Windows 10: I know what I'm doing

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Windows 10: I know what I'm doing

Combat Pretzel: Jun 23, 2004; No, seriously... what kurds?!

I should re-evaluate Linux. Maybe my Nvidia card doesn't get stuck in high power mode anymore nowadays. Virtualization is still an issue, thanks to Nvidia being dicks about it. Dual booting is meh, since I havea bunch of VMs doing stuff.

# ? Oct 2, 2019 08:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 00:30

Mr Shiny Pants: Nov 12, 2012

Combat Pretzel posted:

I should re-evaluate Linux. Maybe my Nvidia card doesn't get stuck in high power mode anymore nowadays. Virtualization is still an issue, thanks to Nvidia being dicks about it. Dual booting is meh, since I havea bunch of VMs doing stuff.

How could you tell it stuck in High Power mode? I also have an NVidia card I might have to check it.

# ? Oct 2, 2019 08:34

Combat Pretzel: Jun 23, 2004; No, seriously... what kurds?!

Based on the GPU and memory clocks in the Nvidia tool. If they're near the top end, things are "stuck".

I have two 1440p144 displays. If the compositor in Xorg keeps updating at that rate, it might be that. Windows doesn't update if there aren't any draw or update commands. That said, even when I'm scrollling a browser window up and down very fast, it still doesn't go to max. clock on Windows. It barely goes above idle actually.

# ? Oct 2, 2019 12:44

wolrah: May 8, 2006; what?

astral posted:

Who put this dead cat in my printer?

The LaserJet 4 hungers...

Lambert posted:

No, I was saying that it's dumb for Windows not to maintain an invisible desktop lager than 1024x768 when it's putting all connected monitors to sleep. Not the strawman you're putting up.

Again though, it's not that the monitors are going to sleep, it's that they're disconnecting themselves. It doesn't have to maintain a virtual desktop when the monitors go to sleep, it just maintains the normal desktop. The virtual desktop only comes in to play when there are no monitors connected. As I said earlier I think they could easily change the virtual desktop to just use whatever mode the last connected monitor was in rather than a hardcoded default and that'd solve the problem for single monitor users while not making things worse for anyone else, but there's no such easy solution for anyone with multiple monitors. I guess if they all disconnect at the same time you could set the virtual desktop to as large as a screenshot of the full arrangement would be and things shouldn't need to move around, but in all likelihood that wouldn't be the case.

I want to clarify here though, you're saying this happens when the computer puts the monitor to sleep? As in you've walked away from the computer, the screen is on, and a few minutes later after whatever timeout is set your computer sends the monitor the sleep signal and it proceeds to disconnect itself?

If so, that sounds to be just straight up defective behavior on the monitor's part. How does it wake back up if it's in a disconnected state? My only experience with this behavior is with monitors that would disconnect when you press the power button and set them soft-off or switch to a different input, which is still an undesirable behavior in most cases (except apparently hooah's dad) but at least there's some logic to it.

# ? Oct 2, 2019 17:08

Tapedump: Aug 31, 2007; College Slice

Klyith posted:

OTOH, people have said that they had no option for local accounts before now, including with 1903 a few pages ago ITT.

No, we said it was difficult and obtuse, not "no option."

# ? Oct 3, 2019 01:29

Khablam: Mar 29, 2012

Someone's online-facing password should look like b6rm.|#Vkn6@%O3FO`A?BZg\
If you make someone log into their PC using the same credentials, you're going to have a lot of pissed off people, or a lot of inevitable password dumps showing half the people with a live ID use QWERTY as a password, as that's what they're more likely to do instead.

# ? Oct 3, 2019 13:32

Klyith: Aug 3, 2007; GBS Pledge Week

Khablam posted:

Someone's online-facing password should look like b6rm.|#Vkn6@%O3FO`A?BZg\
If you make someone log into their PC using the same credentials, you're going to have a lot of pissed off people, or a lot of inevitable password dumps showing half the people with a live ID use QWERTY as a password, as that's what they're more likely to do instead.

If you're going with a MS account, the recommended method is to have the password be strong like that and use a PIN for local sign-in.

# ? Oct 3, 2019 15:45

mystes: May 31, 2006

Khablam posted:

Someone's online-facing password should look like b6rm.|#Vkn6@%O3FO`A?BZg\
If you make someone log into their PC using the same credentials, you're going to have a lot of pissed off people, or a lot of inevitable password dumps showing half the people with a live ID use QWERTY as a password, as that's what they're more likely to do instead.

It shouldn't be possible to try to log into a single online account long enough to brute force passwords, plus people should be using 2FA anyway. Additionally, as long as someone isn't reusing passwords, its completely irrelevant if a single password from a site that's already hacked can be brute forced from its hash. However, password reuse is very problematic and the fact that you are referring to "someone's online-facing password" (singular) is potentially somewhat concerning, although perhaps that's not what you meant.

The strength of offline passwords for things like encryption actually matters much, much more.

That said, everyone should be using a password manager now so they might as well use very strong passwords for websites.

mystes fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Oct 3, 2019

# ? Oct 3, 2019 15:55

redeyes: Sep 14, 2002; by Fluffdaddy

Whats hilarious is when someone types their pin in for a couple years and then you need to fix something and need the actual password. I hate pins.

# ? Oct 3, 2019 18:44

SwissArmyDruid: Feb 14, 2014; by sebmojo

What I want to know is loving why Microsoft won't let me use strong password + fingerprint.

NO I DO NOT WANT A PIN YOU MONGS, THAT TOTALLY DEFEATS THE PURPOSE.

# ? Oct 3, 2019 20:04

mystes: May 31, 2006

SwissArmyDruid posted:

What I want to know is loving why Microsoft won't let me use strong password + fingerprint.

NO I DO NOT WANT A PIN YOU MONGS, THAT TOTALLY DEFEATS THE PURPOSE.

This admittedly makes no sense whatsoever, but it seems like as a workaround you can use the policy editor to enable long alphanumeric pins and then just set it to something really long that you then immediately forget (and then you can fall back on your password if the fingerprint reader doesn't work).

# ? Oct 3, 2019 20:10

Khablam: Mar 29, 2012

mystes posted:

It shouldn't be possible to try to log into a single online account long enough to brute force passwords, plus people should be using 2FA anyway. Additionally, as long as someone isn't reusing passwords, its completely irrelevant if a single password from a site that's already hacked can be brute forced from its hash. However, password reuse is very problematic and the fact that you are referring to "someone's online-facing password" (singular) is potentially somewhat concerning, although perhaps that's not what you meant.

The strength of offline passwords for things like encryption actually matters much, much more.

It's absolutely not irrelevant; the reason haveibeenowned et al posts "new" leaks in 2019 from hacks in 2000 and not 19, is because these lists are in use long before people know they are.
"Use a password manager" is always the right answer, but your windows lockscreen isn't somewhere it's easy to use such.

Klyith posted:

If you're going with a MS account, the recommended method is to have the password be strong like that and use a PIN for local sign-in.

You and I both know people aren't going to set both, or will set both to the same thing. Also most people can follow someone entering a pin number, even typed at speed.

# ? Oct 4, 2019 01:44

isndl: May 2, 2012; I WON A CONTEST IN TG AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS CUSTOM TITLE

mystes posted:

This admittedly makes no sense whatsoever, but it seems like as a workaround you can use the policy editor to enable long alphanumeric pins and then just set it to something really long that you then immediately forget (and then you can fall back on your password if the fingerprint reader doesn't work).

If you have a long alphanumeric PIN, isn't it just a password?

# ? Oct 4, 2019 01:47

mystes: May 31, 2006

Khablam posted:

It's absolutely not irrelevant; the reason haveibeenowned et al posts "new" leaks in 2019 from hacks in 2000 and not 19, is because these lists are in use long before people know they are.
"Use a password manager" is always the right answer, but your windows lockscreen isn't somewhere it's easy to use such.

I'm not saying "stop reusing a password once you find out that a site where you were using it has been hacked," I'm saying "it's critical to never, ever reuse a password and once you do that it's not actually as important for each individual password to have a zillion bits of entropy."

isndl posted:

If you have a long alphanumeric PIN, isn't it just a password?

Yes, that's the point. It requires you to set a PIN as a fallback which is dumb and insecure in its default configuration but at least you can change that to make the PIN no less secure than a normal password.

mystes fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Oct 4, 2019

# ? Oct 4, 2019 01:47

Klyith: Aug 3, 2007; GBS Pledge Week

Khablam posted:

You and I both know people aren't going to set both, or will set both to the same thing.

Yeah, but enforcing security on people who try to avoid it is hard. At the very least when a dummy sets the password for the MS account it shouldn't let them use a 4 digit number though.

Khablam posted:

Also most people can follow someone entering a pin number, even typed at speed.

mystes posted:

Yes, that's the point. It requires you to set a PIN as a fallback which is dumb and insecure in its default configuration but at least you can change that to make the PIN no less secure than a normal password.

AFAIK the PIN only works on computers where you've already logged in with the full MS account password? So someone can't steal your login without also stealing your PC. If you need to worry about someone watching you type a pin and stealing your computer, you have a physical security problem.

MS it trying to start some sort of passwordless future initiative that uses key instead of passwords for network sign-in, held in the TPM hardware for device security, and letting Microsoft handle all the details when you move between devices. Which to me is a gently caress no because I don't want MS to handle my details, but sounds like it might be a decent security upgrade for average people. If, you know, every other service on the planet went along with accepting the MS passwordless auth as well.

# ? Oct 4, 2019 03:24

Geemer: Nov 4, 2010

Klyith posted:

AFAIK the PIN only works on computers where you've already logged in with the full MS account password? So someone can't steal your login without also stealing your PC. If you need to worry about someone watching you type a pin and stealing your computer, you have a physical security problem.

You mean everyone that takes their notebook to a Starbucks to use the wifi? You're not wrong about that being a physical security problem, but it's more a 10 second distraction than a major break-in and heist.

# ? Oct 4, 2019 09:56

Ghostlight: Sep 25, 2009; maybe for one second you can pause; try to step into another person's perspective, and understand that a watermelon is cursing me

Microsoft PINs are device specific. If someone sees you enter it on a laptop in the coffee shop they have to also steal that laptop in order to use it.

# ? Oct 4, 2019 11:41

Klyith: Aug 3, 2007; GBS Pledge Week

Geemer posted:

You mean everyone that takes their notebook to a Starbucks to use the wifi? You're not wrong about that being a physical security problem, but it's more a 10 second distraction than a major break-in and heist.

If someone steals a laptop from a Starbucks they're stealing it for the laptop itself. They're not waiting to see if they can get your PIN too.

Or, if you are worried that Mossad is watching you enter your PIN anywhere in public, don't use a PIN! People were complaining about the PIN as a fallback for fingerprints and face recognition, both of which are also known to have huge weakness to sophisticated attackers. Numeric PINs, fingerprints, etc are all methods for convenient good-enough security that average people can use and not screw up. If they're not good enough for you then you're not an average person and you can do something else.

# ? Oct 4, 2019 14:03

mystes: May 31, 2006

Does Windows rate limit attempts to sign in via pin? If not, you don't exactly have to be Mossad to get past a 4 digit pin.

Of course, if you don't have bitlocker/secure boot configured it probably doesn't matter anyway.

# ? Oct 4, 2019 14:07

Klyith: Aug 3, 2007; GBS Pledge Week

mystes posted:

Does Windows rate limit attempts to sign in via pin? If not, you don't exactly have to be Mossad to get past a 4 digit pin.

The PIN uses TPM hardware, which has dictionary attack protection. Whether that is turned on by default or not in most systems, I don't know.

# ? Oct 4, 2019 14:28

Lambert: Apr 15, 2018; by Fluffdaddy; Fallen Rib

Home doesn't have Bitlocker, and it's not enabled by default on Pro. So the PIN alone won't protect anything in its default configuration anyways. Windows does rate-limit login attempts.

# ? Oct 4, 2019 14:38

c0burn: Sep 2, 2003; The KKKing

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/identity-protection/hello-for-business/hello-why-pin-is-better-than-password

# ? Oct 4, 2019 16:25

Grey Area: Sep 9, 2000; Battle Without Honor or Humanity

If you don't want people to guess your 4 digit PIN, use more character and ones that are not numbers.

# ? Oct 4, 2019 18:37

SwissArmyDruid: Feb 14, 2014; by sebmojo

Klyith posted:

If someone steals a laptop from a Starbucks they're stealing it for the laptop itself. They're not waiting to see if they can get your PIN too.

Or, if you are worried that Mossad is watching you enter your PIN anywhere in public, don't use a PIN! People were complaining about the PIN as a fallback for fingerprints and face recognition, both of which are also known to have huge weakness to sophisticated attackers. Numeric PINs, fingerprints, etc are all methods for convenient good-enough security that average people can use and not screw up. If they're not good enough for you then you're not an average person and you can do something else.

If mossad wants to get into your laptop, they'll use a crowbar.

On your knees.

# ? Oct 4, 2019 20:08

Lambert: Apr 15, 2018; by Fluffdaddy; Fallen Rib

c0burn posted:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/identity-protection/hello-for-business/hello-why-pin-is-better-than-password

Without encryption, a "TPM backed" PIN is entirely meaningless.

# ? Oct 4, 2019 22:31

Klyith: Aug 3, 2007; GBS Pledge Week

Lambert posted:

Without encryption, a "TPM backed" PIN is entirely meaningless.

What do you mean by meaningless? And what is being encrypted?

Like, without FS encryption all your files are right there for someone to look at and steal? Sure, but that's no different logging in with a normal password. Don't move the goalposts.

As in the PIN is not sufficiently secure even if you have FS encryption as well? No. The reason we have TPMs is DoD requirements, they're pretty drat secure*. I'd trust a TPM-backed 6-digit pin more to prevent login more than a standard windows password, because its not vulnerable to brute force dictionary attacks. And if for convenience you have your bitlocker encryption unlocked by successful login then TPM wins.

_{^{* if you are you may worry about backdoors, but then you shouldn't be using windows+bitlocker either}}

# ? Oct 5, 2019 02:53

Lambert: Apr 15, 2018; by Fluffdaddy; Fallen Rib

I'm not sure what you're even arguing and what goalpoasts are being moved. I'm saying the discussion is pointless if you're not encrypting, and if you're encrypting (with TPM-based Bitlocker), Windows has always rate-limited login attempts even with "standard Windows passwords"/local accounts.

I'm calling the discussion into question, a "PIN" for local login is obviously useful.

Lambert fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Oct 5, 2019

# ? Oct 5, 2019 10:38

Worf: Sep 12, 2017; If only Seth would love me like I love him!

can i set it so the taskbar doesnt open itself when a dialogue box (or similar) pops in a window that isnt focus? i auto hide taskbar by default and having to tab in and acknowledge the thing i dont care about because, hey, i know its out of focus but its also on a different screen and now my taskbar is in my way and im sad.

i do have display fusion but there doesnt seem to be any parameters that handle that functionality of the taskbar

i would also be fine if the taskbar never, ever came up unless it was called by hotkey or even a series of chants, idgaf.

# ? Oct 5, 2019 10:44

mystes: May 31, 2006

Klyith posted:

What do you mean by meaningless? And what is being encrypted?

Like, without FS encryption all your files are right there for someone to look at and steal? Sure, but that's no different logging in with a normal password. Don't move the goalposts.

As in the PIN is not sufficiently secure even if you have FS encryption as well? No. The reason we have TPMs is DoD requirements, they're pretty drat secure*. I'd trust a TPM-backed 6-digit pin more to prevent login more than a standard windows password, because its not vulnerable to brute force dictionary attacks. And if for convenience you have your bitlocker encryption unlocked by successful login then TPM wins.

_{^{* if you are you may worry about backdoors, but then you shouldn't be using windows+bitlocker either}}

The entire point of using the TPM/secure enclave/whatever in this situation is to store the encryption key in the TPM and use the PIN to unlock it. This prevents attempts to brute force the PIN offline because once you remove the drive from the computer you won't have access to the TPM so you'll need to brute force the actual encryption key which is impossible.

If you aren't encrypting the drive this is irrelevant so there's no point in using the TPM.

# ? Oct 5, 2019 14:08

Not Wolverine: Jul 1, 2007

Bro your file copy process was using too much power, lets suspend the process halfway through to save power! On a DESKTOP plugged in 24-7 with the high performance, drat the electric bill power plan selected. It's taking me about 2 days to transfer 1TB of files because the process keeps crashing in the dumbest ways possible.

Also pictured, Chrome only had 1 tab open at the time I took that screenshot. I'm worried I need to upgrade my PC even more just to be able to keep running Chrome.

# ? Oct 7, 2019 02:27

originalnickname: Mar 9, 2005; tree

Crotch Fruit posted:

Bro your file copy process was using too much power, lets suspend the process halfway through to save power! On a DESKTOP plugged in 24-7 with the high performance, drat the electric bill power plan selected. It's taking me about 2 days to transfer 1TB of files because the process keeps crashing in the dumbest ways possible.

Also pictured, Chrome only had 1 tab open at the time I took that screenshot. I'm worried I need to upgrade my PC even more just to be able to keep running Chrome.

Why? Does this thing not have a shell or a way to do it on device? Why does this workflow exist?

# ? Oct 7, 2019 02:41

Javid: Oct 21, 2004

Much like how, on my windows 8 netbook, when I have exactly one app open, Windows will helpfully interrupt my working in that app with a popup to suggest I close said app to conserve memory.

Which reminds me of a question. How can I make a directory on c:/ that actually points to the same directory on d:/ (or whatever)? The context here is Photoshop being a picky bitch about what it'll use as a scratch drive.

# ? Oct 7, 2019 02:49

Klyith: Aug 3, 2007; GBS Pledge Week

Crotch Fruit posted:

Bro your file copy process was using too much power, lets suspend the process halfway through to save power! On a DESKTOP plugged in 24-7 with the high performance, drat the electric bill power plan selected. It's taking me about 2 days to transfer 1TB of files because the process keeps crashing in the dumbest ways possible.

Probably something on the destination or your network paused the copy, so that's why it got suspended?

Anyways for an XL 1TB network transfer I'd suggest using robocopy, or set up a quick FTP server. (FTP is faster than SMB if you don't care about file permissions or verification, but if these are both devices you have direct access to verification is faster by doing a hash check after the fact.)

Javid posted:

Which reminds me of a question. How can I make a directory on c:/ that actually points to the same directory on d:/ (or whatever)? The context here is Photoshop being a picky bitch about what it'll use as a scratch drive.

Folder junctions, which have some various pitfalls that you should be aware of before using willy-nilly but for a photoshop scratch directory are fine.

I like link shell extension for managing something like this. At one point when I had a very small SSD I had to re-direct chrome's cache folder to a different drive to avoid chrome caching 6 gigs of youtubes and running me out of space.

Klyith fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Oct 7, 2019

# ? Oct 7, 2019 02:59

Last Chance: Dec 31, 2004

i don't like moving caches off of ssds, feels like caches are the perfect thing for an ssd to churn through

# ? Oct 7, 2019 03:28

Javid: Oct 21, 2004

Adobe seems to agree with you, which is why I'm having to force the directory to be where I want it, instead of just checking a box next to D:/ in settings.

Klyith posted:

Folder junctions, which have some various pitfalls that you should be aware of before using willy-nilly but for a photoshop scratch directory are fine.

I like link shell extension for managing something like this. At one point when I had a very small SSD I had to re-direct chrome's cache folder to a different drive to avoid chrome caching 6 gigs of youtubes and running me out of space.

Perfect, thanks.

# ? Oct 7, 2019 04:40

Not Wolverine: Jul 1, 2007

originalnickname posted:

Why? Does this thing not have a shell or a way to do it on device? Why does this workflow exist?

I could easily just go downstairs and plug my drive directly into the NAS, but :effort:

. The network transfer has been works great, for a few minutes. Under 100GB it seems to work just fine, but anything more is hairy.

In addition to the process suspending for no reason, I've also had issues with the USB completely shutting off on my PC. Not just the external hard drive on USB 3, but also my keyboard mouse and everything else on USB 2, which I am pretty sure is a different controller. The first time it happened, I rebooted by using the power button to do a soft shutdown, and my USB was still dead after rebooting. I have not yet investigated my USB because prior to this transfer I have had absolutely no issues with my USB.

My NAS is Xubuntu 18.04 with a Samba share, it's 6TB worth of storage but about 25% of the time Windows 10 thinks it's full at just over 2TB. My other Linux desktops, Win 10 laptop, and a Windows 7 PC (I know. . . gently caress printers) have no issues connecting and filling up my storage. I am now slowly trying to free up enough hard drive space to where I can backup everything on my NAS to convert it from Xubuntu to FreeNAS but considering it's working great on all but one PC it's a low priority task.

My USB (and I mean all of my USB) is randomly making GBS threads itself during the transfer, this does not happen when copying between USB and local storage. My NAS randomly "runs out of space" irregardless of using USB or internal storage. Even if the stars are in alignment the copy process has still been suspending itself for no apparent reason. Hell, I wouldn't even mind it so much if I could at least get some sort of crash and an error message. Instead I wait for it to become unresponsive then restart explorer, check what files made it, and start another copy process. I am aware there are better, easier, and more reliable ways to copy the files, but I want to try to do this from my upstairs PC instead of babysitting a PC in my basement for a few hours during family time.

Klyith posted:

Probably something on the destination or your network paused the copy, so that's why it got suspended?

Anyways for an XL 1TB network transfer I'd suggest using robocopy, or set up a quick FTP server. (FTP is faster than SMB if you don't care about file permissions or verification, but if these are both devices you have direct access to verification is faster by doing a hash check after the fact.)

I think I am fine with ignoring permissions, I chose SMB mainly because I thought it would be the most Windows friendly. Despite that transfer running at only 77MBps, the transfer speeds are usually about 120MBps which I believe is only being limited by my gigabit network. This is why I troll eBay for 10G (or even 5G) coper network equipment. I think I might even be able to run 10G over the existing Cat 5e in my walls since the runs are all very short, the longest is like 40 feet which stretches all the way across my house. It would be out of spec for sure, but I have seen some YouTube people claim it works and I am not about to gut my walls to rewire everything. Price, lack of need (I don't transfer large files on a daily basis) and uncertainty are the reasons I haven't tried to upgrade my wired network.

# ? Oct 7, 2019 13:22

PUBLIC TOILET: Jun 13, 2009

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordon...0/#5180875e50c1

:ughh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9kn8_oztsA

# ? Oct 8, 2019 00:17

Hipster_Doofus: Dec 20, 2003; Lovin' every minute of it.

PUBLIC TOILET posted:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordon...0/#5180875e50c1

God dammit gently caress those auto-playing videos jesus. You'd think maybe forbes could resist the temptation to have them.

# ? Oct 8, 2019 03:04

Klyith: Aug 3, 2007; GBS Pledge Week

PUBLIC TOILET posted:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordon...0/#5180875e50c1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9kn8_oztsA

Welp, after a short-lived revival of my w10 install to almost-perfect with the Reset thing, I now have:
2019-09 Cumulative Update for Windows 10 Version 1903 for x64-based Systems (KB4524147) - Error 0x800f0982

This is the update that was supposed to fix various patches not installing due to errors.

# ? Oct 8, 2019 03:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 00:30

Hipster_Doofus: Dec 20, 2003; Lovin' every minute of it.

PUBLIC TOILET posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9kn8_oztsA

Is this what people are talking about when they refer to the firing of the QA team? I've about that many times, naturally, but I've never actually watched a video or read an article about it.

# ? Oct 8, 2019 03:19

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Windows 10: I know what I'm doing

«‹›500 »