak to run modern software. As powerful as the best computers may be today, it'll be 3 or 4 years and there will be systems that are twice as fast and have twice the capacity for the same price. 5. Microsoft WILL ultimately push business into adopting Windows As A Service. While business wields purchasing power, they are also subject to things like laws that define security requirements, and Microsoft DOES tell them what they can do and what they cannot do legally with licenses. Business can't just "go it on their own". What business does, users will ultimately have to follow. 6. Some of the dust will settle. Privacy issues will become better known. Technical issues will be worked out. New laws and things, like national digital IDs, will be created to offset the problems - which are not specific to Windows. I hate to sound defeatist - and I'm not speaking to any one individual here - but you need to get used to the fact that within a couple of years you're seriously going to have to consider upgrading. Not just Windows is changing but so is the world. Plan for it and keep up with what's going on so you can make intelligent decisions (I like virtualization for this). I'm planning to stay on Win 8.1 with my main development workstation setup and Win 7 on my small business server setup for as long as it takes for Windows 10 to get better than what I'm already running - which means to deliver more value. I have good hardware - with spare components - and have backups that can be recovered in order to return my systems to a working state as needed. I don't anticipate being forced into anything any time soon, but on the other hand I don't hold a fantasy that I'll be able to run Windows 8.1 for too many years more either. -Noel

I respect that decision. Paddling against the current gets tiring. Good luck (to us all). -Noel

Yes, and this discussion has made me consider whether I want to install some of the updates. I could, of course, just install that one. Or I could remember that there is a potential issue, and deal with it if I have a problem. Trouble is, I have a serious worry that Microsoft is motivated to not do good things to existing systems any more with their updates. All they would have to do is just not be as careful to ensure new bugs aren't introduced, they wouldn't even have to be actively malicious. Now, what company do we know that has shifted more of the software testing to users? Thing is, I have zero problems right now. My reliability readings are all solid 10s, I have systems that have literally been running for months without fault. "If it works, don't fix it." -Noel P.S., Woody Leonhard, someone I respect, at the moment is holding at MS-DEFCON 2 - "Patch reliability is unclear. Unless you have an immediate, pressing need to install a specific patch, don't do it.". I generally consider myself even more conservative and less trusting than Woody, so...

Thanks, but... Getting it right, in my opinion, would be to have it be a COPY by default in all cases, which is what I would like to accomplish. Voila, the file doesn't leave the drive, nor does it leave its original folder unless you do something special. Yes, I know about the modifier keys, and right-click dragging. Edit: Thanks to xpclient on another forum, per the site listed below the tweak to do exactly what I'm wanting is a couple of easy registry modifications. Info from: http://winaero.com/blog/set-the-default-drag-and-drop-action-in-windows-10-windows-8-and-windows-7/ Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*]"DefaultDropEffect"=dword:00000001[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\AllFilesystemObjects]"DefaultDropEffect"=dword:00000001-Noel

If you're on the same drive, in File Explorer a drag operation is a Move, while if you're dragging from one drive and onto another it becomes a Copy operation by default. This is nothing new, and I didn't just discover it. However, for the umpteenth time I managed to move a file instead of copying it and it finally occurred to me to seek a remedy. Unfortunately, though the question has been asked online in a number of places, there doesn't seem to be an easy tweak. None that I spotted anyway. I don't know what small-minded Microsoft person thought that making an operation fundamentally different depending on source and target, but it is what it is. And it sometimes catches even the most seasoned Windows users off guard. I was wondering if anyone here has discovered a tweak that would just make a drag operation a Copy by default always. Ideally it would just work the same as dragging between different drives. Thanks! -Noel

Honestly, I really haven't yet had time to look at it. Sorry. Life's just been too complicated. I've been working on firewall and DNS strategy updates. -Noel

Nice sentiment, but... People sometimes have investments in / reasons to use Windows that can't easily be ported to Linux. And make no mistake - Unix and its derivatives are no panacea of goodness in themselves. There's a reason those of us using Windows aren't using Unix in the first place. -Noel

As soon as I saw the magic words "Universal" and "Windows 10" mentioned on the KB page, as per my personal policy I hid the update. This should probably be discussed... From the KB article: What this says to me is that if a software developer has upgraded his software development environment to build against the Windows 10 Software Development Kit (something you get with Visual Studio 2015, even if you're not running Windows 10), and the developer uses the C runtime library functions (e.g., strcpy, printf, etc. which is quite common to do) in the application (note that I didn't say App, this could be a traditional desktop application), it may need to find a copy of the appropriate C runtime library DLL on the target system. Developers ARE using the latest SDKs and tools - it benefits them to do so. Many developers provide an installer that makes sure to re-distribute the needed run time libraries to older systems. Others statically link the library into their code (which I prefer). In those cases, you would not need this update for that software to work properly on your older system. Having the update in place already might make the installation process quicker, because the installer might recognize that the needed library is already present. Or it might not. Not all programmers always get all the dependencies right! That's all probably programmer gobbledygook to most folks. What it may mean to you is: If you expect to run a brand new version of a commercial or free software application on your older OS, there's a chance that the application won't work (or won't work quite right) without this update! I think I sense that Microsoft, with the naming and wording of the KB, is trying to obfuscate what "Universal" means, and has some intention of making computing life more difficult for folks who might choose to practice "As soon as I saw the magic words "Universal" and "Windows 10" mentioned on the KB page, as per my personal policy I hid the update". Microsoft only benefits from making your older (e.g., Vista, 7, or 8) system work worse. At some point you're going to get tired of the problems and either a) accept the Win 10 "upgrade", or b) buy a new computer, which will have Win 10 on it. I see plans within plans... Mixing and matching updates is an activity not without peril! And I don't have any easy answers. -Noel

The ongoing question still seems to be this: 1. You're taking on additional risk that Microsoft's foot-in-the-door boot size will get bigger if you DO accept updates to the Windows Update process itself. 2. You're taking on additional risk that Windows Update will no longer work if you DON'T accept updates to the Windows Update process itself. While item 2 might seem more like a feature than a bug, it is a consideration when hiding all recent updates to the Windows Update process itself. It's not hard to imagine them changing software on the servers so as to make it only possible to get updates successfully when you have the updated client software. We have already seen that with an older version for Win 7 getting updates became mosasses-slow, right? Now, don't get me wrong - I don't advocate getting Windows Updates at all any more without a really good reason - but it seems naïve to me to just think that stopping updates to the Windows Update process itself will be without any downsides. -Noel

That "RealTek Semiconduct Corp. - Other hardware - Realtek USB 2.0 Card Reader" entry seems like it would be a good candidate for hiding using the Windows Update Hiding tool. But it'll probably come back one day. I have one like that for my HP printer/scanner, and another one for a Silverlight update. Microsoft would say "See? We NEED to be able to do a full in-place upgrade every 4 months to clear up glitches like this. Starting over is SO much easier (for us) than just getting the technical stuff right in the first place." They might also point out that (per what you're showing on the screen) "Some settings are managed by your organization, which must not be doing it right." You've clearly changed something that they don't feel is normal. -Noel

Have you tried using System Restore? I just looked over the script (remplace_timedate.bat) from that package, and it appears to be somewhat intrusive... It stops and disables the system protection service (sppsvc). Then it replaces the original timedate.cpl with the copy provided with the package. It appears to put the old copy in timedate.cpl.bak, but even if you were manually to return the .bak file in place the sppsvc has been disabled. Tweaks that turn off system protection really ought to show a pretty clear warning. A System Restore may be your best choice. If you can't find Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Recovery in the menus, try running SystemPropertiesProtection.exe. -Noel

I was more worrying about it coming on automatically while in a case, where no air could circulate and cool it. I've heard of it happening, causing meltdowns. -Noel

The terms "four months" are used an awful lot here: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/mt598226(v=vs.85).aspx Though notably their examples showing the publishing of "Feature Upgrades" show 4 and 6 month intervals. Emphasis on "examples" (vs. plans). The diagrams give an insight into the thinking. There's wording like "Minimum length of servicing lifetime" == "Approximately 4 Months", so you can see where "3 times a year" comes up. I did, on re-reading that, get the impression that new LTSBs will be released every 12 months or so. That was something I'd missed when I read it before. -Noel

Well, with all due respect for the good MS guys, (and to you) it is something we had since YEARS and that even they made available a loong time ago. (currently I am using IMDISK that can mount a lot of other kind of images but the basic CD-Rom image mounting capabilities was here since day one or so). Sure, I know, but if installing 3rd party desktop is being discussed generally as "not an OS thing but the thing of a system tweaker", then NOT having to install 3rd party ISO mounting software probably can legitimately be claimed as an OS improvement. Remember, I started by not considering the "out of box" capabilities the test of the OS' mettle, but what it can be turned into. It was you I believe who wanted to bring up the distinction between what a basic user could expect to do and what a dyed-in-the-wool geek could accomplish. But it's no problem, these are good distinctions to make. It underscores my point that this dyed-in-the-wool geek is for the first time unable to turn Windows 10 into something better than what he was able to turn Windows 8.1 into - and that's significant! I'm 100% in agreement with you that innovation stopped pretty much right after Vista and it was all refinement and polish after that. Thing is, the software did need a HUGE AMOUNT of refinement and polish, and even Windows 8 benefited from some of that. But that phase is decidedly over now. The Marketing people (the root of much of the evil) clearly think it's refined enough to hang all kinds of new things (App App App CHOO) over the outside of it now. I've not heard from any inside sources, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they've been given strict orders to leave the kernel alone so as not to make it unstable. -Noel

Yes, that's the point! I've been off the insider track for a long time. I had 10240 tweaked and tuned then BAM! 10586 re-installed applications, reverted privacy and other settings, claimed an application was incompatible (though reinstalling the same version worked just fine)... It took me a full day to get the system back to usable and almost a week to find and re-tweak everything. Now I have been developing a "Re-Tweaker" type of script to ease the process for the next in-place upgrade, which is ALL too near. -Noel

Documentation is a good thing. Enterprise is no doubt demanding more transparency from Microsoft - and it is big business that wields the purchasing power. You'll note their putting no such effort into documenting the Windows Updates for Windows 8 and earlier. -Noel

I would suggest that the "kid" in question might have less an idea how to actually be productive with a computer and would be more likely just to look to technology to feed his boredom. Of all the things I've done and seen, I've chosen to optimize and accentuate the parts that are good in a timeless way. In a sense, I've spent my entire life figuring out ways to make computer systems more productive, more efficient, and just better. Only today I found out how to live with one less running process with no downside. Does the extra 0.02% of available CPU time benefit me in a noticeable way? Probably not, but over time it adds up. With every new major Windows release I've found things of merit. It was more difficult with Windows 8.1, but it DID bring a slightly more efficient File Explorer layout, doesn't seem to "load up" quite as quickly under heavy usage as Win 7, and I actually DO use the ability to mount ISO files. Windows 7 brought its share of things, such as better efficiency than Vista, Vista before that, and so on. Unfortunately so far, as well-tweaked as I can make Windows 10 - with that seasoned eye toward things being better - I can't identify ONE THING that's improved. Even the policies of Microsoft (In-place upgrades on 4 month intervals? Seriously?) have turned for the worse. It used to be that just keeping current brought some intangible value, but even that has evaporated as Microsoft has turned to doing nothing more than hanging Apps all over its OS. Who wants Windows Updates any more? Remember when people thought of Windows Update as a Good Thing? Now it brings a sense of dread. If the App realm were to bring something good that would be interesting - but it just hasn't. Seriously, who's talking about any "must have" Apps? Microsoft's idea is good - facilitate development of good software and let the world make Windows great. The problem is they've lost even the ability to facilitate. The Universal App environment is a flop. -Noel

There's not been THAT much more to add... I could probably put some more info in about managing updates and avoiding GWX though, given the changing environment. Thanks for the reminder; I'll do some editing on them. Most of my recent accomplishments have been in implementing a deny-by-default firewall, setting up a local DNS server in my local network, and creating a process that generates a managed blacklist from multiple managed sources online, which enhances security. A page in the books that recommends the Sphinx firewall would be good, but the version I'm running hasn't actually been released yet. Jaclaz makes out like my Windows 7 and 8.1 setups are somehow extraordinarily special - something only I could do - but they're really just configured very carefully with a lot of small tweaks and with some key (and mostly free) augmenting software added. They still pass SFC checks, do successful updates (if I let them), and run things compatibly and reliably. Nothing someone else can't do. Back in April 2015 I set up my new small business server with Win 7 Ultimate and I had it all configured and running well in just a few hours. Some of the things I picked up right here on this forum. I have (in no particular order) set up on Win 8.1: An aero glass desktop facilitated by Big Muscle's product (donationware)A freely downloadable Aero 7 theme that makes the controls easier to perceive and use.The Classic Shell Start Menu (free).The Sphinx Windows Firewall Control product (commercial product).Several other downloadable desktop enhancement tools (free). Beyond those things... Apps are removed. I have no use for Metro until some kickass Apps are invented (if ever).I've done some trimming to disable or remove things I don't want or need running.Settings tweaked to keep it private.Windows Update and Windows Firewall are disabled, except if I choose to get updates. I've done nothing that can't be done by anyone else, and it doesn't take that long to get everything set up just so... Less than a day, following a guide. And it's even less a big deal since much of it only ever needed to be done once (I'm running the same Windows installs that went in initially - e.g., Win 8.1 installed in late 2013, Win 7 installed on my new server this past April). That touches on one of the major problems with Win 10 - it requires a full OS setup and tweak/tune every 4 months. That's why I'm developing a Re-Tweaker, to minimize the downtime right after an in-place upgrade. So far, it's a script, which may grow up to be a full application. This is what I've got working: Re-removal of all Apps, including Cortana, OneDrive, OneSync, the Store, etc.Re-disabling of various unneeded services (work in progress).Re-disabling of various unneeded scheduled tasks (work in progress).Re-tweaking of settings to improve privacy (work in progress).Re-tweaking the appearance of things and disablement of thumbs.db creation in File Explorer. Ideally, once this script is grown up, it will not only facilitate turning a freshly installed Win 10 system into a workhorse, but will help manage the returning of the system to the same configuration after future updates. -Noel

Jaclaz is actually right, I've tweaked 8.1 pretty heavily to make it more "serious" and less apt to be chatty online. Since I have reconfigured/tweaked/augmented EVERY version of Windows to make them better, I don't see what I've done with 8.1 as fundamentally different - though you could argue I've done a little MORE with it. I never had to re-theme 7, for example, nor had to remove a whole set of Apps. But I HAVE replaced the Start Menu (with Classic Shell) going all the way back. I have augmented 7/Vista/XP/2000/NT4/NT3.5/and all the others with 3rd party software that does Good Things. Win 10 isn't the first "bad" version. I think of it as just a darker shade of gray, with NO bright spots making it attractive. It's just that 8.1 was closer to the time that Microsoft cared about serious computing, and they hadn't ruined quite so many things yet. It was a bit easier to resurrect usefulness - though to be fair I've already done that with Win 10 as well (in virtual machines). With acceptance of some degradation of the desktop look and feel I could certainly live with Win 10. It does what I need. Just not better in any way I can discern (and trust me, I've looked hard). The advantage to my having chosen to do all this to 8.1 is that it has a bit longer "supported life" than 7 - though does that matter any more? "Support" from Microsoft has devolved into a "we've got a foot in the door, let's push Win 10 through it" situation. I haven't taken any updates on any systems this month, and I only took a few last month. Amazingly, nothing has fallen over and died yet. What I described above is my interactive workstation. I do have a small business server here also, still running Windows 7 (and no plans to "upgrade" to 10). It's working well enough too with nearly 2 months solid uptime and zero glitches. "If it works, don't fix it" -Noel

I like that diagram at that link; it clears things up. Thanks! Just thinking out loud... Doesn't it sound pretty much like the LTSB is roughly the same as what we traditionally considered a major Windows release, then? Except mere mortals who aren't part of an Enterprise can't own it. So why can't Microsoft stand to sell a copy of the LTSB code to mere mortals? Again, I'm thinking about how small business is just left out of this story. Microsoft clearly wants small business to use the "Pro" variant, since only "big" businesses can even begin to consider buying Enterprise. They've said as much. Up to now a small business could get what they needed out of Pro (though I personally always bought Ultimate when it was available). I'm not above paying for good software - I have always done so. The licensing before 10 was such that you could count on what was in the OS for a year or two or three, and you could even skip a major version release. Now they think it's okay to disrupt operations every 4 months - like it or not. Okay, the first one can be deferred a few months, but after that... Even with my Re-Tweaker script (still in development) I'm not willing to live with forced downtime every 4 months. I guess, since we CAN - with geekflips - stop Windows Updates. But you stop EVERYTHING if you do so. I suppose taken to the extreme, one could run without any updates at all for an indefinite amount of time, though without "security updates" there will be some risk... And who knows? Will Win 10 go bonkers without an update for an extended period of time? We DO have a little time living with Windows 10 (in VMs) under our belts now, and I can honestly say that with the Win 10 configuration I had developed by about a week after the release of 10240, I could actually have been productive up until now. 10586 has been decent enough to use for a while now too. But there is the spectre of one day build xxxxxx will come out and just delete functionality I will absolutely require. With that hanging over my head, I can just stay off Win 10 altogether and reap all the same benefits - with an OS (8.1) that's permanently activated. Unsaid is that I haven't yet found an App I need, nor even want. One day that could change, but I'm just not seeing it being even close yet. I sound ultra-conservative, but hey, I AM running Windows 8.1! I'm not as conservative as those still hanging onto XP, or even 7. -Noel

I'd uninstall only these two, as they specifically increase telemetry - which benefits Microsoft at the expense of your bandwidth. I'd start with uninstalling the later one first. If you're not seeing GWX activity (or have used one of the published methods to thwart it) and you DO want to continue getting other updates, I would certainly start with just those two and leave the other ones (which are updates to Windows Update itself) in. Make sure to have the system backed up (which is sound advice no matter what you're about to do). -Noel

Thank you for that additional piece of info. I have long wondered whether every new 4 month release could ultimately become an LTSB depending on when a user buys into the program. I guess not being offered the update could still be different than getting the LTSB download afresh. Does a new user TODAY have the option to get a 10586 LTSB? If it is indeed possible that any given "current" release build could become an LTSB in a particular circumstance, then it would conceivably be reasonable for a given user to accept new releases only as often as makes sense for them in their business environment - even only every 2 to 3 years, so it wouldn't be much different from going with major releases such as Windows XP, 7, 8, etc. If in fact this is the way it really is, that the capability to "choose a particular release and stick with it for a while" isn't available at all to non-Enterprise users is the basic problem. It leaves small business in the cold - and THAT's a colossal mistake. So, in summary, two things: 1. It's still not clear whether there is one and only one LTSB (build 10240) or any given 4 month release build could become an LTSB installation. 2. Even if the better of the two possibilities in item 1 is realized, small business can't take advantage of it. -Noel

Heh, I'm imagining a plethora of privacy enhancing tools - so many that no one knows which is better, and quite possibly no one tool will "have it all covered". We may already be there. I hope this teaches Microsoft that they cannot close off Windows and build a walled garden. -Noel

Managed hosts lists are Good Stuff! Digital saints create them. -Noel