NoelC

Agreed. But more than an impression. I'm convinced it's no longer acceptable for use for serious computing. I'm with you 110% on needing control. -Noel

I have collaborated closely with someone who has used high-end Macs for many years now (decades actually). In my experience, under load, while we were working together doing software development his OS X system crashed slightly more often than my Windows. That is to say, his system crashed maybe once a year, while mine didn't crash at all. I have the right drivers, use good quality hardware, and maintain my system well. From where I sit Windows just keeps on running too. Even Windows 10 keeps on running for me, though I'm only allowing it to do so in a virtual machine, because stability and providing value are two different things. -Noel

Given that Microsoft is packaging the updates as "cumulative" blobs of stuff, there seems to be less point than ever in trying to determine which updates to take and which updates to hide. Of course the need may still exist for driver updates, specific updates to appilcations, or anything else Microsoft doesn't "accumulate" in their blobs. Maybe it's because I'm running Win 10 only in a VMware virtual machine and not on real hardware, but I'm not seeing much from the second category. Pretty much it's been going like this: Reconfigure to enable Windows UpdateCheck for available updates via the Microsoft "Show or hide updates" tool.Upon seeing a cumulative update (and Windows Defender definitions update), run Settings to install all that's offered..Configure to disable Windows Update Windows Defender normally keeps itself up to date directly, without Windows Update being enabled, but they release definitions updates so often that there's often one there when I check for Windows Updates. At the moment, these are showing as available, so there ARE occasional non-cumulative updates (a Silverlight security fix in this case)... KB3126036 is a security update for web browsing with Silverlight, which I wouldn't normally refuse unless I found reports online specifically describing it as problematic (and I don't think I rely much on Silverlight anyway). Generally speaking, I would not want to avoid installing the latest Windows Defender updates, though I suppose it's possible they could start releasing signature packages that would screw things up, and I'll have to look for reports of failures (based on the virus signature version, I guess; the KB is always the same). So far that's not been needed (knocking on wood). -Noel

Still a bit vague... If an application (note the full spelling) built with the Windows 10 SDK needs that change to be able to run on Windows 7 or 8.1, that would probably be a good thing. It might imply software built with the latest tools will still be compatible with Windows 7 or 8.1 - with this update. "Universal CRT" does not imply "Universal" Apps (nor "Cathode Ray Tube") as far as I can tell. It might be something made up to obfuscate easy identification of things that are Windows 10-specific, though. I build applications (again, noting the full spelling - NOT Apps!) using Visual Studio 2015, with the latest SDK, and it's entirely possible those applications may need this update to work properly. It's not clear what would happen if it's not there... Maybe things would work but be potentially flaky. Consider functions like IsWindows10OrGreater(), which can in theory only be used (i.e., successfully linked) if the software is built with the Windows 10 SDK. You COULD of course eschew any application that embraces Windows 10 even a little bit, but that sounds to me like a process that will dead-end your older system (which you'd like to keep running) sooner rather than later. -Noel

I guess I work in graphics software more than most, but I never found an application server type setup to be a sufficient provider of services. Nowadays, with more and more software using the GPU, centralizing the computing somewhere else - necessarily removed from the display - just seems silly. Centralizing hardware is a way to cut costs, but it's not like computer hardware isn't cheaper than ever, or more powerful than ever. -Noel

FYI, since security strategy was discussed a few pages ago, I figured I'd mention that I've just implemented a DNS server. I have a small Win 7 system that's online 24/7, so I installed an open source package called "Dual DHCP DNS Server". I configured it to run only the DNS part, and prepared a derivation of my big hosts file (black list), which was assembled from freely available lists online. I reconfigured my router to deliver the address of my server as the DNS server, so all the systems on my LAN / wifi now ask my server for DNS resolution. If an address can be resolved by the server from its list (i.e., the black list that has entries explicitly pointed to 0.0.0.0) then it will do so, returning a "host not found" error (a specific feature of using 0.0.0.0), but if a DNS request comes in for a good server not in the black list it will forward it to a remote DNS server (I have it set up to use the OpenDNS servers for that), then return the response when it comes back. Voila, additional protection for all devices, e.g. for our iPad, with essentially no downside. I'm working on an automated job now to update the blacklist regularly, much as I do to create the updated hosts files. Edit: Done. The job now uses the same sources as I was using to generate hosts files to generate a file of the proper format to be read by Dual DHCP DNS Server. The service is restarted each day to load the new list once it has been updated. List entries are simple, and look like this: ...lakai.com=0.0.0.0lakefrontvacationsuites.com=0.0.0.0lakeshore.d1.sc.omtrdc.net=0.0.0.0lalamomo.com=0.0.0.0laliga-fans.ru=0.0.0.0lamaisondeloiselier.com=0.0.0.0... The iPad now seems MUCH snappier to browse the web without all the tracking and ad crap loading! Server logs look like: [16-Jan-16 14:51:29] Dual DHCP DNS Server Version 7.29 Windows Build 7035 Starting...[16-Jan-16 14:51:29] DNS Logging: All[16-Jan-16 14:51:29] Starting DNS Service[16-Jan-16 14:51:29] Server Name: SVN[16-Jan-16 14:51:29] Default Host Expiry: 36000 (sec)[16-Jan-16 14:51:29] Default Forwarding Server: 208.67.220.220[16-Jan-16 14:51:29] Detecting Static Interfaces..[16-Jan-16 14:51:29] Domain Name: workgroup[16-Jan-16 14:51:29] Default Forwarding Server: 208.67.222.222[16-Jan-16 14:51:29] DNS Service Permitted Hosts: 192.168.2.2-192.168.2.254[16-Jan-16 14:51:29] Listening On: 192.168.2.44[16-Jan-16 14:52:33] Client 192.168.2.32, www.prodigitalsoftware.com A forwarded to Forwarding Server 208.67.222.222[16-Jan-16 14:52:33] Client 192.168.2.32, www.prodigitalsoftware.com A resolved from Forwarding Server as 66.96.147.110[16-Jan-16 14:57:54] Client 192.168.2.32, connect.facebook.com A not found[16-Jan-16 15:05:37] Client 192.168.2.32, platform.twitter.com A not foundIf it can help you with ideas, coding, or whatever, here's the batch file I wrote that compiles hosts and dns_hosts files. I don't expect you to be able to run it directly. It is augmented with the Gnu Toolkit for Windows and some of my own tools. However, it can give an idea how I've automated the process of creating these lists. You may use the information within it freely. -Noel

Learning new ways doesn't really adequately describe it. If it was ONLY that, with a reasonable result in the end, people wouldn't be so wary. It has become all about reinstalling and reinstalling Windows again and again, instead of running their applications. The real problem is that Microsoft thinks anyone in their right mind wants to have to do more to keep the OS running. They misconstrued the telemetry showing some people were screwing up their systems and reinstalling their OS every few months to mean that they actually WANT to do that. -Noel

>the "Windows XP forever" scenario. Ooh, how AWFUL that some folks would just like to keep using what works for them. We can't have THAT. Seems to me it's a case of trying to grow the business beyond reasonable boundaries using unreasonable tactics. -Noel

I imagine that if there are any differences at all that are important to drivers, that many older systems' drivers are faulty. Computer makers aren't out there updating drivers for all their old computers. FYI, I haven't seen any problems with 10586.63 at all after the cumulative update. My test VM is up 2 days 16 hours with it so far. Regarding validity... Seems to me that if a user puts Win 10 on an older computer that was working fine with, say, Win 7, then it gets flaky, Microsoft wins. The user sooner or later gets fed up and just replaces it with... You guessed it, something new running Win 10. Microsoft's in the hardware business now... Anyone else see the conflict of interest there? -Noel

I'd like to see clarified what the specific differences would be between: An ultra-modern system running Windows 7 in a way that's NOT considered "supported".An older system running Windows 7 that's "supported".Does the "unsupported" system just not receive updates? Can it not be activated at all? I'm aware of some issues with installing, which I believe have been worked around. If it's just that the "unsupported" system not receiving updates, well, that sounds like a feature given Microsoft's current trustworthiness. Let's not forget there are already folks deciding to stop all updates on their Win 7 systems. -Noel

Note which systems where usage dips downward on the weekends at gs.statcounter.com. Those are the systems that have the attributes businesses want. I'll save you the trouble: XP and 7 The ones that spike upward are the systems consumers use and businesses are resisting: 8.1 and 10 There's a powerful message there. -Noel

Harsh names (recalling that "Metrotard" got me banned from the Answers forum), but IMO your emphasis is warranted. I watch every single blocked connection attempt now, from all three systems I run (7, 8.1, 10) and I can't help but get the impression - again and again - that the OS is trying to sneak things out that most folks wouldn't see. I've implemented my deny-by-default firewall setup because I no longer trust the OS or the vendor of same, and even being VERY conservative, I'd say my loss of trust is warranted. The ONLY bright spot - if you can call it that - is that at this point Win 10 actually seems to be slightly more likely to actually shut up after having had privacy settings made than its predecessors. BUT, many of those settings were reverted upon installation of 10586, so they probably figure they'll overtly follow settings NOW since they'll be "accidentally" reset LATER anyway. -Noel

So I guess the question is: Does an update that adds / updates stub files need to be hidden? As an experiment I installed it and sure enough some 7 folders were created or updated (modification time shows the time at which I installed the update): C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft-windows-minkernelapinamespace_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.18923_none_68cc15ff92788e54 C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft-windows-minkernelapinamespace_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.18933_none_68c146139280aa45 C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft-windows-minkernelapinamespace_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.19110_none_68d3bf15927356c7 C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft-windows-minkernelapinamespace_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.23126_none_69588bcaab93ad65 C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft-windows-minkernelapinamespace_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.23136_none_694dbbdeab9bc956 C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft-windows-minkernelapinamespace_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.23226_none_69588db0ab93aa8c C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft-windows-minkernelapinamespace_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.23313_none_69605ea4ab8e3fbd None of these seem to have much substance, being only a few kbytes in size. There are a lot of the same names in different folders, but with different contents. Differences between a file in each of two of the above folders reveals: -Noel

Nice chart, Techie007. I was looking at the gs.statcounter.com readout... Bumps in their daily OS market share graph leveled visually, the Windows 10 adoption rate appears to have settled into a more or less linear line at something like 0.05% per day increase, or 1% additional market share every 20 days. Depending on what part of the graph you look at (peaks on weekends, valleys on weekdays), Win 10 is at about 12% to 13% right now. Of course, this is a listing based on people browsing the Internet. I'd wager a helluva lot of work computers don't browse the net, so these figures are probably inflated a bit. XP and Win 7 dip on the weekends, while Win 10 peaks. To me that seems to describe a fundamental difference in usage even amongst computers that DO browse the net. Assuming Microsoft continues or increases its aggressiveness, this implies Win 10 will have about half of Windows 7's market share in mid-2016, when the "free upgrade" offer expires, at about 20% to 22%. What portion of a billion devices this will be I cannot say. Probably no one can, which means Microsoft will ultimately publish that they have reached their goal, since in modern times companies think Marketing can say whatever they want. Will business / enterprise users be adopting Win 10 in a big way at that time, in order to continue the upward adoption rate? Or will Win 10 flatline after Microsoft starts charging money for an OS that STILL likely does no more than what Windows 7 or 8 already did? I think I already sense the peaks and valleys growing slightly larger as time passes. Also note that Win 7's usage rate recovered a good bit after the holidays. And XP is just holding flat for months now. This says business still thinks it needs Windows 7 or even XP. Therefore, I don't think the adoption rate will continue after the "free upgrade" incentive evaporates. We may not see Win 10 overtaking the market share of Win 7 by early to mid 2017 as linear projections would suggest. EVEN IF Microsoft were to opt to continue to offer the "free upgrade", I think the public will be jaded by mid-2016. Remember, these are folks who will not have upgraded in the first year. They're savvy (to have been able to avoid GWX) and they expect more from their OS than Win 10 is delivering. The ONLY THING I see that Microsoft could do - even though their Marketing and aggressive foot-in-the-door tactics have helped the initial adoption rate - would be to somehow hit a home run and put something into Windows 10 that would be "must have" new tech. Yet we see them putting essentially nothing into it now. That's a big gap between what should be and what is. And I don't foresee some amazing new gaming tech saving their assets. Seems to me all the BS Microsoft has pulled in the past few years is going to ultimately come to a head about mid-2016, and they'll either be FORCED to innovate or lose the OS business entirely. -Noel

I'm just now bringing an old Win 7 x64 Ultimate VM up to date, and I am looking KB2999226 over... I see that the files it updates are of the form "api-ms-win-core-*.dll... Looking over the files already on my system of the I see a BUNCH of these files, some dating back to October, 2012, for example in folder: c:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft-windows-minkernelapinamespace_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7600.17135_none_66dcd6a595588d81 I even found an empty folder dated 2009! C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft-windows-minkernelapinamespace_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7600.16385_none_66a6e19d9580f9e3 What are these files about? Has Microsoft been putting some kind of App capability into Windows 7 since wayyy back? Check it yourself on your Win 7 system... From an elevated CMD window, do this DIR command: DIR C:\Api-ms-win-core-*.* /s Given the sheer number of these things already on the system, I'm wondering whether disallowing this particular update would have any positive effect. Conversely, should one just trash all these files? It's not like they're HUGE or anything, but what are they good for? -Noel

It's because the job of making them run in windows is so poorly done - like something an 8th grader would code. If they had been well-integrated you might have a different opinion. The operating system is the integrator of whatever it is the user wants to do. Anything that doesn't hold that in the highest regard deserves the title: Epic Fail Too bad if that turns out to be hard for the poor dears in Redmond to code. Doing things not every 8th grader could do is supposed to be why they get the big bucks. Don't forget that we're here with an interest in Aero Glass and themes, etc. because we want an elegantly integrated desktop. -Noel

I needed one last year. I had a circa 2005 workstation that was operating as a server give up the ghost and needed a new server to replace it. So for that purpose the demand is what, one per decade? As it turns out, it uses about 150 watts less power just sitting there, so running 24/7 it will pay for itself in electric cost savings (and don't forget the cost in air conditioning to cool the room) fairly quickly. Plus it's WAY faster to serve files and (because it runs from SSDs) is utterly silent (the other one's fans made a little sound constantly, and sped up when under load). I should have replaced it years ago. But it was working then, and I had better uses for the money... -Noel

By the way, as an alternate suggestion for increasing computer security, I did a writeup here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173660-anti-malware-suggestions/ It's quite feasible to run infection-free with minimal antivirus software if you change your philosophy from the typical "invite malware into your computer then try to block it from doing its damage" to "stay away from malware in the first place". As a bonus, you don't see ads. I noticed two days ago that one of the sources from which I get managed blacklists has greatly increased their blacklist size. I love being able to leverage others' good work! My hosts file is now even larger. That's a whole bunch of different web servers that would try to deliver malware just not being contacted! http://Noel.ProDigitalSoftware.com/ForumPosts/hosts -Noel

What, you don't think there are managers who think Windows 10 is better than what they have, and would like to have a free upgrade? Ignorance knows no bounds, and reality (especially detail-laden reality) rarely intrudes on management decisions. I hate to say it, but most IT managers honestly don't have the skills to know better, so they deal in concepts, not details. From their perspective, here are the salient concepts: New and Improved Windows, Free Upgrade, Microsoft Support. All Good Things, right? Who cares if they actually DELIVER on those things. I don't choose to "up"grade MY business to Windows 10 based on actual reality - from both what I see in it technically AND what I see in Microsoft's policies... Cumulative updates, and in-place upgrades every 4 months, are you SERIOUS? Problem is, I'm actually a business manager who came up through technical ranks, and I still think details are important. Here's the fundamental nugget of truth underlying all this: Microsoft pushes the "Pro" edition for small business. My takeaway, based on this and other policy issues, is that Microsoft is more and more choosing to treat small business like consumers and THAT is a fundamental failure in Microsoft policies. What small business needs from computing is no less serious than what big business needs. In fact, small business may well be more innovative, more efficient, and actually need MORE from the operating system. What do we know so far: There is no more "Ultimate" edition, after Windows 7, because Microsoft doesn't think small business (or enthusiasts) should have access to the "best" features. One can no longer control "Pro" fully. Take for example the inability to configure all the telemetry off. What business - small or large - wants their data forcibly shared with Microsoft. "Pro" is subject to most of the same rules as "Home" with regard to updates, except that you can defer the whole mess - presumably so all the "Home" users will work out all the important problems before the "Pro" user who has selected deferred upgrades will be forced into it. But think about that, do "Home" users test all the things "Pro" users need? Why isn't the "Long Term Servicing Branch" (LTSB) available to "Pro" users? Now we see Microsoft expanding the "GWX experience" to small business (identified by "Pro" editions on domains). Over and over we see them trying to push "Pro" and "Home" together. It's like trying to mix water and oil. A wise man once said "make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler". Microsoft really seems to be trying to ruin computing across the board. We haven't begun to see all of what they're going to push on Enterprise users yet (which are still just getting used to Windows 7), but I'll wager only the most disconnected, high level IT managers will easily embrace Windows As A Service. -Noel

That's the problem with most folks - they believe there are still lines Microsoft won't want to cross. Didn't I mention I've already seen it happen (not with GWX but with other things)? Microsoft now believes they need to be in control of our computers. COMPLETE control. We will only be allowed to run Apps that are pre-ordained to do just the things we have paid them to allow us to do. -Noel

You don't think Microsoft has imagined someone using permissions to block their access? A subsequent update will almost surely come along and "cure" that change. I've personally seen them un-protect registry keys blocked in this fashion. Some of the namespaces in Explorer, for example, that you can tweak out of existence by registry changes come back again and again with updates, even if protected. The TrustedInstaller has as many or more privileges than you do. Imagine if ANY entity other than Microsoft tried to establish a foot in the door as big as theirs with Windows Update... The ability to regularly and automatically install arbitrary software on your computer at any time, and even going so far as forcing a reboot. TRUST has been of prime importance all along. Now that it's been destroyed, there's little left to limit what Microsoft does. I believe they're more desperate than you might think. Their desperation is akin to the clutching behavior a drowning man might exhibit, potentially dragging down and killing the lifeguard trying to save him. -Noel

In all seriousness, we must assume the minions in Redmond have all been told that if the company doesn't get Windows 10 on a billion devices that doom and gloom will follow for the company (and thus their jobs). They're already quite aware that they themselves could not do better work than they are doing - which of course led us to the Epic Fail technically of Windows 8/8.1/10. It's not that they're holding back. They're giving it their all. Their all pales by comparison to the hard workers who wrote NT, or Vista, for example - even with all its shortcomings. So what's a minion to do? Claim it's good, shill it, and try their best to hide all the shortcomings. They even think they can control the media. Say something less than glowing on the answers forum and see where it gets you, for example. -Noel

If you're considering whether you need to install an update, of course you have to read what's written about the update. If it's vague, then they're trying to hide something or be lazy, and you have to ask yourself: Do I want to change out my operating system software for something written by someone trying to hide something or being too lazy to write even a few lines of documentation? Have you checked your Reliability Monitor to see what problems you have actually experienced lately? -Noel

As far as I know Avast and Windows Defender won't run at the same time. But thanks for the report. PUP.Optional.MindSpark implies a browser hijacker program that's [maliciously] bundled into freeware or shareware applcations. So I'll call this a "user downloaded and ran a free program he shouldn't have" situation. Should the AV software have blocked it on the way in? Maybe. Should the user have known better than to run it? Probably. Could the user have paid attention to the install prompts and avoided installing it? Possibly. But in general, and asserting my assumptions are correct, it seems to fall in the category of the user can mess things up regardless of how 'secure' his system is. Microsoft of course would say, "if he'd gotten his program from the App Store he would not have been infected", and for that reason they would call some future version of Windows 10 that does not allow a user to download and install his own software "more secure". Naivety and the concept that "more security is better" without caveat is driving us to a future no one really wants. -Noel

Withering away? More like a dead weed from two seasons ago... Not running into any bugs with my Win 7 or 8.1 systems. Tell me again why I should want patches? -Noel