Okay, that is just plain weird.

Mr. Tact wrote on Aug 7, 2016, 12:24:
Okay, I am confused. I thought this was a patch. Is that wrong? Because if it is a patch, what you are saying makes no sense. If it just a new "Anniversary" release which people might ignore, then what you are saying is reasonable.

It's my understanding it's required. It will show up eventually. But it is a totally clean install. Your c:\windows folder is renamed c:\windows.old and you get the brand new c:\windows folder and out of the box "Hi" experience. You can revert to your previous version, but if you open the updates section of a post Anniversary install, it shows no previous patches - because it's a brand new, clean install.

edit: Here is the contents of my root folder.

Here is the contents of the windows.old folder. It is 15 gig.

edit: And because of that being a clean install, you're getting what's in that clean install build. It doesn't (to my knowledge) look at what you removed from the old windows install and then remove those same apps from the new install.

This comment was edited on Aug 7, 2016, 12:44.

Okay, I am confused. I thought this was a patch. Is that wrong? Because if it is a patch, what you are saying makes no sense. If it just a new "Anniversary" release which people might ignore, then what you are saying is reasonable.

Mr. Tact wrote on Aug 7, 2016, 11:45:
I was referring to the re-installation of Skype.

Well, pertaining to that, it is a totally clean new install of windows. If Skype is apart of that new install, are they supposed to uninstall it, if you didn't have it in your previous version of windows? Are they supposed to do that for all apps they have with the new install that the user didn't have previously?

I was referring to the re-installation of Skype.

Mr. Tact wrote on Aug 7, 2016, 08:15:

nin wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 22:58:
People seem oblivious that it's a totally clean install of windows, to the point that c:\windows is renamed to windows.old. To expect every single thing to migrate flawlessly is ignorant, to put it mildly...

Nin, the re-installation of removed software is not a failure of software migration. I don't understand why you are fighting so hard to defend MS here.

But I didn't have to reinstall it. That's the thing. It (classic shell) upgraded on it's own, before the anniversary update, and was running fine afterwards.

edit: I don't understand why people can't get their facts right.

This comment was edited on Aug 7, 2016, 10:50.

nin wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 22:58:
People seem oblivious that it's a totally clean install of windows, to the point that c:\windows is renamed to windows.old. To expect every single thing to migrate flawlessly is ignorant, to put it mildly...

Nin, the re-installation of removed software is not a failure of software migration. I don't understand why you are fighting so hard to defend MS here.

shiho wrote on Aug 7, 2016, 00:45:

Razumen wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 23:03:
Lol, it's funny that you accuse me of lacking content, because everything you've said so far about Classic Shell is complete hearsay. And yet with some googling, I've found nothing to back up what you're claiming about Classic Shell, other than there was a hacked installer that compromised people's machines when they installed the W10 Anniversary Release: http://www.classicshell.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=6434

I'm well aware of the hack, and it has nothing to do with the issue. Win10's compatibility framework doesn't detect malware installers.

So, what makes it hearsay is that only this person posted about this problem?

http://www.osnews.com/story/29332/Anniversary_Update_hides_programs_forces_Skype_on_users

Well, here's another one for you:
http://betanews.com/2016/08/02/windows-10-anniversary-update-start-menu-2/#comment-2819702402

I bet for most people it's a minor issue, they don't yet understand what this kind of control really means, so they don't bother reporting it.

But I fully expect to hear more complaints about MS disabling people's software as Win10 continues to bulldoze user trust.

Enjoy the ride. I'm done wasting time on this thread.

So MS disabling a program that doesn't work with their update is an attack? sounds like they're actually doing their job, instead of just, you know, letting it crash or causing other unwanted problems.

Oh, I weep for the poor uninformed masses.

Razumen wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 23:03:
Lol, it's funny that you accuse me of lacking content, because everything you've said so far about Classic Shell is complete hearsay. And yet with some googling, I've found nothing to back up what you're claiming about Classic Shell, other than there was a hacked installer that compromised people's machines when they installed the W10 Anniversary Release: http://www.classicshell.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=6434

I'm well aware of the hack, and it has nothing to do with the issue. Win10's compatibility framework doesn't detect malware installers.

So, what makes it hearsay is that only this person posted about this problem?

http://www.osnews.com/story/29332/Anniversary_Update_hides_programs_forces_Skype_on_users

Well, here's another one for you:
http://betanews.com/2016/08/02/windows-10-anniversary-update-start-menu-2/#comment-2819702402

I bet for most people it's a minor issue, they don't yet understand what this kind of control really means, so they don't bother reporting it.

But I fully expect to hear more complaints about MS disabling people's software as Win10 continues to bulldoze user trust.

Enjoy the ride. I'm done wasting time on this thread.

shiho wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 22:40:

Razumen wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 21:23:
MS doesn't and quite literally CAN'T prevent every application from having problems when they update something. Saying that they "attacked" Classic Shell when it most likely was a victim of unintended consequences is quite literally a tinfoil hat conspiracy.

We don't know if that version of Classic Shell had "problems" with the Anniversary Update, and what their actual severity was, because someone at Microsoft manually entered it into an "incompatibility database" which disabled it and made it unsearchable in Start Menu.

Maybe the only problem would've been that you can't swap the taskbar icons, or that the systray icons are in the wrong order.

Now all that agency is taken away from the user, because Microsoft DECIDES and ENFORCES what's compatible and what's not.

So regardless of their motives toward Classic Shell specifically, regardless of even the program that's being affected, it is an attack, and it's not an innocent software conflict that happened without human intervention.

If such displays of Microsoft's totalitarian control over your system do not make you wary, then, well, how do I put it without insulting your intellectual capacity... I really can't.

For this, and most of your other claims, Occam's Razor gives a much better idea of what's going on.

Lazy content-free retort. As to be expected.

Lol, it's funny that you accuse me of lacking content, because everything you've said so far about Classic Shell is complete hearsay. And yet with some googling, I've found nothing to back up what you're claiming about Classic Shell, other than there was a hacked installer that compromised people's machines when they installed the W10 Anniversary Release: http://www.classicshell.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=6434

Razumen wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 21:23:
MS doesn't and quite literally CAN'T prevent every application from having problems when they update something. Saying that they "attacked" Classic Shell when it most likely was a victim of unintended consequences is quite literally a tinfoil hat conspiracy.

For this, and most of your other claims, Occam's Razor gives a much better idea of what's going on.

People seem oblivious that it's a totally clean install of windows, to the point that c:\windows is renamed to windows.old. To expect every single thing to migrate flawlessly is ignorant, to put it mildly...

Razumen wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 21:23:
MS doesn't and quite literally CAN'T prevent every application from having problems when they update something. Saying that they "attacked" Classic Shell when it most likely was a victim of unintended consequences is quite literally a tinfoil hat conspiracy.

We don't know if that version of Classic Shell had "problems" with the Anniversary Update, and what their actual severity was, because someone at Microsoft manually entered it into an "incompatibility database" which disabled it and made it unsearchable in Start Menu.

Maybe the only problem would've been that you can't swap the taskbar icons, or that the systray icons are in the wrong order.

Now all that agency is taken away from the user, because Microsoft DECIDES and ENFORCES what's compatible and what's not.

So regardless of their motives toward Classic Shell specifically, regardless of even the program that's being affected, it is an attack, and it's not an innocent software conflict that happened without human intervention.

If such displays of Microsoft's totalitarian control over your system do not make you wary, then, well, how do I put it without insulting your intellectual capacity... I really can't.

For this, and most of your other claims, Occam's Razor gives a much better idea of what's going on.

Lazy content-free retort. As to be expected.

This comment was edited on Aug 6, 2016, 22:50.

shiho wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 20:31:
The tinfoil hat expression is about conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories have a distinct quality of being unproveable. Yet there is clear factual, ongoing, documented evidence of the disaster that is unfolding with Win10's every step.

Its failure as OS-as-a-service is shown in above article I linked, with Anniversary Update being a trainwreck. Its filesystem-spying EULA and undoing user settings have all been well-documented. So is Microsoft's incredible arrogance as of late in its attitude toward the user.

Perhaps you don't understand the radical policy shift that happened with Win10, but that is your burden to bear.

When all you offer in response is evasion and ridicule, one has to ask who is really wearing the tinfoil in this thread. You sir are a shill. And a mediocre one at that.

MS doesn't and quite literally CAN'T prevent every application from having problems when they update something. Saying that they "attacked" Classic Shell when it most likely was a victim of unintended consequences is quite literally a tinfoil hat conspiracy.

For this, and most of your other claims, Occam's Razor gives a much better idea of what's going on.

The tinfoil hat expression is about conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories have a distinct quality of being unproveable. Yet there is clear factual, ongoing, documented evidence of the disaster that is unfolding with Win10's every step.

Its failure as OS-as-a-service is shown in above article I linked, with Anniversary Update being a trainwreck. Its filesystem-spying EULA and undoing user settings have all been well-documented. So is Microsoft's incredible arrogance as of late in its attitude toward the user.

Perhaps you don't understand the radical policy shift that happened with Win10, but that is your burden to bear.

When all you offer in response is evasion and ridicule, one has to ask who is really wearing the tinfoil in this thread. You sir are a shill. And a mediocre one at that.

Razumen wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 15:29:
There's so many tinfoil hats here I could cook my own popcorn lol

It has gotten extreme, even by bluesnews standards...

nin wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 10:56:
Classic Shell did an update on Tuesday or so and works fine. I'm not sure what he's talking about there. I have it and anniversary running on a machine with zero issues.

So you have nothing to refute the article's claim that Win10 attacked Classic Shell, because Classic Shell released a timely patch to circumvent it. Meanwhile the patch notes itself say that it was for "compatibility" with Anniversary Update.

However, if you did not have the latest update, Win10 will DISABLE that piece of software you use, because the OS-as-a-service process allows for major under-the-hood changes and thus makes the necessary attempts at "walled gardening" by disabling "outdated" software have already started.

See, one flawed idea requires the other flawed idea to work.

By the way, I can't wait until Win10-as-a-service starts wrecking security software which is not going to auto-update its executables in time, or isn't even capable of doing so.

Wonder how long people will tolerate living on this shifting sandmass, full of surprises.

Just because your head is clearly buried in the said sand, doesn't change the actual reality:

The Case Against Win10 Anniversary Update Grows

10 reasons you shouldn't upgrade to Windows 10

And no, it doesn't force you to make a skype login. Not heard a peep out of it. Never used it, see no reason to.

And I never said it does. However, it does install Skype, and if you uninstalled it earlier, it will use your credentials to login, as the article says.

I can honestly say the fearmongering and incorrect information (as trumpboy perfectly illustrates) is worse than the OS. Don't trust that guy as being truthful.

Since my opinions have less worth than other people's, perhaps I should do a public service by wearing some kind of identifier, like perhaps an armband of some sort

There's so many tinfoil hats here I could cook my own popcorn lol

Mr. Tact wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 10:21:

shiho wrote on Aug 5, 2016, 21:30:
Meanwhile, Win10 Anniversary Update attacks Classic Shell.

Wow, so completely shitty of them. And the Skype stuff is bad behavior too. I wonder if it would force me to create a Skype login, seeing as I don't have one.

Classic Shell did an update on Tuesday or so and works fine. I'm not sure what he's talking about there. I have it and anniversary running on a machine with zero issues.

And no, it doesn't force you to make a skype login. Not heard a peep out of it. Never used it, see no reason to.

I can honestly say the fearmongering and incorrect information (as trumpboy perfectly illustrates) is worse than the OS. Don't trust that guy as being truthful.

Oh, and kind of gives Sweeney's argument a bit more power, eh?

shiho wrote on Aug 5, 2016, 21:30:
Meanwhile, Win10 Anniversary Update attacks Classic Shell.

Wow, so completely shitty of them. And the Skype stuff is bad behavior too. I wonder if it would force me to create a Skype login, seeing as I don't have one.