Next Windows 10 update will be about polish not features

[LAwLz]

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Because there are only a few people who complain, the rest of the world doesn't care.

 

Defender became  security essentials and was shipped with 7 (maybe not in your country but I've never downloaded it and it's on all my win 7 PC's).  MS made it a full win 7 AV in 2009 (9 years before the article I linked)  It's in the wikipedia page you linked also.  And on this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Security_Essentials

It's almost impossible to have arguments with you because you do not understand your own sources... You assume something and then hunt evidence that supports that theory. But because you assume that you're right before looking up facts, you often misinterpret everything as fact which supports you, even when they don't.

Did you even read the Wikipedia article you linked? It clearly states that it was built in as Windows Defender in Windows 8 and later.

 

IT WAS NEVER INCLUDED IN WINDOWS 7!

I do not know why it was on your computers, but my guess is that you downloaded it and then didn't remember.

It's so frustrating because your posts are like 99% assumptions, all the time.

 

Here are some sources for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Security_Essentials

Quote

Operating system: Windows 7 (built-in as Windows Defender in Windows 8 and later)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Defender:

Quote

Windows Defender is an anti-malware component of Microsoft Windows.^[1] It was first released as a downloadable free antispyware program for Windows XP, and was later shipped with Windows Vista and Windows 7. It has evolved into a full antivirus program, replacing Microsoft Security Essentials as part of Windows 8 and later versions.^[1]

 

Here is a post from me from 2012 when I just so happen to explicitly say that MSE is not installed by default in Windows.

Quote

But MSE isn't installed on the OS by default, and you can uninstall IE if you want.

 

And here is a post from me from 2013 where I say Windows 8 now having MSE built in is a good change.

 

 

And check out this article from Computer World:

Quote

The new operating system, which last week reached its final public milestone, includes security software, dubbed "Windows Defender," that combines characteristics of both that anti-spyware program of the same name and the free Security Essentials, the antivirus program that until now has been offered as a separate download.

 

 

If you had MSE on your Windows 7 machine then it's because someone, maybe you, installed it on your computer, or you are misremembering. One thing is clear though. It was never included in Windows 7. If you installed Windows 7 from a regular ISO, such as the one distributed by Microsoft, then it was not included. I even went as far as to install Windows 7 using my ISO in a VM to verify this.

[mr moose]

From the source:

 

Quote

It replaces Windows Live OneCare, a discontinued commercial subscription-based AV service, and the free Windows Defender, which only protected users from spyware until Windows 8.

It clearly says MSE replaced defender until win 8\

 

Then it says:

 

Quote

MSE originally ran on Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7,^[3] although versions 4.5 and later do not run on Windows XP^[11]

 

Note it says Originally ran on windows 7 and that was back in 2011.

 

I have never download any antivirus other than avast back in the mid 2000's for checking clients computers. 

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Jito463 said:

As @dalekphalm already pointed out, Windows Defender in 7 is not the same as the Windows Defender in 8 or 10.  Microsoft Security Essentials was the AV for Vista/7, and that was not installed by default.  Also, calling MSE a "full AV" is a bit of a stretch.  Its ability to catch anything was woefully overrated.

GPE does give you the exact same options as before (download only, notify but don't download, etc).  Unfortunately, GPE is only available on Professional edition and up.

 

As I posted above MSE replaced defender.  And I never said defender or MSE was any good, in fact if it turns out it is really shit then that just furthers my original point that lower rates of malware in 7 have more to do with the difference between 10 and 7 one of them being forced updates.

[LAwLz]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

From the source:

 

It clearly says MSE replaced defender until win 8\

 

Then it says:

 

 

Note it says Originally ran on windows 7 and that was back in 2011.

 

I have never download any antivirus other than avast back in the mid 2000's for checking clients computers. 

I honestly do not know how I am suppose to respond to this blatant lack of reading comprehension.

 

Windows 7 had a built in anti-spyware service called Windows Defender. It was not a fully featured antivirus software because it only monitored and protected against spyware. You can read about that here under "basic features". It's the first sentence.

 

If you installed MSE in Windows 7, which was a separate download as explained in all the links I have posted, then MSE deactivated Windows Defender since MSE included anti-spyware capabilities and there was no point in running two processes doing the same things. You can read about that under the section called "conversion to antivirus" in the Windows Defender article.

Quote

In Windows Vista and Windows 7, Windows Defender was superseded by Microsoft Security Essentials, an antivirus product from Microsoft which provided protection against a wider range of malware. Upon installation, Microsoft Security Essentials disabled and replaced Windows Defender.

 

Starting with Windows 8, Windows Defender got the same antivirus capabilities as MSE and as a result, MSE essentially became preinstalled starting with Windows 8.

 

Here is another link you should read, this time straight from Microsoft themselves:

Quote

Q: Can I install Microsoft Security Essentials on Windows 8?
A: No.
"Windows 8 *already* has a full antivirus/antimalware product installed. Windows Defender on Windows 8 is more like MSE than like Windows Defender on older versions of Windows.

See: http://experts.windows.com/w/experts_wiki/163.aspx

 

Q: How is Microsoft Security Essentials different from Windows Defender (XP/Vista/7)?

A: Windows Defender on XP/Vista/7 detects and removes known spyware only. It is not designed to protect against the full breadth of malicious software, and specifically does not prevent viruses, worms, Trojans, and other malicious software from infecting your machine.

 

Q: Is Microsoft Security Essentials (XP/Vista/7)designed to replace Windows Defender?

A: No but if you are running Microsoft Security Essentials, you do not need to run Windows Defender. Microsoft Security Essentials is designed to disable Windows Defender in order to manage the PC’s real-time protection, including anti-virus, rootkits, Trojans and spyware.

 

Q: Does installing Microsoft Security Essentials (XP/Vista/7) disable Windows Defender?
A: Microsoft Security Essentials should disable Windows Defender on Vista and Windows 7 and uninstall it from XP. In some cases, this does not happen automatically.

 

Q: What happens if I do not disable or uninstall Windows Defender if I am using Microsoft Security Essentials (XP/Vista/7)?
A: If Microsoft Security Essentials and Windows Defender are both running, your system may experience performance degradation and other problems caused by the conflict of two services providing real time protection simultaneously.

 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

1) I didn't ask you to prove that people don't update. What I asked was proof that people turn off automatic updates if given the choice.

People do both, it was in the article I linked,  Ignoring prompts to update is effectively the same as turning updates off except they repeatedly igore the update as opposed to changing a setting.

 

Quote

The frustrating part of the debate that ensued after that tweet is not that people weren't proactive in protecting themselves, rather that they were proactively putting themselves at risk by disabling security features.

Quote

 

Research tells us that people ignore repeated security warning messages. Consequently, these monthly updates may be especially easy to ignore.

 

Besides the fact that these articles even exists is proof people aren't updating.  You are ignoring the trees for forest.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

2) I said I believe one of the reasons why Windows 10 computers has less malware on them is because of other improvements in Windows 10 which increases security, such as having built in antivirus. There are other improvements too, like better and more widely used driver signing, SmartScreen filtering, browser sandboxing, and so on.

Which is fine,m except your argument now rests on the premise that people willing update when they are available but do not willing install antivirus even when it is free nor use the built in one regardless how limited it is in the regard of malware.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I did not make up a random stat about 0.05% of Windows getting malware. I used the statistics you provided me with. The article you linked used Petya as an example of a major malware outbreak on Windows and said that it was evidence for a lack of installed security updates. So I gave you the number of infected PCs as a percentage to show how few actually were infected.

The only computers that got petya/wannacry were the ones not updated and most of those (by a very large margin) were win 7.  Total percentages as you use them are red herrings when my only claim was that not updating is the cause of these problems.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

WannaCry was actually a really good outbreak in terms of showing us this type of information because it reported back to a server when the malware was installed, and it could only be installed on unpatched computers. So we got a pretty good and detailed pictures of how many were infected.

Exactly, only on  unpatched systems.   And you still want to try and argue that updates are not relevant in the statics regrading the number of malware infections.

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

But the thing is that none of the articles you linked actually provided any proof that people will turn off automatic updates if given the choice. None of the studies showed that and neither did the article. It showed that people are in general slow with installing updates, but that is by no means the same as saying people will turn off automatic updates if given the choice.

 

 

Do they actually say those things, or is it like what happened earlier in this thread where you don't understand something and just assumes what they say is the same as your predefined conclusion.

Have they actually said that the average Joe will go into settings, ignore warning popups, and disable updates if given the choice?

Or have they just said that installing security updates is important if you want to stay safe? Because I completely agree with the latter, but not at all with the former, and they are two widely different things.

 

Those articles only exist because the issues they address are happening,  one article clearly claims 66% update too late if at all.   You can;t try to dismiss that by claiming they are talking about all software, updates are updates, if they don;t updates 3rd party apps what makes you think they update windows,  and why would people like troy hunt even write up large articles addressing people turning off updates or ignoring them if it wasn't a thing.

 

 

It really sounds to me like you just don't like my opinion and want to dismiss it out of hand and the only way you can do that is to ignore half of what is happening on the subject.

 

 

 

[Jito463]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

As I posted above MSE replaced defender.  And I never said defender or MSE was any good, in fact if it turns out it is really **** then that just furthers my original point that lower rates of malware in 7 have more to do with the difference between 10 and 7 one of them being forced updates.

Actually, MSE superseded  (not replaced) Windows Defender in XP, Vista and 7 when installed, it was then replaced by Windows Defender in 8.  I can do a fresh install of 7 even now - having done it literally hundreds of times over the years - and under Optional Downloads will be the choice to install MSE.  It's not even under the critical updates, you have to manually seek it out and select it to install on that computer.

 

In any event, my comment about how good MSE was or wasn't didn't have anything to do with my point, which was simply to correct your misinformation that MSE shipped with any version of Windows.  It was always an optional download until they replaced it in 8.

[jagdtigger]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

Because there are only a few people who complain, the rest of the world doesn't care.

Do they actually doesnt  care or they are just putting up with it because there is no other option? I would say its the latter based on how unpopular UWP is for example, so far every time a relative/friend asked me to clean out the bloatware from their new laptop every single time UWP apps ended up in the back burner as well.

[mr moose]

36 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Do they actually doesnt  care or they are just putting up with it because there is no other option? I would say its the latter based on how unpopular UWP is for example, so far every time a relative/friend asked me to clean out the bloatware from their new laptop every single time UWP apps ended up in the back burner as well.

 

Which bloatware are they asking for specifically? the stuff that HP or Acer install?  of course. But people don't even know half the shit windows has installed, You can save maybe a sec or two by turning of cortana. But nothing else starts with windows on a clean install.  

 

So yes, people generally just don't care, they turn it on, open a browser and go to facebook or youtube and maybe netflix.  Maybe they use office and email.  They don't sit there searching through the windows program menu for programs that haven't loaded that they don't need wondering if they should be upset by them.  That's something enthusiasts of forums do.

 

 

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

People do both, it was in the article I linked,  Ignoring prompts to update is effectively the same as turning updates off except they repeatedly igore the update as opposed to changing a setting. 

1) No, ignoring update prompts and turning automatic updates off are not the same things. The former can still be done in Windows 10, but the later can not except certain editions. What I want is a way to turn automatic updates off, and that is specifically what you have been arguing against. We have never argued over whether or not someone should be able to ignore an update prompt.

Stop moving the goalpost.

 

2) The article you linked did not prove or state that people ignore update prompts either. What it showed was that people were slow to install updates, but if you look at the studies and surveys the article used as sources you will see that they included programs which didn't even have a fully automatic update mechanism to begin with.

People being slow with manually installing updates is not the same as people turning automatic updates off, and the former is not evidence for the latter.

 

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

The frustrating part of the debate that ensued after that tweet is not that people weren't proactive in protecting themselves, rather that they were proactively putting themselves at risk by disabling security features.

That was one tweet. If you look at the surveys a bit closer rather than that quite heavily biased article intercepting the survey for you, you will find that only 7 out of 294 "average users" replied that they did not like automatic updates. The other 97.6% did not say that they disliked automatic updates.

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Quote

Research tells us that people ignore repeated security warning messages. Consequently, these monthly updates may be especially easy to ignore. 

Besides the fact that these articles even exists is proof people aren't updating.  You are ignoring the trees for forest.

I have never argued against the idea that people ignore warning messages. Not once. Because I know they do that.

But that is not what we have been arguing about. What we have been arguing about countless times in the past is that you have said that if we so much as include an option to turn updates off in Windows 10, a large portions of people, average Joes, will go into the settings and turn it off, putting themselves at risk.

That is what we have been arguing about. Nothing else. People ignoring warning message is not evidence that people proactively turn off automatic updates if given the choice. All that proves is that people prefer inaction rather than action, which I strongly believe (and is one of the reasons why I don't think they would turn it off if it was enabled by default).

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Besides the fact that these articles even exists is proof people aren't updating.  You are ignoring the trees for forest. 

No, that is not how logic works.

That's like saying this article about bigfoot is evidence that bigfoot exists.

It is entirely possible that people may believe something that is wrong, and that those people write articles about their wrong beliefs.

 

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Which is fine,m except your argument now rests on the premise that people willing update when they are available but do not willing install antivirus even when it is free nor use the built in one regardless how limited it is in the regard of malware.

I strongly believe that most people do not change settings that much outside of the defaults. I believe that if automatic updates are enabled by default then most people will have it at default, even if given an option to turn it off.

I believe that if an antivirus is installed and automatically updated on their computer, configured to do periodic scans in the background, then most people will have an up-to-date antivirus software which does scans on their computers.

 

And let's be clear on one thing. Windows Defender in Windows 7 was not antivirus. It was anti-spyware, and anti-spyware only. And it was run automatically, in the background, so I believe most people had it running on their system. I don't believe people manually turned it off.

 

But my argument doesn't rest on that premise at all.

1) My argument is that I don't believe that it would be a widespread epidemic of people turning off automatic updates in Windows if given the option. All the evidence I have seen points towards people in general not changing things much outside of the default settings. Take Chrome as an example. Almost all Chrome users are on the latest update very shortly after being released and we know this as a fact since browsers report their version to websites they visit. Why do you think barely anyone has turned off automatic updates in Chrome, but is certain people would do it if given the choice in Windows?

2) It's a fact that almost 1/4 of all Windows computers in the world back in 2013 did not have an up-to-date antivirus software running. This is not an issue on Windows 10 because it has a built in one.

3) I said I believed there were other reasons for the drop in malware too. For example one of the biggest security holes on computers is now gone (flash) and more tasks are done in protected environments (browsers). In fact, I said I believed the spread of malware would have dropped independently of new versions of Windows being released. Hell, another argument to throw in my pile of arguments would be that people use their computers less overall. Their smartphones have become their primary computing device.

 

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

The only computers that got petya/wannacry were the ones not updated and most of those (by a very large margin) were win 7.  Total percentages as you use them are red herrings when my only claim was that not updating is the cause of these problems. 

Was your only claim that not updating was the cause of the spread of Petya and WannaCry?
Oh, okay. Then I misunderstood your argument. Yes I totally agree that not having the security update installed on their machines is what caused issues for the people who got infected.

What does that have to do with our conversation about whether or not people would disable automatic updates if given the choice?

 

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Exactly, only on  unpatched systems.   And you still want to try and argue that updates are not relevant in the statics regrading the number of malware infections.

I have never said or argued against that. You're once again just making a bunch of assumptions.

I have never made the argument that "installing updates is not important to preventing malware infections". What I have said, over and over again, is that I do not believe, and have not seen any evidence for at all, is that people would turn automatic updates off if given the choice.

 

I believe the proper way of handling updates would be having it turned on by default but have an option to turn it off. I believe that would protect the vast majority of users since they are passive users which wouldn't change the settings, but also provide users with more control which can prevent other issues such as updates breaking things.

 

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Those articles only exist because the issues they address are happening,

Yes, just like bigfoot articles only exist because he is real. Or anti-vaxx groups only exist because there are issues with vaccines.

You can not use the existence of articles as evidence for why they are correct.

 

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

one article clearly claims 66% update too late if at all.

No it didn't.

It claimed that 66% of users did not install updates immediately, but that around 90% of people had it installed "soon after", and the phrase "soon after" is not defined in the article sadly. The amount of people who answered "eventually" or "never" was around 10%, not 66%.

Stop changing the words of the study to fit your narrative.

I am not even sure that study is trustworthy because it was self-reporting. That is to say, the people surveyed might not even have known that things like Chrome were being updated automatically in the background, so they might have answered that as "never".

 

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

You can;t try to dismiss that by claiming they are talking about all software, updates are updates, if they don;t updates 3rd party apps what makes you think they update windows

I dismissed it because the study included software which did not even have automatic updates. You can't compare a program which requires the user to manually install the update to something like Chrome which does everything for the user.

Of course people won't install updates if they themselves have to install them. The average user is very passive and won't mess with things. That's why I believe they wouldn't just go into the settings and turn updates off. My entire argument is that I don't believe people go around changing things just because they are given the option. I think people tend to leave things on their default settings. For programs that doesn't have automatic updates, that means they won't install updates. For programs that do have automatic updates and it being enabled by default (like Chrome), that means they will install updates.

 

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

and why would people like troy hunt even write up large articles addressing people turning off updates or ignoring them if it wasn't a thing. 

Why would people like Jim Carrey write about the dangers of vaccines if it wasn't true?

Clearly the amount of articles about it must mean it is true, right? Because that's clearly how logic works...

(sarcasm)

 

 

 

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

It really sounds to me like you just don't like my opinion and want to dismiss it out of hand and the only way you can do that is to ignore half of what is happening on the subject.

Nope, not at all.

Provide me with evidence for what we are actually arguing against and I might change my mind. But I will keep dismissing your opinion if all the evidence you base it on is "there are lots of articles about it" and "since people are slow with installing updates manually, I believe a large portion would go into settings and turn automatic updates off if given the choice".

[LAwLz]

43 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Which bloatware are they asking for specifically? the stuff that HP or Acer install?  of course. But people don't even know half the shit windows has installed, You can save maybe a sec or two by turning of cortana. But nothing else starts with windows on a clean install.

Probably stuff like Candy Crush Saga and other apps Microsoft bundles with Windows 10.

[jagdtigger]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Which bloatware are they asking for specifically? the stuff that HP or Acer install?

Every laptop manufacturer has some preinstalled crap like trial AV, their own stuff, promotional crap, etc....  At first i only removed those but then they asked why i didnt deleted all of them. Didnt understood at first what they mean, turned out they were referring to the  UWP apps. These are usually some very weak machines with spinning rust and usually with a celeron/pentium/atom CPU's. On a high end system OFC you wont notice it, but on these it can matter a lot if you properly slim down the system, so there is nothing that hogs resources for no good reason.

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

You can save maybe a sec or two by turning of cortana.

Yeah, but turning it off wont actually disable it. It will still run in the background. Only way to truly disable the thing is to rename/delete its folder.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Every laptop manufacturer has some preinstalled crap like trial AV, their own stuff, promotional crap, etc....

But non of that is windows, it's all 3rd party and I agree that it is useless bloatware that needs to die in a fire.

 

10 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

  At first i only removed those but then they asked why i didnt deleted all of them. Didnt understood at first what they mean, turned out they were referring to the  UWP apps. These are usually some very weak machines with spinning rust and usually with a celeron/pentium/atom CPU's.

Which ones?  I did a fresh install of win 10 the other day and the only thing that booted on start was cortana and the AV.

 

10 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

On a high end system OFC you wont notice it, but on these it can matter a lot if you properly slim down the system, so there is nothing that hogs resources for no good reason.

 

Yeah, but turning it off wont actually disable it. It will still run in the background. Only way to truly disable the thing is to rename/delete its folder.

I think you can in the new versions of windows.  There was a thread around here about it.   

 

 

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Which ones?  I did a fresh install of win 10 the other day and the only thing that booted on start was cortana and the AV.

All of them(what the PS commands allow me to do). Mostly what they need is a basic set of desktop apps(browser, universal media player, some form of office). BTW all of the uwp apps are allowed to run in the background by default, not to mention the needlessly enabled services. Its not healthy to leave them installed on a weak system, they are needlessly big for their bare-bones feature set...

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I think you can in the new versions of windows.  There was a thread around here about it.   

On 1903 it was running even after i disabled it. Nuked it with a live cd.....

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

All of them(what the PS commands allow me to do). Mostly what they need is a basic set of desktop apps(browser, universal media player, some form of office). BTW all of the uwp apps are allowed to run in the background by default, not to mention the needlessly enabled services. Its not healthy to leave them installed on a weak system, they are needlessly big for their bare-bones feature set...

 

On 1903 it was running even after i disabled it. Nuked it with a live cd.....

But which ones? literally I do not know what UWP apps you're talking about because as I said when I did a clean install the only apps that were running was cortana, nothing else that I could find.   

 

I want to search for them and see what is running on my systems.

[Bcat00]

Well atleast they finally got the idea.

they just keep pumping out new features that’s hardly polished and with tons of bugs.

 

people want quality products not massive junk. It’s like they didn’t get the memo 

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

All of them(what the PS commands allow me to do). Mostly what they need is a basic set of desktop apps(browser, universal media player, some form of office). BTW all of the uwp apps are allowed to run in the background by default, not to mention the needlessly enabled services. Its not healthy to leave them installed on a weak system, they are needlessly big for their bare-bones feature set... 

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

But which ones? literally I do not know what UWP apps you're talking about because as I said when I did a clean install the only apps that were running was cortana, nothing else that I could find.    

 

I want to search for them and see what is running on my systems.

Before this conversation goes on I want to point out that mr moose is specifically talking about what is running in the background, and I am not sure jagdtigger is talking about that or just all the UWP programs in general.

I mean, Candy Crush does not run in the background as soon as your computer starts, but lots of people, including me, wants to get rid of it anyway because it's annoying to have.

 

[jagdtigger]

16 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Before this conversation goes on I want to point out that mr moose is specifically talking about what is running in the background, and I am not sure jagdtigger is talking about that or just all the UWP programs in general.

I mean, Candy Crush does not run in the background as soon as your computer starts, but lots of people, including me, wants to get rid of it anyway because it's annoying to have.

 

Just looking it up too, it was a long time ago i looked into it. I usually just remove those things and install whatever the owner wants... For now i hit an issue where settings app crashes when i try to open the apps section..... (And ppl say here that win10 is better than it was, hell no. And that white theme just burnt out my retina.....)

 

@mr moose

Take a look at Settings/Privacy/Background apps

Edited July 12, 2019 by jagdtigger

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Before this conversation goes on I want to point out that mr moose is specifically talking about what is running in the background, and I am not sure jagdtigger is talking about that or just all the UWP programs in general.

I mean, Candy Crush does not run in the background as soon as your computer starts, but lots of people, including me, wants to get rid of it anyway because it's annoying to have.

 

I only know it's there because I read about it on the forums.   So just to confirm, there isn't anything loading up and running ion the background unnecessarily (other than cortana)? 

[jagdtigger]

Well they worked on it seems....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jav91wnipf7dm22/Screenshot_2019-07-12_11-32-21.png?dl=0

(Why the hack store and edge is running, never opened them lol...)

 

But oh man, there are a lot of useless services running by default lie paymnet and nfc/SE manager, etc.....

 

/EDIT

Just out of curiosity i limited the VM's cpu usage to 11% (basically intel atom level), even though the HDD image is on a NVME SSD its painfully slow... XD

Edited July 12, 2019 by jagdtigger

[Sauron]

On 7/4/2019 at 1:37 AM, DrMacintosh said:

"quality enhancements"

 

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

it wouldn't be Windows without the jarring UI inconsistencies and 3 different ways of doing the same thing for the sake of legacy support

On 7/4/2019 at 6:36 AM, firelighter487 said:

will it fix the absolute hellhole that is older drivers that are still marked for Windows 10 but are an absolute shitshow on 1903?

Maybe the driver developers should fix their trash?

[ZacoAttaco]

I think Windows 10 could definitely use some polish. Refinement may be a better word, I'm sticking with Windows 10 long term, no going back now so I obviously want it to be the best operating system it can be and I'm happy to support it.