Windows 10 May Reserve Another 7GB For Updates.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

Thats because enterprise uses are less likely to be downloading lots of porn. Enterprise users do not have mandatory updates but they are more likely to have extra security software and blocking of virus-containing sites via tools such as OpenDNS. 

He said the approach by Windows Defender to detect known threats, and try to apply broader rules to contain unknown threats was flawed in the real-world detection of unknown threats via a known exploit. Which is true. Updates are needed to keep Defender's list of known threats and patch exploits used by unknown threats. In a more updated system, it would assist defender greatly. If a threat uses a known exploit that is not patched, Defender is useless. 

Thank you, I know my language skills are quite low, I usually leave the "n't" off of words like could and would completely changing the message, but I really didn't think my message was that distorted in this thread.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Thank you, I know my language skills are quite low, I usually leave the "n't" off of words like could and would completely changing the message, but I really didn't think my message was that distorted in this thread.

What I find that usually happens is that I start off thinking what I say is quite adamant, but when people take snippets of a quote and place their argument on that, it twists my own facts and I often contradict myself. I find its best just to leave it sometimes before I go really off topic. 

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

Either you agree that updates are essential or you don't.  What are you trying to achieve here?

It's not black and white like that.

I do agree that installing security updates is a good way to keep your computer safe. I do not however agree with the narrative you tried to push earlier that it is the ONLY way to protect yourself, because it isn't.

And what am I trying to achieve? I am trying to correct the misinformation you spread earlier when you said anti-virus software can only detect known threats and are useless against new ones.

 

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

You have latched on to the fact that heartland wasn't malware and that heuristics can detect malware in the face of my argument being about unpatched exploits. I even pointed that out in my posts:

You said that anti-virus software can only detect known malware. I responded by saying that is wrong.

That's all there is to it. You can keep pushing your other arguments if you want, but that particular sentence was wrong so I corrected it. If you make let's say 5 claims in your post and 1 of them is incorrect, am I not allowed to correct that one? In your eyes, it seems like correcting one false statement out of 5 is like arguing that the other 4 are also false. That is not what I am doing. I was just responding to the part I was quoting, hence why I didn't quote anything else in your post.

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

The reality is I over used the term malware, it's not a cardinal sin and it certainly doesn't change what I am saying.  You are intentionally ignoring my content and what I am saying because you know I am right and have nothing left to argue.

Holy crap you're seriously delusional.

You were not right when you said anti-virus software can not detect unknown malware or when you said they were useless against new attacks. It's mind boggling that you refuse to accept that those statements were wrong even after I have explained how they were wrong.

The attacks you linked are completely irrelevant to the point I am arguing against. To get back to our analogy where you made 5 statements and 1 was incorrect, you're now trying to push that you were not wrong with that 1 incorrect statement, by posting things you believe to be evidence for the other 4 statements.

Do you understand? If you want to post evidence to counter my arguments, you need to post evidence which proves that anti-virus software can not detect unknown threats. However, just because you find some examples of previously unknown threats slipping through does not mean all of them do, which is what your post implied.

[LAwLz]

16 hours ago, mr moose said:

I'm sorry, here's a newer one where webroot claims windows 10 home is twice as seafee as 7

https://news.softpedia.com/news/windows-10-is-twice-as-safe-as-windows-7-for-home-users-520374.shtml

 

I wonder why the home version of 10 has less instances of malware compared to business users?

 

why are you even arguing? Do you just not like the fact that maybe humans are useless and currently the only solution means you lose options?

Correlation does not imply causation.

Like your previous link showed, infection rates fell from Windows 7 to Windows 8 too, yet the update model did not change between those releases. That means that there are other things at play too. The fact that enterprise users, who are not under the same update restrictions, has fewer infections should be pretty compelling evidence that updates are not the be-all and end-all solution to security, or even that it's necessarily all that relevant in the real world when you start factoring in other things which can play a bigger role, like other security solutions/features and usage.

 

 

16 hours ago, mr moose said:

why are you even arguing? Do you just not like the fact that maybe humans are useless and currently the only solution means you lose options?

I was arguing because you made false claims that I wanted to correct so that other people reading this thread would not misunderstand how things work.

And yes, I am against removing people freedom from their own devices because of some unproven (again, you still have not provided evidence for this) claim that people are running rampant and disabling automatic updates left and right if given the choice. It is especially unproven (and can not be proven) that people would disable it if the things I suggested were implemented.

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

No, that's not "All" you did, you are arguing for the sake of it now.  

I will stop saying that you were wrong about anti-virus software only being able to detect known vulnerabilities when you admit that you were wrong. Because it is factually and objectively wrong.

 

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Really, what is your point?  we have established that updates are essential for security

When did we establish that updates are essential (and please define exactly what you mean by that) for security? The last link you posted shows that business users, who are usually quite a bit behind when it comes to updates, have less malware than home users, which are currently being forced-fed updates.

You could make the argument that the gap would be even bigger if home users did not have forced updates, but until we actually get some evidence one way or another the entire argument you make is based on assumptions and possibly vague definitions of the words chosen (like essential).

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

and we have established that people prior to forced updates didn't bother updating.

No we haven't. You haven't linked to any statistics or other factual evidence (not based on assumptions like "if people are searching for it, they do it in mass to the point where it becomes a problem") that definitively proves this.

If you can link me to some statistics like how many Windows 7 users actually turned updates off vs how many kept it on, then we could have a serious discussion about the implications. Right now though, you are just making guesses about how many people actually turned it off. I will ask you again, give me solid evidence for this. "There are many guides on Google for it" is not evidence that people do it.

Besides, the guides you linked were for Windows 10, which means that people are turning updates off on Windows 10 anyway, which goes against your argument that the reason why Windows 10 has fewer infections is because of forced updates.

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Windows made it harder to disable updates in 7 8 and 8.1 and we have less malware in those versions.

Now you're straight up lying and making things up again. Windows 7, 8 and 8.1 did not make it harder to disable updates. Here are the update setting pages in Windows Vista, 7 and 8/8.1 (in that order).

Spoiler

 

 

"harder to disable" my ass. And as you can see in the address bar the settings are exactly in the same place, under the exact same sub-menus.

 

 

10 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

Thats because enterprise uses are less likely to be downloading lots of porn. Enterprise users do not have mandatory updates but they are more likely to have extra security software and blocking of virus-containing sites via tools such as OpenDNS. 

Yep, I agree.

 

10 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

He said the approach by Windows Defender to detect known threats, and try to apply broader rules to contain unknown threats was flawed in the real-world detection of unknown threats via a known exploit. Which is true. Updates are needed to keep Defender's list of known threats and patch exploits used by unknown threats. In a more updated system, it would assist defender greatly. If a threat uses a known exploit that is not patched, Defender is useless. 

No that's not what he said. He said that:

On 1/10/2019 at 3:17 AM, mr moose said:

Windows defender, like most security software, can't protect you from an exploitable flaw, it can only protect you from a known malware or virus 

This is false.

If he wanted to say that "you shouldn't rely on an anti-virus software as your only defense because security updates often blocks things that would slip by" then I would have agreed. But he didn't say that. He said something that is, if you read it as written, completely false.

 

Also, security updates is the thing that can only protect against known threats. For unknown threats, your anti-virus software is one of the few defenses you got. It's to protect against known threats that security updates are useful. So he even got that completely backwards.

 

Security updates = Protect against known threats.

Heuristic anti-virus software = Protect against new and unknown threats.

 

 

5 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

What I find that usually happens is that I start off thinking what I say is quite adamant, but when people take snippets of a quote and place their argument on that, it twists my own facts and I often contradict myself. I find its best just to leave it sometimes before I go really off topic. 

I think I've seen that happen to you before, and I think I can explain what happens. People may agree with your overall point, but the reasoning and logic you used to arrive at that conclusion may be flawed.

Here is an example:

Me: "Hitler was a bad person. The reasons for this is because he caused the deaths of millions of people and he ate meat".

Someone else: "Actually, Hitler followed a vegetarian diet. But even if he did eat meat, I don't think that's the reason people dislike him."

Me: "So you're saying that Hitler was a good person or that his action didn't lead to the death of millions of people!?"

 

It is possible to agree with parts of a post, but disagree on some things or point out false claims in it.

When people only quote specific parts of your post but ignore other things, it is possible that they agree with the rest of the things you said.

If you just admit to your mistake and ask if they agree with the overall conclusion, rather than attack people as a defense response you will probably discover that people are more friendly and conversations doesn't spiral out of control.

 

That's what is happening between me and mr moose right now. I pointed out that Windows defender can detect previously unknown threats and as a result he responded by talking about security updates and other stuff that I did not address at all in my original response. Pointing out 1 inaccurate thing in a post does not mean you disagree with everything else in it.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Yep, I agree.

 

No that's not what he said. He said that:

That is what he said. I can read for myself thanks. 

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I think I've seen that happen to you before, and I think I can explain what happens. People may agree with your overall point, but the reasoning and logic you used to arrive at that conclusion may be flawed.

Here is an example:

Me: "Hitler was a bad person. The reasons for this is because he caused the deaths of millions of people and he ate meat".

Someone else: "Actually, Hitler followed a vegetarian diet. But even if he did eat meat, I don't think that's the reason people dislike him."

Me: "So you're saying that Hitler was a good person or that his action didn't lead to the death of millions of people!?"

 

It is possible to agree with parts of a post, but disagree on some things or point out false claims in it.

When people only quote specific parts of your post but ignore other things, it is possible that they agree with the rest of the things you said.

If you just admit to your mistake and ask if they agree with the overall conclusion, rather than attack people as a defense response you will probably discover that people are more friendly and conversations doesn't spiral out of control.

 

That's what is happening between me and mr moose right now. I pointed out that Windows defender can detect previously unknown threats and as a result he responded by talking about security updates and other stuff that I did not address at all in my original response. Pointing out 1 inaccurate thing in a post does not mean you disagree with everything else in it.

You need to read over what I've written. 

[Chett_Manly]

In an era where a 1 TB SSD can be had new for $100 is 7gb a big deal? I only have a 500gb drive and I don't see a reason to care.

[Uttamattamakin]

Just now, Chett_Manly said:

In an era where a 1 TB SSD can be had new for $100 is 7gb a big deal? I only have a 500gb drive and I don't see a reason to care.

In an era where PC's have been lasting 5-7 years and even now PC's with 32 GB EMMC are being sold it is a big deal.  

The vast majority of average Joe computer user just buy "enough".  32GB systems are enough, especially with cloud storage.    Many of the less expensive always connected with LTE computers are in this situation.  These devices are not even old or low quality to the point of being disposable. 

Two examples.   This one and this one. 

 

Think about the average Joe run of the mill user.  A person who most likely owns a laptop, the least expensive one they could find.  A person who owns that lap top until it literally stops working at all.   To those people this is forced obsolescence for no reason other than that MS has been sloppy about updates.*

(IMHO MS needs to do what Apple did long ago and reinvent their OS kernel. Keep the UI and adopt something more like Unix.  Run Windows NT kernel land in a VM and phase it out.) 

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Many of the less expensive always connected with LTE computers are in this situation

Those don't exist. The only "always" connected PCs running Windows are expensive, excessively so for what little they offer. Any LTE equiped laptop or tablet that's cheap runs Android or iOS.

 

And even then, that's a micro niche not worth a company's time or dime caring about.

[grss1982]

On 1/9/2019 at 1:47 PM, Arika S said:

should, yes, but they dont. people can fill up their drives really fast and the majority of people dont know that you're supposed to leaved x amount free.

 

i must seriously be the only person that doesn't have these kind of problems the people on this forum complaint about constantly. never have i had windows restart while im in the middle of something, or interrupt anything im doing. maybe that's because i turn my pc off every night. maybe that's the fix for all these problems you keep having?

I do tech support for a big company in the I.T. field and I can confirm that mom and pop or non-techy users can fill up a 1TB hard drive real quick either because they keep lots of files or don't bother to delete files they downloaded but don't need like installers and the like.

[Uttamattamakin]

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Those don't exist. The only "always" connected PCs running Windows are expensive, excessively so for what little they offer. Any LTE equiped laptop or tablet that's cheap runs Android or iOS.

 

And even then, that's a micro niche not worth a company's time or dime caring about.

Surface Pro LTE user here.  That is false... for what most people do on their computers including gaming having LTE is worth an extra two processor cores. 

 

Furthermore I have seen inexpensive always connected PC's  (Unless my memory fails me.  It may be possible they were something specially made for colleges....)  

 

 

Lots of people who bought windows 10S devices are going to get screwed rather soon after they bought them. 

 

[GoodBytes]

30 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

In an era where PC's have been lasting 5-7 years and even now PC's with 32 GB EMMC are being sold it is a big deal.  

Honestly, while I have no data to back myself up, I seriously think that these low cost systems, including low-end cheap Chromebooks, are designed to be 2 years max system.

Their limited RAM and storage is done on purpose. You get it, you realize its no good, you keep it until you can stretch it, and you toss it (you can't even reuse it after by giving it a second life as the system will become completely inadequate). I mean if it's not Windows/ChromeOS consuming RAM, it will be your daily apps. If it is not the OS requiring faster CPU, it will be your apps. Same for storage. What I mean is that these systems are so tight to the little tasks they can do, they have no headroom to allow programs to grow with newer features, fancier interface, and so on. Anyway, just my opinion.

 

 

Quote

The vast majority of average Joe computer user just buy "enough".  32GB systems are enough, especially with cloud storage.    Many of the less expensive always connected with LTE computers are in this situation.  These devices are not even old or low quality to the point of being disposable. 

I don't think so. The majority of consumers don't buy these ultra cheapest system. And LTE modem is costly. So you won't find it, today, on such device. It will be on the better specs systems.

 

Quote

Two examples.   This one and this one. 

I don't see LTE on those systems.

 

Quote

Think about the average Joe run of the mill user.  A person who most likely owns a laptop, the least expensive one they could find.  A person who owns that lap top until it literally stops working at all.   To those people this is forced obsolescence for no reason other than that MS has been sloppy about updates.*

Nha. It is the manufacture that does it.

I don't remember the company (I have a feeling it was HP or Acer, but anyway), had a Windows 8 powered tablet. Those 100-150$ tablets. Had 32GB Storage, Atom based CPU. No SD card slot of any kind. No USB Type-A ports. No nothing. All it had was a headphone plug, and a non-bootable (looked like) Micro USB connector to charge the device. So if you want to re-install your system and delete your built-in image.... too bad for you. Buy a new device. I think someone on this forum had it, and made a thread on how to do a clean install as it crapped out... nothing was found.

 

Quote

(IMHO MS needs to do what Apple did long ago and reinvent their OS kernel. Keep the UI and adopt something more like Unix.  Run Windows NT kernel land in a VM and phase it out.) 

Yea, its called Vista. While based on modern NT from Windows Server, it has been largely reworked. This allowed to have an OS be one of this area.

And Microsoft is doing it as we speak in Windows 10 without you noticing. See: Windows OneCore, Microsoft Andromeda  OS aka:  Windows Core OS. And CShell that goes with it (replacing the aged old Shell32 that we have). All in order to get Windows 10 running on a new class of devices. I guess now you can start making the connection on why Windows 10 has the Messaging SMS app which does nothing, even if you have LTE)

[GoodBytes]

2 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Lots of people who bought windows 10S devices are going to get screwed rather soon after they bought them.

As long as you can expand the storage (preferably microSD card, as you can have it inserted on the system all the time with nothing sticking out), there is no problem.

 

Heck the Switch has 32GB, and no one has trouble getting a microSD card, and unlike the PC, you actually want, for the Switch, the fastest SD card the console support to have the bets load time, similar to internal storage or game cartridge. So I don't see how it would be problem for a system with such slot. My point is that consumers don't have much trouble knowing what it is, getting one, and using it. They are familiar, or enough to go a BestBuy and ask about it, and getting something that they can use for their system.

[GoodBytes]

28 minutes ago, grss1982 said:

I do tech support for a big company in the I.T. field and I can confirm that mom and pop or non-techy users can fill up a 1TB hard drive real quick either because they keep lots of files or don't bother to delete files they downloaded but don't need like installers and the like.

Don't worry, When you are low in disk space, Storage Sense kicks in, and it will delete old files in Downloads folder.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

In an era where PC's have been lasting 5-7 years and even now PC's with 32 GB EMMC are being sold it is a big deal.  

The vast majority of average Joe computer user just buy "enough".  32GB systems are enough, especially with cloud storage.    Many of the less expensive always connected with LTE computers are in this situation.  These devices are not even old or low quality to the point of being disposable. 

Two examples.   This one and this one. 

 

Think about the average Joe run of the mill user.  A person who most likely owns a laptop, the least expensive one they could find.  A person who owns that lap top until it literally stops working at all.   To those people this is forced obsolescence for no reason other than that MS has been sloppy about updates.*

(IMHO MS needs to do what Apple did long ago and reinvent their OS kernel. Keep the UI and adopt something more like Unix.  Run Windows NT kernel land in a VM and phase it out.) 

So MS have said that you can use any storage, so if it’s a big deal, just pick up a usb or sd card etc, and according to the article it should work.

[mr moose]

To everyone else reading this thread, regardless of what people tell you, DON'T rely on heuristic scanning in defender to make up for not patching known security issues (especially in windows 7).  Update your OS.

 

 

[Guest]

On 1/10/2019 at 11:52 AM, JustAnotherTechGuy99 said:

*snip*

Hi, welcome to the forum, first of all I appreciate your optimism, this is clearly how you could manage everything, could perfectly suitable for a lot of people, but some of them cannot always be applied, for various reasons.

First of all I don't want to be mean, I don't want to create other useless discussions, don't read the following just because it seems I'm Linux guy, I don't care that much about it, I'm not attached to some stupid fanboyism and saying that only a single OS is better and you shouldn't using everything else is just for idiots, I just use those for my convenience

Personally I'm just tired of memes about OSes too, specifically because as a perfect one doesn't exist, fanboyism(which is just for kids honestly defending an OS just because you don't know anything else) and ignorance are the main problem here and could be applied for people just spitting crap about Linux and MacOS as well

But first of all the focus of an OS developer should be to guarantee stability and security, but this is just the wrong way, an user shouldn't adapt as the OS decides, the focus is to make life to the user easier, while maintain security, and this is a job which Linux and Mac OS are doing much better, you wouldn't need to always backup the data or remember when windows update kicks in, those are the kind of things you should do for hardware failures or when in need to protect important data for example.
This is just adapting to what the OS does, now I'm happy that some people including you can find those easy to manage, but this needs to be like that just for everyone, and the OS should help you first doing that, an example could be least implementing a feature where you can always postpone them or decide specifically or having a popup reminder (like MacOS) 

In the past with the service packs updates methods + traditional updates, huge problems that are happening now like random deleted data, even not of all systems, were not a common thing, this also needs clearly a better integration with the Insider program + more testing as what it seems to me is they are pushing out too much features without testing them, I found a lot of bugs by myself I also reported to them and I would not be surprised to encounter other serious issues

Again, even if Windows is the primary target for malwares forcing updates in this way isn't a long-term solution, improving the Windows Defender features is, live patching of security threats, testing more and finding other ways is... 
Some users (even the lazy ones that download malwares for example we talked about in this thread) can workaround the updates in other ways like I said on the other posts, updates should just be in control of the user, since what some people say is that this is because for irresponsible people never updating, in the future those "irresponsible people" can discover they can set up a metered connection and never update, isn't better to just let decide everyone instead? This won't change anything as the "responsible" ones would update when they could anyway, and the malware infections would stay the same
Certainly not forcing and also taking 7GB of disk space just because microsoft knows that an issue could happen because they don't test those properly (because from what I understood this is something could be used for doing backups files in case of issues)

And anyway his is a problem, especially for those who actually work a lot in their computer and could not have the time to do always the updates, and this is can clearly happen in the future even if you must do something important, thus losing precious time.
People are underestimating how wasting time in the wrong moment could be counterproductive, and upgrading to an Enterprise Windows version isn't an excuse 

With all that said it is is clearly an OS fault, getting over it just means you are subjugating and  to this when people should actually make this change, as we far understood that this is frustrating for a lot of people even in this thread who hate Linux or MacOS, and unnecessary

The 7GB are not the problem, the problem is the kind of approach, 7GB today, and what in the future? There have been moments where Microsoft began to optimize their OS to be less memory-demanding by also dropping old drivers for example, or like when they developed Windows 7 which was lighter than Windows Vista, but now this trend seems just to indicate that they have abandoned this focus, didn't happened as well on other OS, technology changing doesn't have anything to do with that
I hope this won't be the trend like not optimizing code because you can tell users to buy new hardware instead, 32GB honestly are also enough, for having more than 20GB free for example, that's has nothing to do with "you want the cheap things? then this is what you get", I would agree if you would get something like 1 million photos, but this is an OS, it needs to be optimized, essential and lightweight as possible, not complicated and unoptimized

Also a lot of small factor devices just don't have an HDD or upgradeability , but instead an eMMC and this doesn't mean they are lazy to get an HDD or an SSD, in that case the OS is just becoming more unsuitable, they don't even separate Windows versions for small devices like those, and this is another problem, using Android only for example is another world, and I can confirm this as I own a 32GB tablet I use only for reading Uni books, I don't have space for anything else in Windows 10 Home today, what in the future? 

And this is not just saying and doing bs microsoft memes about it, it's just how it is and they should definitely improve things and do something about imo, justifying and getting over it is not a solution

Also, the Windows Kernel has nothing to do with this kind of updates, unix-like systems like MacOS has a microkernel, DragonFlyBSD an Hybrid one like Windows, linux a monolithic with microkernel features, but they update differently
Also the other suggestions could apply to every OS as well, but not because of eventually broken updates...

That's clearly an opposite opinion as the other ones I had with mr.mosse and you could not agree with that but that's just our different point of views, we will see the consequences in the future and discuss again, now this is the last post I will make in there

sorry for the TL;DR and good night everyone

Edited January 11, 2019 by Guest
snipped quote, fixed typos

[Drak3]

23 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

he focus is to make life to the user easier, while maintain security, and this is a job which Linux and Mac OS are doing much better,

Linux sure as fuck is doing far worse. OSX isn't doing better either. It's an equal alternative.

 

2 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Surface Pro LTE user here.  That is false... for what most people do on their computers including gaming having LTE is worth an extra two processor cores. 

LTE and "Always" connected PCs have nearly zero practicality. Most people have no need for LTE connectivity because the only places they can feasibly use their machines are where wifi is readily available.

 

So again, micro niche that's not worth wasting a whole lot of money on.

[GoodBytes]

19 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Linux sure as fuck is doing far worse. OSX isn't doing better either. It's an equal alternative.

 

LTE and "Always" connected PCs have nearly zero practicality. Most people have no need for LTE connectivity because the only places they can feasibly use their machines are where wifi is readily available.

 

So again, micro niche that's not worth wasting a whole lot of money on.

Often times the wifi is poor there. And you have low security as those are public areas.

 

LTE powered systems are only limited due to mobile carrier outrages secondary SIM card cost for plan sharing and limited data plans.

You'll more see LTE powered device given by the companies for select employees on a case by case basis.

 

But interest is growing. Enough that you see more and more systems with LTE support made by manufactures being made. Microsoft is putting funds for features and improvement in Windows 10 for LTE powered devices, and making LTE powered system of select Surface models.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Often times the wifi is poor there. And you have low security as those are public areas.

 

LTE powered systems are only limited due to mobile carrier outrages secondary SIM card cost for plan sharing and limited data plans.

You'll more see LTE powered device given by the companies for select employees on a case by case basis.

 

But interest is growing. Enough that you see more and more systems with LTE support made by manufactures being made. Microsoft is putting funds for features and improvement in Windows 10 for LTE powered devices, and making LTE powered system of select Surface models.

I'm more interested in improving LTE than the 5G thought...

More compatibility, etc

 

Also the speeds are acceptable

[Uttamattamakin]

3 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

.......

 

One, I am 100% certain that devices which run windows, have LTE and 32GB of storage exist.   (For them given cloud storage it even makes sense.)   As I said I could be confused since they could be just an educational product.   You know for use on campuses and places which have WIF all over them anyway. 
 

Which makes it even worse since such institutions rarely upgrade.   How many peoples schools still had Apple ][ 's in the 1990's.  Mine did. 

 

Now some of the computers we teach from are easily 7-10 years old at best.   They can delay upgrades for a while and updates for a while....

3 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

So MS have said that you can use any storage, so if it’s a big deal, just pick up a usb or sd card etc, and according to the article it should work.

That is the exact opposite of what the article I linked says.   In fact given the motivation ... to be sure that the storage is available for updates... having the reserved space be on an external device would defeat that purpose.  ?

 

"The feature is enabled automatically on devices that ship with Windows 10 version 1903 and on clean installs of 1903. Users won't be able to remove reserved storage, but they can adjust the amount that is reserved, as explained below. "

 

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

Often times the wifi is poor there. And you have low security as those are public areas.

 

LTE powered systems are only limited due to mobile carrier outrages secondary SIM card cost for plan sharing and limited data plans.......

Or if you are in a place where the wired internet is not super duper reliable.  I live in a western suburb of Chicago which was one of the first to EVER get cable TV.  So small that the cable companies central office....like corprorate office was within a mile.    

The cable internet here goes down more than I used to on a Friday night at the bar.   Every single day, it will just stop working for 15-30 minutes every 8 to 12 hours.   This is after multiple service calls, with new wiring ran to our house from the pole, new modems.  The infrastructure for that is just plain OLD.  

On the other hand we have a bajillion cell towers around here and LTE which is almost as fast as my cable modem was two years ago.  I would not want to replace my cable service wit it.  However, I learned, that without the internet a quad core 15 inch notebook is not as useful as a dual core tablet. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

On the other hand we have a bajillion cell towers around here and LTE which is almost as fast as my cable modem was two years ago.  I would not want to replace my cable service wit it.  However, I learned, that without the internet a quad core 15 inch notebook is not as useful as a dual core tablet. 

Tfw here LTE/4G Plus is much even faster and with less expensive subscriptions than *DSL, even the FTTx ones

[Uttamattamakin]

33 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

Tfw here LTE/4G Plus is much even faster and with less expensive subscriptions than *DSL, even the FTTx ones

Lots of places with and without built up infrastructure will be in my situation.  LTE built into a portable computer is worth it.  5G... something 10x faster than 4g will hopefully force upgrades to the wired internet.  Just as likely in a lot of cities mobile connections will be all that is available unless one is very rich. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

 

"The feature is enabled automatically on devices that ship with Windows 10 version 1903 and on clean installs of 1903. Users won't be able to remove reserved storage, but they can adjust the amount that is reserved, as explained below. "

Removing is not the same as moving, or having the space on external storage (I.e an SD card, not more volatile storage). You just won’t be able to take it out or remove the reserved space from the storage. 

 

You could also just combine the disks in an array :!:

[Uttamattamakin]

11 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

Removing is not the same as moving, or having the space on external storage (I.e an SD card, not more volatile storage). You just won’t be able to take it out or remove the reserved space from the storage. 

 

You could also just combine the disks in an array :!:

Do you remember how when windows 10 came out MS made it so that One Drive had to be on your boot drive, or at least a non remoovable partitioni?  You know, so people with a Surface pro or similar that has just one drive could not move it to their SD card.

 

Do you remember the very technical hacks there were to put it on your sd card anyway?

Peppridge Farm remembers. 

 

Maybe in a very technical way what you are saying is theoretically possible.  That is not going to be the default behavior or even supported based on all I have read.  They are going to put that reserved space on your boot drive.  The whole point is to make sure that you have enough space for OS updates.  Putting it on external storage defeats that purpose.  Now it may be possible to trick the OS into doing something else.  IT's just computer code after all.  The average user is not going to be able to do that.  

[RejZoR]

I mean, you can't blame MS for creating safeguards so that OS works without problems. If that means reserving 7GB, then so be it. I can't understand ppl who have so little drive space left anyway. Just buy a new bigger HDD, they go for peanuts these days and same for SSD's, otherwise you'll be fiddling with stupid space every time you want to do basically anything. Which is just dumb. It's like leaving enough space for 2 jars in the fridge. And then you constantly have problems fitting anything into it.