Not the lock screen, login screen. Or did the login image change with the lock screen for you? It's really hard to find any information on it because of that mix up.
The lock screen is pretty much the login screen. It looks the same for me when I first turn it on as if I lock it with WinKey+L.
Unless, that is, you mean the background on the screen where you actually type the password (rather than the display that slides away).
From what I can tell that image is part of some system file (Windows.UI.Logon.pri). Yet another instance of stuff not being customizable that really should be. There are already tools to change it, such as the cleverly named "Windows 10 Login Image Changer".
Just ask yourself: how many just install it without reading, how many will buy a computer and click "I agree" without a second thought? What happens to them? Is that right?
Theres a lot I could reply to in your statement, but I think this line I quoted best allows me to sum up what I want to say. That is: You seem to be laying this at the feet of the company, as if it's somehow their fault that I'm not reading their EULA and ToS. That I'm not researching the way the company handles itself, and thinking critically about how that affects my life and privacy (that's a delicate topic, better not discussed here). It is on me to make sure that anything I want encrypted can be. But it's also on me to do the research on the encryption methods and services out there. It is on me, the End User, to understand what I'm using. Of course there are arguments against this, but this is capitalism. If you don't like a company's product, don't use it. That's the best way to stick it to them. Contrary to what seems popular belief, Microsoft is not forcing you in any way shape or form to use any of their products.
Next time provide a TL;DR. Makes it easier on the rest of us.
The lock screen is pretty much the login screen. It looks the same for me when I first turn it on as if I lock it with WinKey+L.
Unless, that is, you mean the background on the screen where you actually type the password (rather than the display that slides away).
From what I can tell that image is part of some system file (Windows.UI.Logon.pri). Yet another instance of stuff not being customizable that really should be. There are already tools to change it, such as the cleverly named "Windows 10 Login Image Changer".
Yeah, I mean where you actually put in the password. I have seen those tools but I don't have a lot of trust for them to be honest and would rather find a way to do it manually like the registry tweak I mentioned before. I have heard reports of it crashing systems and such as well so it doesn't bode well against my existing experiences with graphic tweaking programs.
I agree fully that the user bears a responsibility to inform themselves. My post is an attempt to hopefully encourage and inform others to do exactly that (I probably should add, something of "Don't take my word for it, do some research"). However, too many users do not know better, or externalities effectively force them consent. The former is one of ignorance, and the cost of that ignorance is only going to increase. The latter is an unfortunate consequence of software vendors tying themselves to particular OSes. Someone employed might not have the options to install another OS, or they must user a particular application that requires them to use MS Windows. Sure, they can change employers/vocation, or conscript someone to produce an alternative program to replace the one they currently need, however this isn't a practical solution in many cases. I wish it were a practical choice for everyone, as it was for me.
The question becomes are there limits to what a company acceptable demand from their customers? We do have some limits on the enforceability of contracts, both regarding terms and conditions under which they are "negotiated" Which is a luxury most end users aren't even afforded: EULAs are take-it-or-leave-it.
I do not use MS products, and do not encourage others to do so (one could say I discourage)*. However, the choices others make impact me. Both directly in that their poor choices may tangibly harm my interest, eg: My doctor or lawyer's potential inattentiveness to the above issues can harm parties other than just them. Could they be held liable? Yes, but it doesn't undo the harm. Indirectly they set an overall standard for society, one that I feel hurts everyone, including myself. When others agree to those terms both deliberately and by default, they are saying "It's ok." So those terms (or worse) will be offered more often.
* For the record my stance on Apple or Google is probably harsher.
Of course there are arguments against this, but this is capitalism. If you don't like a company's product, don't use it.
This I feel deserves a special mention. This just boils down to a variation to the concept "might makes right": "Profitable makes right." I do not accept that it does. If one extrapolates from that, that I reject the system of capitalism, feel free to.
While the changes to Windows Update's options means that "MS can disable programs they see fit to, simply because they do not like what it does", "Can" and "Will" are two different words with very different meanings. Considering Windows Update has been around since at least Windows 98 and there have been zero instances where this sort of thing has happened, it seems questionable to think that the change to the update options has in any way change the probability that they would do that.
Giving Microsoft control of your computer because you don't expect them to do anything unwanted with it is almost certainly a bad idea. There's always a balance to consider between how much you value your privacy and autonomy versus how much you trust someone else (in this case, a company) to make things easy for you. Lean too far one way and you get iOS. Lean too far the other way and you get BSD. I don't know where exactly I think Windows 10 as a whole falls on the spectrum, but forced automatic updates have always been a horrible idea and that's not going to change. That's virtually undisputed and Microsoft knows it, so the decision to force automatic updates anyway is pretty questionable.
Giving Microsoft control of your computer because you don't expect them to do anything unwanted with it is almost certainly a bad idea.
A lot of the misunderstandings come from people not understanding that the documents such as EULAs are Legal documents- in the sense that they are drafted primarily by lawyers, even if the text itself is simplified (as Microsoft appears to have done in Windows 10's EULA). The sort of legal stipulations noted as problematic in this case appear all over the place.
but forced automatic updates have always been a horrible idea and that's not going to change.
As you said the balance is delicate. On the one hand, Users ought to have control over the software that will get installed on their systems, if not for Stallman-esque "it's about the fore freedomz" reasons, then simply to at least be able to choose when they will be inconvenienced. On the other hand, you have people who never update their PCs out of ignorance and effectively volunteer themselves as botnets. In the Open Source ecosystem there are the same sorts of issues where the system ought to be updated to include new security fixes and patches; the user having a choice is pretty much a formality- only an idiot Linux user or admin would purposely not install important security fixes.
So it comes down to almost a political/ethical consideration about whether the user should be given the choice. And to me, I think the ramifications of the choice extend to others. If you don't update then your system might be compromised and used in attacks on other systems. While the user in that case is arguably not a party to that attack, they made a conscious choice to not install the security updates that would have prevented it. So it could be argued that while doing so restricts user choice, it is effectively for the "Greater good" as it means that disassembling Windows Patches will no longer yield a massive botnet farm- the current process typically has MS release the security update, then malicious actors will disassemble and examine what the patch changes and figure out what the exploit it fixed was- this could even be an exploit unknown in the wild. At that point, that exploit will work on any unpatched system (as long as it meets any other requisites of course).
So I downloaded Skype for desktop, which is what I used to use on Windows 8 (instead of the metro/modern app). Now on Windows 10 it works fine, but when I do "Quit Skype" nothing happens, so I have to kill it from task manager.
If I try to download Skype from the Store, it gives me an error code of 0x80004005
So I downloaded Skype for desktop, which is what I used to use on Windows 8 (instead of the metro/modern app). Now on Windows 10 it works fine, but when I do "Quit Skype" nothing happens, so I have to kill it from task manager.
If I try to download Skype from the Store, it gives me an error code of 0x80004005
Happening to anyone else?
They disconnectinued the Skype Metro app. Using that will redirect you to download the desktop app.
For me, using the Skype icon in the notification tray to quit out Skype works normally.
I managed to get Win 10 to install after performing a clean boot(Running Windows with only what it absolutely needs). I have already turned off peer-to-peer update delivery(By default Win 10 will send parts of downloaded updates to other machines over the Internet, using your bandwidth ). I have also removed Candy Crush, which is installed by default but not hard to remove. Is there anything else I should know about?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please don't PM me asking for help, I will just redirect you to the appropriate forum, where there are others who are far more skilled than me.
So I downloaded Skype for desktop, which is what I used to use on Windows 8 (instead of the metro/modern app). Now on Windows 10 it works fine, but when I do "Quit Skype" nothing happens, so I have to kill it from task manager.
If I try to download Skype from the Store, it gives me an error code of 0x80004005
Happening to anyone else?
Wait, WHAT?! So you have skype but you can't close it. But then you do. And then you try to download skype? Wth?
Wait, WHAT?! So you have skype but you can't close it. But then you do. And then you try to download skype? Wth?
Am I seeing a typo in his sentence?
1) I was used to right-clicking on Skype in the taskbar, and clicking Quit Skype, but that didn't work when I switched to Windows 10, and then danthonywalker pointed out I can quit from the tray icon, which does work.
Since I thought quitting Skype desktop wouldn't work, I thought maybe I should download the modern/metro Skype app from the Windows Store, but the store always gives me that error when I try to download the metro app, and danthonywalker said that the modern version was discontinued.
Microsoft forcing updates is good, seen to many family members who defer updates forever. Really Microsoft needs to get better at not needing a restart to update and not needing batch after batch of updates requiring restart and more updates. Where I can get a simple apt-get upgrade once and be done on my Debian servers. A solution already exists for enterprise situations where MS can assume someone running WSUS has good reason to defer updates. On a home level ya this is kinda annoying, but most people just don't care enough to make sure there computer is not part of a bot net and that can damage a public resource the Internet. So really just Microsoft making sure users of their products are not contributing to a problem with botnets and other exploits.
Did you? Because I read it and I'm not even sure what you are talking about. The only annoyance therein was the bit about Updates not being optional. Sounds like you didn't read the EULA/Microsoft License Terms and you are getting your information from Articles by authors claiming to have read it? Stuff like Cortana and such definitely gather information, but they can be disabled (FOR GREAT JUSTICE)
Oh I really didn't intend anyone to go all out on that. It isn't a new Windows release party if there is no circle something about the EULA and spying and all that wonderful stuff going on like previous Windows releases before. Most all of the data collection functions in Windows 10 can be disabled with ease, even during installation if one selects Custom Settings when asked or later in personalization settings. What little data collection does stay on contains no personal identifiable information at all. More less does not contain any machine/app identification capabilities, this includes telemetry.
I personally have nothing against Windows 10. Sure it has a few dis-likeable things and to note broken things. It just isn't my field of area to probe deep inside to find every nook and cranny of things to dislike or like. As long as the operating system works as I need it to; then I cannot really complain or bash it into oblivion. Personally I just wait a month or two for tweaks and small hack jobs to improve the UI and disable ""features"" I may not find likeable. Since most of these exist now for my needs, I will proceed probably around first week of September to upgrade to Windows 10.
Where I can get a simple apt-get upgrade once and be done on my Debian servers.
Did you buy ksplice? I'm not aware of any other implementations that allow in-place kernel upgrades without requiring a reboot to actually have it enacted.
Updates to any user-mode software will not affect running versions of that software, either, so those typically require a restart.
Windows is pretty much the same. on Most Linux distributions if something that is running get's updated such as x.11 or your desktop environment, it will prompt for a reboot as well. Both systems can continue to run in that situation but since the entire point is to actually apply the fixes in question the only sure way to do so, and remove any possible vulnerable versions in memory is to reboot.
The lock screen is pretty much the login screen. It looks the same for me when I first turn it on as if I lock it with WinKey+L.
Unless, that is, you mean the background on the screen where you actually type the password (rather than the display that slides away).
From what I can tell that image is part of some system file (Windows.UI.Logon.pri). Yet another instance of stuff not being customizable that really should be. There are already tools to change it, such as the cleverly named "Windows 10 Login Image Changer".
Theres a lot I could reply to in your statement, but I think this line I quoted best allows me to sum up what I want to say. That is: You seem to be laying this at the feet of the company, as if it's somehow their fault that I'm not reading their EULA and ToS. That I'm not researching the way the company handles itself, and thinking critically about how that affects my life and privacy (that's a delicate topic, better not discussed here). It is on me to make sure that anything I want encrypted can be. But it's also on me to do the research on the encryption methods and services out there. It is on me, the End User, to understand what I'm using. Of course there are arguments against this, but this is capitalism. If you don't like a company's product, don't use it. That's the best way to stick it to them. Contrary to what seems popular belief, Microsoft is not forcing you in any way shape or form to use any of their products.
Next time provide a TL;DR. Makes it easier on the rest of us.
"Programmers never repeat themselves. They loop."
Yeah, I mean where you actually put in the password. I have seen those tools but I don't have a lot of trust for them to be honest and would rather find a way to do it manually like the registry tweak I mentioned before. I have heard reports of it crashing systems and such as well so it doesn't bode well against my existing experiences with graphic tweaking programs.
Too poor to afford my certs.
I agree fully that the user bears a responsibility to inform themselves. My post is an attempt to hopefully encourage and inform others to do exactly that (I probably should add, something of "Don't take my word for it, do some research"). However, too many users do not know better, or externalities effectively force them consent. The former is one of ignorance, and the cost of that ignorance is only going to increase. The latter is an unfortunate consequence of software vendors tying themselves to particular OSes. Someone employed might not have the options to install another OS, or they must user a particular application that requires them to use MS Windows. Sure, they can change employers/vocation, or conscript someone to produce an alternative program to replace the one they currently need, however this isn't a practical solution in many cases. I wish it were a practical choice for everyone, as it was for me.
The question becomes are there limits to what a company acceptable demand from their customers? We do have some limits on the enforceability of contracts, both regarding terms and conditions under which they are "negotiated" Which is a luxury most end users aren't even afforded: EULAs are take-it-or-leave-it.
I do not use MS products, and do not encourage others to do so (one could say I discourage)*. However, the choices others make impact me. Both directly in that their poor choices may tangibly harm my interest, eg: My doctor or lawyer's potential inattentiveness to the above issues can harm parties other than just them. Could they be held liable? Yes, but it doesn't undo the harm. Indirectly they set an overall standard for society, one that I feel hurts everyone, including myself. When others agree to those terms both deliberately and by default, they are saying "It's ok." So those terms (or worse) will be offered more often.
* For the record my stance on Apple or Google is probably harsher.
Edit:
This I feel deserves a special mention. This just boils down to a variation to the concept "might makes right": "Profitable makes right." I do not accept that it does. If one extrapolates from that, that I reject the system of capitalism, feel free to.
UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not.
Giving Microsoft control of your computer because you don't expect them to do anything unwanted with it is almost certainly a bad idea. There's always a balance to consider between how much you value your privacy and autonomy versus how much you trust someone else (in this case, a company) to make things easy for you. Lean too far one way and you get iOS. Lean too far the other way and you get BSD. I don't know where exactly I think Windows 10 as a whole falls on the spectrum, but forced automatic updates have always been a horrible idea and that's not going to change. That's virtually undisputed and Microsoft knows it, so the decision to force automatic updates anyway is pretty questionable.
Just another reason to dislike it lmao
My Windows never actually gave me a pop up, I had to go to the app on the taskbar. I installed on 10am GMT+1 (Ireland) on July 29th.
The downloading was already done, so the install took around 10 minutes on quake proh ssd.
- C.C.
A lot of the misunderstandings come from people not understanding that the documents such as EULAs are Legal documents- in the sense that they are drafted primarily by lawyers, even if the text itself is simplified (as Microsoft appears to have done in Windows 10's EULA). The sort of legal stipulations noted as problematic in this case appear all over the place.
As you said the balance is delicate. On the one hand, Users ought to have control over the software that will get installed on their systems, if not for Stallman-esque "it's about the fore freedomz" reasons, then simply to at least be able to choose when they will be inconvenienced. On the other hand, you have people who never update their PCs out of ignorance and effectively volunteer themselves as botnets. In the Open Source ecosystem there are the same sorts of issues where the system ought to be updated to include new security fixes and patches; the user having a choice is pretty much a formality- only an idiot Linux user or admin would purposely not install important security fixes.
So it comes down to almost a political/ethical consideration about whether the user should be given the choice. And to me, I think the ramifications of the choice extend to others. If you don't update then your system might be compromised and used in attacks on other systems. While the user in that case is arguably not a party to that attack, they made a conscious choice to not install the security updates that would have prevented it. So it could be argued that while doing so restricts user choice, it is effectively for the "Greater good" as it means that disassembling Windows Patches will no longer yield a massive botnet farm- the current process typically has MS release the security update, then malicious actors will disassemble and examine what the patch changes and figure out what the exploit it fixed was- this could even be an exploit unknown in the wild. At that point, that exploit will work on any unpatched system (as long as it meets any other requisites of course).
After a week of using Windows. It's okay. For a regular user.
I'm back
Windows 10 is pretty cool.
With the new calculator, now I don't have to go to Google and search "1mb = how many gb" or something like that just to get a data converter
So I downloaded Skype for desktop, which is what I used to use on Windows 8 (instead of the metro/modern app). Now on Windows 10 it works fine, but when I do "Quit Skype" nothing happens, so I have to kill it from task manager.
If I try to download Skype from the Store, it gives me an error code of 0x80004005
Happening to anyone else?
They disconnectinued the Skype Metro app. Using that will redirect you to download the desktop app.
For me, using the Skype icon in the notification tray to quit out Skype works normally.
I managed to get Win 10 to install after performing a clean boot(Running Windows with only what it absolutely needs). I have already turned off peer-to-peer update delivery(By default Win 10 will send parts of downloaded updates to other machines over the Internet, using your bandwidth ). I have also removed Candy Crush, which is installed by default but not hard to remove. Is there anything else I should know about?
Please don't PM me asking for help, I will just redirect you to the appropriate forum, where there are others who are far more skilled than me.
This is not the signature you are looking for.
Banners and such things
Thanks for pointing that out, now I can close skype
Wait, WHAT?! So you have skype but you can't close it. But then you do. And then you try to download skype? Wth?
Am I seeing a typo in his sentence?
1) I was used to right-clicking on Skype in the taskbar, and clicking Quit Skype, but that didn't work when I switched to Windows 10, and then danthonywalker pointed out I can quit from the tray icon, which does work.
2) There are 2 versions of Skype (for Windows), Skype for desktop (picture: https://skypeblogs.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/mac1.png) and the modern/metro Skype made for Windows 8/RT I think (picture: http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/windows-8-skype-metro-modern-ui.png).
Since I thought quitting Skype desktop wouldn't work, I thought maybe I should download the modern/metro Skype app from the Windows Store, but the store always gives me that error when I try to download the metro app, and danthonywalker said that the modern version was discontinued.
Hmm. Well i'm stumped there xD. Never knew there were 2 types of skypes Besides PC and Moblie :/
Microsoft forcing updates is good, seen to many family members who defer updates forever. Really Microsoft needs to get better at not needing a restart to update and not needing batch after batch of updates requiring restart and more updates. Where I can get a simple apt-get upgrade once and be done on my Debian servers. A solution already exists for enterprise situations where MS can assume someone running WSUS has good reason to defer updates. On a home level ya this is kinda annoying, but most people just don't care enough to make sure there computer is not part of a bot net and that can damage a public resource the Internet. So really just Microsoft making sure users of their products are not contributing to a problem with botnets and other exploits.
Personaly I like Windows 10 much more then 7 or XP.
It is one of the best OSs I have ever used and is the fastest
Oh I really didn't intend anyone to go all out on that. It isn't a new Windows release party if there is no circle something about the EULA and spying and all that wonderful stuff going on like previous Windows releases before. Most all of the data collection functions in Windows 10 can be disabled with ease, even during installation if one selects Custom Settings when asked or later in personalization settings. What little data collection does stay on contains no personal identifiable information at all. More less does not contain any machine/app identification capabilities, this includes telemetry.
I personally have nothing against Windows 10. Sure it has a few dis-likeable things and to note broken things. It just isn't my field of area to probe deep inside to find every nook and cranny of things to dislike or like. As long as the operating system works as I need it to; then I cannot really complain or bash it into oblivion. Personally I just wait a month or two for tweaks and small hack jobs to improve the UI and disable ""features"" I may not find likeable. Since most of these exist now for my needs, I will proceed probably around first week of September to upgrade to Windows 10.
Did you buy ksplice? I'm not aware of any other implementations that allow in-place kernel upgrades without requiring a reboot to actually have it enacted.
Updates to any user-mode software will not affect running versions of that software, either, so those typically require a restart.
Windows is pretty much the same. on Most Linux distributions if something that is running get's updated such as x.11 or your desktop environment, it will prompt for a reboot as well. Both systems can continue to run in that situation but since the entire point is to actually apply the fixes in question the only sure way to do so, and remove any possible vulnerable versions in memory is to reboot.