Next Windows 10 update will be about polish not features

[GoodBytes]

3 minutes ago, paddy-stone said:

Could you please put a "be" in your topic title, as I am getting triggered immensely.

 

So it should read

TIA

 

Oops! Thanks! 

[Lurick]

Should not the people of Poland be capitalized too

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

25 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

I have a GeForce 680 using Windows Update delivered drivers (435.27 - Standard), no issues here.

I don't have the 3D Vision stuff nor GeForce Experience.

 

for me it instantly bluescreens with SYSTEM_SERVICE_EXCEPTION when i try to update it and install the drivers that way, and it gves a different bluescreen when i install the drivers from the nvidia website. 

 

the card is known good. 

[GoodBytes]

1 minute ago, firelighter487 said:

for me it instantly bluescreens with SYSTEM_SERVICE_EXCEPTION when i try to update it and install the drivers that way, and it gves a different bluescreen when i install the drivers from the nvidia website. 

 

the card is known good. 

On teh Nvidia website, be sure to pick "Standard" drivers, when when you come to install it, pick "Advanced/Custom" (forgot what it says), make sure you only install the GPU drivers and audio chip drivers only, and check th box to do a clean install. Try that

[rawrdaysgoby]

Sure I just hope they don't screw everything up when they are polishing it all I can ask for

[Doobeedoo]

I'm all for it. Extra polish and improvements are always welcome in OS and we have good amount of features already. Sure some things still to come, some still to be fully finished like Control Panel and Settings merge and such, also UI across the board, like for dark theme, Properties and some windows still not in dark theme too. 

But yeah aside from unfinished design stuff, doing some code cleaning would be great. 

[BigDamn]

Attempting to lure in those of us holding onto Window 7, I see. This will have to be on promising ass update in order for that to happen. Microsoft needs to allow advanced users the freedom to do things the way they want, instead of treating us like the average consumer by holding our hands. I don't want Windows to auto install drivers, it doesn't do it well. I don't want Smart Screen, UAC, Windows Defender, etc. all running and annoying the shit out of me. I want my system to work as it always has. I'm not opposed to change, and there's some Windows 10 features that I REALLY enjoy, but I still can't switch. Every new update to Windows 10 is plagued with issues so bad people rush to backup their files before the mean Windows 10 Gods auto update for them and potentially destroy everything. Windows 7 doesn't have these problems. Hell, Windows VISTA didn't have that problem. Come on, Microsoft.

[Dabombinable]

18 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

I have a GeForce 680 using Windows Update delivered drivers (435.27 - Standard), no issues here.

I don't have the 3D Vision stuff nor GeForce Experience.

 

I only re-installed Windows 10 1903 within the last few days as I moved to an NVME boot SSD...and it still installed the same old drivers with 3D Vision as still part of them. And that's with a GTX 1070.

[lewdicrous]

On 7/4/2019 at 3:37 AM, DrMacintosh said:

"quality enhancements"

 

Does that mean finally getting rid of the legacy apps and giving the new ones their full features? 

We're talking about Microsoft, legacy apps are part of the deal.

[DrMacintosh]

8 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

We're talking about Microsoft, legacy apps are part of the deal.

Most of the OS seems architecturally unchanged since XP. Except visually of course  (and even then, only on the surface). 

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Most of the OS seems architecturally unchanged since XP. Except visually of course  (and even then, only on the surface). 

That's actually not far from the truth. From what I understand, some parts of W10 can still be linked directly back to even Windows 95. Since the OS is pretty much just built up over time.

It'd be the same for example as if OSX were initially built directly off Mac OS instead of Unix.

[RejZoR]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Most of the OS seems architecturally unchanged since XP. Except visually of course  (and even then, only on the surface). 

I wouldn't say that. People praise Windows XP so much, but while it worked, I didn't have particularly wonderful memories of it. That thing kept having random idiotic breakdowns and while some people ran it for months, I had to basically reinstall it every few months because those random breakdowns were so common I just couldn't be bothered fixing them, just clean reinstall was faster. I even had system image and I just kept rolling it over. Fast forward and while I still sometimes reinstall Windows 10, last one was months old installation that worked fine, I've just done it because of new major Windows release. Before that I had it for even longer. It all seems much more reliable long term. And while I had some weir problems and idiocies, I had way more of them under Windows XP. Like WAY more.

[DrMacintosh]

4 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

That thing kept having random idiotic breakdowns and while some people ran it for months, I had to basically reinstall it every few months because those random breakdowns were so common I just couldn't be bothered fixing them, just clean reinstall was faster.

Oh, so like Windows 10. This was my exact experience with Windows 10 when I build my first PC in 2015. 

 

Luckily all my issues have mostly gone away since I switch to Ryzen. 

[iKingRPG]

On 7/3/2019 at 6:37 PM, DrMacintosh said:

"quality enhancements"

 

Does that mean finally getting rid of the legacy apps and giving the new ones their full features? 

like settings?

[LAwLz]

25 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Most of the OS seems architecturally unchanged since XP. Except visually of course  (and even then, only on the surface). 

23 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

That's actually not far from the truth. From what I understand, some parts of W10 can still be linked directly back to even Windows 95. Since the OS is pretty much just built up over time.

It'd be the same for example as if OSX were initially built directly off Mac OS instead of Unix.

It's actually quite far from the truth.

While parts of Windows has remained unchanged, a huge part of it has been reworked multiple times. Sure you might find things like icons, or even the same APIs, still available in the OS, those things aren't really that strange to find. Why remove an icon which is a few KB in size if it means potentially breaking some programs? Why rewrite an API that does what it's suppose to, does it efficiently and without issues?

The same goes for MacOS really. You can find APIs in the latest MacOS which dates back to the 80's. Why? Because old does not mean bad, and new does not mean good.

 

The parts which have been problem areas and needed updates in Windows have mostly been updated though. For example how Windows XP handled audio was awful, so for Windows Vista they redid the audio stack. Here is a really interesting video if you like to know how audio changed from XP to Vista.

Windows Vista was a really big re-engineering of a lot of underlying Windows components. It was very different from XP in many key ways.

[RejZoR]

Audio stack is terrible. The way how we regressed in audio quality (and I'm not talking stupid SNR and shit like that) is just horrifying. Imagine going back to Voodoo times with graphics today. That's how audio regressed when they sacked HW accelerated audio. The software 3D audio is terrible and bland. One would think these days HW accelerated ray traced audio was a norm. Boy you'd be wrong to assume that. Aureal had that years ago and then it all kinda died out. AMD has the TrueAudio thing, but since it's not a widely adopted standard, it's hardly used in any game. Where DirectSound3D with EAX 4.0 or 5.0 extension actually had that and it was superb. You can't believe this until you hear Doom 3 Resurrection of Evil running it on Sound Blaster X-Fi or AE-5... Most people had crappy onboard soundcards. I've had Sound Blasters since 1999 (after I sold my old system with Aureal Vortex audio chip) and I can tell you how things turned for the bad. Sure, there might be less audio issues, but that's hardly an achievement if you dumb things down to pure software.

 

I wonder how many games even use 128 audio channels these days. Coz that was a norm with EAX 4.0 and 5.0... I bet most games just stick with legacy 32 just to be on the safe side...

[jagdtigger]

I have a hunch  that even with SW they could do the same quality. The problem here is a certain company who thought 2 and 4 cores enough for consumers. So game dev's dumbed-down the audio to preserve resources and make sure it can run on most HW combinations.

[Teddy07]

I didn´t notice anything the patches changed.

[Unixsystem]

On 7/4/2019 at 3:44 AM, mr moose said:

must...    resist.....    urge to...    point...      out...      security update...                      importance...           

That's the irony of Microsoft's strategy. Their desire to force everyone to update allegedly for security purposes means that at least some subset of people are going to disable updates outright because we don't want to have things forced onto our PCs. I manually updated Windows 7 on close to a weekly basis because I was confident it wasn't going to screw up my install. They would auto download and then whenever it popped up saying things were ready to install I would usually restart at the end of the night. 

 

Now, because there is such minimal control over my updates I just have it disabled outright and I manually update maybe every few months at best. Sure, I'm putting myself at risk but I prefer that gamble over wondering whether or not my PC will randomly shut itself off while I'm at work and when I turn it back on it will have  have worse performance, new unwanted software or a fun bluescreen to deal with. 

[mr moose]

58 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

That's the irony of Microsoft's strategy. Their desire to force everyone to update allegedly for security purposes means that at least some subset of people are going to disable updates outright because we don't want to have things forced onto our PCs. I manually updated Windows 7 on close to a weekly basis because I was confident it wasn't going to screw up my install. They would auto download and then whenever it popped up saying things were ready to install I would usually restart at the end of the night. 

 

Now, because there is such minimal control over my updates I just have it disabled outright and I manually update maybe every few months at best. Sure, I'm putting myself at risk but I prefer that gamble over wondering whether or not my PC will randomly shut itself off while I'm at work and when I turn it back on it will have  have worse performance, new unwanted software or a fun bluescreen to deal with. 

I'm not sure it's ironic,  to me it seems pretty much par for the course.  People turn off update then the PC has issues and gets malware, people call MS hotline because windows is broken.  Force updates and this reduces the hotline calls, reduces malware infections and greatly improves life for everyone.

 

Win10 has much less malware than 7.   Specific users like me and you are the extreme minority and don't actually have that much influence on these numbers.

 

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Win10 has much less malware than 7.

You can't attribute that to Windows 10 having forced updates though.

If I had to guess, Windows 10 including an anti-virus software is a far more likely reason why it has less infections than Windows 7.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You can't attribute that to Windows 10 having forced updates though.

If I had to guess, Windows 10 including an anti-virus software is a far more likely reason why it has less infections than Windows 7.

Windows seven had included antivirus and the figures are across the board which seem to indicate that the use of antivirus or commercial protection has little impact on the differences between 7 and 10.

 

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/still-running-windows-7-instead-of-windows-10-youre-at-greater-risk-from-malware-says-report/

 

EDIT: again you might say i can attribute that to updates, but why ignore the single biggest change in the OS to end user incompetence?

[Unixsystem]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'm not sure it's ironic,  to me it seems pretty much par for the course.  People turn off update then the PC has issues and gets malware, people call MS hotline because windows is broken.  Force updates and this reduces the hotline calls, reduces malware infections and greatly improves life for everyone.

 

Win10 has much less malware than 7.   Specific users like me and you are the extreme minority and don't actually have that much influence on these numbers.

 

 

 

 

I have no problem with automatic updates being an option, or even being on by default for your average Joe who doesn't even know what the control panel is. Just give me a switch that let's me choose how I want to deal with them, the same way it always was on Windows 7. Download and install, download and notify, just notify, etc. Bury that switch in the settings somewhere, make me click through a down warnings and popups saying that it's a bad idea if you want, just give me the option. 

 

As far as I know the only thing similar that we have now is in the group policy editor, and even then only on higher end versions of Windows. And, if you jump through those hoops, I'm pretty sure you still don't get the granularity you did in older versions of Windows (note that that may have changed at some point, I haven't needed to mess with any settings in years once I got it all set up).

 

I totally get the argument that average consumers like things straightforward and simple and can even agree with it in most cases. I just hate the false dichotomy where something can't be simple on the surface but with options for advanced users underneath (especially when those advanced options already existed in the past and were deliberately stripped out). 

[mr moose]

54 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

I have no problem with automatic updates being an option, or even being on by default for your average Joe who doesn't even know what the control panel is. Just give me a switch that let's me choose how I want to deal with them, the same way it always was on Windows 7. Download and install, download and notify, just notify, etc. Bury that switch in the settings somewhere, make me click through a down warnings and popups saying that it's a bad idea if you want, just give me the option. 

 

As far as I know the only thing similar that we have now is in the group policy editor, and even then only on higher end versions of Windows. And, if you jump through those hoops, I'm pretty sure you still don't get the granularity you did in older versions of Windows (note that that may have changed at some point, I haven't needed to mess with any settings in years once I got it all set up).

 

I totally get the argument that average consumers like things straightforward and simple and can even agree with it in most cases. I just hate the false dichotomy where something can't be simple on the surface but with options for advanced users underneath (especially when those advanced options already existed in the past and were deliberately stripped out). 

The problem is if you give people the option they turn it off.  And for those who don't know how to turn it off there are plenty of tutorials online by people who should know better pontificating that all your PC woes are due to updates.

 

Its basically the same old problem with everything, when majority of the population need to have something controlled for them, then those of us who don;t have to suffer the same control.

 

MS don't care about your desire to manage your own updates, largely because not even professional admins can do it.  And with their product being 80% of all malware targets it's in their interest to ignore you in order to make the entire system more secure. 

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Windows seven had included antivirus

No it didn't.

 

Even your own article is arguing against you, saying that only 18% of Windows 7 and 8 users use Microsoft's anti-virus software (was a stand-alone download which many people didn't know about) and over 50% of Windows 10 users use it.

Windows did not have a built in anti-virus software until Windows 10.

 

 

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

EDIT: again you might say i can attribute that to updates, but why ignore the single biggest change in the OS to end user incompetence?

I'd say having an anti-virus is a bigger chance than forcing updates.

 

 

I've asked you this before, but I'll ask it again, do you even have evidence that the average Joe disabled updates on their computer? You insist that it was a wide spread issue but so far I have never seen you actually prove that it was.

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

The problem is if you give people the option they turn it off.  And for those who don't know how to turn it off there are plenty of tutorials online by people who should know better pontificating that all your PC woes are due to updates.

 

Its basically the same old problem with everything, when majority of the population need to have something controlled for them, then those of us who don;t have to suffer the same control. 

 

MS don't care about your desire to manage your own updates, largely because not even professional admins can do it.  And with their product being 80% of all malware targets it's in their interest to ignore you in order to make the entire system more secure.  

The exact same argument could be made about anything on a computer really.

The majority of the population can't be trusted to only visit safe websites, so therefore Microsoft should have a white list of websites and you can no longer visit any website not on the list!

A large portion of users can't tell a scam email from a legitimate email, so therefore Microsoft should remove the ability to send and read emails from our computers!

A large portion of users can't set their own IP address manually, so therefore we should remove the ability to set one manually. The poor Microsoft support has probably gotten a few calls about someone setting the IP to something incorrect and thus can't access the Internet. Better remove that feature!