B
Bolan
I found a thread with a closely related question (here), asking HOW to do it instead of WHY, but that thread was locked and I was unable to comment on it, or request some/any form of input from MS, hence this new question.
For those just looking for the answer to HOW, visit here (same link as above) because the one response it received is a perfectly valid answer/work-around; just make your own one-color picture and use that. Alternately, see here for a Registry hack that has worked for some (but not all) people.
For those like me, who would like an explanation (for ONCE) instead of a work-around, stay-tuned and see if MS decides to make an appearance. (This could get interesting). But be warned - this post goes WAAAAY off topic and touches on a whole range of related and semi-related issues, including Windows-Update, Visual-Studio, and China. (Okay, i tossed China in there just to see if you were paying attention).
Let me start by saying the fact that a working registry hack even exists means that this 'feature' wasn't removed, it was just hidden from us, but the same question remains - Why? I honestly can't recall if I ever saw this feature actually functioning in Win-10 since it's not something very high on my priority list, it's just one of those million little things you try to fix or address when time allows. Well, I got me a bunch of time, so here we are. (I hope you like reading).
Setting my Lock-Screen to a solid color may seem like such a small thing (which in fact it IS, in the big picture), but when you bundle it up with the other eleven-teen-hundred 'small things' that MS changes/adds/removes/renames/relocates CONSTANTLY, it gets very old very fast.
I suspect (guess) this option may have worked in the original release of Win-10, but was removed by one of those updates in the never-ending stream of updates. To be fair, each update generally includes a link you can follow that "explains" what that update is for. But if you have ever tried to follow those links, you know what a near complete waste of time they are (you have about a 5% chance of finding anything useful). Each one you follow equates to another few wasted minutes of your life you will never get back. Here is a little 'fast-and-loose' math on that topic:
Conservatively, that's AT LEAST 5 HOURS EVERY MONTH just to READ about what MS is doing to YOUR system. Note that this does not include the time you spend searching the internet and in forums like this trying to find a human-readable answer.
I realize that nobody actually reads any of those things (though I have tried) let alone all of them. I imagine that's just about what MS expects and prefers, but that is just an 'IMO'. I'd love to hear MS's take on that. Do they expect their user-base to spend hours every month just to read about the changes being forcefully made to their system, or do they expect everyone to just remain ignorant of what they are doing and blindly accept it? Have they even considered this at all?
The argument that these updates are needed to help keep us safe is an extremely poor argument, because it means that the system is so flawed that it requires a constant stream of updates to plug all the holes and stability issues as they are found. Here's a thought - how about you (MS) DON'T release a new version until it IS stable and safe for us to use? I know, I know - crazy talk. Without all us guinea-pigs, how would MS even find them all? (*cough* with decent programmers AND management *cough*).
So here we are on the 12th commercially available version (*) of windows (that I know of - not including variations and Service-Packs) and we STILL need to hack our own system to make it work in a consistent manner (or 'at all' in some cases). I know this because I have been unfortunate enough to have had to use all but three of them - ME, Win-8 and Vista - all complete failures which I refused to work with. But to be fair to those three utter catastrophes, Win-2, 3 (all flavors), 95, 98 and ME were no prize-stallions either, and Win-10 is on shaky ground. Basically, TWO of the TWELVE versions MS has released have been pretty good, XP and 7, which explains why people are still using them wherever and whenever they can. (I know that they had the drag me kicking and screaming away from 7 and into 10. But I STILL have my XP box - TRY to take that away from me - I double-dog-dare you).
Add stuff no one asked for, take away stuff people used, change the name and location of everything else - the Microsoft mantra it would seem. Oh, and I forgot - steal or high-jack (or break) whatever technology/code you can from the community and your competitors. C# is a recent and perfect case-and-point being the most creative way to spell JAVA I've ever seen.
And speaking of stealing IP, don't even get me started on how MS is now forcing all developers using .NET to effectively expose their source code to the world, and has been doing so for many years (sans the CORE C developers - lucky muckers). Excellent job on that one - I always wanted to let people steal my IP, I just couldn't figure out how to make is so simple! Thank you ever so much. (Thought that might explain where MS is getting all the code for their 'new' features!). Of course I do have the option to pay a 3rd party THOUSANDS of dollars a year to obfuscate my code, but that just makes it a little more difficult to de-compile, it's not anything resembling impossible. Bravo! I can't wait for the encore! Maybe we just skip the compiling all together and just ship the source code along with a blank-check! (Sorry, I let it get a little off the rails there. It's far smarter and easier to just keep letting the developers think that they are actually compiling their code - that way they don't get so upset or suspicious).
So that's it, question asked and rant finished. But I really do expect an answer from an MS moderator on the Lock-Screen/Solid-Color issue. I would LOVE IT if I could say, just once in my life, that MS answered a question with an honest and straight forward answer. And if they want to try their luck on the other issues I raised or pointed out, I encourage them to do so.
(*) : Win-2, 3, 95, 98, NT, XP, ME, 2000, Vista, 7, 8, and 10 are the ones I remember (may not be entirely in chronological order), but wasn't there a 'Bob' in there somewhere?)
Continue reading...
For those just looking for the answer to HOW, visit here (same link as above) because the one response it received is a perfectly valid answer/work-around; just make your own one-color picture and use that. Alternately, see here for a Registry hack that has worked for some (but not all) people.
For those like me, who would like an explanation (for ONCE) instead of a work-around, stay-tuned and see if MS decides to make an appearance. (This could get interesting). But be warned - this post goes WAAAAY off topic and touches on a whole range of related and semi-related issues, including Windows-Update, Visual-Studio, and China. (Okay, i tossed China in there just to see if you were paying attention).
Let me start by saying the fact that a working registry hack even exists means that this 'feature' wasn't removed, it was just hidden from us, but the same question remains - Why? I honestly can't recall if I ever saw this feature actually functioning in Win-10 since it's not something very high on my priority list, it's just one of those million little things you try to fix or address when time allows. Well, I got me a bunch of time, so here we are. (I hope you like reading).
Setting my Lock-Screen to a solid color may seem like such a small thing (which in fact it IS, in the big picture), but when you bundle it up with the other eleven-teen-hundred 'small things' that MS changes/adds/removes/renames/relocates CONSTANTLY, it gets very old very fast.
I suspect (guess) this option may have worked in the original release of Win-10, but was removed by one of those updates in the never-ending stream of updates. To be fair, each update generally includes a link you can follow that "explains" what that update is for. But if you have ever tried to follow those links, you know what a near complete waste of time they are (you have about a 5% chance of finding anything useful). Each one you follow equates to another few wasted minutes of your life you will never get back. Here is a little 'fast-and-loose' math on that topic:
- Estimate an avg of 100 updates per month
- Estimate a VERY modest 3 minutes per update to read the text and follow the additional related reference links they include.
Conservatively, that's AT LEAST 5 HOURS EVERY MONTH just to READ about what MS is doing to YOUR system. Note that this does not include the time you spend searching the internet and in forums like this trying to find a human-readable answer.
I realize that nobody actually reads any of those things (though I have tried) let alone all of them. I imagine that's just about what MS expects and prefers, but that is just an 'IMO'. I'd love to hear MS's take on that. Do they expect their user-base to spend hours every month just to read about the changes being forcefully made to their system, or do they expect everyone to just remain ignorant of what they are doing and blindly accept it? Have they even considered this at all?
The argument that these updates are needed to help keep us safe is an extremely poor argument, because it means that the system is so flawed that it requires a constant stream of updates to plug all the holes and stability issues as they are found. Here's a thought - how about you (MS) DON'T release a new version until it IS stable and safe for us to use? I know, I know - crazy talk. Without all us guinea-pigs, how would MS even find them all? (*cough* with decent programmers AND management *cough*).
So here we are on the 12th commercially available version (*) of windows (that I know of - not including variations and Service-Packs) and we STILL need to hack our own system to make it work in a consistent manner (or 'at all' in some cases). I know this because I have been unfortunate enough to have had to use all but three of them - ME, Win-8 and Vista - all complete failures which I refused to work with. But to be fair to those three utter catastrophes, Win-2, 3 (all flavors), 95, 98 and ME were no prize-stallions either, and Win-10 is on shaky ground. Basically, TWO of the TWELVE versions MS has released have been pretty good, XP and 7, which explains why people are still using them wherever and whenever they can. (I know that they had the drag me kicking and screaming away from 7 and into 10. But I STILL have my XP box - TRY to take that away from me - I double-dog-dare you).
Add stuff no one asked for, take away stuff people used, change the name and location of everything else - the Microsoft mantra it would seem. Oh, and I forgot - steal or high-jack (or break) whatever technology/code you can from the community and your competitors. C# is a recent and perfect case-and-point being the most creative way to spell JAVA I've ever seen.
And speaking of stealing IP, don't even get me started on how MS is now forcing all developers using .NET to effectively expose their source code to the world, and has been doing so for many years (sans the CORE C developers - lucky muckers). Excellent job on that one - I always wanted to let people steal my IP, I just couldn't figure out how to make is so simple! Thank you ever so much. (Thought that might explain where MS is getting all the code for their 'new' features!). Of course I do have the option to pay a 3rd party THOUSANDS of dollars a year to obfuscate my code, but that just makes it a little more difficult to de-compile, it's not anything resembling impossible. Bravo! I can't wait for the encore! Maybe we just skip the compiling all together and just ship the source code along with a blank-check! (Sorry, I let it get a little off the rails there. It's far smarter and easier to just keep letting the developers think that they are actually compiling their code - that way they don't get so upset or suspicious).
So that's it, question asked and rant finished. But I really do expect an answer from an MS moderator on the Lock-Screen/Solid-Color issue. I would LOVE IT if I could say, just once in my life, that MS answered a question with an honest and straight forward answer. And if they want to try their luck on the other issues I raised or pointed out, I encourage them to do so.
(*) : Win-2, 3, 95, 98, NT, XP, ME, 2000, Vista, 7, 8, and 10 are the ones I remember (may not be entirely in chronological order), but wasn't there a 'Bob' in there somewhere?)
Continue reading...