NoelC

Just Save Target as a text file. The name has to exactly match the .png file but with .layout added on the end. You'll want a theme atlas other than my RoundedCornersBlueActive.png and that'll pretty much get you there all by itself. -Noel

You haven't been watching enough YouTube, jaclaz. Assuming the laser doesn't need to be run very often, a bank of ultracapacitors and something like what the US Navy Directed Energy Weapons Program builds ought to be able to do some damage at a helluva distance in space, maybe vaporize enough of a larger object to move it off to the side... -Noel

I think the "too thin" window borders look may be the most irritating thing Microsoft has done to Windows 10. I figured out how to successfully add back a few pixels of border using my theme atlas and a companion .layout file (thank you, Big Muscle, for providing this capability). -Noel

Starts up okay here. Since I keep UAC off, I can only do limited testing with the Settings App. Here are my observations: It colorizes captions okay as far as I can see on both Modern and ribbon-enabled windows, though I have set white for everything, active and inactive. The doubling of the caption text I saw before is gone. The "back" glyph now shows properly, though isn't colored the same as the text. The only bug I see is: In an environment where the normal window title bars have been reduced through settings in the [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop\WindowMetrics] key, I find the caption text backing glow to be offset upward, instead of vertically centered like the text. See the following screen grab... -Noel

You need the Aero Glass for Win8.1+ v1.3.1 product installed if you're running WIn 8.1 (or Aero Glass for Win8 v1.3 if you're on Win 8.0). You get it from that same site on which the Aero Glass GUI tool is hosted is where you get the software. The GUI tool is only for configuring it once it's installed. The released version comes with its own installer and is fairly turnkey, and there's a prototype test version that an advanced user can make work on Windows 10. I wouldn't recommend the latter unless you're quite familiar with system tweaking and such things as registry editing and file and folder manipulation. If you've installed the product, some common things to look for: It disables itself, I believe, while running on battery. There's a registry entry that can be reconfigured for that. -Noel

Seems like a reasonable idea. I wonder if ~SW stands for "an approximation of software". -Noel

I for one respect very highly the concept of waiting to release software until sufficient feedback has been received and the bugs can be worked out. Having used Big Muscle's software now for YEARS on my main workstation, which sees hard use every day, I haven't had to worry about problems from it at all. None. We are conditioned more and more nowadays to expect buggy alpha-level software by companies looking to make a buck without doing all the work, but we should be more concerned with perfection. The devil is in the details with software. -Noel

I would like to see the results of that test as well. I don't discount personal / anecdotal experience - it's very powerful - but I think there can be reasons beyond an actual improvement in the OS (which I have been unable to detect in Win 10) that a new system could seem more responsive - especially in light of objective testing that implies otherwise... The old system might never have been set up properly. It's a wonder how many systems aren't running the best (or even proper) drivers. And I certainly respect that if a system is unstable with an older OS and a newer one gets the configuration more right and runs stably there's just no comparison. Stable always beats flaky. Remember the old song? "...she's fast, I don't care she blows up in mid-air!..." Also, when people report that a new system seems more responsive, there could be a factor of comparing a well worn, crudded-up Windows 7 installation against a fresh, new Windows 10 installation. How many folks do a fresh Windows 7 installs to facilitate an objective comparison? How many folks know how to manage all the things that run on their computers? And of course not everyone does the same things. There may well be a few things the new system does well, and if the person's experience involves doing those things a lot, then they will feel there has been an improvement. -Noel

No it's not, not at the moment. -Noel

Is it just me, or do you feel a bout of nausea when mainstream media "reports" with paid bias - not to mention disregard of observed reality? It's like they're weaving threads of ridiculous untruths into the fabric of the news in the hopes that we'll all start to actively disregard our own experiences in order to fit into their version of reality. Holy mother of Postulate a couple of ridiculous "givens" like the above, then work into an expose of how Windows is just going to be the world's most successful adware. The givens MUST be true, then, eh? This is unhealthy for the people of the world. -Noel

One can expect more and more mistakes as Microsoft focuses solely on Windows 10. About the only thing we can do is just avoid the upgrade on the general principle that we require more smarts and more morality from the company we invite into our lives to run software on our computers. I see no other pathway to notify Microsoft that we will not stand for this predatory behavior. The question still remains how much of Windows Update to avoid entirely on an older system. It's already clear that we need to avoid SOME of it. That we have an ongoing debate in this thread between very intelligent and wise folks as to how much is a sign that we have arrived in a very bad situation that we should NEVER be put in. It boils down to this: It has been good to keep up with Windows Updates in the past. vs. If it acts like malware, if it looks like malware... -Noel

While part of me enjoys discovery of new things, isn't it getting kind of old to have to game the system to do what's right? -Noel

...By hook or by crook we will. -Noel Edit: Before watching the video clip I had remembered "shall" instead of "will".

Right. As I recall Windows Defender itself loads its own updates on its own schedule, separately from the main Windows Update. That's a case where automatic updates makes sense. -Noel

FYI, this is working. Today, for example, I see the following upon running the tool. No automatic update had to occur for me to know what's available. At this point I could: Do nothing for a while, and wait to see what others say about the updates.Vet each one by doing an internet searchChoose individual updates to hide.Just go to the Settings App and trigger an update. Basically all the same things available to us before, with older systems. -Noel

Now Jorge, you're supposed to bend over and enjoy the conditioning that what you want no longer matters. -Noel

Well, to be fair modern computers are faster than virtually anyone needs, save for maybe DNA folders or SETI signal analyzers. Something had to be done to ensure people will crave more gigaflops and buy more hardware. Gaming just can't be the only incentive. -Noel

Not to muddy the water further but it's pertinent and timely... I see today that a brand new update has appeared: Windows Update Client for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: August 2015 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3075851 "Some improvements", and no mention of "Windows 10"... I don't think we can maintain any reasonable expectation that Microsoft will be providing any more detailed information from now on. -Noel

It seems to me, bphlpt, that the possibility exists for instability on any system with a "mix and match" set of updates installed, simply because software components are being used together that aren't designed (or system tested) to be used as such. I haven't ever perceived Microsoft's engineering to be any more thorough or modular than anyone else's. It strikes me that one of the justifications for Microsoft forcing everyone to have every update moving forward might be to avoid just this kind of situation. That being said, it occurred to me that one of the possible "improvements" in KB3044374 / KB2990214 might be an "improvement" for Microsoft (as so many of their recent changes have been) to add peer to peer update delivery into older Windows versions. Noting that there is no way to configure an older system not to upload such information, one could imagine this being a very good justification for hiding these updates as you have done. Would they dare? I don't know. So far I haven't noticed my systems uploading information not associated with my own activities. But I don't watch the network interface constantly. At this point we just don't know, and again it boils down to the question: Do you want to maintain the partnership with Microsoft and accept updates from them as overall improvements on their say so, - or not? -Noel

I appreciate your skepticism about Microsoft's definition of "improvements", but the crux of the matter isn't about the "improvements" at all, but whether Windows Updates may stop working for systems that don't choose to accept the "improved" Windows Update client. For illustrative purposes and the sake of argument, let's divide the Windows Update protocol into the "OLD" version - pre KB2990214 and the "NEW" version, after KB2990214 is installed. Might Microsoft's servers stop providing "OLD" style updates and only provide "NEW" service at some point in the future? I can't say. I doubt you can either. Perhaps you think Microsoft has some strong obligation to continue updating old systems (including those who have hidden KB2990214) via the old protocol... Didn't it at some point become impossible to bring a very old XP system (e.g., freshly installed from ancient media) up to date via Windows Update (Microsoft Update)? I don't see why they should feel any more obligated to continue to update Windows 7 "the OLD way". And again, this whole argument is contingent on how strongly you really WANT Microsoft to continue updating your "legacy" ("legendary"?) system, which is very likely already very stable and not strongly in NEED of updates. -Noel

It's worth noting that KB3044374 and KB2990214 are not on my "must hide" lists (but are on dencorso's list at the start of this thread). These specifically describe changes to the Windows Update process itself that makes it compatible with the recent Windows Update server changes at Microsoft, and are described at the following link as something everyone will want, even if not upgrading to Win 10: http://blogs.technet.com/b/joscon/archive/2015/04/14/windows-servicing-releases-april-14-2015.aspx Specifically, this is interesting: My decision - which can be debated - to allow these updates into my systems reflects my desire to block Win 10 shilling but continue keeping up with other Microsoft Updates in general. I believe dencorso's approach is more conservative... Paraphrasing: Don't allow anything even remotely related to Win 10 in on the general principle that it can be nothing but bad for you. Both ideas have merit. If the idea is not to follow Microsoft AT ALL down their current path, then NOT installing KB3044374 / KB2990214 might be a better way to go. Once Microsoft starts being even more aggressive about pushing things people don't want (GWX II anyone?), a system without KB3044374 / KB2990214 might just not respond. There is also the distinct - and important - possibility that NOT choosing to update part of the system will, over time, result in a system with a mix/match of software versions that were never tested together by Microsoft, and may not even work. That's the strongest reason for my approach of minimizing the number of hidden updates. -Noel

Um, turn around and accelerate in the opposite direction. Concern over impacts... The USS Enterprise has that big deflector dish in the front to protect from space debris. Convenient solution. While we don't have field technology that can push projectiles aside, I see no reason a hyperspeed spacecraft couldn't conceivably have a long, strong protective nose cone. The flight path might be deflected to the side by a micro impact, but it could potentially be a survivable impact, and the deflection could be compensated for by the guidance system. For more important and infrequent encounters with larger stuff... Assuming a big, long-term power source is available, detect debris in the flight path via radar and fire up a high powered laser when needed. Hell, we have stuff like that on ships today already. This of course will become less viable when interstellar space becomes crowded with these ships. -Noel

Ooh, a major design award! Proof!! How could we have been so foolish??? Oh, wait, we trusted our own experiences over hype from a propaganda machine. Never mind. -Noel P.S., learned a new term from the comments (though it was misspelled there methinks): Metrocities (singular: Metrocity)

I'm not aware of having pressured anyone to upgrade (especially not to Win 10), but I'm sorry if I've criticized your (or others') choice in what to run at some time in the past. I'd like to hope I'm growing wiser (to offset a bit the bio breakdown) as time goes on. Of course, while my way isn't the only way, it IS the best way. -Noel

You're pretty young, aren't you? Life's lessons await! -Noel