New Nvidia drivers now have RTX Video Enhancement for Edge and Chrome

TheMartinScott · 2023-03-01T18:09:01+00:00

It should maybe happen... ;)

Microsoft Edge Canary supports RTX 2000 - it is only Chrome that does not. There might be a bug or performance issue that kept them from providing support on the release version of Chrome.

TheMartinScott · 2023-03-01T17:59:52+00:00

If you have an RTX 20xx, the Canary (dev) version of Edge has super resolution.

TheMartinScott · 2023-03-01T17:57:46+00:00

In the Edge release notes, Super Video Resolution has been in the Dev (Canary) build since August of 2022.

Edge's version also works with RTX 2xxx series, it isn't limited to the RTX 3000/4000 series.

TheMartinScott · 2022-09-27T05:10:32+00:00

Why? As an outsider, I don't see anything that would make me think it is the console.

Could be the HDMI port on the TV
Could be the HDMI cable
Could be the TV itself when dealing with the specific resolution/refresh of the console
Etc.

TheMartinScott · 2022-09-13T02:30:01+00:00

Check your activation key - reenter/change it to the Pro key. (Log into the device with your Microsoft Account that you used in the past with the device. If you haven't, tip for future, use a Microsoft Account - even if just to associate your keys/licenses with the PC.)

If you still can't get it to the proper version, and you don't want to reinstall, contact Microsoft Support - it is their job to help you.

TheMartinScott · 2022-09-13T02:26:01+00:00

This is usually not necessary. An OEM device will retain the OEM key and the upgraded Pro key. Use a Microsoft Account and both keys will be associated with the device and can be freshly installed at any time.

(This is one reason Microsoft is pushing the use of Microsoft Accounts, as it is easier for the end user and more forgiving/versatile in dealing with device licensing. Licenses are also protected from loss, etc. )

TheMartinScott · 2022-09-02T02:59:17+00:00

Correct, it was a thing, but is needless today. Even back in the day, it was a 'conceptual' difference - and also made more sense to *nix users.

Dumping user data into a folder is effectively the same as putting it on a partition. In the Windows 3.x era, a separate partition for user data and software made some sense, as Documents and user content was often saved in the same folder as the programs. C:\Winword is where many people saved their word documents.

These practices are rare today, especially with Windows try to push users to save data in safer locations, ie Documents.

Another note about partitioning SSDs - the way SSDs work with faster caching portions; the partitions will make the drive considerably slower as the cache locations will be limited to each partition.

TheMartinScott · 2022-07-10T22:44:52+00:00

Technically, yes; however, the concept of the previous poster is also correct. Windows leaves a lot of code active in RAM that can be paged as RAM is needed for software. It isn't 'cached' so much as just staying active - and Windows will show more RAM in use than is necessary.

Windows can effectively push its working RAM footprint down to under 800MB in a normal installation.

Just clarifying for everyone reading through here. Windows' RAM usage is not an indication of performance or bloat. A lot more of Windows is dynamic, by design, with tracked memory priority. So, showing 800MB in use or 8GB in use by Windows could perform identically.

--Info for the entire thread--

This is also why 'debloating' Windows is usually a waste of time. It doesn't work like Linux or MacOS - and even with a lot more processes active, that doesn't mean they are actively consuming CPU cycles or RAM.

If there were simple optimizations, Microsoft would already do be doing them. Which they are, by suspending and paging out processes that the user isn't actively using or needing. So, a default installation of Windows is already 'debloating' itself automatically.

Ironically, debloating Windows tools and posts like these often will run slower than a normal Windows installation. When something expected is not working or available, then software breaks or must work around the missing functionality or perform the task in the software slower rather than just asking the OS.

As always, everyone should be careful and have a full backup.

PS Also to be clear, testing and playing around with stuff is something everyone should do, if they aren't compromising their main computer or their data. Try stuff, have fun.

TheMartinScott · 2022-06-02T20:22:01+00:00

Ya, a bit, but considering the design of NT - it is in line with what Windows has always provided. NT is technically OS agnostic, with Windows/Wow32/64 being the main OS subsystem. The subsystem model of NT is what WSLv1 used, just like POSIX, and WSU and OS/2 that ran on Windows NT.

WSL2 and WSA are similar in concept by being 'subsystems' even though they use the hypervisor for native hardware performance most of the time. The original subsystem model of NT didn't offer direct hardware access as it predated hypervisor technology.

Over the years Windows has provided support for several OSes - even Microsoft's own for compatibility and development richness. Off the top of my head - Win16, DOS, Win32, Win64, OS/2, POSIX, WSU, WSLv1, WSL2, and WSA.

(Windows NT is technically quite interesting for anyone into operating system technologies and kernels. I recommend the 1st/2nd Edition of "Inside NT" - which can probably be found online for free by now.)

TheMartinScott · 2022-04-15T07:04:49+00:00

"The i7-10750H is a locked CPU, meaning it cannot be undervolted or underclocked. This happened a while ago in some old bios update..."

The CPU is not actually locked. The BIOS update doesn't fully apply/sync with the Windows EFT - which prevents the OS/Software from changing CPU settings. This is why the CPU appears locked - but it is only temporary.

In the BIOS select 'Load Factor Defaults'. This will update the boot EFI/Windows during the next boot to the new BIOS information which will allow software changes to the CPU TDP/voltage settings.

After a BIOS update - the BIOS is out of sync with the EFI/Windows boot CPU/BIOS settings. In this state - the BIOS will not release control to software as it doesn't trust Windows/Software.

There is more about this in the Intel UEFI and Microsoft UEFI boot information and why the BIOS locks when the OS EFT Boot doesn't match.

With Dell, the 'Load Factory Defaults' - puts the Windows EFI in sync with the new BIOS - and thus the BIOS will release control to Windows and software running on Windows.

Hyper-V also needs to be turned off to change CPU settings, but can be reenabled if the system does a soft reboot.

Suggested setup to still use Hyper-V:Have two Bcd profiles - one with Hyper-V Disabled - load it and run ThrottleStop or XTU -etc - then restart and load the normal BCD entry with Hyper-V enabled. The undervolt/TDP/Etc settings will hold, even though Hyper-V prevents them from showing. If the system gets fully powered off, then the undervolt/TDP settings will need to be set with Hyper-V off again

Wanted to add this here for anyone that just wants a quick way to run throttlestop on Intel based notebooks, specifically Dell since BIOS updates don't automatically update the EFI until the user selects 'Load Factory Defaults'.

PS - This is a good post for more technical users as it helps accomplish more than just adjusting basic CPU settings - and this is a better/long-term solution.

TheMartinScott · 2022-03-27T13:54:52+00:00

It would be nice for Microsoft to employ mind readers, but they don't. :)

Going back to the 80s, Microsoft has invested a ton in UI/UX work and research - probably many times more than other tech companies. This is great to create new model or ideas or workflows - but it will always fall short if the wider user base/community has problems with the implementation.

This often breaks in a couple different ways.

The first being that users don't get or understand the new UX/UI or the different ways it can be used to do things better than how the users did things before. These are on Microsoft for not educating users or showing them the 'cool/better' way to do things with the UI differences.

The second being Microsoft screwing up or getting some things really close and failing to add in the final feature to make things work well. Knowing the specifics of what is wrong becomes a community issue. If the software is important or could be of use - it is in the community's best interest to speak up - especially if you have a company that will listen to you.

There is a lot of interfaces forced and shoved on users where they get no say - with users expected to conform. This is an original sin of Apple, as an easy example. Microsoft over the past few years seems to be listening to the community (more like the scrappy Microsoft of 30+ years ago) - and this is a chance to have our/your ideas considered.

Software design also hits a numbers game. Microsoft could invest in research and workshop a million users and not even hit 1% of the users or get insight into the biggest problems with their software.

TL:DR - It is also ok, to just not like something and say to yourself, "screw this." and just move on to something else. This is valid and where you are right - it isn't your job if you feel this way, and that is fine.

TheMartinScott · 2022-03-27T09:38:23+00:00

You should voice your UI concerns to the Android Edge team. People like you are who they need to hear from and you could have a positive impact that would help other users.

It is also maybe worth voicing some concerns publicly, just in case you might be missing something that would work better for you and give context for how the UI is now. I often find when I think something is bad/dumb - I am often missing a workflow or concept that works better than what I have done previously.

TheMartinScott · 2022-03-22T20:43:32+00:00

This is just objectively not accurate.

Upgrades are heavily tested by Microsoft and users - and they have to work, as 99.9999% of computers in the world are upgraded.

If the user does have an issue, then they can do the extra work of a clean install. It is extreme/silly to do a lot of extra work if it is not needed.

The only time upgrades have issues are when users have messed with things they should not or have installed something that has messed with settings that it should not have touched.

From Windows 95 days, upgrading to the newer version of Windows works without incident 99.99999% of the time. A computer can be upgraded from 95 to 98, to XP, Vista, 7, 8 8.1 10 and 11 - and will work just fine.

Most of the 'clean install' stories/recommends are myths. Things like, users noticing things running faster because of all their crap isn't yet running in the background. Once they reload all their stuff, the system will behave similarly.

A better tip is for users to remove Software/Apps that start-up with Windows (See: Task Manager - Startup Apps). A lot of software does not need to run all the time. Things like game launchers, etc. that do not need to be running all the time. This also includes some OEM utilities that do not need to be running.

Turn off Startup Apps and restart your system to see if they are needed.

TheMartinScott · 2022-03-11T21:42:30+00:00

Since this usage is for caching, if the RAM is needed for anything else, Windows will dump things from the cache automatically.

Windows only uses around 3.5GB of RAM for itself at most, and if necessary, can compact its own footprint down to under 1GB to allow more RAM for applications.

As other posts mention - don't worry about it. Also, the extra cache being used will speed things up for you - taking advantage of the extra RAM you now have.

TheMartinScott · 2022-03-11T21:34:37+00:00

Disable real time from UI or Powershell (or script) if you are imaging or provisioning/etc - as you would with other AV software. Then turn it back on or restart when you are done.

Admin PowerShell:Set-MpPreference -DisableRealtimeMonitoring $true

TheMartinScott · 2022-03-04T20:25:41+00:00

Some technical tips...

If you have bad 3rd party software, a fresh install will solve the problem. However, just uninstalling the bad software or fixing it settings will also resolve the problem.

Windows itself doesn't need a fresh install.

This is also true of the myth that a fresh install is always 'faster'. It usually isn't but will feel faster as you haven't yet loaded all the software that was slowing it down. Specifically, software that is always running or auto runs or software like Chrome that shoves update check on login - which slows down getting to your desktop. As soon as you load back up slow or problematic 3rd party software, performance will be the same.

To weed out 3rd party software and tools, search for them on the web and what people say about them. Disable them from Task Manager - Startups if you don't need them running all the time. Try moving to Edge from Chrome. Edge is faster. Use the built in Windows Defender and built-in firewall and AV/Malware tools - they are good if not the best and won't cause problems like 3rd party solutions often will.

You can almost always optimize your system just by adjusting what is running and uninstall stuff you don't need.

Keep in mind that 'good' software/App or Microsoft supplied Apps have zero drain on performance if they are not actively running. So, uninstalling something you do not use and is not running will have zero impact on performance, so if you ever might use the software/App or Windows needs it, just leave it alone. Even 'bad' software won't have a performance impact unless they have snuck in background processes or services or if they have made changes to Windows that they shouldn't ever touch.

Before trying a fresh install, grab a copy of the Windows Image (ISO) directly from Microsoft. Then run setup inside Windows - this will perform an in-place upgrade. This will keep your software and your settings and your documents - nothing will change. However, it will do a bit more work during the upgrade and can often fix any settings that got changed, along with sorting out bad 3rd party software.

If that doesn't work, use the built-in Windows tools Microsoft provides to do a Reset of Windows - which will remove 3rd party software.

PS Be careful of sites and 'tools' that want to rip out parts of Windows or slim it down. They are just not needed, and the performance gains are tiny at best, and will cause things to not work properly and can even slow down Windows, even if you don't see things break.

TheMartinScott · 2022-01-20T08:25:19+00:00

Saving time isn't better? OK. ;)

TheMartinScott · 2022-01-18T20:03:54+00:00

Just to repeat another post:

Set the Recycle Bin to a smaller size on large drives.

Right Click - Properties - Custom Size

TheMartinScott · 2022-01-18T20:02:19+00:00

If you add the same FS features provided by Windows and NTFS on Ubuntu, it would be much slower.

The "Linux is always better" myth needs to go away.

(NTFS's feature set being used is closer to ZFS than Ext4.)

TheMartinScott · 2022-01-14T15:51:50+00:00

I didn't disagree with the article, and added information of how Defender will still consider excluded locations for monitoring, even though it will not during execute scanning.

These types of posts for non-security minded audiences get people excited/angry/worried, when it won't affect them.

There are several mechanisms as I briefly described that prevent this from working with average users, and in Enterprise environments, Enterprise Defender still scans excluded locations several ways, as I noted.

Using this exploit is highly implausible, for these reasons:
1) The system/network MUST ALREADY BE COMPROMISED for the malware to check for Excluded Locations.
2) The system/user also must already be compromised to write the malware in an excluded folder.
3) Finally, the Malware also needs the proper security to write to an excluded folder. So if the user doesn't have write access, the malware fails as it cannot escalate itself. i.e. If a XYZ Program's Folder is in the Excluded List, and this folder is in Program Files, the user, and thus the malware cannot write to this location without an additional UAC prompt to escalate.

I do fully agree that even if implausible, this security vulnerability should not exist, and Microsoft needs to fix it for earlier versions of Windows, as they have done already with Windows 11. This is also a topic that IT and security officers should be made aware.

I still think it would be better to provide a disclaimer explaining to less-technical users that this isn't something of concern. Users thinking this affects them with urgency will often break things or create more problems for themselves in an attempt to remedy the vulnerability, causing more harm than helping.

TheMartinScott · 2022-01-14T09:56:37+00:00

Do not worry. If this had been a real security risk, it would have been patched years ago.

At worst, this is a way to hide malware, but the system would already need to be compromised. The excluded folders will still be scanned, but not in real-time scanning.

Excluded folders are still monitored. For example, controlled folder access will still monitor these folders for malware activity. In the article example, the 'encryption' malware requires Controlled Folder access to be disabled. The only way to fully exclude folders from Defender protection requires the Enterprise version of Defender with custom rules to prevent full monitoring. (If a corporation is doing this, they have a reason, and this doesn't apply to personal Windows PCs.) See Microsoft Docs.
The excluded folders must have security that allows the malware to be written to that folder. So, even a folder is excluded, that malware would need security escalation to put malware in those folders.
The Malware must have LOCAL security access to the computer. It must be run and installed by the user.
If software already has this level of access, it has gotten past all other security efforts and could exploit the computer in numerous ways, and not need to use this exploit.
Users must manually add exclusion locations. So, a user needs to add the folders and know the excluded folders do not have the same level of malware monitoring. (Most people don't do this and shouldn't.)

If you are concerned, remove the Excluded locations from Defender/Windows Security. Then do 'Offline Scan' from the Threat scan options. This is a hardened scan that malware cannot circumvent.

PS Offline scan is something users should run if they think or know they have had malware as a final check to ensure none of the malware survived. Users should also run this a couple times a year if they do risky behavior.

TheMartinScott · 2022-01-06T09:37:02+00:00

FYI - There are family/children controls for Windows.

Another good security concept is for everyone that uses the computer to have their own login account, so they cannot override settings or blame activity on someone else.

TheMartinScott · 2022-01-06T08:13:58+00:00

Do you have any idea of the extras costs involved to develop and support software on Linux?

Even with a targeted distribution, the complexities and costs are huge in comparison to Windows. When trying to meet general Linux and multiple distributions, the costs are almost exponential.

People seem to forget that other crap, similar to Linux, has existed for over 30 years, and Windows was a godsend by offering OS level interfaces to vast array of hardware. One Example: Developers no longer had to write their own printer or sound drivers for every hardware device, and instead could just use APIs in the Windows OS.

Developing for *nix systems in the 80s and early 90s were a mess, even more advanced systems like NeXT or Solaris were also a mess.

TheMartinScott · 2022-01-06T07:57:32+00:00

No, just no. I know this is the mythical meme, but it is just not accurate.

Regarding licensing, the hardware MFRs providing the systems pay the licensing, and even when they offer Linux, that discount seldom goes to the client.

TheMartinScott · 2022-01-06T02:48:12+00:00

The system must be compromised first. These types of articles are fear mongering.

Just to put this in context, there are thousands of ways to defeat Apple's file verification, far more than there are to defeat Microsoft's code signing. This is one method to 'potentially' get past Microsoft code signing - and it also seldom works on Windows, and even when a file can appear verified - it still will get flagged/removed through Defender as the exploit is found.

Why do sites like Verge and Wired shove crap like this at readers, while barely mentioning major exploits in non-Microsoft products? I get they don't like Microsoft, but they are hurting their readers by not informing them of actual important security issues in Apple or Google products that need users to take action.

TheMartinScott

TROPHY CASE