NationStates

Cekoviu wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:
Oh they stick all sorts of shit on your computer without asking. At least you could remove Candy Crush Saga. But many other apps they don't let you remove. I wouldn't say Edge is better than explorer either.

To me, things like email clients, web browser, media players, calculators etc are all apps and should not be part of the operating system.

I feel like it's probably important to have one web browser pre-installed on OSs without package managers so people can actually download other browsers.

Fine, but you should be able to delete the pre-installed one after you download the browser of your choice.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:I feel like it's probably important to have one web browser pre-installed on OSs without package managers so people can actually download other browsers.

Fine, but you should be able to delete the pre-installed one after you download the browser of your choice.

Well, I used to use Firefox until one fine update turned it into something different, like almost unusable. Now I already use Edge for a year.

All right, so either Windows or Lockdown Browser messed up, but apparently, something from a few weeks back presented with another challenge!

You know how your Task Manager has tabs, right? Tasks, Processes, Performance Graphs, Users, etc... And for me, every time I want to switch tabs, it would freeze for seconds. Jeez, just for switching? And Task Manager is something you don't want a freeze.

I searched through, and seems like some system files might be damaged, or something like that. chkdsk /f C: worked wonders for me, and after like 10 mins of it scanning and repairing, it's good as new, and Task Manager is whizzing by, doing task manager related tasks.

----

Speaking about Edge and Internet Explorer, it is apparently something that runs deeper than being an internet browser. That's why you can't uninstall it, because some of the Windows processes use them, something about it being an embedded program.

Source: https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Fo ... 0itproapps

You can still disable it, but it's just that removing it is not going to be a simple feat, since Windows need it.

I find WinAero Tweaker to be quite a wonderful thing as well, which I found out thanks to some people here.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:I feel like it's probably important to have one web browser pre-installed on OSs without package managers so people can actually download other browsers.

Fine, but you should be able to delete the pre-installed one after you download the browser of your choice.

Of course. And I feel like OSs should have decent browsers installed by default, not Internet Explorer/Edge/Chrome.

Valentine Z wrote:Speaking about Edge and Internet Explorer, it is apparently something that runs deeper than being an internet browser. That's why you can't uninstall it, because some of the Windows processes use them, something about it being an embedded program.

Source: https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Fo ... 0itproapps

You can still disable it, but it's just that removing it is not going to be a simple feat, since Windows need it.

I find WinAero Tweaker to be quite a wonderful thing as well, which I found out thanks to some people here.

IE is also embedded as a control (WebBrowser in C# WinForms) in Visual Studio, so uninstalling it might also cause problems for .NET developers.

Cekoviu wrote:IE is also embedded as a control (WebBrowser in C# WinForms) in Visual Studio, so uninstalling it might also cause problems for .NET developers.

Ahh, right, that's what I was looking for! I first found it on Reddit's r/assholedesign, and I learned that uninstalling Edge and IE is not as easy as one thought it would be, because of the reasons you outlined here.

Cekoviu wrote:

Tekania wrote:
You owning a house a statement of ownership. Windows does not OWN your computer, Windows is software. One does not have a Windows computer in the send that one is on a computer owned by Microsoft Windows. One has a Windows computer in the sense that one is running Microsoft Windows on it. When one is not running microsoft windows on it, it's not at present a Windows Computer.

It seems that we have fundamentally different definitions of "Windows Desktop."

Yes, my definition of a "Windows Desktop" is a desktop computer system that is presently running a Microsoft Windows operating system. I tend to not use the term to apply to a computer that can potentially run Microsoft Windows as that makes the term practically useless, since outside of a very small handful of exceptions the vast majority of modern desktop computers can run a Microsoft Windows operating system.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:

The Knockout Gun Gals wrote:
What happened? The only one that comes to mind is Microsoft Edge, but it's better than Internet Explorer.

Oh they stick all sorts of shit on your computer without asking. At least you could remove Candy Crush Saga. But many other apps they don't let you remove. I wouldn't say Edge is better than explorer either.

To me, things like email clients, web browser, media players, calculators etc are all apps and should not be part of the operating system.

Windows is designed for novice users to use it out of the box. So it has features integrated into it that any Tom, Dick or Harry would need.

See, you need to understand that the average computer user is an absolute fucking moron. And every year the average user gets more and more incompetent while simultaneously believing they are more and more technologically savvy. And Microsoft Windows is designed specifically to cater to that specific type of person.... because, unfortunately... they are the future no matter how that makes those of us in IT feel.

This is also, incidentally one of the reason why all this slapped on integrated crap and lack of control in the home versions of Windows is not present in say versions designed for servers.... because competent people are generally the ones managing those.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:

The Knockout Gun Gals wrote:
What happened? The only one that comes to mind is Microsoft Edge, but it's better than Internet Explorer.

Oh they stick all sorts of shit on your computer without asking. At least you could remove Candy Crush Saga. But many other apps they don't let you remove. I wouldn't say Edge is better than explorer either.

To me, things like email clients, web browser, media players, calculators etc are all apps and should not be part of the operating system.

LTSC is the only edition without all the rubbish, but Microsoft discourages they use, claiming that they are for specialist applications.

Minoa wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:
Oh they stick all sorts of shit on your computer without asking. At least you could remove Candy Crush Saga. But many other apps they don't let you remove. I wouldn't say Edge is better than explorer either.

To me, things like email clients, web browser, media players, calculators etc are all apps and should not be part of the operating system.

LTSC is the only edition without all the rubbish, but Microsoft discourages they use, claiming that they are for specialist applications.

Some of the Server versions have even less.

Tekania wrote:

Minoa wrote:LTSC is the only edition without all the rubbish, but Microsoft discourages they use, claiming that they are for specialist applications.

Some of the Server versions have even less.

It seems that even though the Enterprise version is fully configurable, everyone is heading for LTSC as the main problem is … why do Microsoft have to keep rushing in new features at such a short time, with so little time for testing?!

Source: https://www.howtogeek.com/395121/window ... ng-system/

Minoa wrote:

Tekania wrote:
Some of the Server versions have even less.

It seems that even though the Enterprise version is fully configurable, everyone is heading for LTSC as the main problem is … why do Microsoft have to keep rushing in new features at such a short time, with so little time for testing?!

Source: https://www.howtogeek.com/395121/window ... ng-system/

Font colour edit mine, they ALWAYS have been doing that, unfortunately. Do you remember Windows Phone 7 and 8? Yeah, I'm one of those guinea pigs that got suckered in with the promise of the goodness of Windows Mobile 6, but better and modernized. It was just so awfully bare-bones, to such an extent that MS Office Mobile it came with is very laughable.

Take Excel, for example. Excel Mobile on 6-6.5 can handle complex stuff, several formats, and insert/delete cells. The 7-8 version? BIU-strike through formats, along with one currency or percentage setting, and 3 of each cell and text colours. It's just... Ugh.

Anyway, with that said, comes Windows Phone 8. Unfortunately, they told us that current WP 7 users wouldn't be able to upgrade to 8, due to differing architecture, and because WP8 runs on better systems and stuff. In the way of an half-assed apology, we got a WP7.8, which only adds more personalisation options, and... That was it.

I bought a Windows Phone 8 phone once again, but mainly because I love Nokia's Lumia 1020. How about now? Well, it was good, and a step in the right direction, but once again they told us we won't be getting WP10 because of a different architecture! What the shit?

I did manage to get Windows Mobile 10 running, but they pulled it off because it was causing several glitches.

TL;DR : As someone who got screwed by MS not once, not twice, but THRICE... I can certainly say that they rushed it out too much, and they have little idea of how to handle certain stuff.

I'm sorry this got on a little too long, about Windows Phones. It's technically not a computer, but I need to say it out about Microsoft and the related "they didn't test it out". They certainly didn't.

Fooled me once (WP7 promised so much), shame on you.
Fooled me twice (WP7 users are screwed), shame on me.
Fool me three times (WP8 users are screwed)... what was I thinking?

Tekania wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:It seems that we have fundamentally different definitions of "Windows Desktop."

Yes, my definition of a "Windows Desktop" is a desktop computer system that is presently running a Microsoft Windows operating system. I tend to not use the term to apply to a computer that can potentially run Microsoft Windows as that makes the term practically useless, since outside of a very small handful of exceptions the vast majority of modern desktop computers can run a Microsoft Windows operating system.

Whether it can potentially run Windows is not part of the equation, whether it's installed is what makes it a Windows desktop in my opinion.

Tekania wrote:

Minoa wrote:LTSC is the only edition without all the rubbish, but Microsoft discourages they use, claiming that they are for specialist applications.

Some of the Server versions have even less.

The issue is that there's no point in using Windows for a server because there are much better Linux distributions geared towards exactly that.

Cekoviu wrote:The issue is that there's no point in using Windows for a server because there are much better Linux distributions geared towards exactly that.

Use case and choice of a server OS is based upon the needs of the company in question needing to deploy services and what services they may need, what they need to support as well as understanding of any legacy support situations they may need. There are certainly cases where it can, but a complete blanket statement without getting to know particulars of what the company needs to do and support is the height of reckless thinking.

There are cases where Windows Server works best, Linux, a unix or even visualized servers of any of the aforesaid using a bare metal hypervisor. But anyone who would make a blanket statement onto a single solution without knowing the needs of what a company was doing as you just did, is not someone trustworthy enough to be entrusted with care of a corporate network.

While Linux is very popular, certain situations warrant the use of other systems such as Windows Server and other operating systems. I hear that some systems still run on COBOL and FORTRAN.

Even if I find a Windows version that doesn’t spy on me, I am still not impressed about how Microsoft thinks they can use consumers as guinea pigs for rushed and broken features, like those Fallout Vaults.

Tekania wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:The issue is that there's no point in using Windows for a server because there are much better Linux distributions geared towards exactly that.

Use case and choice of a server OS is based upon the needs of the company in question needing to deploy services and what services they may need, what they need to support as well as understanding of any legacy support situations they may need. There are certainly cases where it can, but a complete blanket statement without getting to know particulars of what the company needs to do and support is the height of reckless thinking.

There are cases where Windows Server works best, Linux, a unix or even visualized servers of any of the aforesaid using a bare metal hypervisor. But anyone who would make a blanket statement onto a single solution without knowing the needs of what a company was doing as you just did, is not someone trustworthy enough to be entrusted with care of a corporate network.

Complete nonsense, we all know that running a Mac Mini with macOS Server from the App Store installed solves any and all issues you could have.

Lechites wrote:

Tekania wrote:
Use case and choice of a server OS is based upon the needs of the company in question needing to deploy services and what services they may need, what they need to support as well as understanding of any legacy support situations they may need. There are certainly cases where it can, but a complete blanket statement without getting to know particulars of what the company needs to do and support is the height of reckless thinking.

There are cases where Windows Server works best, Linux, a unix or even visualized servers of any of the aforesaid using a bare metal hypervisor. But anyone who would make a blanket statement onto a single solution without knowing the needs of what a company was doing as you just did, is not someone trustworthy enough to be entrusted with care of a corporate network.

Complete nonsense, we all know that running a Mac Mini with macOS Server from the App Store installed solves any and all issues you could have.

It isn't the only option there: there is also the NUC PC (NUC stands for Next Unit of Computing).

Tekania wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:The issue is that there's no point in using Windows for a server because there are much better Linux distributions geared towards exactly that.

Use case and choice of a server OS is based upon the needs of the company in question needing to deploy services and what services they may need, what they need to support as well as understanding of any legacy support situations they may need. There are certainly cases where it can, but a complete blanket statement without getting to know particulars of what the company needs to do and support is the height of reckless thinking.

There are cases where Windows Server works best, Linux, a unix or even visualized servers of any of the aforesaid using a bare metal hypervisor. But anyone who would make a blanket statement onto a single solution without knowing the needs of what a company was doing as you just did, is not someone trustworthy enough to be entrusted with care of a corporate network.

Good thing I'm not a corporate system administrator and am not interested in being one.
I would quite like to hear an example of a time when Windows Server is the best choice for a server, though; do enlighten me, O Wise One.

Cekoviu wrote:

Tekania wrote:
Use case and choice of a server OS is based upon the needs of the company in question needing to deploy services and what services they may need, what they need to support as well as understanding of any legacy support situations they may need. There are certainly cases where it can, but a complete blanket statement without getting to know particulars of what the company needs to do and support is the height of reckless thinking.

There are cases where Windows Server works best, Linux, a unix or even visualized servers of any of the aforesaid using a bare metal hypervisor. But anyone who would make a blanket statement onto a single solution without knowing the needs of what a company was doing as you just did, is not someone trustworthy enough to be entrusted with care of a corporate network.

Good thing I'm not a corporate system administrator and am not interested in being one.
I would quite like to hear an example of a time when Windows Server is the best choice for a server, though; do enlighten me, O Wise One.

I remember my secondary school referencing the local authority using Windows Server 2003, because Outlook 2003 was the go-to email client for the staff. It is also known as Internet Information Services.

As I have said previously, the Linux-dominated server and supercomputer landscape varies greatly from the Windows-dominated consumer desktop landscape.

With a wee under a year of extended support left for Windows 7, I am still getting stressed out of attempting to wrestle with Windows 10’s privacy issues and unfinished features, and I do care because there is no guarantee that even open source software will support Windows 7 after 2020.

A serious roadblock involved trying to disable the activity feed completely. Even under the Enterprise version, Group Policy has no effect at all. However, I may have gone off track out of frustration from said attempt.

Minoa wrote:With a wee under a year of extended support left for Windows 7, I am still getting stressed out of attempting to wrestle with Windows 10’s privacy issues and unfinished features, and I do care because there is no guarantee that even open source software will support Windows 7 after 2020.

A serious roadblock involved trying to disable the activity feed completely. Even under the Enterprise version, Group Policy has no effect at all. However, I may have gone off track out of frustration from said attempt.

I know this isn't very useful, but there definitely *is* a way to kill it entirely: I know this because it's killed on my computer. However, I can't remember for the life of me how I did it.

Salandriagado wrote:

Minoa wrote:With a wee under a year of extended support left for Windows 7, I am still getting stressed out of attempting to wrestle with Windows 10’s privacy issues and unfinished features, and I do care because there is no guarantee that even open source software will support Windows 7 after 2020.

A serious roadblock involved trying to disable the activity feed completely. Even under the Enterprise version, Group Policy has no effect at all. However, I may have gone off track out of frustration from said attempt.

I know this isn't very useful, but there definitely *is* a way to kill it entirely: I know this because it's killed on my computer. However, I can't remember for the life of me how I did it.

Can you not just go into Settings > Privacy > Activity Settings > And untoggle activity for your accounts?

Lechites wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
I know this isn't very useful, but there definitely *is* a way to kill it entirely: I know this because it's killed on my computer. However, I can't remember for the life of me how I did it.

Can you not just go into Settings > Privacy > Activity Settings > And untoggle activity for your accounts?

It at least used to still boot up in the background.

Minoa wrote:With a wee under a year of extended support left for Windows 7, I am still getting stressed out of attempting to wrestle with Windows 10’s privacy issues and unfinished features, and I do care because there is no guarantee that even open source software will support Windows 7 after 2020.

A serious roadblock involved trying to disable the activity feed completely. Even under the Enterprise version, Group Policy has no effect at all. However, I may have gone off track out of frustration from said attempt.

I really hope that GDPR will save me from the worst offenses of Windows 10

Just when you thought that you have cleaned up the mess left by Lockdown Browser, I found another small but irritating problem:

Start Menu can't add or delete new programs... It's a quick fix from regedit, but wow, how far did you lock my computer?

I'm still using Windows 7. It's great.
Edit: I'm not sure what I'm gonna do in 2020, maybe build another PC with Win10 exclusively for gaming.