Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reclaim Windows10

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 207 posts

Re: Reclaim Windows10

#181

Post by h_anna_h »

tomnipotent wrote: post #152
majkinetor wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is 1 for you: > As far as I can tell, as long as Windows Defender (and presumably other A/V scanners) are running, there's no way to make the Windows I/O APIs consistently fast. https://gregoryszorc.com/blog/2021/04/06/surprisingly-slow/ This is really even a common knowledge - if you did ANY IT work, you should already know it. I can't count the number of times when server wasn't working correctly when it turns…

Yes, PC desktops commonly run AV which can impact certain common subsystems in their routine operations. This is true on Windows, Linux, and MacOS. This is perfectly reasonable for the 99% of PC users that are not programmers and power users. > it just has Defender on It's unfortunate Defender would come pre-installed even on Server.

Nobody uses antiviruses on Linux (except if they host a mail or file server). As far as I know most people who use MacOS do not either. It is true that a lot (most?) windows users use antiviruses but this is not an argument against the claim that it causes massive slowdowns.

Re: Reclaim Windows10

#182

Post by majkinetor »

vetinari wrote: post #171
tomnipotent wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you decide to double down on your wrongness? Windows Defender has a marginal impact on performance, such that for most users and most tasks it's not even perceptible. > need me to LMGTFY You've provided zero evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof is on you.

> Windows Defender has a marginal impact on performance, Oh, come on; there are issues like this: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/5028 and the app developers do handstands in order to minimize the impact; for example, cargo guys had to redo their file closing on Windows to be done asynchronously, so they would not have to wait for Defender.

Exactly. Slowing down between 2-10 times.

Re: Reclaim Windows10

#183

Post by blibble »

skneko wrote: post #144
blibble wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It does not send your personal files to MS. Stop with the lies, please. what does this option do then? https://www.howtogeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/img_599... and of course: it's enabled by default

This does not send personal files to MS, no. It sends executables that have been already flagged as a virus through other methods (e.g. heuristics). Also this is part of Defender, not of SmartScreen.

it states that it can send personal files to MS, but it's "likely" that you will get a prompt before

plus the T&Cs let them send whatever they want

Windows now behaves like mid 2000s malware, but with more ads

Re: Reclaim Windows10

#184

Post by hnlmorg »

duskwuff wrote: post #159
hnlmorg wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

macOS isn't any better in that regard. Some software takes 30+ seconds of Apple "verifying" before the application is even launched.

This usually comes up as a problem when you try running a large application from a compressed disk image. Copy the application out of the disk image first. Verifying the application (and running it) will be much faster.

Honestly, I'd rather disable that feature entirely. It adds zero value for engineers like us.

Re: Reclaim Windows10

#185

Post by serf »

Arainach wrote: post #60
tux3 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, this is an expected consequence of the aggressive monetization, telemetry, and other tracking that ships with the OS. When you make it hard to trust the system, people will look at any component that seems unnecessary. They might not know what it is, but they don't trust it anymore. So it might as well get disabled. You know, to be safe. But at the end of the day I suppose it's only a small percent of users, i…

This class of user has always been doing such silly things long before "monetization". There were plenty of guides for Windows XP and Vista claiming to "increase performance" by disabling things like the indexer (fun fact, that will TANK your performance in a variety of areas), the Cryptographic services, and more. They never had any trust to violate, only a strange (and completely incorrect) sense that they knew mor…

>They never had any trust to violate, only a strange (and completely incorrect) sense that they knew more than the engineers who built the OS in the first place.

So regardless of the metrics that support such practice, and casting aside the thousands of people that have routinely seen benefit from the practice, Windows can't be optimized further by the end-user?

As someone who has never encountered a well optimized Microsoft product, and as someone who has routinely had to modify their off-the-shell installs, color me suspicious.

(Agreed, the shady practices and over-zealous disabling of services should stop; but come on -- the end user occasionally understands what they need to do better than the engineer that sold them a generic tool to facilitate generic computer-enabled work.)

Re: Reclaim Windows10

#186

Post by abrookewood »

rasz wrote: post #139
sumtechguy wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Vista RTM and sp1 turning off indexer was a great solution. It was monster on the drive and memory (5-10 min startups on computers that should be up in 30-60 seconds and were after you turned things like that off). They fixed it in sp2. Superfetch was just as bad as well as the windows defender. Most of that was fixed in win7. I now let all 3 of those services run. The issues were fixed... The problem is these 'so…

but why would you let indexer run at all when Everything ( https://www.voidtools.com ) runs faster, is more accurate, and is a small standalone executable?

Please try Everything if you have never tried it before. It is BLAZINGLY fast. From memory it runs off the File Allocation Table to achieve its speed.

Re: Reclaim Windows10

#187

Post by fomine3 »

Arainach wrote: post #60
tux3 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, this is an expected consequence of the aggressive monetization, telemetry, and other tracking that ships with the OS. When you make it hard to trust the system, people will look at any component that seems unnecessary. They might not know what it is, but they don't trust it anymore. So it might as well get disabled. You know, to be safe. But at the end of the day I suppose it's only a small percent of users, i…

This class of user has always been doing such silly things long before "monetization". There were plenty of guides for Windows XP and Vista claiming to "increase performance" by disabling things like the indexer (fun fact, that will TANK your performance in a variety of areas), the Cryptographic services, and more. They never had any trust to violate, only a strange (and completely incorrect) sense that they knew mor…

Don't forget "Memory Optimizer" on XP era that just page out program/cache!

Re: Reclaim Windows10

#188

Post by fomine3 »

e3bc54b2 wrote: post #85
lghh wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Naturally I trust both of them more than so called SmartScreen because unlike Smartscreen, I can inspect their code. > I got Winmerge binary directly from GitHub repo. As trusted as it gets, short of compiling myself. So, you don't actually know what code you're running and that binary actually could be malware.

Yes, and original comment addresses that. In theory WinMerge binary can contain malware. But WinMerge authors have a proven track record against that and they are transparent about working of their application enough through their source. MS and Smartscreen do not have that track record, and IMO have an opposite kind of record with all kind of map/adware practices throughout the system and applications. So if an untr…

If you don't trust SmartScreen, you'll also don't trust Windows, so using Windows is the problem rather than SmartScreen.

Re: Reclaim Windows10

#189

Post by stinos »

ZFH wrote: post #157
stinos wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just asked this a day ago but got no reply, so here it goes again: it looks like there could be strings attached, possibly due to my ignorance though - can this be licensed to a single user? Recently I was working on a machine with an LTSC release (not mine, acquired by another company) and it didn't seem possible to apply updates, just saying 'contact your system administrator to update'. So I told the company they'…

Possibly misreading you, but updates behave differently in LTSC. It stays at the same level (1809 in LTSC) until the next major release and just auto-installs (very quickly, in between reboots and without forced prompts) security updates every couple of weeks or so.

Hmm. Machine is gone so I cannot check again, but pretty sure if I'd go to the Windows Update window it would say the standard 'updates are available' or similar and have a clickable 'Download and install'.

Re: Reclaim Windows10

#190

Post by teddyh »

Ecstatify wrote: post #158
teddyh wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name a few consumer-level boycotts in, say, the last 50 years, which actually accomplished their goals?

Off the top of my head (Nestlé boycott) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott (Nike boycott) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/20... (South Africa boycott) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunnes_Stores_strike Going into the registry is madness, especially when you're purchasing a license for the OS. Personally I'm going to get a new mac when they get the ram up to 64GB with the new p…

The last one of those was a strike, not a boycott. (Also, I don’t think that Irish government altered their import policy because of eleven striking workers at one store.)

Concerning the other two, the Nestlé boycott does not seem to have had much, if any, impact, and it’s at least debatable if the Nike one did much, and if it did, then the impact is not due to informed individuals “speaking with their wallet”, but the wide publicity.

This is why I specified “consumer-level”; a boycott which includes continuous publicity from major media is no longer consumer-level.

Post reply on HN