Indeed. No explanation. Lying article.
- Status
What I'd really like to see is per-application screen resolution, so I can run some things full screen on my Surface Pro in a lower res as appropriate while using native for general use.
Isn't rendering resolution scaling in games a better solution than changing the actual resolution?
I'm not talking games. Some Windows apps fail to work well on SP4's super high res screen. I'm forced to run it well below native (1840x1216 instead of 2736x1824) for those occasions I want to run such apps. I expect some games could benefit too though. Anything using bitmap UIs could end up with tiny icons on super high res screens, certainly on older games. And it seems to me with no knowledge of the inner workings of Windows that this should be a trivial feature to add in the Compatibility Mode settings - Full Screen Resolution.
if you want to run an app at 640x480 run it in a 640x480 window
Might do. Will have to see how it works.
Windowed is far from the same experience! I want to run art apps full screen as a canvas. ArtRage has tiny icons in native res and is too slow while the tools can be buggy when oversized. If I run it in high DPI mode it's just upscaled and pixelated. Hence I run it at 1840x1216 as a compromise, which requires the whole system runs at that res. Similarly my video editor has unusably tiny controls in native or not enough screen space and pixelated icons in high DPI mode, and benefits from a lower-than-native res.
Yeah, they are working hard at fixing that issue right now. So hopefully they will get it right soon, it is also pretty essential for their plan to run x86 apps on phones.
The push to anniversary happened to my work laptop too. It was deferred there by policy because they weren't ready to support it, but I got it anyway. Personally I am happy because it is just better and more stable. It deleted my IIS feature which was a bit of an unpleasant surprise, but I could enable that easily enough (after I figured out not to select ASP.Net 3.5, which I didn't need anyway).
Also it reenabled a feature that caught me out the first time I came across it. Apparently my by now pretty old laptop still has orientation detection. Imagine my surprise that my screen was upside down and then on its side when I walked to a presentation with it. Easily disabled again in display settings but still amusing.
The push to anniversary happened to my work laptop too. It was deferred there by policy because they weren't ready to support it, but I got it anyway. Personally I am happy because it is just better and more stable. It deleted my IIS feature which was a bit of an unpleasant surprise, but I could enable that easily enough (after I figured out not to select ASP.Net 3.5, which I didn't need anyway).
Also it reenabled a feature that caught me out the first time I came across it. Apparently my by now pretty old laptop still has orientation detection. Imagine my surprise that my screen was upside down and then on its side when I walked to a presentation with it. Easily disabled again in display settings but still amusing.
Is now the time to stop using antivirus?
Read more of this interesting article at; https://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2017/01/antivirus-is-bad/
Read more of this interesting article at; https://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2017/01/antivirus-is-bad/
I've never seen Defender stop anything and I have seen, for instance, Kaspersky stop real threats which Defender did not stop.
But yeah, antivirus can open up a bigger attack surface but imho it is only really a big deal if you are being targeted. And if you are being targeted and the attacker has vast resources and they know about your config, you are probably screwed anyway because they will probably have access to 0-day exploits for your OS/AV/browser etc.
But yeah, antivirus can open up a bigger attack surface but imho it is only really a big deal if you are being targeted. And if you are being targeted and the attacker has vast resources and they know about your config, you are probably screwed anyway because they will probably have access to 0-day exploits for your OS/AV/browser etc.
Blazkowicz
Legend
Very scary as it can kill your back ups, your networked storage..
So you need good or at least decent back ups, stuff multiple hard drives or media - if you do the right thing by backing up but your only copy is plugged in (e.g. USB hard drive) when the malware strikes, it's bad. Although there might be ways to mitigate, e.g. the malware can only acces what your user account can access and only a separate "user" can write to back ups. This would assume most malware is lazy and make do with user privileges. (like, they don't really need to "own" the whole PC and get admin privileges anyway)
Just to say, good back ups are what should bring peace of mind, they always suck because you can use the money for a CPU upgrade etc. instead but it's something that we likely need to remind or tell people often, especially professionals and perhaps students.
These days, you might use a bunch of full size SD cards on the cheap (e.g. a 32GB one will store a lot of documents and pictures and such), as well as the otherwise dreaded "cloud" (for the paranoid, a password protected .zip or .rar might do if you don't want microsoft and governments etc. read your essays and look at family pictures)
One of the better defenses i have seen for ransomware is a free plugin that a community developer put together for unraid server software. It uses bait files and bait shares, monitors them for modification, and switches the entire server into readonly mode or into offline mode within a second of detection.
If something nefarious on your computer is trying to connect to the internet, you're already infected.
- Status
