Jump to content

Windows 10 Detailed Feedback and wishes


R4D3

Recommended Posts

XP is old news.

Sure it is :), but your guess at presumed will to keep compatibility with given specific apps is seemingly a guess void of any real world connection/proof.

 

Only Explorer uses (used) thumbs.db, and their scope was very likely an attempt at speeding visualization in Explorer.

 

Windows 7 uses by default the same method (and uses NOT the centralized database) for network folders as seen in the mentioned KB, most probably for two reasons, one similar to the original one (speeding up visualization on possibly slowish/slower access network/remote folders) and one to avoid "cluttering" the stupid (or supersmart :unsure:) centralized repository.

 

As a side note I would like to point out how seemingly the possibly supersmart centralized database, in conjunction with the default behaviour on network folders, has the net effect, on a plain enough two computers setup set with cross access to the respective disks to have each and every thumb.db twice, once in the centralized repository and one in each folder.... :whistle:

 

And still, the mentioned KB seems like having been prompted by a number of reports of people that for one reason or the other had Windows 7 create the stupid thumb.db, example:

http://www.networksteve.com/windows/topic.php/WINDOWS_7_BUG:_Explorer_Locks_"thumbs.db"_in_most_recently_viewe/?TopicId=55723&Posts=0

among the replies, I would like to point out this one:

Hi, I experience the same issue with my Win7 install and it's extremely annoying. I am quite surprised actually that "disabling thumbnails" is the first suggestion by the Microsoft moderator. So is it common practice when someone has trouble with a feature, to simply disable the feature? Disabling thumbnails, of course, causes all pictures to look like basic icons unless they are explicitly previewed. This is certainly not a fix. It's like trying to suggest someone turn off the screen saver if they are having problems with the screen saver. Why not just tell the users to turn off their computer? Problem solved right? LOL You should just admit it's a bug! It sure looks and smells like one. BTW - I dual boot with Vista64 and Vista doesn't have this problem. I have a huge music collection that I've been sorting for the last few months. I installed Win7 shortly after it was released and noticed this issue immediately, I can even delete the entire contents of the folder first but Win7 can't delete the empty folder because it says thumbs.db is open (I'm wondering why a thumbs.db file exists when there are no files left to cache?). I eventually noticed if I wait a few minutes or so after viewing the folder I am then allowed to delete the folder, but the fact I have to do this is ridiculous. I've been booting into Vista to sort my music so I don't have to go through this little dance every time. I certainly hope Microsoft will realize this is a HUGE annoyance regarding a very basic feature of their flagship OS and start addressing the issue. Most people don't know enough about their computer to have any idea why this is happening. I had assumed a patch would come out relatively soon because the issue is ubiquitous, but no luck so far. Come on guys, get on it! This thread was opened nearly 4 months ago, so you've had PLENTY of time. Thanks and happy debugging :) Kelly

 

And yes, Vista :w00t::ph34r: is old news as well, but the good MS guys managed to NOT FIX the issue even in 8:

http://alinirimia.com/2014/06/unable-to-delete-folders-in-windows-8-thumbs-db-is-a-system-file-error/

or in 8.1:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1443972/windows-8-1-cant-delete-folders

 

We MUST continue (like you do with your excellent bag of tricks/tweaks :thumbup ) to resist them, to steal from Sir Winston Churchill:

We Will All Go Down Fighting to the End

https://manversusideas.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/97-winston-churchill-we-will-all-go-down-fighting-to-the-end/

 

 

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Frankly, this is the most I've thought on this particular subject since I added the page on disabling it to my books some years ago.  It doesn't matter much to me whether Windows presumes to use it, as I find even my large folders of images show me thumbnails as needed.  In order to "work around" performance issues, I just got a good computer system with a good I/O subsystem.  Most any computer has more power today than those when this "feature" was developed.  Sometimes one just doesn't need to look back.

 

And you're right, a lot of what we do with this commercial, opaque operating system is based on guesswork.  We are never really going to know what's inside it, nor the reasons why.

 

This Thumbs.db stuff seems to run along the lines of indexing, which is yet another stoopid idea of Microsoft's. Once you come to accept that they are just a bunch of IQ (near) 100 geeks you start to realize that there's no magic. 

 

If not using half the BS "features" they put out because they just don't work, or they make everything sick, or whatever, leads to an OS that's functional and stable, that's a good result.  And it's all we can do, besides provide those geeks feedback on their next release (which they will mostly ignore).

 

Other things of the "useless" genre that come to mind, and which I avoid if at all possible are...

 

Libraries and other Explorer abstractions.

 

Homegroup networking.

 

UAC.

 

Personally the best kind of guesswork I find is born from anecdotal evidence, experimentation, then worked around and backed by real-world experience.

 

My strategy seems to work.  Today I've primarily been developing OpenGL software in visual studio on my workstation running Win 8.1 x64, with a Win 10 x64 VM humming in the background - both tweaked.  I have any number of other things running.  While the Win 10 system is a curiosity for seeing what they've broken lately and trying stuff out, the Win 8.1 host is a bona fide workhorse, currently "keeping on ticking" after 3 weeks (since the last Windows Update) in hard use every day.

 

Uptime02052015.png

 

-Noel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other things of the "useless" genre that come to mind, and which I avoid if at all possible are...

 

Libraries and other Explorer abstractions.

 

Homegroup networking.

 

UAC.

 

I've never been too keen on those Explorer abstractions ever since My Documents in Windows 98. I always thought, "Just tell me where my freakin' files really are, why do you have to make things so convoluted??"

 

As for Homegroup networking, honestly I've never understood the purpose of it given that we already have Workgroups. Never used Homegroup in my life.

 

--JorgeA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice guys, that you care about this like me - whats your alternative if MS Fails aggain ? - Join ReactOS ?

 

Did some of you know, what i have to install (Windows ADK or Deployment ?), to fix that missing explorer api files ?

 

zkpzjs2cwe4u.png

 

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-26098619/ExplorerDepends.png.html

 

P.S. You can fix some of the missing handles/dependency buy adding: that 2 folders to the environment path variable...

 

%SystemRoot%\SysWOW64\downlevel;%SystemRoot%\System32\drivers;

 

I am not 100% sure about it - seems that some dll´s are called globally by other files - and ms (even amd) forget that the path - were the file is in, - has no entry in the environment variables, what means that the file is not "callable" globally - so - when its not in, the complete and right path must be inside the file (maybe dependency walker fails at this point - but i didnt believe that...) - its just another "error" ms have since XP or longer... - that they put files out of standard path´s and then forget to put the new path into that variables...

 

- and at this point i am not sure, maybe add %SystemRoot%\System32\downlevel too (i did that, but get x86/64 errors - you see the  warnings  in the image... so i remove that path 1 min ago - or  maybe its better to put out the syswow path and keep 32 - will see...

Edited by R4D3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of the box, Explorer doesn't seem to be missing any components on any of my installations.  What observed problem led you to try to resolve dependencies?

 

Regarding what to do if Win 10 "fails"...  Define "fails".

 

Up to now I have worked out "To Work" options and 3rd party software for every version of Windows so far.  I'm as productive as I've ever been running Win 8.1 x64 MCE on my workstation, and I'm typing this in a Win 10 virtual machine that I'm using for development and testing.  If Microsoft were to screw up nothing more, I can say with confidence that Win 10 right now can be a productive desktop-centric system.  It can even be made to look halfway decent, with tools such as Aero Glass for Win 8+.

 

With Vista and Win 8.1 I waited to adopt the OS until I was able to develop a full set of such customizations (and in some cases until 3rd party developers created software to augment broken features).  But it WAS (and IS) possible.

 

Since Microsoft themselves ultimately do use their new operating systems to do their own further development, I imagine they won't delete all the "To Work" features of the system, and so I don't anticipate technical "failure" per se, though business failure is another story.  I don't honestly expect Win 10 to be embraced any more warmly by the public than Win 8 was.  Microsoft may ultimately end, but probably not in the next few years.  The real question is what is the value N in the mathematical statement "Too Big To Fail N Times"?

 

-Noel

Edited by NoelC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just open it to see if something like a broken thumbs.db handle, springs outside the dark, infront of me :D

 

I check dependency´s and try to solve them - since I realised that the XP Catalyst driver - has a handle in the system32/drivers dir, and can´t load it.. (and how to fix it !)

 

There are alwasy missing files in every windows version, - and i post that what i understand from this, since years at different places and names... and all my posts are still ignored...

 

If on your explorer.exe everthing looks fine in the D-Walker, this could only mean: something was broken on the last repair install i did (old C:\ Dir was moved to windows.old) - or you install something that fixes that dependency´s... - tell me what pls !)

 

Last Time i used the dependency check to resolve an error message, from dism after using NTLITE... - sadly nuhi couldn´t follow my problem there, but after i installed the windows 8.1 adk, some files was changed, dependency walker looks fine, and the error message in the dism.log was away... (just visit my ntlite feedback in nuhi´s forum side here, if you wanna check it out !)

 

This tool is a MUSTHAVE if you decide, to remove or deactivate parts or files from the wim-image, what i will do at once after the final is out...

 

 

(next day´s i will check out OS2 [seems there are some people {http://www.ecomstation.com} who still works on it, after IBM stopped...] - i´m taut like a bow)

 

 

- we just have to wait, until someone sacrifice his self and leaks the server 2003 code, - thats all we need ;)

Edited by R4D3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huch, danke Magic ;)

 

- that funny MS Guys... :D - Cant stand them !

 

Why i always had to download, all that MS Programmer Crap (i dont need) - just cause i wanna get a new Version of one spezific file ?

 

**** i am too stupid... i downloaded that, but where is the DependencyWalker.exe now ? - Its not in the Windows 8.1 Kits Directory... (did they rename it ? is this still an exe file ?) - seems it must be anywhere else... Visual Studio ?

 

ok, first install Windows 8 WDK and than the 8.1 update, now i get it - good ! 2.2.9600 from 2013 - errors are just the same (i will check if the 8.1 ADK is the solution, to get some missing files)

Edited by R4D3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, guys.  I thought I had depends.exe somewhere, and it turns out I do already have 2.2.9600 as part of the WDK.  Apparently I misspoke earlier.

 

R4D3 I can now confirm that I see the same things as you, where 7 different modules come up "Error opening file.  The system cannot find the file specified (2)."

 

Please pardon my ignorance, but I haven't spent time running down things in the operating system itself...  Are these missing modules assumed to be part of remnant code no longer used?  Options not yet installed?  Things that would be in a different edition?  Work in progress?

 

As I mentioned, I don't see usability problems with Explorer (beyond what's always been expected of it).

 

One of the missing modules, for example, is API-MS-WIN-CORE-SHUTDOWN-L1-1-1.DLL.  Clearly Explorer offers the ability to shut down, and it does work.  And I DO have a file with a very similar name, differing only in version?

 

C:\Windows\System32\api-ms-win-core-shutdown-l1-1-0.dll

 

-Noel

Edited by NoelC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JFYI, it is perfectly "normal" to have failed/missing dependencies while having a seemingly fully functional app/tool (which can either be actually fully functional or only seemingly so), a .dll dependencies can be either "implicit" or "static" (i.e. declared as a needed function in a given .exe) or "dynamic", i.e. being not declared in the .exe but being needed/called by one of the "static" dependencies or even be "dynamic-dynamic" i.e. called by a "dynamic" dependency and only upon execution of a given function.

 

There are tools that *seem* to need everything (and the kitchen sink) when examined in dependency walker and even more so when profiled in it that continue merrily working 100% with several of them being not present on the system.

 

As an example I guess that 95 to 99% of all apps appear to be missing MSJAVA.DLL or similar (see FAQ's) on XP:

http://www.dependencywalker.com/faq.html

 

As explained there, a number of missing .dll's in a dependency walker windows can be (and often are) "false positives", this is inherent to the way dependency walker analyzes (or traces) the file at hand.

 

The flaw (if any) is in the stupid way the whole architecture was created, which includes the known issues about so-called DLL Hell:

http://www.desaware.com/tech/dllhell.aspx

http://www.drdobbs.com/windows/no-end-to-dll-hell/227300037

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLL_Hell

which BTW is largely caused by programmers (besides some limits in the compilers) that never, or almost never think a bit whether it would be better to make statically linked builds or plainly re-write the needed function inside the .exe instead of creating a link to a trivial function in a misknown/uncommon .dll, and to this you can add the terrible (I cannot find a better word to describe it :unsure:) workarounds that were later created to mitigate the issues, that - like the pure folly (again I have no better terms to describe it) WinSxS is, and that can create more issues that they can resolve:

http://www.davidlenihan.com/2007/07/winsxs.html

http://blogs.citrix.com/2011/04/21/history-of-dll-hell-and-why-it-will-repeat-itself/

 

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.  So "missing modules" are to be expected.  I did not know that.

 

Of course there could be highly coordinated dynamic loading of DLLs, inline in the code, depending on run-time decisions, and the ability for the software to disable / limit certain features depending on the availability of said DLLs.  Or it could just be sloppy work.  :)

 

Just a data point:  Windows subfolder relative sizes for a mature Win 8.1 x64 MCE system, noting the gigabytes of WinSxS...

 

WindowsSizeUsage.gif

 

-Noel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no prob ;) your are forgiven

 

As i said before i was able to resolve an Dism.log error just cause i check them (seems that this are the same files that are missed now :D - must search in my folders... but you can get more problems if you have them, cause of version conflicts between the files)

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/172705-solved-removing-components-error-3-occured/

 

(i know that not everything is a fail, and that you need to start profiling for dynamic dll - but for me its good to know, if files are missing or not or if i have the right Versions, X86/64 etc.. (some errors like circular - are surely even in beta... - i hope so...)

 

- This Statistic Scanner looks nice ;)

 

On Xp I always search and download every file thats missing, to its best Version, and change the Environmant Variables, until The "Walker" is happy ;) (it feels like i get less errors than...)

 

Intresting thing about DLL Hell, - i know it well, and hate it much... - even when i install old games, sometime they Force a DirectX6 Setup, which overwrite my new files (even new games did that and force old Runtime Versions.... grrrrr - and when you uninstall them, they tok sometime a needed overwritten file out of system, and keeps you other useless files und reg entrys... - thats why i love sandboxie & Regshot so much ! - and now i know, why i dont like that WinSXS Folder at all...)

 

If you read the Faq http://www.dependencywalker.com/faq.htmlyou see following:

 

 

 

My application runs better when being profiled by Dependency Walker than when I run it by itself. Why is this?
    I've had several reports of applications that normally crash, will not crash when being profiled under Dependency Walker. Dependency Walker acts as a debugger when you are profiling your application. This in itself, makes your program run differently.

First, there is the overhead of Dependency Walker that slows the execution of your application down. If your application is crashing due to some race condition, this slow down alone might be enough to avoid the race condition. If this is the case, it is a design issue of the application and you are just getting lucky when it doesn't crash.

Second, normally when threads block on critical sections, events, semaphores, mutexes, etc., they unblock on a first-in-first-out (FIFO) basis. This is not guaranteed by the OS, but is usually the case. When being run under a debugger, FIFO queues are sometimes randomized, so threads may block and resume in a different order than they would when not running under a debugger. This might be relieving a race condition or altering the execution enough to make things work. Again, the application is just getting lucky when it doesn't crash.

Finally, applications running under the debugger automatically get a system debug heap. All memory functions are handled slightly different. Allocations are padded with guard bytes to check to see if you are writing outside of a region you have allocated (buffer overrun/underrun). Allocations might also be laid out differently in memory then when not under the debugger. So, if you are writing past the end of a buffer under the debugger, you might be trashing guard bytes, freed memory, or just something not very critical. However, when not running under the debugger, you might be trashing something critical (like a pointer), and your app crashes.

For the debug heap, you can turn this off in Dependency Walker and see if your application crashes when being profiled. If it does then, then you probably suffer a buffer overrun, stray/bad/freed pointer, etc. To do this, start a command prompt. Type "SET _NO_DEBUG_HEAP=1". Then start Dependency Walker from that command line. This should disable the debug heap for that instance of Dependency Walker. Note, this only works on Windows XP and beyond.
 
Edited by R4D3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I agree with all your suggestions.

 

Also I'd add I don't like scrolling to the right but to down! i.e.: for weather, why should I scroll down and movement is made to the right.

I don't have a tablet but a pretty powerfull desktop and don't need the stupid customization made for a tablet.

 

Another annoying issue: I can't customize pc settings so that i have list items. why do i need to lose time going thought categories if I know what I want. I don't need shortcuts in start menu because maybe I will use all programs and I don't like a crowded start menu.

Edited by intzepatorii
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...