# Windows 10 v2004



## storm5510 (Mar 26, 2009)

Someone would have started something similar sometime or other, so I will do it now.

I recently updated to v1909. Now, there is an optional download for v2004 in the Update & Security settings. Note: Optional. I don't know how long it will stay optional. My v1909 update was a blending in with v1903 elements. I downloaded the v1909 ISO and extracted it, using PowerISO, onto a secondary hard drive and ran the setup from there.

I have learned, through much experience, not to jump on something new when it comes out. I intend to wait and see what happens. I make regular drive image backups, so if this update goes into "push" mode, I have something to fall back onto if it goes sour.


----------



## britechguy (Dec 6, 2019)

There have been some bumps, there always are, with the early roll out of Windows 10 Version 2004.

You can allow that "Download and install" in the Windows Update Pane of Update & Security Settings unactivated for months on end, if you so choose.

I never jump on them in the first month now that it's entirely up to me whether I download and install once that link appears. After a month to two months I generally just go for it when it appears if it hasn't already appeared before then.

I've not yet had a Feature Update go completely, utterly south on any machine I own or on any client machine. It can and does happen, but it's quite rare, and the longer a version has been in release, the less likely it becomes. By the time six months have passed since initial release I have never even heard of a Feature Update failing (on machines where someone has not cleverly "blocked" all sorts of Windows Updates that should have been applied).


----------



## Stancestans (Apr 26, 2009)

There really is no reason to go for it this soon, unless you're itching to try out the new features if any. I give it at least three months before upgrading. You could always fire up a VM and clean install a copy of the new release to test out the new features if curiosity gets the best of you. I upgraded to 1909 in March, hit a black screen hurdle (Classic Shell was the culprit), restored a backup taken immediately before the attempt, got rid of classic shell and it was smooth sailing from there. Once again, the importance of backing up couldn't be emphasised enough.


----------



## Gary R (Jul 23, 2008)

W10 1909 is supported until May11 2021 ... https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifecycle-fact-sheet ... so there's no need for anyone to rush to 2004.

Like the others who have posted, I usually wait a few months for any bugs to be found and addressed before I even think about upgrading to a new version, and then only after I've backed up.


----------



## Corday (Mar 3, 2010)

When you do get around to installing V2004 here's a handy check-list of things to do: https://www.zdnet.com/article/after-windows-10-upgrade-do-these-seven-things-immediately/


----------



## xrobwx71 (Oct 24, 2019)

For me, 2004 has been stable. I have it on my gaming rig at home and have seen zero instabilities. 

I am an Insider so I've had it on a couple of machines for months with zero issues.

At work it's on 11 machines with varying configs with no issues.

That being said, all the above advice is good advice to wait if you're not ready.

As far as the "new" features go, my everyday use doesn't even notice them.


----------



## britechguy (Dec 6, 2019)

xrobwx71 said:


> As far as the "new" features go, my everyday use doesn't even notice them.


I'm way more than willing to bet that this is true for 99% of users 99% of the time.

All operating systems are designed as Swiss-army knife type software, meant to support many different (and sometimes conflicting) user bases to do vastly different things. They're not bespoke and meant to fit any single user like a glove.

In the case of Windows 10, all of "the basics" have been around for decades now. Most, though not all, of what keeps getting added to the OS allows it to better serve certain niches of the user base. If you're not in one of those niches, you're not even likely to realize anything's happened.

Then there are things like the changing of the behavior of indexing in Version 2004 to have much lower priority, and to pause its activity when the end user is doing virtually anything. People with HDDs as their OS drive may notice things feel "snappier" as a result, but they'd have no idea of why.

Feature Updates are not revolutionary, but evolutionary.


----------



## storm5510 (Mar 26, 2009)

britechguy said:


> There have been some bumps, there always are, with the early roll out of Windows 10 Version 2004.
> 
> *You can allow that "Download and install" in the Windows Update Pane of Update & Security Settings unactivated for months on end, if you so choose.*
> 
> ...


I changed the date to 7/11/2020. 35 days. Of course, I can wait until 7/01 and change it to 8/01, and so on. I am guessing the next one after this would be something like 2010. They seem to try to run in six month intervals. Perhaps it would be better if this was only once a year.


----------



## britechguy (Dec 6, 2019)

Also, and I know I've posted this before (but not here) during Feature Updates Past, but I just received the "Not Quite Ready" message in Settings, Update & Security, Windows Update Pane. (I've also attached the one I got for Version 1903, for comparison. It was taken with the whole pane visible, the one for Version 2004 is a detail).

Microsoft has gotten much better about keeping people informed during Feature Update rollouts and giving them control over exactly when (not whether) a Feature Update should be installed.


----------



## Sally78 (Jun 1, 2020)

storm5510 said:


> I changed the date to 7/11/2020. 35 days. Of course, I can wait until 7/01 and change it to 8/01, and so on. I am guessing the next one after this would be something like 2010. They seem to try to run in six month intervals. Perhaps it would be better if this was only once a year.


It is really good of you to do so?


----------



## geo791 (Feb 4, 2008)

@britechguy
Do you recommend turning drive indexing off, especially on SSDs? I have heard that by doing so, it is less wear and tear on the drives. Thanks.
Geo


----------



## britechguy (Dec 6, 2019)

geo791 said:


> @britechguy
> Do you recommend turning drive indexing off, especially on SSDs? I have heard that by doing so, it is less wear and tear on the drives. Thanks.
> Geo


I wouldn't hesitate to turn it off on SSDs, at least to experiment, so long as you change search to look in non-indexed locations.

Given the speed at which SSDs can be read, I really don't know whether indexing helps or not. Have you even checked to see if it's on, as Windows will detect drive type and may not even use it itself?

But, worries about "wear and tear" on SSDs should be a thing of the past. That's really not something that would weigh in my decision about indexing or turning it off at all.


----------



## geo791 (Feb 4, 2008)

britechguy said:


> I wouldn't hesitate to turn it off on SSDs, at least to experiment, so long as you change search to look in non-indexed locations.
> 
> Given the speed at which SSDs can be read, I really don't know whether indexing helps or not. Have you even checked to see if it's on, as Windows will detect drive type and may not even use it itself?
> 
> But, worries about "wear and tear" on SSDs should be a thing of the past. That's really not something that would weigh in my decision about indexing or turning it off at all.


How would one go about changing search to look in non-indexed loacations?
Yes, indexing was on by default but I unchecked the box to remove indexing on both my NVMe drive and the sata SSD storage drive. I have done a few file searches and it does seem to take more time than it should though.
Geo


----------



## britechguy (Dec 6, 2019)

geo791 said:


> How would one go about changing search to look in non-indexed loacations?


In an effort to avoid reinventing "wheels" which have already been invented, many times:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Windows+10+search+non-indexed 


The more files that have to be searched, SSD or no, the more time it will take if indexing is not used. On an SSD that can still be a tolerable amount of time even if everything is in a non-indexed location, but on an HDD, particularly a large one, it's not.


----------



## xrobwx71 (Oct 24, 2019)

Turn off indexing and then download and try this: Everything
You'll love it.

I'm not a huge 3rd party software fan but this little program is awesome and is on every computer I manage or own.
Uses very little resources and has a very small footprint.


----------



## jonnyb (May 23, 2006)

One thing that change on my Dell Latitude with the 2004 update was that the Task View started to work all by itself even though the icon was not on the task bar. So I would open up Chrome and move my cursor to something on the screen like some news story and immediately my Chrome would shrink up and put itself on the top left of the screen. The same thing happen with CCleaner. One move after the program was full screen it would shrink and go top left screen. This happened every time I turned on the computer. So I showed Task View again on the task bar, and then I hid it and that fixed it so far. Very annoying when trying to get some work done. I need a frustrated emoticon now.:sad:


----------



## britechguy (Dec 6, 2019)

xrobwx71 said:


> Turn off indexing and then download and try this: Everything
> You'll love it.
> 
> I'm not a huge 3rd party software fan but this little program is awesome and is on every computer I manage or own.
> Uses very little resources and has a very small footprint.



A *HUGE* second from me!!

There is one proviso, though: Everything searches on file name only, not file contents, and cannot be configured to look at file contents.

But if you're someone like myself, who virtually never searches on anything but file name, Everything is _vastly_ superior to and speedier than Windows Search.

Now, that makes me circle back to indexing, though. If you are someone who routinely finds themselves searching for files based on content, rather than name, I don't care if you have an SSD or HDD, you really need to have Windows Indexing on. I can't even imagine how long it would take to search on file content in unindexed locations.


----------



## Stancestans (Apr 26, 2009)

britechguy said:


> A *HUGE*There is one proviso, though: Everything searches on file name only, not file contents, and cannot be configured to look at file contents.


Yes it can and does search file contents, through its advanced search dialog. Search (menu) > Advanced Search.


----------



## britechguy (Dec 6, 2019)

Stancestans said:


> Yes it can and does search file contents, through its advanced search dialog. Search (menu) > Advanced Search.


You are absolutely correct, and I was not.

What I was recalling was this, from the Everything FAQ:

_*Does Everything search file contents?*
Yes, "Everything" can search file content with the content: search function.

File content is not indexed, searching content is slow._

I don't use it for that purpose because it's so much slower than Windows Search. Because of that, I had even forgotten it could do it.

I only wish that UI for content search were as nice under Windows Search!


----------



## storm5510 (Mar 26, 2009)

File searching is something I seldom do. The last built-in file search utility I had any luck with was in XP. The one in 7 never seemed to be able to find anything. With 10, I run straight into Cortana and cannot get past it. What I do is open a console and go the the root folder and do a "dir /s" with any filtering parameters in between. There are third-party search applications out there, but they all seem to have some sort of attached baggage I don't want.

The indexing service, I have mixed feelings about. A person would think it would index as files are created or deleted. Sometimes, it appears to dump its entire index and do it all again. Frequently, I see is a lot of drive activity where the indicator light just stays on without flickering. Thrashing is the term for this I believe. I don't know that indexing is even beneficial.


----------



## storm5510 (Mar 26, 2009)

Somewhere above, I may have mentioned having a USB3 external HD. Since the update to v1909, once in a while, the system will not recognize the drive when I turn it on. It takes a complete restart to correct it. I don't know if a logout and back in again would do the same.


----------



## spunk.funk (May 13, 2010)

If your USB drive is not working when you plug it in, press the *Windows* key*+X *and choose _Device Manager_. Right click _ANY_ device, and choose *Scan For Hardware Changes*. It should recognize the external drive. 
If you start Device Manager and see a Yellow Flag next to a USB Device, Right click it and *Uninstall* it. Then Right click any device and choose to *Scan For Hardware Changes*. 
Best way to avoid this is to plug your USB HDD into the Back USB port of your desktop and not the front and not thru a USB Hub.


----------



## storm5510 (Mar 26, 2009)

spunk.funk said:


> If your USB drive is not working when you plug it in, press the *Windows* key*+X *and choose _Device Manager_. Right click _ANY_ device, and choose *Scan For Hardware Changes*. It should recognize the external drive.
> If you start Device Manager and see a Yellow Flag next to a USB Device, Right click it and *Uninstall* it. Then Right click any device and choose to *Scan For Hardware Changes*.
> Best way to avoid this is to plug your USB HDD into the Back USB port of your desktop and not the front and not thru a USB Hub.


This didn't work. I tried it three times. I've always had it plugged in the back into a USB3 port, blue connector. I moved it to a black connector, USB2, and it recognized it immediately. This seems to indicate something wrong with my USB3 drivers. However, I will not bother with all of that. It's working and that's all I need, even if it is slower.

There are USB3 drivers installed. I looked in the Device Manager. Usually, the list for Universal Serial Bus controllers is rather long. Not now. There are only six items in it. I have a driver disk for this board, but I won't mess with it.


----------



## spunk.funk (May 13, 2010)

USB 3.0 ports (Blue) sometimes don't work with External Drives,they should with 3.0 drive but always work with USB 2.0 (black)


----------



## britechguy (Dec 6, 2019)

spunk.funk said:


> USB 3.0 ports (Blue)


Don't I wish this early convention for indicating USB 3.0 ports had remained a common practice.

All machines I've dealt with that were made over the last several years, and that have both 2.0 and 3.0 ports, use a tiny little SS impressed next to the USB symbol (and usually in black plastic, making it a grand PITA to read) rather than the much more easily identified blue port slider.


----------



## Corday (Mar 3, 2010)

And 3.1 is supposed to be turquoise but manufacturers aren't required to follow the color codes. BTW, yellow or red ones can charge devices while the computer is in sleep mode. 1.0 were white (sometimes).


----------



## storm5510 (Mar 26, 2009)

spunk.funk said:


> USB 3.0 ports (Blue) sometimes don't work with External Drives,they should with 3.0 drive but always work with USB 2.0 (black)


One of the drivers I looked at yesterday was the Intel driver. It is v1.0.

Here's a new wrinkle: Running this heavy math, I like to do a restart every few days because the process starts to get slow. I do a restart this morning, the power went off for about a second as part of the process, then came back on. There was no update to install and I have sleep and hibernate disabled. I don't see how it could do this.


----------

