How to neuter Win7's 'net tendencies?

[NecronomicoN]

I am about to reformat but thought I'd ask a couple of questions this time around.

1) I remember back in XP there was an in-built net limiter that shaved off some of your available bandwidth, reserving it for background Windows Update tasks. Does this exist in Win7, and if so, how do I kill it with fire?

2) How do I get Win7 to stop being such an internet !@#$%? What I mean is, whenever I open a file like .dat or .r3s, a dialogue box opens asking if I want to search the web for a related program, or choose one from a list of those already installed. Why does it default to the web? Really bugs me that MS is advertising in context menus. How do I get it to default to 'choose from a list of installed programs', without permanently associating file extensions with random programs?

Anyone got any ideas?

Thanks in advance.

[ik9000]

sorry can't help, but signing up as I'm interested in the answer to this one.

[jimbouk]

1) Disable Windows updates, though please do them regularly for security reasons

2) Right click and open with.

[NecronomicoN]

Ignore jimbouk.

Having looked around this is what I've learned:

1) Windows Update and Reservable Bandwidth are not associated with each other. The QoS Packet Scheduler is the gatekeeper, and Windows Update is just a petitioner. However, in Windows 7, this feature is left unconfigured, meaning it isn't in effect. There is no issue to solve.

2) To skip the "use the web service to find the correct program" garbage, open Regedit.
- Navigate to HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\Explorer
- If Explorer tab isn't there, create it by right-clicking on "Policies" and selecting New > Key. Name the key "Explorer".
- Right-click anywhere in the open space of the Explorer tab, select New > Dword (32-bit) value. Name it "NoInternetOpenWith" and asign a value of 1 to it.
- Close Regedit and reboot.

[jimbouk]

Cheers Necro. So from what you're saying Windows Update downloading won't take up your bandwidth?

Next time I'll just post a link to lmgtfy rather than trying to be helpful...

[NecronomicoN]

Of course it will, while it's downloading. But there isn't some phantom allotment of bandwidth available just to Windows Update; it competes with every other program for its share of your total available bandwidth. It may, at times, be given priority, but that has zero to do with reserves.

If you wanted to be helpful... well, I was hoping someone with knowledge would provide an answer. Or in the case of the second item, actually read the question.

[Saracen]

Of course it will, while it's downloading. But there isn't some phantom allotment of bandwidth available just to Windows Update; it competes with every other program for its share of your total available bandwidth. It may, at times, be given priority, but that has zero to do with reserves.

If you wanted to be helpful... well, I was hoping someone with knowledge would provide an answer. Or in the case of the second item, actually read the question.

So, don't you think a polite redirect at the question might have been more productive than a surly, if not downright rude "ignore jimbo".

Jimbo is a long-standing, widely respected and generally helpful member who was trying to help. So such a dismissive attitude is not going to encourage anyone else to bother trying, is it now?

If you take that line with everyone that doesn't give exactly the info you're after, I wouldn't like to bet how many people will bother to try to help in future. You might want to think about that a bit, because you'll never know who else may have seen that reply and just decided to spend their time helping someone else.

I do know if I tried to help someone and got that reaction, it's the last time I'd try to help that person, and I also wouldn't bother if someone I respected got that reaction.

Honey tastes better than vinegar, you know.

[TheAnimus]

I am about to reformat but thought I'd ask a couple of questions this time around.

1) I remember back in XP there was an in-built net limiter that shaved off some of your available bandwidth, reserving it for background Windows Update tasks. Does this exist in Win7, and if so, how do I kill it with fire?

It's called QoS and it really doesn't work like you think it does.

A lot of people have this tendency to want to 'fix' things without understanding what they are. I would suggest not doing that.

[NecronomicoN]

So, don't you think a polite redirect at the question might have been more productive than a surly, if not downright rude "ignore jimbo".

Jimbo is a long-standing, widely respected and generally helpful member who was trying to help. So such a dismissive attitude is not going to encourage anyone else to bother trying, is it now?

Saracen-- he's built credibility with you. He hasn't built it with me. Respect is earned through interaction. I'm new here, and this was how he introduced himself to my world. And his response left me scratching my head, going, "But what does this have to do with my questions? " So yes, best option is to forget it happened, ignore it. I would not have bothered to mention it (or reply at all) if a second interested party had not been here.

It's called QoS and it really doesn't work like you think it does.

A lot of people have this tendency to want to 'fix' things without understanding what they are. I would suggest not doing that.

You're right. I learned what it was when I searched elsewhere for the Win 7 solution to this issue, only to find there was no issue, and what I had previously believed true in XP, was in fact a fallacy the whole time.

[jimbouk]

And his response left me scratching my head, going, "But what does this have to do with my questions?

Responses were workarounds based on my personal experiences, unfortunately I wasn't able to quote registry keys off the top of my head and I only had a couple of minutes to answer.

Hopefully we're all now clear that the QoS Packet Scheduler still exists in Windows 7, and still does what it says on the tin. Claims that in XP it ever actually reduced the bandwidth available to other applications are wrong [1] (and since when would Windows Update be considered a real-time process that would require QoS?)

Question 2. Registry hack, good answer. If you haven't got admin rights on your machine then see my response for a workaround.

Anyway no hard feelings I hope, we just seem to have got off on a bad foot on this thread (and happily in agreement on another thread I see).

Much Hexus love to one and all

[TheAnimus]

2) How do I get Win7 to stop being such an internet !@#$%? What I mean is, whenever I open a file like .dat or .r3s, a dialogue box opens asking if I want to search the web for a related program, or choose one from a list of those already installed. Why does it default to the web? Really bugs me that MS is advertising in context menus. How do I get it to default to 'choose from a list of installed programs', without permanently associating file extensions with random programs?

Hmm, I was thinking about this again, and I want to suggest relaxing a bit!

SmartScreen is a really handy feature, that involves sending the binaries signature/hash to MS for threat approximation. That should be more of a worrying hog, but is a great threat mitigation tech.

The idea of checking online for filetype extensions goes to the new windows store for applications it thinks can use it.

I wouldn't have thought either of these are bad! If you're on a metered connection (ie 3g data limited) you could look at instructing windows to go in to metered mode, which turns off all but more essential operations. (Also disables windows update for that interface.)

[Saracen]

Saracen-- he's built credibility with you. He hasn't built it with me. Respect is earned through interaction. I'm new here, and this was how he introduced himself to my world. And his response left me scratching my head, going, "But what does this have to do with my questions? " So yes, best option is to forget it happened, ignore it. I would not have bothered to mention it (or reply at all) if a second interested party had not .....

Ignoring it would be an option. Posting "ignore jimbo" is, at best, a surly response to someone trying to help you. And it's entirely unnecessary when a far more polite response, or none at all, would have done.

[NecronomicoN]

Hmm, I was thinking about this again, and I want to suggest relaxing a bit!

SmartScreen is a really handy feature, that involves sending the binaries signature/hash to MS for threat approximation. That should be more of a worrying hog, but is a great threat mitigation tech.

The idea of checking online for filetype extensions goes to the new windows store for applications it thinks can use it.

I wouldn't have thought either of these are bad! If you're on a metered connection (ie 3g data limited) you could look at instructing windows to go in to metered mode, which turns off all but more essential operations. (Also disables windows update for that interface.)

I don't have SmartScreen. If I did, it wouldn't be allowed to run though, as it sounds like nanny-ware. I'm a paranoid user. I stop as many things from getting out as I do from getting in. I run Flash-heavy pages in Sandboxie. I block Java. I block scripts. I review every URL before I open a link. I check email headers. Windows Update isn't allowed to install anything without my express consent. Internet Explorer doesn't exist on my machine. WMP doesn't exist on my machine. I do occasional checks for garbage like SecuROM that manage to end up on my system.

What bothers me is the very act of Windows thinking it will find a program at Microsoft that is better than what I already have installed, and would prefer to use. The reason I don't associate file types with specific programs is that I manipulate them in different ways, with different programs.



Any program that is using my internet against my wishes is subject to burning at the stake.

[NecronomicoN]

You know what, maybe I'm not as good at expressing myself in english as I think I am. It's hard to express tone in the written word. I do apologize if I seemed short or rude previously.

[bledd]

I'm pretty sure that ~10% of your connection was reserved by QOS when XP first came out. Seem to recall reading this a while back.

Or was it, if you find a QOS capable application, then QOS will give it 10% of your connection upon request. The rest of the time it will give the user 100% of the connection.



As always, there is a lot of mis-information and bad tweaks available for Windows, I think this may be one of them.

[Bluecube]

This was back in the dial up modem days for me. I remember there was a 'tweak' which involved ensuring QoS was turned off. I'm sure I got an extra 1kb/s by doing this!