|
Are you people getting it running Windows 10 Home? I only have Pro machines and they've never had the Candy Crush stuff turn up, and I don't think I did any special settings to prevent it either.
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
Listerine posted:I think I'd rather have them install some dumb game I could later remove than provide advertising space inside my OS. Uh, why do you think for the past 20 years computers came with a whole bunch of random poo poo installed? It makes money for OEMs and Microsoft.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Listerine posted:Lol I've been building my computers for so long and doing clean OS installs I forgot about all that poo poo that used to ship with manufactured computers. Er, you'd have the antivirus built in flashing stuff about buying the subscription, there's be icons that were ads for programs all over, and so on. Particularly on things like the old eMachines or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Listerine posted:I did the free upgrade to Win 10, and less than a week later I'm sitting here having to troubleshoot a non-functional computer. Worst case scenario is that the motherboard has failed and I have to replace it. You can pretty much use the same Windows 7 or 8 key to upgrade from on as many hardware setups as you want. Don't do this for a business because you can get audited for that but they don't care for consumers. So, since it's not September or August yet, when they'll stop offering free upgrades, just reinstall 7 or 8 when you get a new motherboard in, and upgrade to 10. You'll get a new hardware license for that combination and you'll be just fine.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:On ze twittah! This rather sounds like how there's been a replacement for NTFS in the works since what, 1998?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Just make sure you get your hardware finalized before the free upgrade window ends, in August or September of this year!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
hooah posted:Ok, yeah, this is my laptop so if I'm not using it I close the lid, causing it to hibernate. Will scheduling a scan with Task Scheduler properly wake it up and put it back into hibernate after the scan? I would suggest that you turn off having it hibernate automatically on screen close, and instead have it set to "do nothing" when screen closes and then have it set so it sleeps or hibernates after an hour without use. That way, it'll have plenty of opportunity to do scans while idle.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Nostratic posted:So... Will I kill my 6-7 year old PC if I upgrade from win8 to 10? It's got an i5 cpu and an ATI 7600 graphics card. If it's new enough to have an i5 in it, it'll be fine in Windows 10, unless you've got something really old attached to it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Tapedump posted:Please don't post crap like this.. "Fine" is nowhere near an adequate description of Win10's performance on such a proc. Er what? If you were ok with how a program ran on that hardware in Windows 7, you'll be almost always be ok with how it runs on the same hardware in Windows 10.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:Windows 10 doesn't allow you to install it into systems with less than 1GB RAM. Windows 7 went onto machines with 512MB. It barely worked on systems with 512 MB though, while 10 works pretty decent on 1 GB RAM.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:That's a deliberate mischaracterization, and you know it. So why aren't you choosing to use Windows 10? You went and posted a rant against ChromeOS.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:I understand this. I thought that was clear from my posting. So why are people repeatedly explaining it anyway, except to shout down people criticizing Microsoft's actions? Microsoft's actions are correct. People who delay upgrades forever are the majority of the reason for there being so many malware infections online.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:While it is pretty lovely for an entire OS to impose itself on you when it feels like it, and with very little warning (15 mins is not enough for something that big), I find it somewhat extraordinary that someone would see a window pop up with a countdown timer, think 'huh, that's a thing I guess', then just minimize it and go about their business and be surprised when something happens. There wasn't 15 minutes of warning, there was going on 8 months of warning.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:What gives them the right to unilaterally decide that? Because people like you spent 15 years delaying updates and causing a problem for everyone else with your unpatched systems.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:
Backing it up does nothing to prevent malware, and I doubt your adherence to timely updates considering how upset you are about Windows 10, which forces timely updates. There are so many people who insist on procrastinating on that stuff, and that's how malware is able to spread much faster than it otherwise would.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Arsten posted:"hurf blurf windows XP" is a bad reason to support this. Just you wait until they take what they have called the "last version of Windows" into the pay-by-month/pay-by-year realm like they did with Office. You can still buy the one time payment and updates for about 5 years Office just as you've been able to since 1990. Office 365 is strictly an option.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:
Er, yes it does. It does force updates, unless you're using the Enterprise version which you can't get for free. Dylan16807 posted:That would be valid if Microsoft had told people "we're going to update you to windows 10 in april". That's not what happened. They repeatedly told people they'd be updated in the future. It didn't come out of nowhere.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Space Cadet posted:Because I did not want to do it until I had time to do it properly and actually had a desire to make the change. I had 8 months of MS pushing the update at me asking me to upgrade with me for 8 months saying no. I didn't tell them not now, I didn't tell them I would later, and I certainly didn't tell them yesterday morning was a great time to do it. You would think after 8 months no should equal no, I really can't figure out why there are actual MS apologists defending this lovely forced upgrade process. Because not having forced upgrades has been horrible for the internet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Arsten posted:Right now. But they've already stated that this option was going to come to an end. Whether 2016 is the last version isn't my point. No version is going to be the last version. Netflix was in fact horrible for the internet because they chose a really stupid way to attempt to deliver their content, which no one else did because they knew it was a terrible idea. Similarly, people refusing to update their computers or taking forever to do it are provably responsible for massive amounts of malware and other internet crap. This wasn't some idea invented by Microsoft last week.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Arsten posted:Funny how Comcast didn't recognize this "horrible distribution method" until after Netflix stopped paying them for data hosting. And how they stopped crying wolf after Netflix started paying them, again, with absolutely no change in their distribution method. Uh, because the thing they were doing before was the industry standard, and then they tried to save a few million a year by switching to an alternate method that's a major issue at their traffic load. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc - all the huge bandwidth companies have stuck to in-network CDNs long ago because it's more reliable as compared to doing poo poo outside the networks and hoping other networks can negotiate link upgrades on your behalf. There were radical changes in the Netflix distribution method when they went to having normal CDNs and private links to trying to use interconnect networks as a CDN provider. Arsten posted:And Satela came out and said that they were going to eventually do away with the stand alone version of Office in one of his early speeches. Since he sets the course of the company, should I listen to him or to you regarding their plans? Or did I miss him or another Microsoft rep buying back that statement? They've wanted to "eventually" do that for over a decade, but it's unlikely to ever actually happen because a lot of their business really prefers the normal system. An Angry Bug posted:What's that supposed to mean? Microsoft aren't doing this out of some sort of moral obligation, they're doing this because it's more profitable and less work for them. And quite frankly you're wrong and rude here. I donate a fifth of all my income to hunger prevention and anti-hate groups, and that's before taxes. So take your insinuations and shove them down your sycophantic throat. Tell me more about all the profits in foregoing payment for what would be billions of dollars in upgrade licenses on any other upgrade cycle. 
fishmech fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Apr 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Arsten posted:And yet, that's still what they do - they just cut a check to Comcast, now. Different =/= Worse. If it did, Windows 10 wouldn't be worth forcing onto others in your mind. No, dude, they're doing something different - the thing they had been doing before they switched to Level 3 for CDN service, the thing every other big time bandwidth users does. There are huge differences in structure of your data delivery when you have CDNs hosted inside ISP networks versus relying on CDNs being hosted outside all of them. And you obviously don't know that none of that means that Office standalones are going to go away. SIR FAT JONY IVES posted:My question is if i need to reinstall from nothing, like a disk failure or whatever, what do I do? I don't know my CD Key, if I use a tool like nirsoft, will it give me the valid key? It's been upgraded from Vista->7->8->10 so what key will I get back, and what I can use that key for? Is there a way to validate it? Also I'd need an ISO, but I figure I can always track that down. You don't have a key. Your hardware configuration is hashed in some manner and then when Windows 10 is installed on that configuration again, it sends that to Microsoft to check if it's still close enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Head Hit Keyboard posted:So I'm thinking it's finally time to get this update going. I'm going to be updating from 7 and this will be the first time I've installed Windows on something other than a brand new never before used hard drive. Is there anything in particular I need to know or do before I set it in motion? Do a full backup using Backup and Restore in Windows 7, make sure you choose the option to make a disk image. That way you'll be sure you can return to Windows 7 if there is something major that won't work under Windows 10. Note that this will mean you need a bunch of disk space on something larger than your system drive is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Arsten posted:No, Netflix is still hosting with L3 and, I believe, Cogent. Comcast throttled Netflix content through all access lanes Netflix could buy (which was from fix or six interconnect networks, iirc) until it was sub-SD quality and Netflix now pays them to not congest their connections. They are still pushing and developing Open Connect and working to setup a distribution system outside of terminating internet providers. You can find this all in Netflix's filing with the FCC. Incorrect. Netflix has returned to inside-major-ISP hosting, although they still use L3 and Cogent services for minor ISPs. There was absolutely no throttling of Netflix, the links overloaded and they still have never been upgraded - they returned to in-network hosting and private links so the interconnect network overloading stopped. You're also submitting a filing from freaking 2014, of course it's not going to tell you what they're doing now! It doesn't matter, because it's not going to actually happen.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Arsten posted:Yes, which included the time after their agreement with Comcast and after the congestion cleared up. Also, it wasn't those links specifically (because they bought access to links from carriers that had good peering links with Comcast, they didn't only use L3) it was Netflix traffic specifically. Netflix traffic was specifically lovely for Comcast subscribers and other external traffic was fine. This is incorrect. Other services that could only be delivered over those links suffered at the same time Netflix streaming had issues. The only ISP that was actually suspected of throttling was Verizon, and that was only for customers on Verizon Wireless. Of course, most other websites out there either used in-network CDNs like a sane company, or were using low amounts of bandwidth relatively, and could be accessed through multiple interconnect networks. But Netflix traffic was solely coming though certain sets of links. No, not all external traffic, because again there were and are multiple different interconnect providers and most services could fail over to a different link. Netflix was not throttled except by Verizon for Verizon Wireless customers. Very few other services on the net were exclusively available through the links that Netflix became exclusively available for. And notably, Level 3 and Cogent did not notice throttling occurring, which they would have been in a position to see. What they were reporting was completely oversaturated links to tons of major ISPs at peak Netflix times, not links with plenty of bandwidth to spare and only Netflix connections slowed! That's why what they were after was to strike deals to upgrade links to support the services they were trying to sell to networks. I also want to note that Netflix had been using the stupid system of refusing to internally host under standard terms for several years before they started having problems, because Netflix streaming traffic was simply not a big enough load to cause issues. If there was going to be throttling to spite Netflix, that would have started within months of the first changeover, not years later when traffic had grown significantly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Arsten posted:Wow, you have that wrong. It started with Netflix jumping over to L3. Comcast refused to upgrade the L3 links because Netflix was an L3 customer. This was how it started out, right after Netflix abandoned ship. Then Netflix signed a deal with Cogent, which was near capacity on its links to Comcast and when it maxed those links, Cogent asked Comcast to do what they had a long history of doing: Upgrading those links. Comcast refused. Cogent's CEO even noted that this was completely different than each and every time the data congestion hit max in the past. Note that after Netflix signed the deal, Comcast upgraded with Cogent. Then Netflix got with Tata, Telia, XO, and NTT and, suddenly, all of those links simply couldn't handle the load, even when spread across all six interconnects. And, yet, other ISPs weren't having these issue with those same six interconnects. The other major American ground ISPs weren't having anywhere near the same amount of issues with Netflix quality. Uh according to Netflix themselves and Level 3 and Cogent it wasn't just Comcast they had issues with, it was also Verizon, AT&T and several other cable companies. The main reason it was different from every time there had been congestion in the past was that never before was it just one company trying to push so much data on its own. And in fact, according to Netflix's reports, Verizon had the most problems with them. The only major cable companies that didn't have issues with Netflix were ones that had signed on to Netflix's special program for bringing in in-network CDN stuff again, but this time the cable company paying Netflix instead of Netflix paying standard rates for hosting. You're basically talking about bullshit that marginally competent internet nerds came up with to excuse netflix.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Netfix revealed the woeful state of the infrastructure that those companies caused by embezzling funds they were given to upgrade it. All of them doing it at once isn't an excuse. They did not do that, because all the companies involved had great infrastructure. The only problem was Netflix attempting to push massive bandwidth in a way most large companies stopped doing long ago.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Whizbang posted:Level3's infrastructure is hot garbage. Well yeah, but ol AAB over there thinks it was Comcast/Cablevision/Verizon/AT&T that were the problem. I mean really the crux of Netflix's issues was that Level 3 and Cogent couldn't provide the service they were trying to sell to Netflix. I mean their infrastructure is fine for their current business, which has way less netflix data to carry these days. Arsten posted:I thought the government money was paid to telephone companies. While Comcast was once AT&T@Home, how much of that did really went to the non-telephone companies? I'm under the impression that not much did. Comcast was never ATT@Home, though they did buy out ATT's cable business. When the government gave a bunch of money to telcoms and cable companies int he 90s for 90s standard broadband (definition: about 512 kilobits) they instead primarily invested that money into building out the cellular network, fiber backbones, and preparing the way for serious backhaul from cell towers. Arsten posted:You're basically using peak congestion that other networks experiencing to say that Comcast doing what it had to do, when, if you had even looked at the information provided by Netflix you could see that the other providers averaged around 720p (the OCA using ISPs averaged closer to 1080). Comcast, alone, averaged sub SD quality and specifically took steps to ensure it stayed that way until they got their money. Again, dude, it was by no means exclusively Comcast that had issues with Netflix. It was most major ISPs in the country. Comcast is simply the largest ISP in the nation and so suffered the most from overloaded links with regards to Netflix quality. There was no throttling except from Verizon, for Verizon Wireless users. I get that you really love Netflix but you're repeating things that simply aren't true. And Netflix does indeed charge for OpenConnect appliances to small time ISPs, as well as attempting to dodge data center costs inside ISPs. Fortunately they stopped pulling the latter bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Really the most important part is that 8/8.1 was very halfassed in the interface department, and largely fixed in 10.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
According to Microsoft, the free update period currently ends a year from Windows 10's first release. That being said, waiting til 2017 for drivers seems silly, if your devices run in 8.1 or 8 they should pretty much always run in 10, and if they don't have 8/8.1 drivers then using Windows 7 drivers usually still works. Also you can import IE stuff into Edge, but if you really want, IE is still there too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
The primary reason XP was an aberration is that the original plan was to have its successor, which became Vista, in 2004, 3 years after launch, the normal Windows cycle. Instead Microsoft dedicated a ton of effort to XP SP2, which while patching up a bunch of problems, delayed Vista work heavily, which is why it only came out in 2006.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Something strange is going on and I have significantly more space used than there should be, as seen in the comparison screenshot. Namely there's about a 63 GB difference between size on disk of all my files and the used space according to the drive properties. I know that about 6 GB of this space is System Restore which is fine, but how can I determine what the rest is? It's also slowly been getting bigger over the past few weeks, and the last time this happened it up and vanished after a while, only to start again. Note that I've already run disk cleanup and included cleaning system files.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Depending on your Explorer settings it could be skipping system directories. In addition, the file system itself consumes space, both the master file table and logs have an overhead associated with them that Used Space will report but File Size won't. Finally, the cluster size will dictate how much actual space a file takes up (default will be a multiple of 4KB) - Explorer will lie by omission saying a text file is 5KB but that 5KB takes 8KB of space to store. Er, if that were the case then the Size on Disk would just be very large and there would be very little discrepancy between the space used and size on disk figures. You seem not to have noticed but the actual size on disk was smaller then size of files, because I keep a bunch of stuff compressed. Also explorer definitely accounted for the pagefile. As it turns out it was the Search database being in a not-default-accessible folder and somehow growing to 60 GB. So if anyone else suddenly is missing a lot of space, follow the last set of instructions from this Microsoft page: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2838018 It says it's for 8 and Server 2012, but it also applies to 8.1 and 10.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
CFox posted:Very disappointing and goes against the goal of getting everyone on the same platform. I just don't see the reason in it. It really doesn't go against it. Tons of people with the necessary hardware have already done it, and a bunch of other people could never move off of 7 without new hardware regardless (usually due to lack of the NX bit functioning, or other such hardware requirements). But more than that, all they ever said in the past was that it'd be available for about a year, not, "you can do this forever".
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Last Chance posted:Cool, so the Windows 10 Beta is ending and the final release is due this summer then? It ended in 2015. This is already a final release.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Last Chance posted:No, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I mean they didn't call it a beta, but if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and shits the bed and irritates the gently caress out of early adopters like a duck... Nah, it works about as well as pre-sp1 Windows 7 did. Unsurprisingly when literally billions of people use an OS there's going to turn up a lot of problems.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Note that you won't want the Steam release of GTA San Andreas to play anymore. A year or so back they replaced the patched PC version with a port of the smartphone version with worse graphics and missing music. You're better off using noDVD patched version 1.0, especially if you want to play the mods for it.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Woodsy Owl posted:We have a dozen 7 and 8 keys. We don't want to upgrade to 10 yet, but I understand that we can use the keys and the Media Creation Tool to create install media. You need to do an install of Windows 10 on the hardware in question, even if you'll immediately revert them to Windows 7 from a backup.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Kheldarn posted:Is it possible to make a Windows 10 Recovery disc, instead of USB drive? I still have lots of blank CDs, but I don't buy USB drives by the buttload. The 4 I have are all already being used for other (mostly personal) stuff (and one of them is a relic, with only 64 MB of storage...). Does it have to be a CD? You can burn the ISO right to a DVD.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Johnny Aztec posted:Oh, well that is lovely. That fucks me completely on building my grandparents a new PC later this year. Anything stopping you from doing it by mid-July to have a buffer?
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
Turdsdown Tom posted:I don't understand why Steam can't accept true retail serial keys. Unless you bought Call of Duty 4 of Grand Theft Auto IV when the Steam release did, your retail key still ain't worth poo poo. What the gently caress is preventing them from just obtaining the list of master keys? It would be super loving cool if I didn't have to rely on an almost ten-year old DVD to install my games To do this requires an explicit agreement between Steam and the publishers. Some have signed on, others haven't.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 18:00
|
|