Windows 10 - Deeper Impressions

[jaclaz]

Well, it looks like the voter qualifications were designed specifically to exclude me. 

 

Just to confirm how only because you are paranoid it doesn't mean that they are not after you.

 

Maybe I can't vote, but I still have my freedom of speech    and I'll use it to provide the following informational graphic. 

Sure you have it , but just like the opinions of those participating to the testing of Windows 10 each and every one is either deemed useful or ignored independently from their actual merit, and development follows the original pre-set agenda.

 

In this case the thing to ascertain is just related to Windows Defender being or not being a "resource hog" (and it being *needed*).

 

jaclaz

[JorgeA]

I am confirming that it is now very hard to disable Windows Defender.

 

Nice rundown! Thank you for going into the depths to explore.

 

Are you running an alternative AV? When I get the chance to, I'll go into my Win10 system and install a different one, see if Defender gets disabled completely.

 

And as always, the bottom line is exactly what you said:

 

This is just silly. Microsoft needs to remember that user choice and comparability used to be selling points for Windows, and stop forcing their way at the expense of their users!

 

--JorgeA

 

[Drugwash]

 

These last days I've been searching hard for a Linux distribution that could succesfully replace the XP that currently acts as ICS and DHCP for my local computers. I've tried a few distros and read documentation on many others, downloaded a few (and depleted my 5GB monthly download quota) and still have others to download and test.

Hmmm.

Maybe you went for "full-fledged" distros, what you actually need may be as simple as Zeroshell:

http://www.zeroshell.org/

or similar distro aimed to be a firewall/router/gateway.

 Think Jeopardy: What is XP?

 

I can't afford to strip one of my systems down to a bare router/gateway, because the current one actually holds the Internet browser (Firefox 13), mail application (POP Peeper), video converter (VirtualDub), video/audio playback (GOM Player/Trout) and also acts as testing ground for the Unicode version of AutoHotkey for my scripts. So I do need a full-fledged operating system that can do all the above (and more, if/when required), without having to download updates/app(lication)s/drivers/whatnot from the Internet every day/week/etc.

 

This could easily grow into a heavy debate. But it all boils down to having the bare minimum (as compared to a Windows installation), having good defaults, having the ability to easily (and preferrably within a GUI) tweak different aspects of applications and the OS itself and ultimately having a wide range of choices in every regard.

 

Neither latest Windows nor Linux offer that. I actually managed to leave a window hung with no ability to close it even forcibly, on Linux Mint. At least in Windows - any version - I can/know how to spawn the task manager (or a replacement of it) to kill the hung window. And the media players in Linux are that stupid that they cannot pause the screensaver/monitor sleep while playing a video file!

 

I see sloppy programming on both sides. And now with Windows 10 apparently free (of charge) I see complete lack of interest and care for users' needs/desires, more than earlier when they actually asked for a lot of money for a bad (compared to nothing but common-sense) operating system.

[JorgeA]

 

Well, it looks like the voter qualifications were designed specifically to exclude me. 

 

Just to confirm how only because you are paranoid it doesn't mean that they are not after you.

 

 

 

Maybe I can't vote, but I still have my freedom of speech and I'll use it to provide the following informational graphic.

Sure you have it , but just like the opinions of those participating to the testing of Windows 10 each and every one is either deemed useful or ignored independently from their actual merit, and development follows the original pre-set agenda.

 

 

We sure do get that impression about the Insider program...

 

 

In this case the thing to ascertain is just related to Windows Defender being or not being a "resource hog" (and it being *needed*).

 

Can't say about Defender being needed, but in terms of resource usage, I just checked my Win10 machine and its RAM usage was 58.3MB. (Recall that the same parameter for the Norton products on my other systems were ~10MB and ~6MB.) Definitely greater, but in PCs with 4GB or 16GB RAM I'm not sure how significant the effect would be of the extra 40-50MB of RAM taken up by Defender relative to Norton.

 

Still, I'd prefer having the choice to disable Defender completely. No sense in letting it continually take up resources if the user has no interest in the program.

 

--JorgeA

[Drugwash]

 

Let me ask a multiple-facet question now: if the Windows sources were available, how many people out there would be able to actually build themselves the whole OS? How many would even think of doing that? And the applications… How many people would build themselves the Firefox browser, as open-source as it is? How many people would build themselves Adobe Photoshop? Or any other heavy applications which require specific SDKs, DDKs, building environments, hardware, OS etc?

 

Yeah, similarly, a lot of people are using various Linux distros and asociated applications but a negligible part of them actually have the time, knowledge and drive to actually build EVERYTHING from scratch. So Windows could actually contain anything, Linux could actually contain anything and almost nobody would care. People use things as they are because they either don't have the knowledge, hardware, software, time or any combination thereof to pull their own VERIFIED versions of the software.

 

You're right, very few people have everything that's needed to build their own OS, even from ready-made parts. So the issue comes down to one of trust -- whether we can trust the people who actually do build the OSes that we use.

 

If I understand it, the difference is that in principle anyone can go into the code for Linux and the open-sources applications that run under it, and see what's going on. The idea is that this will help to keep the developers honest, so to speak. (As to how well this concept works in practice, that's for others to assess.)

 

By comparison, with Windows and the closed-source applications that run under it, there's no way really to tell what they are doing behind the curtain, so the user has to decide whether to trust them. And of course Microsoft has done a number of things recently to make people wonder just how trustworthy the company is.

 

Putting these two factors together, to my mind the trust factor has tilted significantly toward Linux in recent years.

 

--JorgeA

 

Exactly: trust!

Is there anyone we can actually trust completely, in a blink of an eye, today? Take a moment and think of it. I think it's more of "who could eventually produce the smallest damage to me/my family/my company".

 

In principle yes, anyone could assess the Linux code, build their own versions and so on. But most people are not developers, coders, IT specialists etc. They can barely install and operate a few applications, some requiring reading a manual or asking in forums. Those people will neither question the OS/application builders, nor attempt to build their own. They are the majority. They are the ones who need antivirus solutions (under Windows), they are the ones bitching at help & support over the phone for whatever minor issues they may encounter due to their complete lack of knowledge (computer illiteracy).

 

It doesn't even matter if it's Windows, Linux or anything else. It's the people - it's always been the people. If they actually knew what they're buying/downloading/operating, they would have probably reshaped the world a lot differently a long time ago. But people are the way they are and others out there know it, know how to take advantage of that and they do it. A few, very few of all the humanity - that is, us - realise what's going on, but we're negligigle quantity in the bigger picture.

 

As they say: don't hate the player - hate the game…

[jaclaz]

For the usual OT (but not much ) post, seemingly a "near miss" just happened:

http://hexatomium.github.io/2015/09/22/expires-25h/

 

jaclaz

[Techie007]

Maybe I can't vote, but I still have my freedom of speech    and I'll use it to provide the following informational graphic. These are screenshots of the working memory used acccording to Task Manager from two of my PCs, one running Norton Internet Security and the other Norton 360:

 

NIS RAM usage.png        N360 RAM usage.jpg

 

I'll let the eligible voters decide whether ~10MB and ~6MB of RAM usage qualify these Norton products as "resource hogs."

 

    Yes, Norton (and Avast too) are huge resource hogs.  Malwarebytes, which uses much more RAM (and is more effective in my experience) is not a resource hog.  Go figure.  Considering the amounts of RAM that most systems have nowadays, RAM usage would be the least qualifying measure.  Much more important are copious blocking disk accesses and spikes of high CPU usage that cause performance and battery life hits.  Also, don't forget that antivirus software typically has many more components than just one process.  Most use several processes and numerous drivers, the latter of whose RAM usage will be added to the System process.

    I call Windows Defender a resource hog because it greatly reduces the battery life on my tablet and makes it sluggish and no joy to use as it keeps randomly hanging.  I have noticed it making some laptops slower as well (still nothing compared to Norton or Avast).  My tablet would probably be a paperweight with either of those.  However, the performance impact of antivirus software is much less noticeable on more powerful hardware.  So you may not notice any impact with a quad-core, SSD powered PC.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Techie007

[JorgeA]

For the usual OT (but not much ) post, seemingly a "near miss" just happened:

http://hexatomium.github.io/2015/09/22/expires-25h/

 

jaclaz

 

Looks like it's been fixed since the time you linked to it (see "Update 1").

 

(EDIT: Maybe it was already fixed when you saw it, and you're simply noting how close a call it was.)

 

But that update brings up a question. It says:

 

Good news! Microsoft has just released a new Disallowed CTL, and most importantly, signed with a new certificate. That was really close! Windows systems with direct connectivity to ctldl.windowsupdate.com should automatically get the update within 24 hours.

[...]

Note: The updated CTL has the exact same entries as the old one. The rogue Google certificates recently issued by Symantec are not included.

 

This is an area of computing I'm not very familiar with at all, so maybe I'm reading this incorrectly, but --

 

If the "rogue Google certificates" are "not included" in the "Disalllowed CTL," doesn't that mean that therefore the rogue certificates ARE allowed? To simplify the question, if they are not included in the disallowed list, are they not then allowed?

 

That "updated CTL" in the last line, is is something different from the "Disallowed CTL" in the first line, or is it merely a shortened reference to it? If it's something different, then excluding the rogue certificates makes sense to me.

 

Explanations welcome.

 

--JorgeA

Edited September 23, 2015 by JorgeA

[dencorso]

I guess someone must establish a "common line" , EITHER Windows Defender is a resource hog (as Dedoimedo and Techie007 believe) OR it is not (as NoelC believes).

Schrödinger's cat asks "why?"...  

[JorgeA]

Hahahaha, depending on which way the photons are traveling when you go in to check, Defender could turn out to be -- or not be -- a resource hog that time.

 

(A resource hog) to be, or not to be -- THAT is the question...

 

--JorgeA

[NoelC]

Define "hog" please, in technical terms. 

 

I have a system with lots of cores, RAM, and bandwidth, but that doesn't mean I'm insensitive to performance.  When I build software from sources it matters to me how long it takes.  When I do anything it matters how long it takes.

 

When it's quiet, with no applications running, I see a bit under 50 processes running here.  After running for days, without anything running it settles to about 4.5 GB of RAM used of 48 GB available and just stays there.

 

How many processes are running on your system just sitting quietly without any applications open?

 

I had Avast for quite a while, but then they started bloating it up and my Visual Studio system builds went up to near 1 minute, representing an almost 50% slowdown.  When I removed it my system builds went down to 29 seconds.  When I added Windows Defender at the time they went up to 32 seconds.    An about 10% slowdown.

 

That wasn't quite "hog" level in my vocabulary.  But these posts reminded me to test again.  I've taken on additional software and complexity since then.  Right now I have another, even bigger software system I'm currently working on, with a brand new Visual Studio 2015 Community edition installation.

 

System build, from several thousand source files to execution-ready installer... 

• With Windows Defender on:  91 seconds.
• With Windows Defender off:  82 seconds

Again, about a 10% overhead attributed to Windows Defender.  Is that "resource hog" level?

 

-Noel

[JorgeA]

Another lukewarm review for Windows 10:

 

Windows 10: A SYSADMIN speaks his brains – and says MEH

 

Most people don't want their computers to radically change. They prefer slow, incremental evolution. They like stability. Business especially prefers this. For the most part, that's Windows 10. It's really not that much different than its predecessors, and that will make it usable by most.

 

But usable isn't enjoyable. When Windows 7 came out there were a few complaints (give me back my up arrow, d*mn it!) but for the most part there was relief. At long last, here was salvation from Vista and a path forward from XP.

 

There's none of that with Windows 10. It's good enough to use if you have to. It's definitely a step up from Windows 8. But if you have Windows 7 there's no sane reason to move to Windows 10 as, ultimately, Windows 7 is still better.

 

If you don't use VPNs except to very new servers, you trust Microsoft enough to let them force updates on you, and you're okay with the digital creepy doll shouting everything you do back to the mothership, then Windows 10 is good enough.

 

--JorgeA

 

EDIT: typo

Edited September 24, 2015 by JorgeA

[JorgeA]

A fantastic post, the effect of which is ruined by the title which I will therefore leave out so that you can get the maximum effect:

 

Dubbed the "Massive Payload Virus" (MPV) by experts, this malicious code is designed specifically to cripple metered Internet connections by plastering any fully-activated Windows 7 or 8 system with gigabytes (over 3GB per PC, in my case) of data. The enormous download (which also appears to be code of some kind) is then spooled into a single, cleverly named folder in the PC’s root directory, where it lies dormant until triggered by an as yet undetermined external event.

 

The most insidious part of MPV is how it resists cleaning. Any attempt to remove or delete the mysterious folder results in the virus downloading even more code, thus protecting itself from being exorcised by ensuring the integrity of its payload. Basically, you’re stuck hosting this code until it activates.

 

Note: Unconfirmed reports talk of massive damage when it does activate. "You won’t recognize your PC" is an oft-quoted complaint. Others have speculated it’s all part of a devious plan to force customers into a schedule of monthly or yearly "ransom payments" -- all for the continued "privilege" of using their personal computers.

 

I also omitted the link (which is another giveaway) so that you could read the above without spoiling the effect.

 

Here's the link:

 

http://betanews.com/2015/09/23/a-windows-10-virus-crippled-my-internet-connection-and-i-want-it-back/

 

 

--JorgeA

 

[JorgeA]

Is this anything that Windows 7 users trying to avoid getting dragged into the Win10 muck should be concerned about? I see that "Universal" part and immediately think that MS is trying to infect inject Universal apps into Win7.

 

I think it should be OK to install this, but am checking here just in case.

 

--JorgeA

[NoelC]

I saw that Universal C RunTime update become available as well.  Personally I sense an attempt to obfuscate in their use of the acronym CRT - because that's a common term that has had a very different meaning.

 

From my perspective, as a developer of Win32 applications that have NOTHING TO DO with Metro/Modern/Universal Apps, what I *do* see is that when I update a project to build against the version 10 Windows SDK, it does link to a different set of libraries.  In my own case, I opt to "statically link" everything, so my own software doesn't require the target system on which my software is to run to have the C runtime library support available.  But if it DID, I would normally build the arrangements to install the proper library(ies) into my installer.  I would certainly never assume the target system has the library already.

 

That being said, it would make more applications work more often on older operating systems if that support were already present, because writing a good installer is akin to crafting a masterpiece - it's not something everyone gets right.

 

One interesting thing I've noticed about Visual Studio 2015...  It installs the Windows 8.1 SDK if you don't choose to install also the feature/component entitled:  Tools for Universal Windows Apps (1.1) and Windows SDK (10.0.10240)

 

Thing is, there's also a separate Windows 8.1 SDK and Universal CRT SDK that IS installed by default for doing Visual C++ development.

 

 

I opted to install the above named features, even though I have no intention to develop Universal Windows Apps, and am I able to target my solution to build for either Target Platform Version 10.0.10240.0 or 8.1.  I have chosen the 10.0.10240.0 as shown here, since it's the most appropriate setting for software that's intended to run on all versions of Windows including the very latest.

 

 

FYI, one component (SignTool) so far from the version 10 SDK has proven to be buggy.

 

But what's it all mean?

 

You're right to ask about this.  Even as a developer who sees things from the perspective of the (still very new) Visual Studio 2015 development environment, I'm not at all sure what the implications are to installing the Universal C Run Time update on an older system.

 

-Noel