Oh, it's extremely thoroughly commented. That isn't an issue.

When you're dealing with a sheer amount of documentation numbering in the thousands, and having to deal with finding obscure references buried in a page you vaguely remember reading previously, and *think* it might have been open at the same time as $unrelated_project .... correlation becomes a huge pain in the ass, even keeping extensive notes and comments.

"Reference number xx page number xx" is great, if that's all you need. I've got code comment blocks explaining functionality that are 2x-3x larger than the code they're explaining (such as register definitions and how they function). Which is all well and great, until you realize that something in the implementation is causing a flaw in the nested emulator that executes option roms, and can't remember which specific revision of that Compaq document you need, since that code isn't actually part of *your* code, but part of software executing inside it, therefore, isn't commented. But it is documented elsewhere.....

"It's easy to validate that the data both is not now and will never be sent home during don'ti other operation like updates you can't permanently disable? How do you plan to do that?"

Same way I do currently, managed update service (SCCM/MECM, or WSUS if you're cheap) and reading/configuring the system per MS documentation and DISA standards, same way we manage our work fleets. No surprise or unexpected updates occur at all without our control, and the SCCM instance I manage has about 40,000 workstations connected to it. We keep an *extremely* close eye on it, given our industry, but again - done per vendor documentation & gov security standards, no surprises.

Barring that, local GPO is a perfectly valid option for a home user to twiddle all the dials to your hearts content. WUfB settings are a way that home users can also pin to specific OS release versions, and not receive any surprise OS update.

As to the other point, I could have put validate/validated with a slash like that, but "easy to validate" is how it was meant to be read, the (and already has been) was an inserted information snippet to point out that such things have already been explored. The bigger point to my comment was that you missed the entire contents of my post, and focused only on the source code aspect, which is a very well already solved solution. The *context* around code, however, is often far more difficult to capture effectively.

Except Recall isn't exporting any data to MS at all.... and that's easy to (and already has been) validate. It's all machine-local only. But that doesn't make for good headlines, i guess.....

And who needs a GUI to use git? I suppose if you don't know how to read a manual you might, but I haven't needed a GUI except where it's IDE integrated .... but on other platforms I don't have such a luxury - such as those where I actually deploy/run most of my code.

If you actually could understand and read english, you'd realize that i'm talking about far more than just the code itself, at any rate. The sheer amount of systems and platform documentation I deal with is staggering to most people, since emulation isn't exactly simple when you're trying to gain full functionality and it's not your bog standard x86 platform.

It's all well versioned in git.

The point isn't the code - it's the systems reference manuals and documentation, of which the library i've curated spans *thousands* of documents, just for a single platform.

The code is searchable, no problem. History? Got it, etc....

"When I implemented XYZ, which 1989 document revision did I use?" - File modification dates are zero help here. Even code comments aren't useful, since I've got tons of examples of documents that are versioned and named the same but are different - and I want to apply true to one specific specification, not potentially introduce compatibility issues.

As it is now, I just have five copies of VS open, about 30 VMs running, and 170 or so browser/document tabs open. It can take me an hour or two just to find something when debugging a single instruction execution cycle. And I keep *extensive* notes and code comments too, in an effort to reduce the time it takes me to find things. I've legitimately thought about installing a local instance of sharepoint to use the managed metadata service, JIRA, and currently use splunk *just to try and find reference documentation*. And yes, that's a horrible abuse of splunk, i'm aware.

Windows Recall is literally the reason i'm buying my first ARM computer, so I *can* have this functionality (and test/build my code on ARM).

Having the ability to pull up and correlate which systems documentation I had open while a specific source file in VS was open will be invaluable to me.

That being said, the code i'm working on....... is primarily deployed on SPARC/Solaris systems. So it's a double whammy when you think about that for me to actually want this feature. I've tried to implement similar before on linux platforms (similar to recall, that is) but beyond screenshots and dumping browser/system logs into splunk, haven't come remotely close.

As an emulator developer, i see huge use cases for this.

"When I was working on the S3 code for the Itanium platform, which version of dosbox-x was i referencing for S3 register functions?"

"Which version of the S3 documentation of the five I have all timestamped the same was I referring to when I had this source file open?"

Etc.

I'm actually excited for it - and may buy a new capable system *just to have this functionality*.

My next desktop build will also be focused on enabling this to work .... when they bring it to x86 instead of just ARM anyway. Q3 intel releases that should be capable of supporting it are just around the corner.

Note: I develop mainly on winidows, but most of my code is deployed/runs on linux and solaris. Emulation I work on is for supporting legacy systems from the 80s/90s.

" When Win10 support ends, you can stick to an unsupported Win10, use a hacked unsupported Win11, or buy a new computer."

If your computer is older than 2017, I feel bad for you.

If your computer is older than 8-9 years in 2025, I feel even worse for you.

99% of consumers won't even notice.

"* Not only those companies can enter the ESU, they can also choose to use Win10 LTSC 2021, keeping their machines secure until early 2027 at no additional cost (again the ESU is paid)."

LTSC is not something we at medium/large companies use. My business unit is only 40,000 users out of our company. LTSC is expressly forbidden, from both a management and security perspective.

LTSC is allowed *on embedded devices* that we manufacture. That's it. Nothing else.

LTSC should *never* be used as a general purpose desktop OS - it's literally the remplacement for embedded/POSReady/Industry Pro, and tooled as such.

The software we develop and sell won't even run on it due to missing APIs and services.

It's amazing .... how many sites i've had to migrate *off* of LTSC because of an IT guy who "knew better" ..... and decided to use it instead of regular mainline Pro/Enterprise.

Application support, security functionality, games, etc.....

Why are people so bloody fixated on using windows embedded (Or POSReady or Industry Pro or $insert_name_here) which is tooled for ... essentially, single application kiosk purposes, as a desktop OS? It's not fit for purpose.

>Also, their goal is to run classical windows (NT, XP), it's not even designed to replace recent versions of Windows. It is like FreeDOS, to run legacy software (that don't run on recent Windows). It's nit for people who don't like Microsoft, it's for people who don't like Wine.

Scope changed a while ago. Target for software support is NT6+ (Vista, 8, 10 at the time of announcement of official policy shift in 2018).

They're chasing lower, but still moving targets, not fixed in time.

And the baseline target is NT5.2 anyway, which is a far cry further than they've been in the past - the initial target was NT4, then NT5, then NT 5.1, now NT5.2, and soon will probably rebaseline on NT6 in the next year or two.

That won't find embeded office engine components in other applications - which is probably what they're really trying to find out. Like access engine components I have in an application i wrote - they're office 2010 components. (And yes, they are freely redistributable as embedded components).

Registry and start links won't tell you shit about these, and there is a /huge/ base of these types of components out there in lots and lots of software.

That's what they want to know.

That won't find embeded office engine components in other applications - which is probably what they're really trying to find out. Like access engine components I have in an application i wrote - they're office 2010 components. (And yes, they are freely redistributable as embedded components).

Registry and start links won't tell you shit about these, and there is a /huge/ base of these types of components out there in lots and lots of software.

Windows 11 IOT core is windows without a shell capable of running one application only.

Windows 11 IOT Enterpriae is binary identical to full windows 11 (both annual and LTSC release available) but extremely limited license wise - only one application the OEM installing IOT wrote authorized, no desktop usage, explicitly bans ATM usage (since LTSC mainline is the replacement for windows embedded anyway) etc even though itâ(TM)s identical (except a few extra management functions such as filter driver config etc - in theory)

Installer/upgrade bug. Do it on a machine that doesn't have a prior version. TPM 1.2 is fine - 2.0 is only a hard req for consumer shipping devices (almost all in the past 5-8 years, and win10 has had 2.0 hard req for a while.)

Well known on the internet. Also happens in VM

Wipe the drive (no previous windows version) and it should install fine.

"2) The option to purchase Win10 Enterprise without similar market-segmenting bullshit involving MS "Partners" who refuse to deal with purchases of anything less than enterprise-numbers of seats.

I'm even willing to pay a premium (leaving aside the fact that Win10 "Pro" is the functional equivalent of Win7 "Home" when it comes to end user control over the OS) for the right to have a registry entry or group policy of "Telemetry:None" respected an honored.

Microsoft will not sell it to me."

Uh, have you tried talking to CDW? Literally to get Win10 enterprise, yes, you need a volume license agreement, but you only need 5 SKU items ..... so you buy 1 license of 10 enterprise and 4 stupid cheap CALs. adds like $20 extra to the total price, but you get that sweet MAK and KMS key so you ah, can uh activate everything *cough cough* on the network.