A secure way to prevent Windows 10 , updates on the audio PC

[Rmalits]

Hi folks,

it was this June when we, Willi, the sysadmin guy in my software company and me found a very good way to prevent Windows 10 from do updates, even when the PC is fully connected to your home network.

In this configuration the audio PC is directly connected to the LAN/Wifi router with a LAN cable and loads the music files directly from my Synology NAS.
So there is no peer2peer LAN cable needed between the music PC and the audio PC. Actually there is not even a music PC needed! The Microsoft Surface notebook, which I use in this setup, is just working as a control with Remote Desktop for XXHE, which runs on the audio PC.
Since almost 2 month this notebook is doing its job even through Wifi, so there is not even a LAN cable needed for the control PC.

So the point to do it this way is to make sure for 100%, that the audio PC will not do any Windows updating, what would bring it into the known troubles.

As all is running perfectly that eay for month now, I want to share it to the community. It is pretty easy to do it, as you will see in my next post. (I don't want to make this one too long).

Kind regards
Richard

[PeterSt]

Richard, this is super.
(of course I knew you were working on this)

Please continue with that post(s), but allow me to announce this :

Only just yesterday I finished the means to do it programmatically, from XXHighEnd. Of course this already was in there, but this was not a definite means (other programs could re-activate the updating). Now, after I forgot how many hours of research and trying, we can prevent the Updates for real.
So, lately I am saying that 2.07 is close, but this was one of the things I wanted in there (and took me forever), and this is now accomplished.

The way Richard physically arranges for it is as interesting, because more secure and above all : I could not understand or make it up (I'm sure). This is how I am very greatful that Richard is going to explain the setup.

Thanks !
Peter

[fmanheck]

you have my attention

[Rmalits]

I am working on it...

I am tried to post a screenshot here (graphics file) and failed to do that with my iPad. So I loged in again with my notebook to do that.

Let's see, if it works...

I try to post this now ans see if the image appears.

[Rmalits]

so that did not work...

I pressed the "insert Image" button and inserted the file name including path.
It is a JPG file.
Shouldn't it work that way?

[PeterSt]

Richard,

You can only post pictures like you attempt it, when uploaded to a server somewhere. And then link to that.
Otherwise you can put pictures to Attachments of posts. See at the bottom when making a post and "Additional Options". But this is probably not convenient because those attachments can only show at the bottom. Nice for "one" picture, but not with several and adjacent outlay.

If necessary you can put them in like you tried, next send them to me by email and I can upload them to our server and put them where you planned them. No big deal for me.

Peter

[Rmalits]

one more try:

[PeterSt]

So for example from your attempt :

Code:

[img]http://C:\Users\RMalits\Downloads\screenshot-network-settings.JPG[/img]

Just let that be but send the (all of them) .JPG to me by email.

[Rmalits]

It is only one Picture, so i do it with an attachmant now.

[PeterSt]

Richard,

The picture you originally had in there is too large; people will not be able to get the idea because they always need to scroll.

Additionally, the screen resolution you use is too high. Thus, when I now made it normal size, all is too small to read (thank you for nothing ! you will now say, haha).

Lastly, the photo you make is not sharp enough, but when the screen resolution is low enoug (like 1600x1200 or so) that might work. What then will not work is that you squeeze all into one picture.
That in itself leads to more pictures and that ...



I hope this does not destroy your day.
Peter

[Rmalits]

Yes now it is here, even twice
Peter, could you delete one of them please.

So I go on explaining...

Probably many of you have been already doing this kind of network setup on Windows before.
On the right side you see the Dialog to give the PC a fixed IP adress. That's good to do in various ocasions anyway.

When you do that, there is also the Default Gateway to fill in (below subnet mask).

So the point is:
IF THE DEFAULT GATEWAY IS LEFT COMPLETLY EMPTY (as you can see in the screenshot), THE PC CANNOT GET INTO ANY CONTACT TO ANY WEBSITES IN THE INTERNET.
So not even microsoft.com can be contacted.

In my home network I did configure some additional stuff, like an additional internal DNS Server, but that's acctually not needed to prevent Windows 10 from updating.
And, if you adress the devices in your home network through the IP number (what's better anyway), no DNS Service is needed.

So, to do this configuration it is good to disconnect your home network from the Internet for some minutes, e.g. switch your modem off or similar.
Then:
- start the Windows Explorer
- rightclick "network"
- click "Properties"
- click "Change adapter Settings"
- now rightclick your LAN Connection and again choose "properties"
- Now you have to doubleclick "Internet Protocol Version 4(TCP/IPv4)"
- Now click "Use the following IP adress" and choose a propriate number for your home network. In my case it is: 192.168.0.133
Now important: DELETE the "Default Gateway". This fields have to be empty.
- OK and so on to save this configuraion.
- You are done.

To check, if it really works, connect again to the Internet (modem or so...) and open the Internet Explorer on this PC. Whatever Website you try to access, it should fail now.
That's it.

Kind regards
Richard

 

[PeterSt]

I hope this does not destroy your day.

It is fine as it is !

Yes now it is here, even twice
Peter, could you delete one of them please.

I made a smaller one but this is too small and put back in the larger one. I think this really is good enough.
Sorry for being confusing in my previous post.

Peter

[Rmalits]

ADDITIONAL INFOS:

my post above describes, how Windows 10 PCs can be prevented from receiving updates from the internet.

Since version 10 Windows is able to download updates not only from the Microsoft servers but optionally from other PCs, which already have these updates installed.
I myself have no experience with this kind of updating, but I recommend that this option should be switch off. This could be important, in case you have other PCs with Windows 10 running in your home network, because the audio PC could (maybe) get the updates from there, as it has access to all devices inside the home network.

There are various posts in the web how to do that, e.g.:
http://www.digitalcitizen.life/how-set-windows-10-get-updates-local-network-internet

Kind regards
Richard

[hvdh]

I'm a bit surprised by this post.

I've solved this problem in Februari (see http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3550.msg38037#msg38037)

I just checked using winver, I'm still on 10586.0.

And both my PC's are directly connected to the router...

Hope this helps?

[PeterSt]

Hi Henk,

I am sorry if I forgot something. But it could be similar to Richard's situation which I just did not know (or could understand) until his outlay in this topic. So now I know (that one) ...

I've solved this problem in Februari (see http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3550.msg38037#msg38037)

Your solution I still don't know because if I see correctly, the topic you link to is about something else.

Best regards,
Peter

[hvdh]

Hi Peter,

I guess you are right, most of that topic is about something else.

I did mention two things in that topic:

1. Installation of updates is turned off using Group Policy Editor.
2. I turned off updates using right Mouse Button/STOP within XXhigend.

And that still works, I'm still on 10586.0

Regards,

Henk

[PeterSt]

Hi Henk,

Thank you for elaborating. A smal lword of caution though :

I am looking at 14393.0 and all what's written about the Group Policy Editor stuff. I can not tell at this moment whether things changed opposed to 10586.0, but I recall it did to some degree. Anyway, you can browse the Internet for it. What you will see is :

By means of GPEdit Updates can never ever be postponed infinitely. Max is a month IIRC. GPEdit itself shows the same texts.

Next, from experience we know that Activating Windows, will imply an update (to the current state I suppose), never mind you stopped the Updating by means of XXHighEnd. This is one means we know of how "some" process can just restart all. Most probably there are more.

Lastly, and crucial for understanding : when you are in MinOS, nothing will happen to Updates in the first place. Minutes ago I just finalized the new coding around this, which includes starting (!) the Updates when in MinOS, after me eliminating the "state" of "when in MinOS you can't even attempt to start Updates" (rightclick on the Stop button already shows such). Thus, now I allow for starting Updates in MinOS, and when attempted you're thrown the message that Updates could not be started just because ... well, it can't in MinOS. Thus :
When you are in MinOS all the time - no problem. But go to Normal OS *and* do something that lets MS restart the update services, and you're gone.

Anyway, if all is right, in 2.07 not any more.

Btw, a few means exist to shut off Updates for real but they are all manual procedures and long winded and fail for many (because they just fail or because people possibly made a mistake in the long process). So the trick is to do this programmatically and this is now accomplished. But it took me many many hours.

Lastly, it happened to only a few persons (Richard was one of them) that W10 got updated and right from that point all is lost (nothing works well any more, SQ gets bad, etc.). For those people it is a "shivering fear" to let that not happen again. So the more decently we can prevent it, the better it is. Let's also keep in mind that those with the RAM-OS Disk can be up and running again in (really) minutes. But this is not so with a normal install and it may take a day, plus things might be forgotten to set, etc. In the end this is about the 500 or so settings I always applied to the XXHighEnd PC (first version) installs, which I could do (made) highly automated because it was worth while to make (because dozens of PCs where it would apply to). RAM-OS Disk the same.

Regards and thanks !
Peter

[hvdh]

Peter,

Thanks for the explanation:)

I should have realised that automatic updates wouldn't work in minos anyway:) I couldn't very well imagine that you would overlook something as simple as using group policy editor to turn off updates. And you didn't! I've read too that you couldn't postpone updates indefinitely, but never gave it much thought, as long as I'm in 10586, I'm happy.

And I've been in minos almost exclusively in the last year or so. I guess I was just lucky in the few minutes I've had to use maxos.

Thanks again,

Henk

[PeterSt]

Henk, it is always great to share thoughts.

I guess I was just lucky in the few minutes I've had to use maxos.

This is not necessarily related to being lucky, but merely to knowing what you can do and must avoid. And no, I am not saying that I really know, and/but all I can tell that occasionally I am spending many hours in a row with Teamviewer to someone with W10, who obviously must have an Internet connection for that and which almost always happens in Normal OS. Anyway, it always starts with installing Teamviewer and that requires Normal OS.
In none of these occasions / many hours someone got updated.
Still it happened to a few and I only know of the occasion that someone had Activated Windows with thus my conclusion that that is a bad thing to do.

Maybe Richard can tell how it happened to him; I forgot - and maybe it did not even happen to Richard.

Kind regards,
Peter

[PeterSt]

In this configuration the audio PC is directly connected to the LAN/Wifi router with a LAN cable and loads the music files directly from my Synology NAS.
So there is no peer2peer LAN cable needed between the music PC and the audio PC.

All,

I like to emphasize the above and in a context we might understand better; at least for some.

What that accomplishes is that you can have a NAS for the music WHILE the NAS is also generally accessible from the home network. This is, obviously, an objective for having a NAS in the first place. And hey, more music systems (think Audio PC's) is already such a situation because you are not going to copy all the music an extra time for it.
This means that the NAS *has* to be connected to the router, which router always is connected to the Internet. That is, if you want to have access to the internet on at least one PC in the same network, then this is so. But also think about the combination of that (at least one) PC downloading things from the Internet, that going to the NAS.
So the trick really is that the Audio PC can see the NAS, while it can not see the Internet (but both connected to the same hardware (the router) allowing Internet access.

Actually there is not even a music PC needed! The Microsoft Surface notebook, which I use in this setup, is just working as a control with Remote Desktop for XXHE, which runs on the audio PC.

This is more doubtful, but requires re-definition of a few phenomena first. Well, virtually, because I am not going to "re-name" for real; that would be too confusing with many posts elsewhere. So :

The Music Server PC was determined as the PC holding the music (files). That could be internal disks, USB disks or anything. Problem with that setup is that a NAS directly connected to it can be seen by that same PC, but not by the Audio PC or other PC's. So, as far as I know we can not Share the NAS in another means it already has been set up for sharing : via the router. Thus what I'm saying is that the NAS connected to the Music Server PC can not be seen by the Audio PC (as far as I tried that myself).
What Richard now is claiming is that no Music Server PC is required any more. True, because the NAS (which, mind you, is a computer with (often Linux) OS just the same) has become the Music Server PC. To this regard we still have the Music Server PC ... it is the NAS.
But is it ?

Richard is now tricking us a little, but let's say he fools himself without yet knowing. This is about this part :

The Microsoft Surface notebook, which I use in this setup, is just working as a control with Remote Desktop for XXHE, which runs on the audio PC.

Richard very decently (or honestly) calls this a notebook, which means it is a PC for that matter. I too use a Surface, but it is a tablet. The difference ? the tablet can not run XXHighEnd.

Someone already sees what is wrong ?

Well, I do. It is this Notebook which has become the Music Server PC. Well, sort of !! This is how we need re-defining of phenomena. Look :
The Music Server PC was named like that by me myself and I, because it is a required device in the home network, if we like to play tunes from Tidal. Yes, I put that in bold, because it is only about that. Thus, what is required when we like to play from Tidal ? ehh ... an Internet connection. And well, my Music Server PC does just that.
And hey, a NAS does that too, but it can not run XXHighEnd or anything for that matter. It is a "file server" and nothing else.
"Bbbbbbut", says Richard, "... I can do that with my notebook !".
TRUE !!
But I can NOT do that with my tablet. So no iPad, no Windows Surface Tablet, no Android Tablet. Only notebooks or laptops or ... well, PC's for that matter can do that job. It requires XXHighEnd (to play from Tidal) ...

Still Richard's situation is not so that his Notebook is the Music Server PC. So again he is correct in stating that he does not have a Music Server PC. But "not need" is a slightly different story, where the Music Server PC normally accesses Tidal *and* stores music.

Enough about this all;
Richard created him just a new situation with the most crucial part : a NAS can be used by the Audio PC, while the Audio PC is not connected to the Internet. And this is great.
But what really belongs to it is
a. a tablet because everybody has one or likes one (for its weight);
b. in that case a Music Server PC after all, when Tidal is used.

Now what's redundant ?
Haha.
Ditch the Tablet and buy a Notebook (something which runs the normal Windows OS;
or
Use the tablet and use a Music Server PC (could be the Notebook, always addressed by me as "could be a laptop".

Still the NAS can be utilized and that remains to be the new thing.
But still something has to be redundant. Look :

Tablet -> Music Server PC -> Audio PC.
This is what I use and I can do all with it.
or
Notebook with an array of USB disks attached (is Music Server PC) -> Audio PC.
This is even more lean and I am sure people use such a config.

So NAS in sight in both situations, with the notice that in both situations there's a Music Server PC and it can be accessed from everywhere in the home (like I do that myself).

So it is only that we want a NAS, which makes it like this for e.g. myself :

Tablet -> Music Server PC -> Audio PC <> a NAS connected to the Router.

If I see correctly I see one device more, which device is about 10 times slower as my Music Server PC's disk subsystem.
So outside of Richard's great finding, when people are new and must decide for a NAS or not, my advice remains to be a very firm NOT for many reasons (in this post mentioning only two : being redundant and being utterly slow).
But to have all in nice balance, I must also refer to the very many posts/questions from people how to do all with a NAS. Well, there finally is an answer.

Last small thing and this is really merely a small warning addressed to Richard :

Since almost 2 month this notebook is doing its job even through Wifi, so there is not even a LAN cable needed for the control PC.

Control PC would be a good term, but for XXHighEnd we prefer to call it "Remote". Read : Control PC does not exist. Remote does, and it discerns from anything else because it can be a random device up to phones. But what I really wanted to say :
Once you start to play from Tidal, you are bound to the (these days) relatively very slow WiFi connection. As people (and you) may know, for XXHighEnd this is not about poor quality (because things just being too slow) but about sheer speed. OK, sheer slowness. All IOW : it would be a complete waste of possibly Internet speeds these days (like my 70MByte/second just over copper !).

Thank you Richard !
Peter

[PeterSt]

Something else :

Do people realize how convenient the RAM-OS is regarding this matter ?
OK, I am not sure where it can be applicable (what about a direct Tidal connection ?) but *if* something happens, you just reboot.

[Rmalits]

Hi Peter and all others,

thanks to you, Peter for explaining the network setup, which I am using here in my home in Austria in such a detailed way. I agree in almost all points in your last long post.

Yes, I know, with Tidal it will be kind of another story. I am using Tidal since it exists with other network players (Linn, Naim, ...), but not with XXHE yet. But that will change soon, because I going to setup Tidal for XXHE right now. So we will see...

To explain everything a bit better, I tell you my story of playing digital music around my home network and even outside my home network, e.g. to my sailboat in Croatia:

All my music is stored on a Synology NAS, which is directly conneted to the router in my home since years, actually almost since this kind of technology is available. And I have experienced big benefits out of this setup:
- All my music, and that became a pretty extensive collection over the years, is centrally stored and managed.
- I am using various network players and DACs, sometime simutanously in my home, e.g. with the multiroom functionality of the Linn network players, what is nice to have, when there is party time in my house.
- I have also got a DSD music collection stored on the NAS and a Lampizator DSD DAC, what it doing very well with DSD.
- There is even direct access to the synology NAS from my sailboat in Croatia. It works fine with a 3G modem/router to stream my RB music files.
- I do the same in my little downtown flat in Vienna.
So all these devices use the same source: my Synology NAS
I believe it's obvious, why I like to have it this way in my - maybe a bit complicated - lifestyle.

One important side note: XXHE and NOS1a provide significantly better SQ with PCM music files than all other devices! Therefore I prefer to use Peter's technology and tried to find a convenient solution for me.

When I received the parcels from Peter with an audio PC and a NOS1a in April, I had some hard times in the beginning:
I just connected the audio PC to the router with a LAN cable and could play music soon. But then I fell into the Windows 10 update trap. Luckilly, with some advices from Peter, I could copy an uncorrupted backup .vhd file over the damaged one and it was working fine again. Peter, that's a really great technology!

But I had to change the setup now to the peer2peer LAN cable connection from music PC to audio PC, not to fall into the Windows 10 update trap again. So to use my Microsoft Surface Pro 3 notebook (I believe, it's a "notebook", because it has got a regular Windows 8.1 version on it, but didn't really care about that until now) as a music PC, I had to plug in an external USB harddisk with the backup of all my music into it. For me it was not comfortable this way (LAN cable through my living room, external harddisk on the table). And I had to manage my music collection twice.

That was the reason for me to look for another solution and we found the pretty easy way to prevent Windows 10 from updating with the network setup of the audio PC, what I described in my second post above.
There was still the LAN cable across my living room, but no extra USB disk needed any more, because the audio PC gets the music files directly from the Synology NAS.
Peter is right, that using a NAS that way is slower than using a harddisk on the music PC, but in my setup it is only a bit slower. So I can live well with this litte disadvantage.

Then, like one month ago I was thinking: Why shouldn't I try to use Wifi for my "music PC", because there are no music files transported from it any more. And it worked well and therefore I named it "control PC", but let's say "remote" now, as Peter suggested.
As expected, with Wifi it is working the same stable way as it does via LAN cable.
Only when I did the update to XXHE version 2.06a, it became instable for a short time. But that was another issue, already discussed in another post.

I also tried my iPAD as a remote directly controlling the audio PC, what worked well for some time with XXHE 2.05, but seems to be too unstable, when the RDC get's interrupted during unattended playback with XXHE (blue screen).
So I am using my MS Surface now with Wifi and it works perfectly. I will do some more testing with the iPAD as a direct remote for the audio PC in the near future.

So, I believe, that everybody has to decide himself, if he wants to go the "centrally located NAS way". If you are going to use your music by various devices, it will bring you some comfort to do it this way.
In case you use it on one place only (XXHE on audio PC), the traditional way with the music files on the music PC is maybe the better one.

But anyway... my intention for this post was acctually the Windows 10 update prevention as described in my second post above.
And that's good to do in any case!

Best regards
Richard

[Rmalits]

I just correct the headline doing this post

[PeterSt]

Hey Richard,

Reading your post it feels a bit as if you deemed it necessary to justify your persistence with the NAS. Not necessary !!
Indeed it is so that everybody should be able to do all in the way he/she likes best - especially those who already have a NAS. Therefore I am super glad that I can finally give directions (hey, to this topic ) how to arrange for such thing.

Thanks ...
Peter

PS: Later I will post something else that may give you again the feeling to "justify". But not necessary, OK ?

[Rmalits]

Hi Peter,

everything is fine. I receive so much good infos out of this forum, so I think it's good when I share some of my experiences here.

By the way... I got Tidal to work today with XXHE and it's doing very well and I am still using Wifi for my "music PC". And that's great!

Kind regards
Richard

[PeterSt]

By the way... I got Tidal to work today with XXHE and it's doing very well and I am still using Wifi for my "music PC". And that's great!

Haha, so now at least you know how and where the impact of WiFi speed is. Quite not a problem eh ?
Only a bit of more waiting ... (depending on your native Internet speed of course).

Regards,
Peter

[PeterSt]

Okay, what I wanted to add, not per se for Richard but addressed to everyone in general ...

Although I already said so yesterday, I think I have not been sufficiently explicit about the fact that the NAS can be replaced by any normal (Windows) PC. So Richard, I read about your requirements (for not such a strange means of living at all - I am only jaleous ), but people should not get the idea that you can do that with a NAS only.

With the proper firewall settings (always in order) and sharing of your music volumes or anything, you can just access it from anywhere. And for example, XXHighEnd would just play from it (I wanted to show you with a few screenshots but my "Willi" is ill today and I need him from those Firewall settings elsewhere (where I posed a remote Music Server to be)).
So a NAS is just a Share as a Share under Windows is the same.

Peter

[Rmalits]

Hi Peter,

I agree with you, that a PC with Windows on it, can do the same job as a NAS and also can be accessible from outside the home network.

The reasons, why I prefer the Sonology NAS is, that it provides a very stable UPnP/DLNA service, what I need for networkplayers, e.g. on my sailboat, where unfortunatly is NOS1a installed 
The stability of these NAS's is amazing. It may run for year(s) without beeing rebooted and you can easily switch off any kind of updates, without the need of special tricks, like the one that made me to start this post. 

Using Wifi Tidal streaming with my "music PC" in my network:
My leased line for the internet is limited to 40Mbit/sec, what's enough for me, as less than 4Mbit/sec is needed to stream RB size files with FLAC compression.
The Wifi in my home is doing about the double of the 40MBit/sec. So the bottleneck is still the internet connection and even more then that Tidal itself at times. And therefore for me it's fine to use Wifi to download music from Tidal.

The search function of XXHE for Tidal content gives me some troubles sometimes. But I will write this into appropriate post.

Kind regards
Richard

[Rmalits]

sorry, one mistake on my previous post. It should be:
...on my sailboat unfortunaltly there is no NOS1a installed 
Richard

[PeterSt]

Hi Richard,

...on my sailboat unfortunaltly there is no NOS1a installed

Aha, then you want another one, right ?


If you search the forum for it, you can see that we also have NOS1's floating on water.


Kind regards !
Peter

PS: Do people know that these days I count 4 people owning more than one NOS1(a) ?

[Rmalits]

Yes Peter,

a NOS1a on the water would be great.
But... there is always a but... I need one with DC power supply, because all the hifi on my sailboat runs with mostly super clean DC. There is 12V DC, 24V DC and 48V CD available.
Could you do this?

Kind regards
Richard

[PeterSt]

Richard,

Haha. Of course. 12V would be the easiest (and best).

Not sure whether you are seeking a PC solution too, but that would work with 24V (same as the Stealth with Linear Power Supply but without the AC part).

Best regards !
Peter

[Rmalits]

Hi Peter,

it's great, that the NOS1a and the audio PC can run on 12 / 24V.
For my sailboat it's a question of space, specially for the audio PC.
And it only would make sense if I a good DC powered amplifier too and then also better speakers. I am thinking about that... but it will be a project for next spring.

Are there users of NOS1a and audio PC, who run these devices on 12 / 24 V batteries in their home? Wouldn't that ne a further improvement of SQ?

Kind regards
Richard Malits

[PeterSt]

Hi,

I made this topic sticky, so it is more easy to find back for people who want their Audio PC to be off the Internet while accessing their NAS.

On a side note, XXHighEnd 2.07 contains more definitive protection from Windows 10 updates (see rightclick on the Stop button, with the notice that the functionality behind it has been excessively changed in 2.07).

Peter