Confirmed: Windows 10 Setup Now Prevents Local Account Creation

In article , Ken Blake
wrote:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 23:15:33 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:


No, no they don't. At least not in Third-World-USA. A lot of rural USA
has squat. Major portions of my area gets barely 1mbps and some just get
plain nada. And I am in the East, not in some nowheresville Montana or
the like. I am just extremely lucky recently my local electric coop was
able to give the big V the finger and they are rolling out their own
FTTH and I now have a synchronous 100mbps connection. But buffering and
timeouts are fresh in my memory. FIOS is a scam,


There's no FIOS available where I live, but my son, who lives in a
suburb of NYC, has FIOS. I've used it at his house. It's not a scam; I
don't have any numbers to quote, but the performance is
wonderful--much better than my cable service. I wish I could get it
here.

and unlike cable, it's symmetrical. none of this 100mbit down but only
5mbit up crap.

nospam wrote:
In article , Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

currently, it's 90% who have internet access, and the remaining 10%
aren't likely to be downloading new software and wondering how to use
it.

They may have Internet access, but is is not *broadband* 25mbps+ And
many may use the Internet but do not have access at home. 90% of my area
does not have *broadband* and a fair portion of the county you cannot
not get a 4G signal, parts have no signal.

those areas don't have very many people. cell companies put up towers
where it's needed, not where buffalo roam.

I am in the East not the Great Plains or Badlands. 16K in my county.


Also 4G is neither
*broadband* nor affordable. It is also metered and limited.

4g is 'broadband' and very affordable. typical lte speeds are 30-50mb
and unlimited plans are $40 or so, less with data caps.

Don't know where the hell you are but a 4G signal on my phone never
reached 25mbsp, barely half that when I travel to Charlottesville or
Richmond.


https://www.tomsguide.com/us/best-mobile-network,review-2942.html

however, users don't need those kinds of speeds to find online help.
1-5mb is fine for not only reading instructional web sites, but even
watching videos. they won't be 4k hd, but that's not needed for a
tutorial.

The point was 0mbps was adequate when the app had local help file.


many public hotspots are qos'ed to around that speed per user without
issue.

https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/
When Pew Research Center began systematically tracking Americans1
internet usage in early 2000, about half of all adults were already
online. Today, nine-in-ten American adults use the internet.

fios is in no way a scam. expansion has slowed or stopped, depending on
the area,

Try dead. And it was never a serious rollout at the start considering
the deal back in the 90's was country-wide build out of a fiber
"Information Superhighway" in exchange for deregulation and tax breaks.
They took the breaks without delivering.

it's not dead, although it's not as aggressive as it used to be because
5g is the future, not fios.

It died long before 5G was a thing.


https://www.verizon.com/about/news/h...as-expanded-up
state-new-york
https://www.verizon.com/about/news/v...-expand-plans-
transform-boston-digital-city-future

because 5g is *much* faster and *much* less expensive to
install, but where it works, it works exceptionally well.

Yes and no and no. For 5G to handle such bandwidth the signal
frequencies are much higher. Higher frequencies are both shorter range
and more susceptible to interference. You need antennas and lots of them
and for them to be very close together. We are talking in feet not miles
here. Unless you are in a densely populated area there are not enough
structures close enough to mount antennas. Trees and deer-butts was only
a half-joke. Also you need more because the signal doesn't penetrate
structures well or vegetation or hills and mountains. Lastly as with all
wireless it is susceptible to interference, solar, atmospheric, and
malevolent interception.

the areas where the structures are far apart are areas with not a lot
of people.

But *people* do live there. Not everyone lives in a dozen cities.
Something that has had political and social consequences lately.


also, elon musk is planning to deploy 12,000 satellites to provide
internet, including in rural areas. how well that works remains to be
seen but if it does, it will solve a lot of problems.

If you ever used satellite Internet you would know what snake-oil that
is...


On a purely national security aspect fiber requires physical access for
interference. Not to mention the upgradable bandwidth capacity of a
single fiber is far greater than a frequency.

fibre requires right of way and digging up streets, which is costly,
time consuming and disruptive.


True, as so do installing towers. But fiber impervious to solar flares,
EMP, remote tampering, interference... more secure.

BTW didn't stop us from slinging about 6 million miles of copper for our
electricity? Or more than 4 million miles of pavement for our cars... If
there is a will there is a way. It is just a question of which is a
better long term investment.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 23:15:33 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:


No, no they don't. At least not in Third-World-USA. A lot of rural USA
has squat. Major portions of my area gets barely 1mbps and some just get
plain nada. And I am in the East, not in some nowheresville Montana or
the like. I am just extremely lucky recently my local electric coop was
able to give the big V the finger and they are rolling out their own
FTTH and I now have a synchronous 100mbps connection. But buffering and
timeouts are fresh in my memory. FIOS is a scam,


There's no FIOS available where I live, but my son, who lives in a
suburb of NYC, has FIOS. I've used it at his house. It's not a scam; I
don't have any numbers to quote, but the performance is
wonderful--much better than my cable service. I wish I could get it
here.


The scam was not the performance, it want Version's promise to build the
"Fiber Optic Information Superhighway" in 5 years for the USA not a
handful of localities on the east coast.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Blake
wrote:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 23:15:33 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:


No, no they don't. At least not in Third-World-USA. A lot of rural USA
has squat. Major portions of my area gets barely 1mbps and some just get
plain nada. And I am in the East, not in some nowheresville Montana or
the like. I am just extremely lucky recently my local electric coop was
able to give the big V the finger and they are rolling out their own
FTTH and I now have a synchronous 100mbps connection. But buffering and
timeouts are fresh in my memory. FIOS is a scam,


There's no FIOS available where I live, but my son, who lives in a
suburb of NYC, has FIOS. I've used it at his house. It's not a scam; I
don't have any numbers to quote, but the performance is
wonderful--much better than my cable service. I wish I could get it
here.

and unlike cable, it's symmetrical. none of this 100mbit down but only
5mbit up crap.


Yep, with my non-FIOS fiber I'm, getting 105-110 down and 85-95mbsp up.
Didn't see the need for 1gbps service since it was so much better than
my V's 2.8mbsp/0.6mbsp DSL.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article , Jonathan N. Little
wrote:


The point was 0mbps was adequate when the app had local help file.

more often than not, that local help file was not particularly helpful.

now, there's a wealth of information online, available to just about
everyone, and if they don't have internet at their house, they can go
to a library or coffeeshop.



also, elon musk is planning to deploy 12,000 satellites to provide
internet, including in rural areas. how well that works remains to be
seen but if it does, it will solve a lot of problems.

If you ever used satellite Internet you would know what snake-oil that
is...

don't assume future technology will be as limited as technology of the
past.


On a purely national security aspect fiber requires physical access for
interference. Not to mention the upgradable bandwidth capacity of a
single fiber is far greater than a frequency.

fibre requires right of way and digging up streets, which is costly,
time consuming and disruptive.


True, as so do installing towers.

nowhere near as much as fibre. towers are a lot less expensive, only
need permission from the property owner rather than the city and has
minimal disruption.

But fiber impervious to solar flares,
EMP, remote tampering, interference... more secure.

until a backhoe cuts it.

https://gizmodo.com/comcast-blames-n...iber-cut-18272
44074
Earlier today, various internet services seemingly went down,
reflected in a spike of outage reports on sites like Down Detector.
A tweet from Newsday reporter Joan Gralla stated the source of the
disruption was actually a series of fiber line cuts, one cut between
New York and Chicago, the other between Ashburn and South Carolina.

https://siouxcityjournal.com/news/st...oe-cuts-fiber-
optic-cable-north-of-spencer/article_d82fde82-ab1b-5772-8238-7d74ae32658
a.html
Monday's outage was the result of a fiber-optic cable cut in north
Spencer where tiles were being laid for drainage along the west
shoulder of U.S. Highway 71.

On 10/5/19 8:24 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/
When Pew Research Center began systematically tracking Americans1
internet usage in early 2000, about half of all adults were already
online. Today, nine-in-ten American adults use the internet.

Pew should do a study based on areas of the country. By population
gives a skewed view of where the internet is available.

it's not skewed. by population is what matters.

What an uncaring snob.


--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 69.0.2
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

In article , Ken Springer
wrote:


https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/
When Pew Research Center began systematically tracking Americans1
internet usage in early 2000, about half of all adults were already
online. Today, nine-in-ten American adults use the internet.

Pew should do a study based on areas of the country. By population
gives a skewed view of where the internet is available.

it's not skewed. by population is what matters.

What an uncaring snob.

resorting to insults does not support your position.

nospam wrote:
In article , Jonathan N. Little
wrote:


The point was 0mbps was adequate when the app had local help file.

more often than not, that local help file was not particularly helpful.

Says you. Excel's function and even old Word's WordBasic (remember that)
was quite helpful. API documention for CorelDraw scripting was similar.
0 Internet required wand was context responsive.


now, there's a wealth of information online, available to just about
everyone, and if they don't have internet at their house, they can go
to a library or coffeeshop.

Again you obviously are inapplicable of envisioning a situation than
your own. The nearest coffeeshop for me is 19 miles away, I am sure
countless other computer users out there the distance is far more. AND
make sure you only need the info during business hours. The point was
convenience as access. It is not always about you.




also, elon musk is planning to deploy 12,000 satellites to provide
internet, including in rural areas. how well that works remains to be
seen but if it does, it will solve a lot of problems.

If you ever used satellite Internet you would know what snake-oil that
is...

don't assume future technology will be as limited as technology of the
past.

Speed and bandwidth be damn, what kills satellite Internet is friggen
*latency*. 1500-2500ms is an eternity with respect to computers. Real
fun with restful connections and ssl handshake. Easy for you to dismiss
because it is obvious you have no experience.



On a purely national security aspect fiber requires physical access for
interference. Not to mention the upgradable bandwidth capacity of a
single fiber is far greater than a frequency.

fibre requires right of way and digging up streets, which is costly,
time consuming and disruptive.


True, as so do installing towers.

nowhere near as much as fibre. towers are a lot less expensive, only
need permission from the property owner rather than the city and has
minimal disruption.

But fiber impervious to solar flares,
EMP, remote tampering, interference... more secure.

until a backhoe cuts it.

https://gizmodo.com/comcast-blames-n...iber-cut-18272
44074
Earlier today, various internet services seemingly went down,
reflected in a spike of outage reports on sites like Down Detector.
A tweet from Newsday reporter Joan Gralla stated the source of the
disruption was actually a series of fiber line cuts, one cut between
New York and Chicago, the other between Ashburn and South Carolina.

https://siouxcityjournal.com/news/st...oe-cuts-fiber-
optic-cable-north-of-spencer/article_d82fde82-ab1b-5772-8238-7d74ae32658
a.html
Monday's outage was the result of a fiber-optic cable cut in north
Spencer where tiles were being laid for drainage along the west
shoulder of U.S. Highway 71.


Good think there are no *wireless* blackouts...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article , Jonathan N. Little
wrote:


The point was 0mbps was adequate when the app had local help file.

more often than not, that local help file was not particularly helpful.

Says you. Excel's function and even old Word's WordBasic (remember that)
was quite helpful. API documention for CorelDraw scripting was similar.
0 Internet required wand was context responsive.

except when it wasn't.

if the user had a question that was not answered by the help file, they
were stuck.

either they ask friends or coworkers, who might not know either, or
worse, call tech support and get someone who probably knows less than
they do and can only read from a script.

today, there's a very good chance that an internet search will find
someone else in the same situation and how to resolve it.

now, there's a wealth of information online, available to just about
everyone, and if they don't have internet at their house, they can go
to a library or coffeeshop.

Again you obviously are inapplicable of envisioning a situation than
your own. The nearest coffeeshop for me is 19 miles away, I am sure
countless other computer users out there the distance is far more. AND
make sure you only need the info during business hours. The point was
convenience as access. It is not always about you.

i'm not talking about anyone's situation, certainly not my own or yours
for that matter.

most people have at least home broadband, lte mobile and live near
public wifi hotspots, if not all three.

not everyone, but the numbers are very low. nothing is perfect.


also, elon musk is planning to deploy 12,000 satellites to provide
internet, including in rural areas. how well that works remains to be
seen but if it does, it will solve a lot of problems.

If you ever used satellite Internet you would know what snake-oil that
is...

don't assume future technology will be as limited as technology of the
past.

Speed and bandwidth be damn, what kills satellite Internet is friggen
*latency*. 1500-2500ms is an eternity with respect to computers. Real
fun with restful connections and ssl handshake. Easy for you to dismiss
because it is obvious you have no experience.

what's obvious is you have no experience or knowledge about what's
currently available.

https://arstechnica.com/information-...acexs-satellit
e-broadband-nears-fcc-approval-and-first-test-launch/
SpaceX has said it will offer speeds of up to a gigabit per second,
with latencies between 25ms and 35ms. Those latencies would make
SpaceX's service comparable to cable and fiber. Today's satellite
broadband services use satellites in much higher orbits and thus have
latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements.

The demonstration satellites will orbit at 511km, although the
operational satellites are planned to orbit at altitudes ranging from
1,110km to 1,325km. By contrast, the existing HughesNet satellite
network has an altitude of about 35,400km, making for a much longer
round-trip time than ground-based networks.

most people want to stream audio or video, where latency doesn't matter.

https://venturebeat.com/2015/12/07/s...-account-for-o
ver-70-of-peak-traffic-in-north-america-netflix-dominates-with-37/
Streaming audio and video services have hit a new high. Traffic from
this group now accounts for over 70 percent of North American
downstream traffic in the peak evening hours on fixed access
networks. Five years ago, it accounted for less than 35 percent.


But fiber impervious to solar flares,
EMP, remote tampering, interference... more secure.

until a backhoe cuts it.

https://gizmodo.com/comcast-blames-n...iber-cut-18272
44074
Earlier today, various internet services seemingly went down,
reflected in a spike of outage reports on sites like Down Detector.
A tweet from Newsday reporter Joan Gralla stated the source of the
disruption was actually a series of fiber line cuts, one cut between
New York and Chicago, the other between Ashburn and South Carolina.

https://siouxcityjournal.com/news/st...oe-cuts-fiber-
optic-cable-north-of-spencer/article_d82fde82-ab1b-5772-8238-7d74ae32658
a.html
Monday's outage was the result of a fiber-optic cable cut in north
Spencer where tiles were being laid for drainage along the west
shoulder of U.S. Highway 71.


Good think there are no *wireless* blackouts...

nothing is perfect.

starry wireless internet, which uses antennas mounted on rooftops of
apartment and office buildings (relatively cheap to deploy), claims
five 9s of reliability, which is a few minutes a year.

On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 13:43:57 -0400, nospam wrote:

resorting to insults does not support your position.

Insulting as a response to facts ... is classic for you nospam.
o And you know I never bull**** - so here are the facts of your own posts.

Scores of them ... in fact ... all recent (a few a day, in fact)...

o Why do the apologists like nospam turn into instant children in the face of mere facts (e.g., ftfy)?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TZbkkqS3jv4

nospam wrote:
In article , Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

snip

Speed and bandwidth be damn, what kills satellite Internet is friggen
*latency*. 1500-2500ms is an eternity with respect to computers. Real
fun with restful connections and ssl handshake. Easy for you to dismiss
because it is obvious you have no experience.

what's obvious is you have no experience or knowledge about what's
currently available.

Such a burden you must have being all-knowing and always correct.
Referencing a Wiki page is no substitute for real world experience.
Hughsnet was horrible, unreliable service. Had Ka-band so on a good day
got 1.1mbps but the latency was horrendous. Much so that I had to tweak
timeout values on my mail clients in order to fairly reliably get my
mail. 800ms was typical and 1500-2500ms was a not too rare condition.
And heaven help you if it rains or snows. A dusting on the disk == no
Internet. Plus it was expensive $85 for 20GB/mo. Being in an area where
broadband access is limited, "highspeed" Internet (1-24mpbs) not
universal a number of my neighbors went satellite out of desperation and
have these issues.


https://arstechnica.com/information-...acexs-satellit
e-broadband-nears-fcc-approval-and-first-test-launch/
SpaceX has said it will offer speeds of up to a gigabit per second,
with latencies between 25ms and 35ms. Those latencies would make
SpaceX's service comparable to cable and fiber. Today's satellite
broadband services use satellites in much higher orbits and thus have
latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements.

Yeah, it's in demo stage. Not here as an option. But you knew that right?


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article , Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Speed and bandwidth be damn, what kills satellite Internet is friggen
*latency*. 1500-2500ms is an eternity with respect to computers. Real
fun with restful connections and ssl handshake. Easy for you to dismiss
because it is obvious you have no experience.

what's obvious is you have no experience or knowledge about what's
currently available.

Such a burden you must have being all-knowing and always correct.
Referencing a Wiki page is no substitute for real world experience.
Hughsnet was horrible, unreliable service. Had Ka-band so on a good day
got 1.1mbps but the latency was horrendous. Much so that I had to tweak
timeout values on my mail clients in order to fairly reliably get my
mail. 800ms was typical and 1500-2500ms was a not too rare condition.
And heaven help you if it rains or snows. A dusting on the disk == no
Internet. Plus it was expensive $85 for 20GB/mo. Being in an area where
broadband access is limited, "highspeed" Internet (1-24mpbs) not
universal a number of my neighbors went satellite out of desperation and
have these issues.

https://arstechnica.com/information-...acexs-satellit
e-broadband-nears-fcc-approval-and-first-test-launch/
SpaceX has said it will offer speeds of up to a gigabit per second,
with latencies between 25ms and 35ms. Those latencies would make
SpaceX's service comparable to cable and fiber. Today's satellite
broadband services use satellites in much higher orbits and thus have
latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements.

Yeah, it's in demo stage. Not here as an option. But you knew that right?

nobody said starlink was fully deployed worldwide.

the point is that it's fast and low latency.

But seriously...

--
"Arlen G. Holder" arlen_g_holder nospam.edu wrote:

Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.mixmin.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Arlen G. Holder" arlen_g_holder nospam.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
Subject: Confirmed: Windows 10 Setup Now Prevents Local Account Creation
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 16:13:17 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Mixmin
Message-ID: qn2iat$aga$1 news.mixmin.net
References: qn1h43$uuh$1 news.mixmin.net 20191002082819 news.eternal-september.org
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 16:13:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.mixmin.net; posting-host="f98dfdacec70e544c18c0be1a01b94aa454f197b"; logging-data="10762"; mail-complaints-to="abuse mixmin.net"
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:104066

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 12:35:24 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote:

Fortunately this one is, for the moment, easy to get around. Don't connect
to the internet during initial setup - without an internet connection the
default is to create a local account. Windows 10 works just fine as a
standalone operating system without a "cloud" login despite Microsoft's
protest to the contrary ("limited functionality").

As a separate, yet related datapoint, when I last installed a Windows 10
"S" laptop about a month ago, the following happened, as I recall:
a. Even though I explicitly disabled the wi-fi (there was no RJ45 port)
b. And where I switched the Windows 10 S to Windows 10 Home ASAP
c. Microsoft still insisted I connect to the Internet FIRST
d. BEFORE I could switch from S to Home (as I recall)
e. Where I was FORCED to create an account (obviously against my will)
f. Which, NOTE THIS, you can delete BUT it takes a MONTH to do so

Why does it take a month?
o I do not know.

Actually, I forget what account I created, so I can't even check.
o But bear in mind, as I recall, Microsoft insists on a MONTH DELAY.

Takeaway, if my memory serves me well:
a. For Win10 S to Win10 Home you MUST still create a MS account
b. Microsoft says they won't delete that account for a month
c. Who knows what they keep in their logs forever...
(or if they even do it ... maybe we should try reactivation later?)

Rationale for saying this on a Windows 10 Home thread is...
A. Let's keep an eye on the shenanigans that Microsoft is pulling on us.
B. And report back to the group whatever we find out by way of tricks.

Together, we know more than any one of us does individually.

"Arlen .g. Holder" wrote:

Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:

That would be because Home, like Home in all previous versions of
Windows from XP on up, doesn't do Active Directory and can't be
joined to a domain. You can still create a local user, though,
it's just that Microsoft goes to a lot of trouble to hide it.

This is good information to share with the ng since we're all much
more knowledgeable together, as a team, than we are individually
alone.

You are the poster boy.

On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 11:44:10 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:

Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 23:15:33 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:


No, no they don't. At least not in Third-World-USA. A lot of rural USA
has squat. Major portions of my area gets barely 1mbps and some just get
plain nada. And I am in the East, not in some nowheresville Montana or
the like. I am just extremely lucky recently my local electric coop was
able to give the big V the finger and they are rolling out their own
FTTH and I now have a synchronous 100mbps connection. But buffering and
timeouts are fresh in my memory. FIOS is a scam,


There's no FIOS available where I live, but my son, who lives in a
suburb of NYC, has FIOS. I've used it at his house. It's not a scam; I
don't have any numbers to quote, but the performance is
wonderful--much better than my cable service. I wish I could get it
here.


The scam was not the performance, it want Version's promise to build the
"Fiber Optic Information Superhighway" in 5 years for the USA not a
handful of localities on the east coast.



OK, sorry if I misunderstood you.

Ken