Vivaldi runs on Blink, the same rendering engine that Chrome uses. I'm extremely skeptical that it'll break less on google.com. Given that, I don't know why it'd be lighter on system resources either. At best it should be on par with Chrome.
My Chrome installation once again broke on Google.com--requiring I delete it's AppData folder (since that is literally the only way to fix it, since Chrome support has no fucking idea what's causing it either).
It's entirely possible Vivaldi would have the same issue. Though, to my knowledge, Vivalid does not the stupidest goddamn error message--"Ah, snap!"--in modern computing that appears every time Chrome breaks on that little-known website.
Have you tried the 64-bit version of chrome, by chance? I've found it to be far more stable.
I am (I checked just to be sure). And I should add, Chrome does not crash as much as it did back when I first started using it.
But sadly 64-bit versus 32-bit doesn't seem to help with that particular headache (nor removing all my extensions). Chrome just eventually fucks up with Google.com, and the only way to fix it is to delete all the AppData and resync everything.
and it's not that I don't believe you, but I've been using chrome since version 1, and have never encountered anything remotely close to that issue.
That's fine. It regularly gets reported on the (fairly useless) Chrome support forums, possibly because of how annoying and memorable that message is.
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Do you still have Shockwave installed? I know it doesn't technically run in Chrome, but we've been seeing all sorts of problems in IE and Chrome on systems that still have Shockwave installed. Check your programs and if it's there, use something like Revo to get rid of it.
and it's not that I don't believe you, but I've been using chrome since version 1, and have never encountered anything remotely close to that issue.
That's fine. It regularly gets reported on the (fairly useless) Chrome support forums, possibly because of how annoying and memorable that message is.
The "Oh, snap" message represents a variety of generally-not-very-user-serviceable crashes. Several of the causes can be external to Chrome. It's not surprising it'd be reported a lot. From a developer standpoint, the Chrome forums look somewhere between "mostly useless" and "entirely useless." Most users there just don't/can't give the information a dev team would need to fix crashes.
If you've enabled crash reporting you can see a list of submissions at chrome://crashes. I guarantee those get categorized, prioritized, and worked on. The categorization might be "we have no idea why this happens," or "not actually a Chrome bug," but hey!
Sound recommendations. I don't appear to have Shockwave installed.
I may honestly just switch over to Vivaldi too (as I've never encountered it crashing on Google). Despite the fact that I use it, Chrome is terrible in a list of ways adequately covered in the PC Build Thread. My own inertia is the only thing keeping me from discarding it.
Despite the fact that I use it, Chrome is terrible in a list of ways adequately covered in the PC Build Thread.
Could you link some examples? Not turning up much of anything.
Got my threads confused--it's the old Windows thread. Look it up--tl;dr, all browsers are awful, Chrome included. Chrome just has hilarious DNS problems I've never seen any other browser have from simply restarting your router (on the other hand, other browsers are terrible for other things).
EDIT: And you were there. :P So yes, it's terrible, they're all terrible. If I ever get over my inertia, I'll actually switch to Vivaldi and wait for that to get terrible.
I've recently started having problems with Firefox where sometimes after restarting my PC, or if I open FF after it's been closed for a while, it can't load any webpages/resolve the hostname. If I let it set for like, an entire minute, it will clear up and work fine.
What I've found fixes it immediately, is closing FF, then doing a ipconfig /release and renew, also a flushdns because why not. So just dropped a .cmd file on my desktop to do that.
Everything else, IE, Steam, Battle.net, whatever works fine. Weirdest thing.
Looks like Window 10 introduced a bug with setting the default web browser. The setting inside the Default Programs app (or by setting it inside the browser) doesn't let you set anything, you need to go into the sub section of set defaults by app. Good going, Microsoft!
Looks like Window 10 introduced a bug with setting the default web browser. The setting inside the Default Programs app (or by setting it inside the browser) doesn't let you set anything, you need to go into the sub section of set defaults by app. Good going, Microsoft!
Looks like Window 10 introduced a bug with setting the default web browser. The setting inside the Default Programs app (or by setting it inside the browser) doesn't let you set anything, you need to go into the sub section of set defaults by app. Good going, Microsoft!
They just really, really want you to use Edge.
Yeah, I think I ran into this (very annoying) bug when I upgraded to Windows 10--or maybe it was different. In any case, after installing Chrome, I couldn't switch the default web app because it wouldn't actually give me an option (weirdly enough, old IE wasn't an option either).
My solution was to restart my PC and run Chrome, upon which it became an option. It's worked fine since then.
But they're still being tricky. If I search for a website in search, Chrome will come up (as indicated by the icon). But if I ask Cortana a question--what's the weather in Montreal--it'll answer it in the menu, but further information comes up in Edge.
Looks like Window 10 introduced a bug with setting the default web browser. The setting inside the Default Programs app (or by setting it inside the browser) doesn't let you set anything, you need to go into the sub section of set defaults by app. Good going, Microsoft!
They just really, really want you to use Edge.
Yeah, I think I ran into this (very annoying) bug when I upgraded to Windows 10--or maybe it was different. In any case, after installing Chrome, I couldn't switch the default web app because it wouldn't actually give me an option (weirdly enough, old IE wasn't an option either).
My solution was to restart my PC and run Chrome, upon which it became an option. It's worked fine since then.
But they're still being tricky. If I search for a website in search, Chrome will come up (as indicated by the icon). But if I ask Cortana a question--what's the weather in Montreal--it'll answer it in the menu, but further information comes up in Edge.
yea cortana uses the Edge engine. There are registry hacks/tricks to change that, but I've never bothered.
The whole "You'll get kickbacks if you bundle some other shitty software into your installation package to try to trick people into downloading it" is ridiculous. When I am King those people will be first against the wall.
Chrome seems like the biggest offender. Every time I want to install something or even update flash I have to tell that installer that I do not want Chrome/do not want Chrome as my default browser.
The whole "You'll get kickbacks if you bundle some other shitty software into your installation package to try to trick people into downloading it" is ridiculous. When I am King those people will be first against the wall.
Chrome seems like the biggest offender. Every time I want to install something or even update flash I have to tell that installer that I do not want Chrome/do not want Chrome as my default browser.
Back in the day (before Chrome became popular) it was Firefox.
The JRE always wanted to install the Ask toolbar on every update before I found a registry setting to make it stop, and they now have a setting buried in the control panel for that ("Suppress sponsor offers when installing or updating Java") located at the very bottom of the Advanced tab.
Rollers are red, chargers are blue....omae wa mou shindeiru
I guess that means that Home/Pro users can look forward to forced ads on the lockscreen sometime in the near future? That's the only reasoning I can think of why a lock screen even exists on a desktop/laptop and why MS would be so adamant about forcing it on people.
I'm assuming there will be a workaround, there usually is for this sorta thing.
I guess that means that Home/Pro users can look forward to forced ads on the lockscreen sometime in the near future? That's the only reasoning I can think of why a lock screen even exists on a desktop/laptop and why MS would be so adamant about forcing it on people.
I'm assuming there will be a workaround, there usually is for this sorta thing.
Probably not? Microsoft has a history of "breaking" custom fixes in Windows 10 that doesn't involve ads. They broke the ability to change account portraits from circles to squares--because they didn't like people changing them from circles to squares.
Why? Who the fuck knows. I say this a lot, but I personally think Microsoft was taking lessons from Apple with software uniformity and recognizability--"This thing looks this way for a specific reason. If you want it to look differently, fuck you."
It was stupid when Apple did it, it's stupid when MS does it too. But it doesn't mean we're going to see ads like on the XB1 or a ad ticker like on the PS4.
Next on my list of "Shit that worked fine in Windows 8 but is kind of broken"--Windows 10 really, really likes to hang on shutdown and restart with that useless spinning circle indefinitely. No messages about something stopping the shutdown process usually. Probably about half the time I restart or shut down my PC, it will hang there. And since I use Chrome for aforementioned reasons, I need to restart my PC more often than I'd like to.
Is there any way to keep Windows 10 from just uselessly hang on the shut down screen? I seems like Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 both had a timer--if the programs didn't play nice, too bad for them, Windows is shutting down anyway. Which was the right way to do it, frankly, since the cure is worse than the disease.
Next on my list of "Shit that worked fine in Windows 8 but is kind of broken"--Windows 10 really, really likes to hang on shutdown and restart with that useless spinning circle indefinitely. No messages about something stopping the shutdown process usually. Probably about half the time I restart or shut down my PC, it will hang there. And since I use Chrome for aforementioned reasons, I need to restart my PC more often than I'd like to.
Is there any way to keep Windows 10 from just uselessly hang on the shut down screen? I seems like Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 both had a timer--if the programs didn't play nice, too bad for them, Windows is shutting down anyway. Which was the right way to do it, frankly, since the cure is worse than the disease.
This has really been irking me as well. I've been having a lot of problems with Chrome as well (though they seem different). Randomly, it seems the Chrome processes will just freeze up and stop responding. Even if I end all processes via task manager (sometimes I can't even open task manager), I will have to reboot to get Chrome to open again. Often, if I attempt to reboot, it will be stuck at that same restarting screen and I will have to force power-off my machine.
It has been infuriating, and I'm really getting close to just moving to some other browser.
Next on my list of "Shit that worked fine in Windows 8 but is kind of broken"--Windows 10 really, really likes to hang on shutdown and restart with that useless spinning circle indefinitely. No messages about something stopping the shutdown process usually. Probably about half the time I restart or shut down my PC, it will hang there. And since I use Chrome for aforementioned reasons, I need to restart my PC more often than I'd like to.
Is there any way to keep Windows 10 from just uselessly hang on the shut down screen? I seems like Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 both had a timer--if the programs didn't play nice, too bad for them, Windows is shutting down anyway. Which was the right way to do it, frankly, since the cure is worse than the disease.
This has really been irking me as well. I've been having a lot of problems with Chrome as well (though they seem different). Randomly, it seems the Chrome processes will just freeze up and stop responding. Even if I end all processes via task manager (sometimes I can't even open task manager), I will have to reboot to get Chrome to open again. Often, if I attempt to reboot, it will be stuck at that same restarting screen and I will have to force power-off my machine.
It has been infuriating, and I'm really getting close to just moving to some other browser.
I have no way to ascertain Chrome is related--though as a precaution, I did disable background processes remaining open after closing Chrome, because what the fuck do I need Chromes background processes for? Closing Chrome completely terminates downloads which is the only process I give a shit about--but I guess it's a possibility. Or it could be any number of other things. I've been extremely reluctant to install new software since upgrading to Windows 10 for precisely this reason: a bunch of existing shit that wasn't broken now is, and the last thing I need to do is throw more stuff into the mix.
I guess that means that Home/Pro users can look forward to forced ads on the lockscreen sometime in the near future? That's the only reasoning I can think of why a lock screen even exists on a desktop/laptop and why MS would be so adamant about forcing it on people.
I'm assuming there will be a workaround, there usually is for this sorta thing.
It's easier to add security-related features like "check this box to encrypt your user directory" if every user is guaranteed to type in a password when they start using their computer.
Microsoft has a history of "breaking" custom fixes in Windows 10 that doesn't involve ads. They broke the ability to change account portraits from circles to squares--because they didn't like people changing them from circles to squares.
Microsoft is working through like a decade of technical debt by removing legacy code. The Windows codebase will be easier to maintain and they're evidently working on getting to the point where they can update it on something closer to a rolling release cycle. I'm finding it really hard to be upset about this.
Microsoft has a history of "breaking" custom fixes in Windows 10 that doesn't involve ads. They broke the ability to change account portraits from circles to squares--because they didn't like people changing them from circles to squares.
Microsoft is working through like a decade of technical debt by removing legacy code. The Windows codebase will be easier to maintain and they're evidently working on getting to the point where they can update it on something closer to a rolling release cycle. I'm finding it really hard to be upset about this.
I'm more annoyed than upset about it--mostly because I'm old enough to remember the extreme level of customization available in Windows XP and Windows 95.
But I also know part of the price of that: glitchy software. Shame there are still quite a few glitches, but what can be done?
I guess that means that Home/Pro users can look forward to forced ads on the lockscreen sometime in the near future? That's the only reasoning I can think of why a lock screen even exists on a desktop/laptop and why MS would be so adamant about forcing it on people.
I'm assuming there will be a workaround, there usually is for this sorta thing.
It's easier to add security-related features like "check this box to encrypt your user directory" if every user is guaranteed to type in a password when they start using their computer.
Microsoft has a history of "breaking" custom fixes in Windows 10 that doesn't involve ads. They broke the ability to change account portraits from circles to squares--because they didn't like people changing them from circles to squares.
Microsoft is working through like a decade of technical debt by removing legacy code. The Windows codebase will be easier to maintain and they're evidently working on getting to the point where they can update it on something closer to a rolling release cycle. I'm finding it really hard to be upset about this.
I don't want to put a password into my computer, period. Fuck right off trying to enforce that. Are they really going to try that?
Are you guys talking about the lock screen or the login screen?
The lock screen is the completely useless screen that only serves a purpose on mobile phones that you have to bypass to get to the login screen, which is where you type in a password.
Unless they're removing netplwiz, I have to admit I'm not too worried. You already have to do some hacky stuff to not enter a password at boot, and I can't imagine they're completely blocking it.
I guess that means that Home/Pro users can look forward to forced ads on the lockscreen sometime in the near future? That's the only reasoning I can think of why a lock screen even exists on a desktop/laptop and why MS would be so adamant about forcing it on people.
I'm assuming there will be a workaround, there usually is for this sorta thing.
you can turn the ads off, it's one setting under settings-->personalization-->lock screen. there's a "turn tips off" toggle.
It took me like 15 minutes to figure out what you were even talking about because I didn't even remember that lock screen stuff was a thing, as that's always been off.
Microsoft has a history of "breaking" custom fixes in Windows 10 that doesn't involve ads. They broke the ability to change account portraits from circles to squares--because they didn't like people changing them from circles to squares.
Microsoft is working through like a decade of technical debt by removing legacy code. The Windows codebase will be easier to maintain and they're evidently working on getting to the point where they can update it on something closer to a rolling release cycle. I'm finding it really hard to be upset about this.
The problem is that their rolling release cycle seems to involve releasing features before they're debugged or feature-complete, and using user telemetry and feedback to fix them.
I guess that means that Home/Pro users can look forward to forced ads on the lockscreen sometime in the near future? That's the only reasoning I can think of why a lock screen even exists on a desktop/laptop and why MS would be so adamant about forcing it on people.
I'm assuming there will be a workaround, there usually is for this sorta thing.
you can turn the ads off, it's one setting under settings-->personalization-->lock screen. there's a "turn tips off" toggle.
It took me like 15 minutes to figure out what you were even talking about because I didn't even remember that lock screen stuff was a thing, as that's always been off.
I know that you can turn off lockscreen ads, my point is that the only reason I can think of for Microsoft to be disabling the option to remove the lock screen is that they would want to remove the option to disable ads on it.
There's no reason to even have a lockscreen on a non-mobile device, unless you like having a picture instead of a login screen? We've already had that functionality for decades - it's called a screensaver.
I guess that means that Home/Pro users can look forward to forced ads on the lockscreen sometime in the near future? That's the only reasoning I can think of why a lock screen even exists on a desktop/laptop and why MS would be so adamant about forcing it on people.
I'm assuming there will be a workaround, there usually is for this sorta thing.
you can turn the ads off, it's one setting under settings-->personalization-->lock screen. there's a "turn tips off" toggle.
It took me like 15 minutes to figure out what you were even talking about because I didn't even remember that lock screen stuff was a thing, as that's always been off.
I know that you can turn off lockscreen ads, my point is that the only reason I can think of for Microsoft to be disabling the option to remove the lock screen is that they would want to remove the option to disable ads on it.
There's no reason to even have a lockscreen on a non-mobile device, unless you like having a picture instead of a login screen? We've already had that functionality for decades - it's called a screensaver.
Yeah, they aren't actually saving on maintenance, since Enterprise will still be able to do it. If it's disabled solely for consumers, that means that someone at Microsoft looked at the option and decided that Microsoft would probably make more money if it was gone. Considering that it will annoy some people, and thus make them less likely to purchase Windows 10 itself, they have to have worked out some other channel for profiting from the decision.
I guess that means that Home/Pro users can look forward to forced ads on the lockscreen sometime in the near future? That's the only reasoning I can think of why a lock screen even exists on a desktop/laptop and why MS would be so adamant about forcing it on people.
I'm assuming there will be a workaround, there usually is for this sorta thing.
you can turn the ads off, it's one setting under settings-->personalization-->lock screen. there's a "turn tips off" toggle.
It took me like 15 minutes to figure out what you were even talking about because I didn't even remember that lock screen stuff was a thing, as that's always been off.
I know that you can turn off lockscreen ads, my point is that the only reason I can think of for Microsoft to be disabling the option to remove the lock screen is that they would want to remove the option to disable ads on it.
There's no reason to even have a lockscreen on a non-mobile device, unless you like having a picture instead of a login screen? We've already had that functionality for decades - it's called a screensaver.
No, there are many reasons to have a lockscreen on non mobile devices. Shared computers, public computers, enterprise computers where a lockscreen looks better/would be preferable to having just a person's name and a password prompt visible.
Just because you don't think there is a reason to have a lockscreen in your use case doesn't mean there aren't millions of devices where it could be useful.
The problem is when they stop you from doing anything. They can add whatever they want, just don't try and force it on us. Lock screens for not me? Yay! Me? No! I don't know if they intend that or it was just brought up as a hypothetical, but since they're removing the ability to change thing as is it seems...
The problem is when they stop you from doing anything. They can add whatever they want, just don't try and force it on us. Lock screens for not me? Yay! Me? No! I don't know if they intend that or it was just brought up as a hypothetical, but since they're removing the ability to change thing as is it seems...
Microsoft has been forcing stuff on us for eons. I got stick of it and ran Linux as my primary desktop for a decade or so in there. Turns out that changes I didn't like happened there, too. It's just the way software projects are run.
The problem is when they stop you from doing anything. They can add whatever they want, just don't try and force it on us. Lock screens for not me? Yay! Me? No! I don't know if they intend that or it was just brought up as a hypothetical, but since they're removing the ability to change thing as is it seems...
Microsoft has been forcing stuff on us for eons. I got stick of it and ran Linux as my primary desktop for a decade or so in there. Turns out that changes I didn't like happened there, too. It's just the way software projects are run.
It's a reason Apple, as a computer platform, has survived after the debacle of the 1990s. Well, sort of. Beat the consumers head in enough, and they get the message.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
one last thing I'll say about "pushing" things that some people don't want. Sometimes it becomes necessary to innovate and do new things. If Microsoft didn't "push" the start menu starting with Win95 we might still have program manager. Things like that.
Yes, I know the lockscreen isn't exactly the same as the start menu, but it is a similar principle. Sometimes you have to force users to change for the good of the many. Windows, to this day, has legacy code that exists from the Windows 3.x era. Not much of it, thank the gods, but some is still there. I am 10000% sure that if Microsoft could go back to the late 90's they would have been more aggressive in cutting legacy stuff, even if it broke some things. While legacy backward compatibility has been one of the best things about Windows it has also been one of the worst things about Windows.
Posts
I am (I checked just to be sure). And I should add, Chrome does not crash as much as it did back when I first started using it.
But sadly 64-bit versus 32-bit doesn't seem to help with that particular headache (nor removing all my extensions). Chrome just eventually fucks up with Google.com, and the only way to fix it is to delete all the AppData and resync everything.
That's fine. It regularly gets reported on the (fairly useless) Chrome support forums, possibly because of how annoying and memorable that message is.
The "Oh, snap" message represents a variety of generally-not-very-user-serviceable crashes. Several of the causes can be external to Chrome. It's not surprising it'd be reported a lot. From a developer standpoint, the Chrome forums look somewhere between "mostly useless" and "entirely useless." Most users there just don't/can't give the information a dev team would need to fix crashes.
If you've enabled crash reporting you can see a list of submissions at chrome://crashes. I guarantee those get categorized, prioritized, and worked on. The categorization might be "we have no idea why this happens," or "not actually a Chrome bug," but hey!
I may honestly just switch over to Vivaldi too (as I've never encountered it crashing on Google). Despite the fact that I use it, Chrome is terrible in a list of ways adequately covered in the PC Build Thread. My own inertia is the only thing keeping me from discarding it.
Could you link some examples? Not turning up much of anything.
Got my threads confused--it's the old Windows thread. Look it up--tl;dr, all browsers are awful, Chrome included. Chrome just has hilarious DNS problems I've never seen any other browser have from simply restarting your router (on the other hand, other browsers are terrible for other things).
EDIT: And you were there. :P So yes, it's terrible, they're all terrible. If I ever get over my inertia, I'll actually switch to Vivaldi and wait for that to get terrible.
What I've found fixes it immediately, is closing FF, then doing a ipconfig /release and renew, also a flushdns because why not. So just dropped a .cmd file on my desktop to do that.
Everything else, IE, Steam, Battle.net, whatever works fine. Weirdest thing.
They just really, really want you to use Edge.
Yeah, I think I ran into this (very annoying) bug when I upgraded to Windows 10--or maybe it was different. In any case, after installing Chrome, I couldn't switch the default web app because it wouldn't actually give me an option (weirdly enough, old IE wasn't an option either).
My solution was to restart my PC and run Chrome, upon which it became an option. It's worked fine since then.
But they're still being tricky. If I search for a website in search, Chrome will come up (as indicated by the icon). But if I ask Cortana a question--what's the weather in Montreal--it'll answer it in the menu, but further information comes up in Edge.
yea cortana uses the Edge engine. There are registry hacks/tricks to change that, but I've never bothered.
Chrome seems like the biggest offender. Every time I want to install something or even update flash I have to tell that installer that I do not want Chrome/do not want Chrome as my default browser.
The JRE always wanted to install the Ask toolbar on every update before I found a registry setting to make it stop, and they now have a setting buried in the control panel for that ("Suppress sponsor offers when installing or updating Java") located at the very bottom of the Advanced tab.
I feel increasingly comfortable about my choice to stay on Windows 8.1 for the near future.
I'm assuming there will be a workaround, there usually is for this sorta thing.
Probably not? Microsoft has a history of "breaking" custom fixes in Windows 10 that doesn't involve ads. They broke the ability to change account portraits from circles to squares--because they didn't like people changing them from circles to squares.
Why? Who the fuck knows. I say this a lot, but I personally think Microsoft was taking lessons from Apple with software uniformity and recognizability--"This thing looks this way for a specific reason. If you want it to look differently, fuck you."
It was stupid when Apple did it, it's stupid when MS does it too. But it doesn't mean we're going to see ads like on the XB1 or a ad ticker like on the PS4.
Is there any way to keep Windows 10 from just uselessly hang on the shut down screen? I seems like Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 both had a timer--if the programs didn't play nice, too bad for them, Windows is shutting down anyway. Which was the right way to do it, frankly, since the cure is worse than the disease.
This has really been irking me as well. I've been having a lot of problems with Chrome as well (though they seem different). Randomly, it seems the Chrome processes will just freeze up and stop responding. Even if I end all processes via task manager (sometimes I can't even open task manager), I will have to reboot to get Chrome to open again. Often, if I attempt to reboot, it will be stuck at that same restarting screen and I will have to force power-off my machine.
It has been infuriating, and I'm really getting close to just moving to some other browser.
I have no way to ascertain Chrome is related--though as a precaution, I did disable background processes remaining open after closing Chrome, because what the fuck do I need Chromes background processes for? Closing Chrome completely terminates downloads which is the only process I give a shit about--but I guess it's a possibility. Or it could be any number of other things. I've been extremely reluctant to install new software since upgrading to Windows 10 for precisely this reason: a bunch of existing shit that wasn't broken now is, and the last thing I need to do is throw more stuff into the mix.
It's easier to add security-related features like "check this box to encrypt your user directory" if every user is guaranteed to type in a password when they start using their computer.
Microsoft is working through like a decade of technical debt by removing legacy code. The Windows codebase will be easier to maintain and they're evidently working on getting to the point where they can update it on something closer to a rolling release cycle. I'm finding it really hard to be upset about this.
I'm more annoyed than upset about it--mostly because I'm old enough to remember the extreme level of customization available in Windows XP and Windows 95.
But I also know part of the price of that: glitchy software. Shame there are still quite a few glitches, but what can be done?
I don't want to put a password into my computer, period. Fuck right off trying to enforce that. Are they really going to try that?
The lock screen is the completely useless screen that only serves a purpose on mobile phones that you have to bypass to get to the login screen, which is where you type in a password.
you can turn the ads off, it's one setting under settings-->personalization-->lock screen. there's a "turn tips off" toggle.
It took me like 15 minutes to figure out what you were even talking about because I didn't even remember that lock screen stuff was a thing, as that's always been off.
The problem is that their rolling release cycle seems to involve releasing features before they're debugged or feature-complete, and using user telemetry and feedback to fix them.
I know that you can turn off lockscreen ads, my point is that the only reason I can think of for Microsoft to be disabling the option to remove the lock screen is that they would want to remove the option to disable ads on it.
There's no reason to even have a lockscreen on a non-mobile device, unless you like having a picture instead of a login screen? We've already had that functionality for decades - it's called a screensaver.
Yeah, they aren't actually saving on maintenance, since Enterprise will still be able to do it. If it's disabled solely for consumers, that means that someone at Microsoft looked at the option and decided that Microsoft would probably make more money if it was gone. Considering that it will annoy some people, and thus make them less likely to purchase Windows 10 itself, they have to have worked out some other channel for profiting from the decision.
No, there are many reasons to have a lockscreen on non mobile devices. Shared computers, public computers, enterprise computers where a lockscreen looks better/would be preferable to having just a person's name and a password prompt visible.
Just because you don't think there is a reason to have a lockscreen in your use case doesn't mean there aren't millions of devices where it could be useful.
Microsoft has been forcing stuff on us for eons. I got stick of it and ran Linux as my primary desktop for a decade or so in there. Turns out that changes I didn't like happened there, too. It's just the way software projects are run.
It's a reason Apple, as a computer platform, has survived after the debacle of the 1990s. Well, sort of. Beat the consumers head in enough, and they get the message.
mine only ever show neat pictures
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Yes, I know the lockscreen isn't exactly the same as the start menu, but it is a similar principle. Sometimes you have to force users to change for the good of the many. Windows, to this day, has legacy code that exists from the Windows 3.x era. Not much of it, thank the gods, but some is still there. I am 10000% sure that if Microsoft could go back to the late 90's they would have been more aggressive in cutting legacy stuff, even if it broke some things. While legacy backward compatibility has been one of the best things about Windows it has also been one of the worst things about Windows.