Windows 10 - Deeper Impressions

[NoelC]

Define "perfect".  Even "better".  It's not an easy answer.

 

Of course I have limited personal experience, but I do know this: 

 

• NOT causing false positives is important.  Other software I've used has done so; Windows Defender does not. 
• NOT consuming too many resources is important.  Other software I've used has done so; Windows Defender does not. 
• NOT costing me ongoing money and effort is important.  Other software I've used has done so; Windows Defender has not.

 

Windows Defender is rated lowly among web sites that seek to publish test results and alarm the public into looking for magic bullets (not to mention view their ads), yet somehow here I sit, uninfected.  For decades.

 

Your mileage may vary.

 

I realize that from your perspective, believing what I say online is not really different than believing what anyone else writes.  Thus you have to make your own decisions, based on your own experience and what you read.

 

-Noel

Edited September 22, 2015 by NoelC

[JorgeA]

My mileage has varied from yours.  Back during the Windows 8 Consumer Preview, my lightly used Win8 CP test machine, which relied on Defender, got infected by a Trojan. I found out only because, based on published AV test results, I mistrusted Defender's effectiveness and ran the ESET Online Scanner on the drive.

 

 

--JorgeA

 

[JorgeA]

Aha! We're starting to get pestered by ads in Windows 10:

 

 

And to think that oh-so-wise-and-worldly Windows cognoscenti have scoffed at my concern that precisely such a thing would happen on Win10. Hah!!

 

--JorgeA

 

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Now see are we conspiracy theorists still?

[JorgeA]

^^ I'm reminded of the old question: if they really are after you, can you be called paranoid?

 

--JorgeA

[GrofLuigi]

This is for you, JorgeA.

[JorgeA]

Thanks very much, GrofLuigi!!

 

This paragraph confirms it...

 

You can dismiss the notifications when they appear, but they’ll just keep coming back in the future. This may not be entirely clear if you’re new to Windows 10, but these notifications aren’t actually system notifications. Instead, they’re notifications provided by a specific app — the “Get Office” app preinstalled with Windows 10. This app just provides a link and live tile that encourages you to download Office. Having it installed also allows Microsoft to spam you with ads for Office.

 

...but the next one suggests Microsoft is up to more than being merely a nuisance:

 

It’s possible to uninstall the Get Office app by opening the Start menu, locating “Get Office” under All Apps, right-clicking it, and selecting Uninstall. However, some Windows 10 users claim the Get Office app is automatically reinstalled after a period of time if they do this. Instead, you’re better off disabling these notifications.

[emphasis added]

 

I'll see if I can confirm those reports: I'll uninstall the app first. Then, if it comes back, I'll follow the instructions to disable the notification.

 

--JorgeA

 

[Techie007]

 

An interesting idea that I don't remember being suggested on MSFN (maybe I missed it or forgot) is to disable the update service:

 

And so, when you combine the lack of ability to protect your system from accidental damage by updates with your work regime, automatic updates translate into a big digital turd. Which is why, if you want to use Windows 10 Home like a sane person, you will probably want to disable the Windows Update service.

 

 

He goes on to claim that you can't turn off Windows Defender. The way he puts it, it sounds to me like he thinks it's impossible to install any other AV (which of course requires turning Defender off), but I doubt that even Microsoft in its infinitesimal wisdom would go that far.

 

Anyhow, in Windows 8, you could turn it off, but not the services. Now, you can't even turn the program off and use your own security. This means you will need to purge the program from your system using a bit of rigor and hacking. I've shown you how to take ownership of folders and change permissions in the GWX guide. But if this is not enough, just boot into any one Linux and rename the folders. This kills it for good.

 

    I am confirming that it is now very hard to disable Windows Defender.  In earlier builds of Windows 10 (and in Windows 8), I would easily disable Windows Defender by going into the registry and manually changing the WinDefend service's Start value to 4, thus bypassing the locked service configuration page.  After rebooting, it would be disabled for good.

    However, when I upgraded to Windows 10 RTM and tried to reapply this tweak, I couldn't bypass the "Access denied" messages.  I tried running Registry Editor as SYSTEM (I like to do this instead of manually taking ownership of registry keys), taking ownership (which succeeded), and several other tricks to disable it.  I was stonewalled at each attempt to actually change the value, as if there was a rootkit in my computer subverting any attempt to change anything in the WindDefend registry key—even though the permissions granted Everyone full control.  Eventually, I managed to get that resource hog killed for good by disabling it through the policy registry setting, booting from the installation disc, loading the SYSTEM registry hive into Registry Editor, and changing the Start value—this time, successfully.

    The downside?  Besides all the effort (necessary to make my tablet usable), my computer has been upgraded to new builds several times now, and yet, somehow, Windows Defender is still disabled.  Thing is, I can't re-enable it even if I wanted to.  When I try to start the service, it starts and then automatically stops.  After the policy change, the service still ran, which is why I went ahead and knocked it out with Registry Editor.

 

    Two things here: I understand the need for antivirus software to use shady (i.e. rootkit) means of defending themselves.  However, I strongly believe that the user should have the last say whether such software (and Updates and Cortana, and the list goes on) runs at all.

    I wouldn't mind if my old trick (elevate to SYSTEM, change the Start value) worked.  What I'm afraid of is that with some future update, Microsoft may do something similar to the Windows Update service.  It is mandatory to ensure that updates won't terminate some important, long-term project (like uploading/rendering a large file, or recording an event).  I have created a batch file on my desktop that stops and disables the BITS and Windows Update services, and another to revert those changes.  The thing is, Microsoft could easily do something stupid like locking those keys too with the rootkit, or even worse, hardcode an automatic reversion of the default values into a core part of the OS.  The pre-RTM Preview builds actually did this with the Windows Update service.  I have not investigated whether this is still the case now.

 

    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!

[dencorso]

An interesting idea that I don't remember being suggested on MSFN (maybe I missed it or forgot) is to disable the update service:

 

And so, when you combine the lack of ability to protect your system from accidental damage by updates with your work regime, automatic updates translate into a big digital turd. Which is why, if you want to use Windows 10 Home like a sane person, you will probably want to disable the Windows Update service.

 

1st it's said one should upgrade out of XP SP3, because MS doesn't offer updates anymore... and now MS gives peolple 10, which is only runnable , if at all, by disabling updates for good?   Go figure!

[araneldon]

I removed Windows Defender and a bunch of other stuff with install_wim_tweak

 

However I run Windows 10 in a virtual machine offline and haven't extensively tested it. With the mandatory updates and snooping and advertising and utterly baffling UI design choices I'm not in a hurry to "upgrade". At best it will be a secondary OS for gaming if DirextX 12 turns out to be worthwhile.

Edited September 23, 2015 by araneldon

[jaclaz]

  Eventually, I managed to get that resource hog killed for good by disabling it through the policy registry setting, booting from the installation disc, loading the SYSTEM registry hive into Registry Editor, and changing the Start value—this time, successfully.

 

 

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).

 

And no , anyone that used on his/her machine *any* version of - say - Norton Antivirus and particularly Norton 360 for more than 1 (one) week in the last 10 years is not admitted to cast his/her vote, let alone someone that actually *liked* it.

 

jaclaz

[Drugwash]

From everything I read here and in linked articles, Windows 10 is nothing but a personalised and evil Microsoft's view of a Linux operating system.

 

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.

But a common denominator for all these Linux builds are:

- (un)guided opaque installations of desired/required applications/drivers

- constant system updates

- opaque access to various system tweaks

In view of the above, an Internet access appears to be mandatory at least for the first installation and configuration. One would think downloading a full CD (or DVD, for certain distros) would allow them to install and configure a readily usable system. Unfortunately that is not the case, because many features - some actually critical such as local networking - may not work partially or at all.

 

Now, Windows 10 appears to be merely a network (read 'cloud') terminal, where updates are constantly required, where Internet access is mandatory for certain apps/functions, where system changes/tweaks are hard or impossible to perform, where most applications are delivered through opaque installers and some probably even not allowed to install/run.

 

I see a pattern here: the users shouldn't know what's going on with their systems - "THEY" know better, everything's automated and the users should ONLY obey - it's "in their best interest" anyway.

 

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.

 

So now the final question is: if most of us are unable to find/understand/build the best working/entertainment environment and there's no way to customize the existing (scarce) options to our own desire, what the heck are we to do?! Solutions:

- Accept Windows/Linux as they are and trust them (more or less) blindly

- Build our own revolutionary operating system(s) and applications

- Give up computers completely and forever

 

P.S. The way I see it, Windows Defender means 'a defender of Windows' (as in 'THE operating system'), not at all the defender of the user that operates the machine and their valuable data.

[jaclaz]

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.

 

jaclaz

[JorgeA]

 

  Eventually, I managed to get that resource hog killed for good by disabling it through the policy registry setting, booting from the installation disc, loading the SYSTEM registry hive into Registry Editor, and changing the Start value—this time, successfully.

 

 

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).

 

And no , anyone that used on his/her machine *any* version of - say - Norton Antivirus and particularly Norton 360 for more than 1 (one) week in the last 10 years is not admitted to cast his/her vote, let alone someone that actually *liked* it.

 

jaclaz

 

 

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

 

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:

 

       

 

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

 

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

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