NoelC

No, I meant it the way I wrote it. People who have invested time and effort into learning Windows aren't going to easily be able to just "switch" on a whim. These are the people I'm calling "savvy". Some even have developed businesses to sell into the Windows market. How difficult is that to change? Not trivial, certainly. I'm not pro-Windows 10, not at all, but I'm just being realistic. Those who do find value in running Windows will inevitably find themselves using Windows 10 - it's just a matter of time. There may be a few who are completely happy with an old version, but even many of them sooner or later will experience a failure of some sort and be forced into a hard decision: Windows? Mac/Linux? Farming? Many users do need just to surf the internet, maybe buy a few things, order pizza. They may find an iPad to their liking (hey, we have one here; I'm not planning to buy a Windows tablet even though I am a dyed-in-the-wool career software engineer with a business that sells to the Windows market). -Noel

Can you complete a Windows Update with that? That's the difference. It's not really a viable solution if you can't do a Windows Update. -Noel

No. I was considering looking at gpedit method of specifying tasks not allowed to be run next. Thanks for the tip. -Noel

Probably why he's using a local DNS service instead. Do asterisks even work in hosts? -Noel

Good idea. So everyone takes 5 minutes to download and install that. At least it slows the ongoing worldwide productivity reduction. Until the icon shows up, then it's a couple of hours downtime... -Noel

Oh, I see what you meant. No, nothing visible happened on the next logon. -Noel

What do you mean? I've edited my post a bit. They tell me not to post repeatedly in the same thread, as that could be considered bumping so I've been updating the same post (even though I've posted several times above repeatedly already). -Noel

Seems like a step in the right direction. It renders a lot more color in title bars that are rendered against a dark background, and that helps visually differentiate windows better. I can now get a real electric blue look. Thanks! Unfortunately the color seems to shift (to a different hue) as the translucent parts go over a lighter background, which makes it seem touchy with certain colors. I haven't had much time to tweak the color values yet, so this may be something that can be worked around. You might want to make it a selectable option, or at least have all the parameters on sliders that can be controlled more easily via the GUI application. It will then be more likely people will be able to choose just the colors they like. Nice job! -Noel

I've just killed all the above processes manually to see what would happen. Down to 39 processes after that. It'd be about 9 less than that but there are processes corresponding to the 3rd party stuff I DO want running. ShellExperienceHost.exe seems to try to come up again one or more times after being killed, but immediately exits. Curiously, killing sihost.exe results in this message popping up. Edit: The Settings App won't come up after doing the above. Sihost may be necessary, unfortunately. And, no thanks, Microsoft - don't "try to fix it". A lack of Cortana and your feeble Start Menu don't a broken system make! I wonder what the UnistackSvcGroup service does... -Noel

For one thing, it won't go in until I say so. Then, I'll just deal with it, as with all prior versions. At this point it's an interesting hobby (I have nothing critical on my test system, and it's easily restored via a snapshot). The data is going into my knowledge base and book. Next time it will be even easier. And if it gets out of hand I have been considering writing a "re-tweaker". I will be VERY interested to see how difficult dealing with one of their 4 month cycles is, in order to return a well-tuned, well-controlled system back to the proper state. If it's not a superhuman task, and of course depending on what else they screw up. I'll consider upgrading my business systems to Windows 10. Rest assured I won't see ads nor will Microsoft get any of my personal data. -Noel

OK, after the sweep through the Task Scheduler, SettingSyncHost.exe is now no more. There were several entries in there having to do with uploading settings - something I certainly don't want. All the others I listed still remain. I'm waiting for the system to settle again after the reboot, but it's already down to 45 processes. -Noel

I'm good with scripting (I have a nice little tool called WinBatch that can even make standalone executables), but I'm going to put some effort into killing them at the source first. I'm most of the way through the Task Scheduler right now, vetting each and every entry. I've disabled many, and there have been some (e.g., BackgroundUploadTask) that might be the source of some of the above processes as well as having been sneakily protected by Microsoft. Of course I know how to deal with permissions issues. Once I've exhausted all my capabilities to cut them off at the source, I'll write up a nice little script/application that runs at bootup and maybe occasionally as a scheduled task to re-kill any that show up again. My goal is to have a quiet Win 10 system have well under 40 processes running. I've got it down to 42 now. -Noel

Sounds like a good plan. Remove them... how? I'd like to get into specifics here. At least one of them triggers a big pop-up message (I guess emitted by Explorer) in which we're told Cortana and the Start Menu are now unavailable (yes!) and that we need to log off and the system will try to correct the problem. There is no [Cancel] button or close caption button, as you might imagine. Others just come back on their own. More research... taskhostw.exe {222A245B-E637-4AE9-A93F-A59CA119A75E} "Host Process for Windows Tasks" Besides obviously purposefully being named so as to obfuscate its function, seems to be virtually unknown: A worldwide Google search turns up exactly 5 references.A registry search for the GUID finds nothing and only several vague or generic references to taskhostw.It's not listed in Autoruns. So how's it getting started? Its parent is svchost, specifically process 1016 on my system at the moment. This runs the following services: BITS - Background Intelligent Transfer Service Browser - Computer Browser CertPropSvc - Certificate Propagation DsmSvc - Device Setup Manager IKEEXT - IKE and AuthIP IPsec Keying Modules iphlpsvc - IP Helper LanmanServer - Server ProSvc - User Profile Service Schedule - Task Scheduler SENS - System Event Notification Service SessionEnv - Remote Desktop Configuration ShellHWDetection - Shell Hardware Detection Themes - Themes UserManager - User Manager Winmgmt - Windows Management Instrumentation Clearly one of the above services starts it. A search through all of the files on the hard disk for 222A245B-E637-4AE9-A93F-A59CA119A75E turns up: Nothing! (save for a number of files that can't be opened - I'll look at making permissions changes and try again) Now, since its tracks are quite obviously covered up, I'm more sure than ever I don't want it running. Let's see, what kind of program would be so intentionally obfuscated? Killing it doesn't seem to leave the system worse for the wear, nor does it appear to come back. Looks like a script to kill all these things at startup, and again maybe at intervals (for the ones that get re-started), would be in order. At the moment I'm going through ALL the Microsoft scheduled tasks to eliminate all those I don't know are needed. -Noel

I didn't imply how much of one, just gave a relative measure. It's probably all they can manage with the "talent" they have. Just noting that relatively speaking Microsoft didn't have to close their doors after Win 8 was released, and so it will probably be with Win 10. I doubt they're deterred in the slightest - or maybe they do feel really peeved that they had to maintain compatibility with the desktop for this long, and can't fathom why people aren't all building applications that look like this? -Noel

Let me start by saying this: I've uninstalled/disabled/hammered much of Cortana, OneDrive, and cloud-oriented, Modern App components, I never use the Windows Start Menu, and I log in with a local account and disable UAC, and have a deny-by-default firewall setup. In short, I only need / want a desktop-oriented system - however archaic that may seem - that does pretty much what I am able to do with Win 8.1 and with 7 before that. I'm not interested in cloud-integration, save for the delivery of updates (e.g., to keep ahead of those who would take advantage of security holes). In pursuit of these goals, I'm leaning the system down to being a pure desktop servant that isn't chatting with servers all over the internet, nor supporting any part of "Modern" activity. Unfortunately, I apparently DO still need the Settings app. I've already made strides... I have a system that settles to a process count in the mid 40s when it's idle, and uses maybe about 1 GB of RAM (on an 8 GB system). But I'm not done. I want to find out what it will take to eliminate the following processes that are always seen running. I don't believe they're needed at all on a system with the above goals, and I don't want them to even start. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong or have characterized what they do incorrectly. InstallAgent.exe - (presumably) Looks for updates for Modern AppsRuntimeBroker.exe - Manages permissions / trust for Modern AppsSettingSyncHost.exe - Syncs settings on multiple systems through the cloud - not wanted.ShellExperienceHost.exe - Unversal App integration in the shell. Needed for Settings?sihost.exe - Shell Infrastructure Host, not sure what this does.svchost running UnistackSvcGroup - not sure what this does; haven't matched it to a named service.taskhostw.exe - running {222A245B-E637-4AE9-A93F-A59CA119A75E}; not sure what this does. All these new "hosts" and "brokers". Sheesh. Initial experiments imply that the system can run with no problems without at least some of these. I'd like to know your thoughts. -Noel

It's hard news to hear, but Windows 10 has succeeded in getting on near 100 million systems, with copies of the installer sitting on many more - through clandestine means or otherwise. And so we have to treat it as every bit the force Windows 8 has been. It's probably here to stay, and even the relatively cool reception (for a free system that's being PUSHED on people) will probably not deter Microsoft from doing whatever the hell they want. Seems to me we haven't yet heard from large classes and countries who WILL have a legal beef with Microsoft for this rise in aggressiveness. But I wonder if even that will result in substantive changes. "Too big to fail" is nothing compared to "too big to be deterred even the slightest bit". -Noel

Hate to say it, but selling ad space for even a measly 100 million pairs of eyeballs will keep the lights on in Redmond. They haven't failed. And they will continue degrading older versions by loading them up with Windows Updates that take them in directions never expected by the folks with those old licenses, so I expect the Win 10 usage will go up to probably 200 million at least in the coming few years. Realistically, anyone with any savvy will find it a very difficult decision to move to Mac or Linux. In the words of Emperor Palpatine... -Noel

Exactly. Haven't bought it. Version 11 does just as well and runs everything I need (including a Win 10 VM). I hear it's easier to make a new VM under a Windows 10 host if one uses VMware 12, but... No need here. I won't be moving to a Win 10 host for some time if at all. -Noel

I'm doing just that. The Metro-less Win 8.1 is pretty chatty, and 7 - while being MUCH less so - isn't purely quiet either, and does need firewall treatment. Here's the kicker: It's probably ill advised to cut off updates entirely, and frankly it's getting more and more difficult to separate wheat from chaff in the update sets. Does every "Security" update contain only security fixes? Will a system start to fall apart quickly if you take only security updates and not bugfixes? Are the bugfixes intermingled with privacy invading changes? With everything in place, last night my Win 8.1 setup contacted ctldl.windowsupdate.com (23.14.84.48). No new updates were downloaded, but the difficulty in separating wanted from unwanted connections I mentioned up above is quite real. -Noel

I've pretty much achieved that with my Win 7, 8.1, and 10 firewall configurations. They are "deny by default" with a white list of addresses allowed for connection only to specific system components. Plus updates are only installed when I request them, owing to several settings and reliance on resiliency in the Windows Update process. Yes, explicit IP address management is absolutely needed. Just a hosts file (which I also have) doesn't do it. Not even close. Yes, Microsoft rotates addresses. You tend to see a lot of them in sequence when you block traffic, because it has retry logic to try to work around temporary server outages. But even that list changes from run to run. It's like fishing. Yes, things are blocked at all hours of the day and night. In fact, at the moment I'm finding I'm blocking more from Win 8.1 than 10, believe it or not. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect solution, because it's entirely possible that an address in a range required to complete a Windows Update (and there are a LOT of them) by a particular Service might be the very same one that can receive uploads of personal data. But the traffic seems very small in practice. WAYYY less than without the firewall in place. I have put many hours into this, and I can honestly say that my lists of addresses cannot possibly be perfect. Worse yet, as jaclaz has alluded, they're going to change. I've already seen this happen with the system accessing new addresses after a recent update. Even worse, they're certainly not the same for systems in other geographic places. And you can't just block all Microsoft addresses. They use Content Delivery Networks (CDNs), so some information is exchanged with servers owned by Acamai, Edgecast, and a number of others. And there some Microsoft addresses from which you DO want to receive data, e.g., while browsing, so you have to be pretty selective in how you set up your rules. Frankly, it's complicated as hell to get it right then select the right reporting options so as to be able to manage it. I'd hesitate to say it's hopeless, but being this close to a working solution I honestly still wonder whether I'll have the energy and time to maintain this configuration - it does take significant ongoing effort to remember that things that used to just work might now be failing because of the "deny by default" policy. This comes into play when you install new software, for example. -Noel P.S., if your system being promiscuous online disturbs you - and don't get me wrong, it should - keep in mind that instituting a process whereby you can actually track what's being done can actually be more disturbing. Sometimes ignorance really is bliss. "What was in that one packet that got through?"

Also, have you made SURE to disable hybrid/fast boot in the Win 10 config? That's deadly if you're going to run another OS because it will leave the file system dirty, and causes Win 10 to start up assuming its cache and other memory-resident structures exactly match what's on disk. I've had a system that had been running Win 10 then gracefully shut down immediately do a CHKDSK repair at bootup of Win 7. May I suggest an alternative to dual boot? If your system is up to it (has enough resources), consider using a virtualization package to allow you to run the operating system under test (presumably Windows 10) in a virtual machine. -Noel

EVEN WITH digital muzzles, condoms, and privacy screens in place, how much time per day do YOU now spend looking to see if hidden C:\$WINDOWS.~BT folders have shown up on your systems? C:\Windows\System32\GWX? 1 minute? Now multiply that by hundreds of millions to see the lost productivity to the world. It's staggering. -Noel

Holding back only works for so long. I know the effort it's taken to make the various versions of Windows into workable systems. Been doing it since time began (to borrow a phrase). For me... Win 10 has taken at least 1.5x as much effort and time to tame and muzzle as did Win 8.1 (which I am currently still using as my main workstation OS), while providing about the same functionality PLUS a bunch of things I don't need or want. Win 8.1 in turn took about 1.5x effort as much as Win 7, and delivered about 105% of the functionality PLUS a bunch of things I didn't need or want. Win 7 took about the same effort as Vista and delivered about 120% of the functionality. Vista took about 1.5x as much effort as XP and delivered about 150% of the functionality. I could go back further the point is already made. We're getting less and less and having to spend more and more to maintain something that's useful. Trouble is, Microsoft has PROVEN that it will no longer even be possible to make a statement like the above, unless you start breaking things down into 4 month segments. Worse yet, they've even taken to making it cost MORE time and effort to keep older Windows systems under control, with all these roll-outs of "cloud-integrated" features they're retrofitting into Windows 7 and 8. I've reached a stable state where I can trust my systems again, but that will only keep until the next set of updates, which I'll have to vet, then - frankly - guess at whether to install (because Microsoft simply doesn't document them well enough any more). -Noel

Worse? No. I investigated it in depth and, while it is missing features such as alternate data streams, it never killed my hard drives. Maybe it's harder on cheap drives because it strives to ensure data doesn't get so stale it runs into bit rot. I like that on an electromechanical hard drive (HDD, not SSD) performance doesn't really degrade as the drive gets nearly full. Not that anyone ever has drives that are nearly full... LOL In my view ReFS represented one of the last serious OS features implemented. I just don't think it was finished. -Noel

Probably no parallel with Beta/VHS... DEC was years ahead of its time and valued top quality engineering over all else - including (unfortunately) swinging with market trends. Though they made some efforts, DEC (aka Digital) were unfortunately unable to make the transition between big, room-sized minicomputers (okay, not all of them were room-sized) to desktop microcomputers. Their level of engineering required the world to change less quickly, and we know who won. Half-baked now simply beat well-engineered later. By the way: It's their operating system design (VAX/VMS) that was ultimately re-implemented as Windows NT, and is the basis for all the Windows versions we have in recent history. Look up Dave Cutler's history some time. Things I liked: DEC built hardware to last, and software to do serious computing. I worked for quite a few years doing engineering work with their gear, even going so far as doing operating system modifications. Not only did I write software for Digital systems, but also using a Vax I led a 2-man team and we designed and coded an entire operating system plus applications for machines all over the country that looked after airport surveillance radar for 25 years. As far as I know it never crashed. Trust me, if Microsoft engineering were to have maintained even 5% of the sense (and focus and seriousness) Digital's engineering had, we'd have entirely a different situation with Windows today. -Noel