Welp, Looks Like I'm Never Upgrading to Windows 10 Build 2004

[sapphirescales]

It should, that policy is what configures that specific restriction.

Well I was hoping someone would mention an alternative in this thread and @nlinecomputers came to the rescue indirectly by linking that long thread about permissions. @Sky-Knight said that I would be better served by disabling UAC, but unfortunately that didn't solve the problem. I had to disable this exact policy in order to get that stupid take permissions crap from coming up so I could just copy over the files I need from client drives.

This is a big relief for me. I don't want to be stuck on 1909 forever but that's what would've happened had I not been able to disable this BS. Into the master computer notes it goes! I have a big, long file I call "Master Computer Notes.txt" where I put in useful information like this. You know, how to change the computer date using the terminal in Mac OS so you can install older versions of Mac OS without issues, or how to change the Windows product key using the command prompt. I wonder how many other techs keep a digital notebook like this? I have most of the stuff in there memorized, but I want the information to be easily accessible to me just in case I forget something.

 

[GTP]

I really wish I could strip Windows 10 of all the bullsh*t they've added to it over the years.

NTLite works for me.

But someone making millions per year might not want to pay the measly technician license fee.

 

[Larry Sabo]

HOLY SH*T GUYS - IT ACTUALLY WORKED!!!!!!!!!

What actually worked? There are half-a-dozen suggested solutions in that thread, most of which don't work for many who tried them.

 

[nlinecomputers]

What actually worked? There are half-a-dozen suggested solutions in that thread, most of which don't work for many who tried them.

He had to take ownership, as Administrator, of the files in order to copy them.

I still don't follow how he claims to have been able to do so before build 2004 as that has been a limitation on NTFS for 20 years.

 

[Markverhyden]

I've never had permissions/access problems in the 25+ years I've been using Linux to move MS files around.

 

[Sky-Knight]

Well the thing with UAC is... you can't really disable it.

He had to take ownership, as Administrator, of the files in order to copy them.

I still don't follow how he claims to have been able to do so before build 2004 as that has been a limitation on NTFS for 20 years.

I don't either, but the policy listed does change that specific behavior in UAC where someone logged in as admin doesn't have to CONFIRM they want to do this. Because it reverts the shell back to XP behavior of running as admin all the time. Which is a HORRIFYING thing in normal production, but something that can be a bit convenient on equipment setup for data recovery.

For my part, I just do this sort of thing with Robocopy, in an elevated command line. That path also doesn't prompt, I haven't used the GUI tools to copy files at scale in years.

@Markverhyden, that path also works but if the NFTS driver borks, you can wind up with files with all sorts of screwed up permissions and other corruption. Best to copy to a FAT32 or exFAT partition with no permissions abilities when doing that. It neatly avoids such complications.

 

[sapphirescales]

He had to take ownership, as Administrator, of the files in order to copy them.

Nope. I used the Group Policy editor to turn off that horrible notification that said that I had to take ownership of the files in order to access them. Now I never have to "take ownership" of files on my own computer ever again.

What actually worked? There are half-a-dozen suggested solutions in that thread, most of which don't work for many who tried them.

This was the exact thing that worked:

You can disable the UAC feature that triggers this.

Start---run---gpedit.msc

Computer Configuration -- windows settings --Security Settings -- Local Policies -- Security Options

Scroll down to:

User Account Control: Run all administrators in Admin Approval Mode - Set to DISABLED.

Reboot.

Done.

 

[Sky-Knight]

Except you ARE still taking ownership, all that policy does is remove the prompt.

 

[Philippe]

MS documentation is there:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/wi...ontrol-group-policy-and-registry-key-settings
In the case of OP, change: HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System
EnableLUA -> 0 // Disabled
(User Account Control: Run all administrators in Admin Approval Mode)
Or
gpedit.msc:
Computer Configuration / windows settings / Security Settings / Local Policies / Security Options
User Account Control: Run all administrators in Admin Approval Mode -> Disabled.
My $0.02
Edit: sapphirescales was faster.

 

[sapphirescales]

Except you ARE still taking ownership, all that policy does is remove the prompt.

Nope. Taking ownership takes for ever. I remember once it took over an hour to access the folders after I clicked "continue" on that stupid prompt. I just accessed a user profile today with over 100GB worth of data and it did it in 1 second. If I were to "take ownership," it would've taken MINUTES to do so while it changed ownership on every file under the user folder. That's not "taking ownership." That's allowing me to access them even though I'm not the "owner." Then when I make a copy of them, it strips the ownership so they can be used by the client on their new computer/fresh install of Windows.

The files aren't encrypted. They're merely protected by some security policy that's built into Windows (the BS that I turned off). If I tried to open that user folder under Windows 98 it would just let me because the restriction is built into Windows 10 itself. That's why you don't have to "take ownership" if you plug in the drive into a Linux or Mac OS system.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

The old "take ownership" always worked for us for decades....decades....learn that in..maybe not "101 class"..but "102 class".
Yes can take a minute or three if you're on an slow dog of a pic on an ancient spindle, but rarely the case since we deal with biz clients and networks and important data on the server in the first place. And with todays fast rigs and SSDs...it's the blink of an eye.

 

[Galdorf]

i would stay away from 2004 it is LOADED with bugs and major issues been having nothing but trouble with it what is really funny Gen 8 i5 acer has intel video and realtek sound WILL NOT update to 2004 it does not even show up under update and if you try to do install from scratch with latest bios installed it blue screens.

What is really SILLY it will NOT install on a Microsoft surface tablet it is blocked on that device .

Windows 10 2004: external displays go black when drawing in Word

 

[Metanis]

If this stuff was easy they wouldn't need to hire us to fix it.

 

[sapphirescales]

The old "take ownership" always worked for us for decades....decades....learn that in..maybe not "101 class"..but "102 class".

Yes, and as soon as Microsoft implemented that BS, I learned to get rid of it. It's been so long since I've had to deal with it that I don't know if it started in Vista/XP/7/8 or 10. Even if it only took 2 minutes per drive and you did 5 computers per day, that's 10 minutes per day you lose x260 days (not counting weekends here) is a total of 43 HOURS wasted on this BS! Then multiply it by multiple employees and it's well worth it to get rid of this take ownership BS. I'd load Windows 7 on my imaging computers if necessary if that was the only way to get rid of it (my original plan was to stay with 1909 indefinitely and neuter the computers), but thankfully I didn't need to do either of these things.

If you've been doing this since the XP days (2002), you've wasted a total of 780 hours x $15/hour (being very conservative here and taking inflation into account), that's $11,700 you've thrown away per employee! I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a freaking car or 3x top of the line custom computers than click on a "continue" button a million times.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Predictably you're caught by embarrassment of not knowing this, so you're spewing a bunch of inflated BS. How many times a year does someone come across having to "take ownership"? Even if you manage 5,000 business computers...it's not "5 computers per day" you come across this sort of thing. Takes longer to take the computer out, put in on your bench, plug in, power it up, log in. And about equal time to fire up gpedit and navigate to the setting and mod it.

 

[sapphirescales]

Predictably you're caught by embarrassment of not knowing this, so you're spewing a bunch of inflated BS. How many times a year does someone come across having to "take ownership"? Even if you manage 5,000 business computers...it's not "5 computers per day" you come across this sort of thing. Takes longer to take the computer out, put in on your bench, plug in, power it up, log in. And about equal time to fire up gpedit and navigate to the setting and mod it.

I extract every drive to back up data. Unlike you, the vast majority of my business is residential. I do very little remote or on-site work. I don't want to sit around for 10 minutes a day with my finger up my butt when I could just use the built-in administrator account on my imaging computers. Since the built-in administrator account no longer has this option disabled, I had to find it. I'd never change this setting on a client's computer. This is just for the ones in my shop (or at my house at the moment).

EDIT: As for "how often" I would have to take ownership if I hadn't found this setting? 5x a day minimum under normal circumstances. Because of Corona, it's more like 3x a day on average. On a 5400rpm drive, taking ownership of a user folder with thousands of pictures and dozens if not hundreds of gigabytes of data takes a long time (one of the drives I tried before I found this setting took nearly 20 minutes before I just canceled it in disgust). That was the moment I decided to post on here to see if anyone knew how to disable it.

 

[britechguy]

i would stay away from 2004 it is LOADED with bugs and major issues been having nothing but trouble with it what is really funny Gen 8 i5 acer has intel video and realtek sound WILL NOT update to 2004 it does not even show up under update and if you try to do install from scratch with latest bios installed it blue screens.

What is really SILLY it will NOT install on a Microsoft surface tablet it is blocked on that device .

Windows 10 2004: external displays go black when drawing in Word

No, it's not silly in any way. I am constantly disappointed that many who do this for a living are under the delusion that Microsoft, or any OS maker, should be able to release a major OS update "to all the world at one time" and expect that it's going to work, flawlessly, everywhere. That hasn't been the case for decades, if it ever was the case at all.

The number of hardware configurations out there if not technically infinite, is so huge as to be impossible to do testing ahead of a roll out for all of them. That's been the beauty, and miracle, of system health telemetry (and not just for Microsoft). Releases are rolled out, starting slowly, and telemetry is monitored. Depending on what's being found, at any point in a roll out, it may be slowed down, stopped, limited to only certain hardware, and tweaked in any number of ways so as to limit possible negative impacts identified until those are thought to be fixed.

The machine I'm typing from has been in "Day One" cohorts for a couple of Feature Updates and has not received these until months after initial roll out began for others. For Version 1903, and Version 2004, I've received the following notification, not on the first day or even early days of roll out, but after it's determined for whatever reason that my machine should not yet be upgraded (screenshot from 1903, just change the version number for 2004):



These very intentional blocks to specific hardware are a major improvement over the old way of rolling out to "the whole world" and waiting until enough screaming calls come in to tech support to determine that things should have been slowed or stopped.

It's a feature, and a godsend of a feature, not a bug.

 

[Galdorf]

No, it's not silly in any way. I am constantly disappointed that many who do this for a living are under the delusion that Microsoft, or any OS maker, should be able to release a major OS update "to all the world at one time" and expect that it's going to work, flawlessly, everywhere. That hasn't been the case for decades, if it ever was the case at all.

The number of hardware configurations out there if not technically infinite, is so huge as to be impossible to do testing ahead of a roll out for all of them. That's been the beauty, and miracle, of system health telemetry (and not just for Microsoft). Releases are rolled out, starting slowly, and telemetry is monitored. Depending on what's being found, at any point in a roll out, it may be slowed down, stopped, limited to only certain hardware, and tweaked in any number of ways so as to limit possible negative impacts identified until those are thought to be fixed.

The machine I'm typing from has been in "Day One" cohorts for a couple of Feature Updates and has not received these until months after initial roll out began for others. For Version 1903, and Version 2004, I've received the following notification, not on the first day or even early days of roll out, but after it's determined for whatever reason that my machine should not yet be upgraded (screenshot from 1903, just change the version number for 2004):

View attachment 11807

These very intentional blocks to specific hardware are a major improvement over the old way of rolling out to "the whole world" and waiting until enough screaming calls come in to tech support to determine that things should have been slowed or stopped.

It's a feature, and a godsend of a feature, not a bug.

Yes but you are missing the point it does NOT work on their own hardware have you ever seen Apple put out a new OS that does not work on their own current hardware.....

Not to mention i have been spending days reverting 8 customers machines back to 1909 because of bsod because it is not compatible with current drivers not only that a few customers have caby lake machines that can NEVER install 2014 because 2014 is not compatible and amd said they will not be making drivers for 2014.

 

[Your PCMD]

Use Take Ownership.

 

[Porthos]

a few customers have caby lake machines that can NEVER install 2014 because 2014 is not compatible and amd said they will not be making drivers for 2014.

Where did you read that?