There are so many annoying if not dangerous default settings (like hiding known file extensions, virus.pdf.exe appears as "virus.pdf") that like many people I have scripts to do that. Microsoft would help me more by making the system more scriptable (try setting the sound mode to No Sound in script!).
> There are so many annoying if not dangerous default settings (like hiding known file extensions, virus.pdf.exe appears as "virus.pdf") that like many people I have scripts to do that.
Are they still doing that? I would have thought that people would have realized what a horrible, horrible idea this was by now and rolled it back. Amazing.
> try setting the sound mode to No Sound in script!
You can do this with a .reg file.
Just need to set everything in:
HKCU/AppEvents/Schemes/Apps/.Default/[Sound Name]/.Current/(Default) to null.
Easiest way is just to set "No Sound" on an example user, then Export the entire .Default tree, you can then re-import the .reg file into a different user and have no sound on there too.
Having left the Windows ecosystem 7 years ago or so, I couldn't be more confused these days when sporadically having to use it. For the reasons mentioned here: all power user features are burried. Though it's very debatable if full paths and hidden files should be that much tucked away to begin with.
All successful desktop operating systems tend to cater for the use cases of the common man.
Those people that don't even know what save means and scatter files across all devices in the locations suggested by the applications, using whatever was suggested as default name.
These are the people that macOS, Windows, Ubuntu/GNOME, browser based OS cater for.
I share the same feeling every time I have to dig into Chrome or Firefox settings, specially on Canary.
Except they're not. Full paths, hidden files, and file extensions are also now check boxes on the default File Explorer ribbon, along with a button for copy full path.
Plus, all the individual settings are searchable through the Start menu or the search box in the Settings app.
This is nice, but I still want a "Shibboleet" switch where a single action sets lots of settings to what a developer is likely to want. Then I can focus on a few deltas, rather than a whole raft of individual settings and configuration changes made, usually, over the course of a week or two.
https://xkcd.com/806/
For better or worse, instrumenting Windows and analyzing the telemetry is what enables features like this to be developed scientifically rather than based on superstition, whimsy, or prejudice. It's the same principle found in Google Analytics, Tesla's latest models, and the Juno space probe. Good data makes informed decisions more likely. It has to come from somewheres.
The problem with telemetry/analytics is not that they exist. The problem is, no one knows what they do, and everyone's afraid they may send something sensitive.
Give me a dialog somewhere, in which I would be able to see what's going to be sent (in somewhat human-readable format - i.e. not binary but a slightly commented source for that binary), a place to ask questions ("hey, there's a weird long hex string among the data - what does it encode?") and I'll be completely satisfied, and even praise them for doing things the smart and conscious-user-friendly way.
Well, as long as telemetry doesn't send something I consider sensitive, like an actual screenshots or keystrokes, of course.
Sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to put my privacy at risk. I have no obligation to make Microsoft designers' jobs easier and no amount of telemetry will stop garbage[1] like the Windows 10 upgrade popup from being developed.
Then be open about it and make them opt-in. Windows 7 RC was heavily instrumented and this is a large part of why Win7 was so good. With Win10 their approach was way more slimy.
All of these settings existed in previous versions of windows, all this does is gather them in one place.
The OS didn't need to gather mass amounts of data and ship them off to be stored and analyzed to figure out, 'hey, maybe we could gather them all in one place.' They probably just needed to listen to their own developers.
Given that all this data held by US companies on US soil is accessible to the US Government with no real hurdles and there is no real understanding of what they're collecting, ALL OS data collection should be fought all the time.
Alternatively, ask one of the thousands of developers that you employ, what they think could be improved. This isn't rocket science. It's just a dumb menu which collects settings into one place. You can send off an intern to ask around in the company what settings other developers would like to see included.
So, yes, something like this could have easily been a free lunch.
It seems to me like the obvious way to handle file extensions is to hide them by default, have an option to show them, and always show them when the file is being renamed. The hoops you have to jump through to change a file extension in MacOS are excessive.
that being said OSX's defaults system is IMO far better than the windows registry. You set your defaults once, using the terminal, and it all migrates over to your other / next generation macs using migration assistant, which can be really fast over thunderbolt. It's a long time since I had to deal with basic settings like this. There's also nothing rotting underneath - I can go and delete / rename userland settings from any app anytime I want and set it back to factory. Basically Unix, but consistent over all native apps.
Scott seems to be very excited about this and very happy that he can formally declare himself to be a developer and have it done with, but I can't disagree more. You shouldn't have to formally declare yourself as a developer, because there are a lot of developers and programmers and power users who are not formally developers. If I click "developer mode" and I formally declare myself as a developer, that's a lie because I am not.
I've won awards at work before for creating scripts to automate a certain part of our team's workflow, saving hours each time we have to perform a certain action. But if I was a formal developer, that would just be my job. I'd get no special recognition for it. But I did get special recognition, because I am not a developer by trade.
I don't want to make a formal declaration that I am a developer because formally, I am not. But I'd like to side load apps, see the full path, use Remote Desktop (is that a developer thing? Always seemed like more of a sysadmin thing, I use it every day) and keep my PC awake all the time.
None of those things are developer-specific features. None of them include "install gcc++" or "download Visual Studio" or "change Notepad to vim". What I'd rather make is a formal declaration that I own this computer, not that I am a software developer.
- edit - apparently everyone replying to me failed to read the article. My response is not to Microsoft's decision to call it "developer mode" but Scott's decision to call it a "formal declaration that I'm a developer".
It's just a checkbox that's called "developer mode", it's not really the same as formally declaring yourself a developer. The important and interesting thing here is that there is a general power-user mode with shortcuts for people who know about advanced computer usage. That you own the computer is not a good measure of your capabilities with it, that would probably be a pretty confusing checkbox for the vast majority of users. I guess you have a point about the naming, but it needs to be (from msft point of view) some kind of name that doesn't tempt non-technical people to enable it.
"Formal declaration?" You're literally ticking a per user settings box tied to your Windows Account. Nobody is asking to declare anything formally or otherwise.
They could call it "Power User Mode" but then every gamer would tick it because they think they're more computer literate than most of them are. Better to keep the name as Developer Mode simply to discourage a certain subset of users from thinking it is for them (this has proved effective on Android, where hiding the developer settings kept the self proclaimed "power users" out).
> None of those things are developer-specific features.
It allows sideloading apps, debugging apps, USB & network remote debugging, and USB & network remote debug discovery.
Previous experience tells me that developers will use this "feature" and write software that requires users to have it enabled.
Previous examples for example being software that requires Microsoft SQL server to be installed on client machines as the software needs certain dll files that comes with Microsoft SQL server.
>Previous examples for example being software that requires Microsoft SQL server to be installed on client machines as the software needs certain dll files that comes with Microsoft SQL server.
This is on Microsoft as much as it's on the said devs - Windows packaging/distribution is such a mess - registry being the primary source of problems. And Microsoft doesn't do a good job of packaging stuff.
At least they are moving in the right direction with .NET core and nuget, ship the whole VM with the app, reference stuff that you need as packages - hopefully you will be able to zip the dist folder and everything will run without the user needing to install anything.
> Previous examples for example being software that requires Microsoft SQL server to be installed on client machines as the software needs certain dll files that comes with Microsoft SQL server.
I don't think this is true, Microsoft ship all the client-side components of SQL Server as a bunch of MSIs you can pick-and-choose between. Since at least SQL Server 2005 [1].
Anyone have an idea why they are catering to developers so much, when their treatment of users in general has become so much worse over the past year?
I mean, I guess, developers are sort of the only demographic which could realistically switch to another operating system, and since they are also users, Microsoft kind of has to make up for the assholish treatment that they've been giving users in general, but it seems still quite extreme, if it's only for that reason.
Could be, though, that I'm just suffering from the usual "All others are more naïve than I am"-syndrome, as I myself am for example still far away from ever wanting anything to do with Microsoft again, and I wasn't really opposed to Microsoft before the Windows 10 shitshow either...
The success of an operating system depends on the availability of other applications. By extra focus on developers they are hoping to grow the ecosystem.
So Microsoft begins to realize that developers should be helped instead of letting them suffer? They should have done that a few years ago, before most sane persons turned Windows down and never looked back.
So are there any disadvantages to developer mode? The other "developer mode" that lets you load unsigned kernel modules is very keen to remind you that it's on and I believe it disables a couple of things.
It looks like they just put a bunch of the irritating-to-find settings that you always need to change from vanilla to do any real work in one place, rather than scattered across folder settings, registry hacks, group policy and and all the other control panel sections that they were hidden in.
That isn't a developer mode. Nor is it called "GodMode". It's just a way to view control panel applets as a list rather than a hierarchy. It's the same as the search results list that's filtered when you search for something. It give you nothing that isn't available in the normal control panel, it's just a different view. The important part is the GUID, the part of the name before the period doesn't matter - you can replace "GodMode" with anything you like.
[+] [-] cm2187|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] x1798DE|9 years ago|reply
Are they still doing that? I would have thought that people would have realized what a horrible, horrible idea this was by now and rolled it back. Amazing.
[+] [-] pjmlp|9 years ago|reply
Get-Service -Name Audiosrv | Stop-Service -Force
Windows is quite scriptable, it is just a matter of knowning the right knobs.
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/heyscriptingguy/2013/03/...
[+] [-] Someone1234|9 years ago|reply
You can do this with a .reg file.
Just need to set everything in:
HKCU/AppEvents/Schemes/Apps/.Default/[Sound Name]/.Current/(Default) to null.
Easiest way is just to set "No Sound" on an example user, then Export the entire .Default tree, you can then re-import the .reg file into a different user and have no sound on there too.
[+] [-] rasz_pl|9 years ago|reply
reg delete "HKCU\AppEvents\Schemes\Apps" /f
[+] [-] wineisfine|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjmlp|9 years ago|reply
Those people that don't even know what save means and scatter files across all devices in the locations suggested by the applications, using whatever was suggested as default name.
These are the people that macOS, Windows, Ubuntu/GNOME, browser based OS cater for.
I share the same feeling every time I have to dig into Chrome or Firefox settings, specially on Canary.
[+] [-] perspectivep|9 years ago|reply
Plus, all the individual settings are searchable through the Start menu or the search box in the Settings app.
[+] [-] saundby|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] overgryphon|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brudgers|9 years ago|reply
TANSTAAFL.
[+] [-] drdaeman|9 years ago|reply
Give me a dialog somewhere, in which I would be able to see what's going to be sent (in somewhat human-readable format - i.e. not binary but a slightly commented source for that binary), a place to ask questions ("hey, there's a weird long hex string among the data - what does it encode?") and I'll be completely satisfied, and even praise them for doing things the smart and conscious-user-friendly way.
Well, as long as telemetry doesn't send something I consider sensitive, like an actual screenshots or keystrokes, of course.
[+] [-] AlexandrB|9 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/229040-microsofts-latest-...
[+] [-] taneq|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhurron|9 years ago|reply
The OS didn't need to gather mass amounts of data and ship them off to be stored and analyzed to figure out, 'hey, maybe we could gather them all in one place.' They probably just needed to listen to their own developers.
Given that all this data held by US companies on US soil is accessible to the US Government with no real hurdles and there is no real understanding of what they're collecting, ALL OS data collection should be fought all the time.
[+] [-] Sylos|9 years ago|reply
So, yes, something like this could have easily been a free lunch.
[+] [-] curt15|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lostgame|9 years ago|reply
Are we trying to make it so users can barely understand the rudimentary concepts of computing before jumping in to using them?
The iPad is a similar situation. :/
[+] [-] dingo_bat|9 years ago|reply
This is probably one of the biggest understatements I've heard this week.
[+] [-] ClassyJacket|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m_mueller|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freehunter|9 years ago|reply
I've won awards at work before for creating scripts to automate a certain part of our team's workflow, saving hours each time we have to perform a certain action. But if I was a formal developer, that would just be my job. I'd get no special recognition for it. But I did get special recognition, because I am not a developer by trade.
I don't want to make a formal declaration that I am a developer because formally, I am not. But I'd like to side load apps, see the full path, use Remote Desktop (is that a developer thing? Always seemed like more of a sysadmin thing, I use it every day) and keep my PC awake all the time.
None of those things are developer-specific features. None of them include "install gcc++" or "download Visual Studio" or "change Notepad to vim". What I'd rather make is a formal declaration that I own this computer, not that I am a software developer.
- edit - apparently everyone replying to me failed to read the article. My response is not to Microsoft's decision to call it "developer mode" but Scott's decision to call it a "formal declaration that I'm a developer".
[+] [-] ade2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Someone1234|9 years ago|reply
They could call it "Power User Mode" but then every gamer would tick it because they think they're more computer literate than most of them are. Better to keep the name as Developer Mode simply to discourage a certain subset of users from thinking it is for them (this has proved effective on Android, where hiding the developer settings kept the self proclaimed "power users" out).
> None of those things are developer-specific features.
It allows sideloading apps, debugging apps, USB & network remote debugging, and USB & network remote debug discovery.
[+] [-] fsloth|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] callesgg|9 years ago|reply
Previous examples for example being software that requires Microsoft SQL server to be installed on client machines as the software needs certain dll files that comes with Microsoft SQL server.
[+] [-] rubber_duck|9 years ago|reply
This is on Microsoft as much as it's on the said devs - Windows packaging/distribution is such a mess - registry being the primary source of problems. And Microsoft doesn't do a good job of packaging stuff.
At least they are moving in the right direction with .NET core and nuget, ship the whole VM with the app, reference stuff that you need as packages - hopefully you will be able to zip the dist folder and everything will run without the user needing to install anything.
[+] [-] taspeotis|9 years ago|reply
I don't think this is true, Microsoft ship all the client-side components of SQL Server as a bunch of MSIs you can pick-and-choose between. Since at least SQL Server 2005 [1].
[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-au/download/details.aspx?id=247...
[+] [-] Sylos|9 years ago|reply
I mean, I guess, developers are sort of the only demographic which could realistically switch to another operating system, and since they are also users, Microsoft kind of has to make up for the assholish treatment that they've been giving users in general, but it seems still quite extreme, if it's only for that reason.
Could be, though, that I'm just suffering from the usual "All others are more naïve than I am"-syndrome, as I myself am for example still far away from ever wanting anything to do with Microsoft again, and I wasn't really opposed to Microsoft before the Windows 10 shitshow either...
[+] [-] wila|9 years ago|reply
At least that's my understanding of it.
[+] [-] dingo_bat|9 years ago|reply
"Developers. Developers. Developers. Developers."
"Developers. Developers. Developers. Developers."
[+] [-] rollulus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] douche|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frik|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SEMW|9 years ago|reply