Microsoft Issues Warning For 800M Windows 10 Users (forbes.com) 308
Consumer tech reporter Gordon Kelly describes "an important new Windows 10 warning (and the failure behind it)" for all 800 million of Microsoft's Windows 10 users:
What Microsoft confirms it did was quietly switch off Registry backups in Windows 10 eight months ago, despite giving users the impression this crucial safeguarding system was still working. As Ghacks spotted at the time, Registry backups would show "The operation completed successfully", despite no backup file being created...
Microsoft has now spelt out what was actually happening: "Starting in Windows 10, version 1803, Windows no longer automatically backs up the system registry to the RegBack folder. If you browse to the WindowsSystem32configRegBack folder in Windows Explorer, you will still see each registry hive, but each file is 0kb in size...."
So why has Microsoft done this? In the company's own words: "to help reduce the overall disk footprint size of Windows". And how big is a registry backup? Typically 50-100MB.
The article notes that this issue was flagged in Microsoft's Feedback Hub -- last October -- but "only now is the company coming clean about what happened."
The Ghacks blog points out that the Registry backup option "has been disabled but not removed according to Microsoft. Administrators who would like to restore the functionality may do so by changing the value of a Registry key."
Microsoft has now spelt out what was actually happening: "Starting in Windows 10, version 1803, Windows no longer automatically backs up the system registry to the RegBack folder. If you browse to the WindowsSystem32configRegBack folder in Windows Explorer, you will still see each registry hive, but each file is 0kb in size...."
So why has Microsoft done this? In the company's own words: "to help reduce the overall disk footprint size of Windows". And how big is a registry backup? Typically 50-100MB.
The article notes that this issue was flagged in Microsoft's Feedback Hub -- last October -- but "only now is the company coming clean about what happened."
The Ghacks blog points out that the Registry backup option "has been disabled but not removed according to Microsoft. Administrators who would like to restore the functionality may do so by changing the value of a Registry key."
Wut? (Score:5, Insightful)
Saving 50-100MB from the typical 15-20GB disk footprint of a stock Windows 10 install? What's the point?
Re:Wut? (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially when my win10 systems hold 10G worth of driver backups (DriverStore) I can't figure out how to cleanup...
Re:Wut? (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably not 10GB of actual disk space though. Most of those backup files, as well as multiple copies of DLLs to avoid DLL hell, are actually just symlinks to the same file. Explorer and many other file management tools don't understand that and count each link as a full size copy.
Re: (Score:2)
Just tested with sysinternals "du -u" ; gave me 9.5Gb distinct files. Not far from what windirstat gave me.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting. What directory?
Re: (Score:2)
C:\Windows\System32\DriverStore
I've googled the thing many times ; no simple solution (such as : [x] only preserve 2 copies of each driver)
Several device manufacturers love to create hundred MB large drivers for reason that is not obvious to me (realtek is one of them) and provide many updates (which is not necessary bad) that accumulate there over time...
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, thanks. Mine was 5.5GB. Disk cleanup listed driver packages as 0 bytes. I ran it anyway and the folder is still 5.5GB.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably need to grab ownership of that directory. Google "take ownership windows" for relevant third party tool. Windows restricts access to certain directories and files by default, and you need to literally wrestle control back to have any meaningful access to such files.
It's been there since at least 7, probably vista, but it went to whole new level of obfuscation with 10.
Re: Wut? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, last time I bought an HP printer, it came with 3 install discs.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I did that already. The thing is: I don't have much time to waste hunting for the drivers to remove and take the chance to remove the ones I need.
I wish we have a windows UI control that makes the cleanup usable for common users.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably a mater of time.
My pc is 6 years old and was installed on win7 before. That may explain the pile of driver versions.
Also, I did some manual cleanup at some point when this directory was >25Gb large and got my hard disk full.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not 10GB of actual disk space though. Most of those backup files, as well as multiple copies of DLLs to avoid DLL hell, are actually just symlinks to the same file. Explorer and many other file management tools don't understand that and count each link as a full size copy.
Ever since Windows added that awful WinSxS (Windows Side-by-Side) bullshit, they have always claimed this.
Oh, the disk space isn't actually used, it just reports that size!
1 - It's bullshit. Every version of every DLL is kept forever (in Windows 10, until you get a major version update and effectively reinstall the OS). The bulk of the space is individual, unique files. NOT falsely reported storage for links.
2 - Even if it weren't bullshit, Explorer and every fucking other application on Windows still se
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but a least, you have a fairly simple cleanup possibility here.
Re: (Score:2)
No it wont. Peruse those directories. Run the cleanup utility. Peruse those directories again.
So much shit stays.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, thanks for the tip.
It's mostly a problem on my client's computer though, and I would never take the chance to run this on their PC.
Re: (Score:2)
No balls.
I do completely understand.
I've wrecked every box I've ever owned, and pulled them out of the ditch.
I ain't about to take that risk at work.
Re: (Score:2)
Done already. This program somehow eases the removal process, but this is far from making the operation available for average joe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wut? (Score:5, Interesting)
But that's probably not the only thing they did. Removing RegBack was *a* thing they did to keep the footprint small, not the only thing. If you could count up all the tweaks they did it would probably amount to gigabytes worth of saved space, so it's wrong to focus on any one space-saving measure and ask why they bothered. Each individual tweak may have been small but they add up to allowing the operating system to run on those eMMc laptops with only 16 or 32 GB.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it's 50 - 100 MB per *backup*, and you might have more than one backup point. Consider that.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes but the idiotic decisions were not to control the size of the registry backups by giving the user more control or options. The decision was to disable the feature, not to inform users (and administrators) of the change, and alter the feature to make it look like nothing had changed.
If the size of the backups were a problem there were a number of options:
Re: (Score:2)
From my point of view the problem is with storing the backup on the same hard disk that has the active system. Yeah, I know it's only a registry backup, but still...the default should be save to CD, which you could override to save to disk.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, back in the days of MSWind95, I would have found it quite useful. Especially if you could read the backup, and just extract parts of it. I had to reinstall things frequently, and finding out just how I was supposed to alter the registry to get things working again wasn't simple. But a full restore wouldn't work well either, because sometimes you needed to roll back to the way things were last month, but other times you only needed to undo a patch that you'd made to one application.
Re:Wut? (Score:4, Insightful)
Although it might be a case of a little here and a little there, I just ran "Disk Cleanup" and its showing 6 GB of savings from "Clean up System Files".
So whatever it is they're saving elsewhere, they're not grooming these files more aggressively and it seems like pretty low-hanging fruit.
Whatever Microsoft's motivation, it probably has as much to do with some cloud offering as it does with reduced storage thowaway laptops. I'm sure the easier strategy for that is simply never update them to new builds and then obsolete them when they stop patching that build. Easier to push the obsolescence of throwaway hardware on its purchasers than waste time trying to squeeze in a few GBs of storage savings.
But if that few GBs is projected to provide *Microsoft* with 10s or 100s of petabytes of cloud storage savings, it's suddenly more worth it to Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3)
The system files it refers to are mostly backups made before installing Windows Update patches. It would be nice if Microsoft automatically removed them after say six months, since people are unlikely to want to uninstall patches after that time.
Re: (Score:2)
Although it might be a case of a little here and a little there, I just ran "Disk Cleanup" and its showing 6 GB of savings from "Clean up System Files".
So whatever it is they're saving elsewhere, they're not grooming these files more aggressively and it seems like pretty low-hanging fruit.
You are a victim of timing. Windows will store a complete roll back from major updates for a few months, precisely because of people complaining that updates broke things and allowing people to uninstall them. These get automatically removed after some time, however you can force this by running disk cleanup and selecting to Clean up System Files.
You can repeat this exercise after every Feature Upgrade, though I'm not sure how it will work in the future given that in the last feature upgrade they introduced
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure my laptop is still running 1803, so any of those update files presumably would have been erased.
My guess is as time goes on -- and if Microsoft keeps releasing incremental upgrades to Windows "10" meant to be run on discreet hardware -- they will figure out some way to do this.
But my guess is Windows 10 as we know gets phased out for some future Windows which is some weird cloud hybrid OS, kind of like a Chromebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wut? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you could count up all the tweaks they did it would probably amount to gigabytes worth of saved space, so it's wrong to focus on any one space-saving measure and ask why they bothered.
I would agree that "why they bothered (at all)" isn't the right question. Every little bit helps after all.
But asking why they went about it the way they did seems a perfectly legit criticism to question.
Leaving many old backup incrementals laying around is never a good idea, and certainly an area for improvement.
But disabling the backup process completely while having the system claim the backup completed without errors is a mind boggling way to go about the stated goal of saving disk space.
The bare minimum I would expect from a disabled backup task is for the system to reflect as much.
It shouldn't say it completed, with or without errors, it should say it wasn't attempted.
But even then there are FAR better ways to go about things.
Instead of fully disabling backups, why not a cleanup process to delete older ones?
There are many ways to go about that, where so long as at least one backup is kept, the system would be at much less risk than without any backups.
Microsoft says to use a restore point instead, implying a procedural change in how backups are made.
Yet prior to 1803 restore points were deleted immediately after any apparently successful install of a feature update. I say apparent because this was found out after an update claims to have worked, broke things, and people found no restore points were left.
It wouldn't be difficult to have either registry backups or restore points left active, working, but set to only keep X copies and/or for Y time.
This type of change also makes me wonder about 3rd party backup solutions.
One of the older backup systems I used on Win Server 2008 would instruct the system to make a registry backup 'now' then copy the backup folder, so as to not risk a live "running system" shadow copy of the active registry being desynced.
Yes yes that was Win 2008 and Backupexec, but serves as an example how other things may break.
I'm not even sure exactly how Veeam goes about backing up the Win 10 registry, but that's the problem, are my Veeam backups broken too? Probably not but now I have to go check. If so, this is a huge problem MS has caused. Even if not, this isn't a reasonable problem I should even need to be concerned about.
So much for the benefit of "At least windows is backwards compatible with itself"
Re: (Score:2)
I work hard enough to shoot myself in the foot; I don't need assistance!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Saving 50-100MB from the typical 15-20GB disk footprint of a stock Windows 10 install? What's the point?
The point? The point is that there's more than one of them.
Ten of them can be one of those gigabytes.
Re: Wut? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Wut? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's *why* you should have a registry backup (provided there's a reasonable way to restore). That's not saying that anyone ever does that.
OTOH, I haven't used MSWind for about 20 years now. I'm sure it's changed from what I remember. (I'm not sure it's improved.)
Re: Wut? (Score:2)
I've saved systems w/ it &? apk (Score:3, Interesting)
See subject: Not only have I saved messed up systems via registries backed up (uncompressed original mind you, not compressed like MS Backup does, that fits on a CD even easily) via bootup from Windows installation media's RECOVERY CONSOLE copy command & appropriate logon rights (with external media access allowed in security policies) but using SysInternal tools, I've gotten into systems that had their password changed by MALICIOUS people, & reset the SAM portion of the registry with a NEW passwor
Re: (Score:3)
Holy crap APK. +3 and talking about the recovery console that hasn't existing since Windows XP, as well as burning data to a CD-ROM, of all things!
By the way, there are Linux Live CDs that can reset Windows passwords. They work on current versions of Windows too.
This explains a lot about your extremely bad hosts file management software.
Re: (Score:2)
There are much easier ways to bypass the Windows login screen (and rest passwords) that don't require any software or other tools.
Interrupt the boot sequence, click on one of the info links to get to Notepad, rename sethc.exe to cmd.exe and then turn on Sticky Keys, voila, you have a command prompt and the rest is history.
Re: (Score:2)
He's a bit too unstable for criticism hehe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if it gives them something to do on a Monday afternoon...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wut? (Score:2, Insightful)
Just imagine what they don't tell you! =}$
Five errors in one go (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft thought the disk footprint was too large, and immediately thought of the registry backup as a major culprit? Decided to disable the feature, leaving people without backups and without telling them? Giving the impression that backup-files exist by generating them, but zero-sized? Didn't bother to properly disable the feature by refactoring the function?
That's five errors in one line of thought. Impressive.
Re: (Score:3)
They're in competition with Boeing.
I can't wait to see what the Olympics look like.
Re:Five errors in one go (Score:5, Funny)
I for one am glad that the registry backup can be reinstated by... Changing a value in the registry. What could possibly go wrong there?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if you screw it up, you can always restore from the registry backup! Ah. Um. Well...
Re:Five errors in one go (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you attribute far too much intelligence to Microsoft as an organizaton. Some OEM probably complained about the size of Windows installs, and Microsoft decided they should make them smaller. The order came down, some random developer was told to save X gigabytes and went looking for whatever they could find to meet their goals and ace their performance review.
Apparently they don't have any kind of proper code review either.
Re:Five errors in one go (Score:5, Interesting)
Any idiot could see that is stupid. Unfortunately Microsoft doesn't hire just any idiot; they hire engineers.
Engineers, even when they're acting like idiots, are smart. Smart people learn to adapt to their environment. If that environment is dysfunctional, they learn to behave in dysfunctional ways. One form of dysfunction that is perhaps unique to engineers is giving the boss precisely what he asks for. So the boss says something like, "Reduce the footprint of this product by 1 GB by the end of this month." Why 1GB? It's a measurable goal. Why this month? It's when the report on goals is due. If the company's ground you down to the point where you're past giving a shit, you give the boss exactly whatever it takes to get him off your back.
Re:Five errors in one go (Score:5, Funny)
It's a very typical Microsoft solution. I remember once someone asked them how to disable the software MIDI synth in Windows Vista, which apparently you can't, and older MIDI syth software complains that you need to disable it so they don't conflict.
Anyway, the Microsoft tech comes back with walk-through instructions to uninstall the entire sound card driver. Sure enough, with no sound card the MS MIDI syth disabled itself. Fucking genius.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's a good solution anyway.
Either be aggressive, or be passive. Don't be both, because nobody likes a kiss-ass.
Hehe :-)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good policy, if you can make it work.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The number of problems fundamentally solved by recovering a registry backup are close to nil. This also didn't stop a working restore point being made during updates or when requested manually.
Ultimately they turned off a function that never actually saved anyone and a lot of people didn't even know existed.
Re: (Score:3)
Ultimately they turned off a function that never actually saved anyone and a lot of people didn't even know existed.
How do you know that it “never saved anyone”? You can’t possibly know that. Also the average consumer may not know about this feature but admins should know about it—the people that might restore a computer by using the registry backups.
Additionally, the OP isn’t saying that there isn’t a good reason for the change. His points are that MS made a change, didn’t inform anyone about it, AND modified the feature to appear as if it hadn’t been changed. Many automat
More idiot decisions (Score:4, Insightful)
Could save more space by allowing users to uninstall worthless apps in Windows 10 we never wanted in the first place. But letâ(TM)s just remove registry backups because thatâ(TM)s smart.
I just loaded 1903 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Typical Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft goes and makes a decision for their users and doesn't even tell them about it.
If they decided that a full registry backup wasn't necessary for certain things, that is fine. Just not make a back up. However, instead they tell you the backup was done successfully and create a fake backup file. I mean, that is a bad decision.
Re: (Score:2)
You know that the intern just put an if-statement around the block of code to actually write anything to the file.
In best practice, it makes sure to open the file, read the entire registry into memory, close the file, and continue on (leaking the copy of the registry along the way).
I kid, but I wouldn't be surprised if it amounted to something like that slipping through.
Like Boeing with MCAS (Score:2, Insightful)
Boeing also did not consider it important to tell the pilots about major difference in flying systems that was covered by the faulty MCAS.
Re: (Score:2)
The parallels are staggering. It seems MS is now doing engineering on cretin-level.
Re: (Score:3)
This is what gets me. Everyone in the thread is arguing whether or not its worthwhile to back up the registry and how much data it really takes. But the real issue is that Microsoft decided to disable it for everyone and take that decision from them. Then on top of that they lied about it being disabled. This is out of character for them. Windows ain't Linux, but Redmond has never been afraid of giving users enough rope to hang themselves either. This is more of an Apple move. But even then Apple usually wo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft goes and makes a decision for their users and doesn't even tell them about it.
About things they didn't even know about. I'm not sure why you're outraged about this. Users don't get told about 99.99% of things that change under the hood. It's not like the registry backup has ever saved anyone's windows installation. Registry corruption is the least of people's concerns.
Really Microsoft? (Score:4, Interesting)
An average Windows 10 installation on a PC with 8GB or RAM consumes close to 20GB of disk space and you're concerned about 100MB of a registry backup?
An average Windows 10 installation writes over 500MB of various log and temporary files (and never bothers to clean it up automatically last time I checked). Over time temporary files may consume gigabytes of data.
Also make sure you've checked web browsers cache folders: they can easily eat up to 2GB of disk space (and I've seen Google Chrome cache take whopping 4GB).
So, what's the real reason?
Re:Really Microsoft? (Score:5, Informative)
An average Windows 10 installation on a PC with 8GB or RAM consumes close to 20GB of disk space and you're concerned about 100MB of a registry backup?
Yes, because there's more than one of them.
An average Windows 10 installation writes over 500MB of various log and temporary files (and never bothers to clean it up automatically last time I checked). Over time temporary files may consume gigabytes of data.
I suspect they're looking at those, too.
Also make sure you've checked web browsers cache folders: they can easily eat up to 2GB of disk space (and I've seen Google Chrome cache take whopping 4GB).
That's not in their jurisdiction.
Microsoft has a stated goal to get Windows running well on a device with 32Gb of storage. I applaud them for that.
Re: (Score:2)
"Microsoft has a stated goal to get Windows running well on a device with 32Gb of storage. I applaud them for that."
If Microsoft were your child, you could applaud them for that. But since their os used to work fine in 32GB (let alone 4GB, as you suggest) you're just jacking them off for trying to fit into their jeans from college. Microsoft has already had enough handjobs from the ignorant, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Never seen such a poor comment being upvoted on ./ but let's go through your arguments:
Have you ever heard of compression? Incremental backups? I'm pretty sure you can have 30 of such backups consuming less than 100MB.
Microsoft cannot possibly be looking into reducing the footprint of applications they cannot control.
Meanwhile have you ever checked the C:\Windows\Logs and C:\Windows\Software Distribution folders? Then we ha
Re: (Score:2)
More than one c:\windows\system32\config\regback directory? Really? Windows restore points get cleared out when there is a new major build, so old restore points go away every 6-12 months for most users as well.
Having a backup of the registry files is VERY useful for times when system restore breaks(which happens all too often). Since Microsoft removed the ability to manually copy the registry files out of a restore point back in the days of Vista, having the ability to manually restore the registry i
Re: Really Microsoft? (Score:2)
You can do that. Get a Windows 10 Enterprise license key then download and install the alternative image Windows 10 LTSB (Long Term Support Branch) using it. It's designed for POS systems, so all the bloat is removed, from Edge to Cortana to the Windows Store end everything in between. It's what Windows 10 would be had it kept to Windows 7 Ultimate's design. Gamers in particular love it.
If I'm not mistakes there's a more recent version called LTSC, but I don't know what the "C" stands for.
Re: (Score:2)
Long-Term Servicing Channel [microsoft.com].
The strange thing is that Microsoft is actively arguing against [microsoft.com] using it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The curse of the "Low Hanging Fruit" problem is the real reason.
There is a systemic issue, and business just try to get the low handing fruit, they spend so much trying to get the easiest jobs done, that to extend the metaphor the fruit on the top begin to rot.
100MB while not a lot and doesn't solve the problem that much, was an easy change.
Win 10 1903 disables Essentials client backups (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, this is not the only backup they are in the process of quietly removing. When my desktop got 'upgraded' to 1903, my Windows Essentials client backups stopped working. And the classic advice to remove the client connector and reinstall doesn't work -- the software will no longer reinstall because it doesn't see the server. Interestingly, my server shares were still connected. And my account still authenticates to the domain. And as far as I can tell, file history is still moving changes to the server. But no more backups.
Found the client connector install did log an error -- which after much digging turns out to be a change in how the software is allowed access to the server to register itself in AD. Server 2016 and 2019 use this new mechanism. 2012R2 does not. There was a discussion in the text about legacy systems and accommodating them but no actual information. My environment is a mix of Win 7, Win 10 and Linux hosts so it sounded like I needed two servers or of course pitch all my non-compliant machines. But in the discussion of Server 2019 was the phrase 'essentials client backups are being depreciated'. And the blog discussion was that they don't backup applications anymore because they are easy to reinstall, just the precious user data. Obviously written by an exec type who has never had to reinstall a bunch of major applications, all with their own activation logic, patches and so forth. After a couple of days I am part way through my list... grrr.
My guess is the goal is to reduce our machines to modern 3270 terminals... without telling anybody until it was too late. And if your internet connection to mother Microsoft goes down, guess you are SOL.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Gates state that goal an a conference in 1997... ish.
S glorified system-settings database?He also wanted everyone to have chip cards to slide into computer in order for them to work, and he want MS to have complete control over your living room.
Re: (Score:2)
MORE likely it is behaving exactly as tested.
If you can't recover then MS has forced you to upgrade since you have no other option as your management will not allow any solution other then staying with MS.
Wait what? (Score:3)
Discovered this a few weeks ago (Score:2)
I had to fix up a customers computer because of of a bad sector in one of the registry files. If I had been able to use the registry backup it would have made things much easier.
Why do people tolerate this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I know, it's getting almost as bad as Android/Google Play for updates breaking and altering working stuff.
I swear amnesia technology is a thing MS Developed (Score:3)
Windows is being held by ransomware (Score:2)
I can only imagine. By the Indian-Nigerian criminal gangs!
So this confirms it... (Score:3)
Right way to backup Windows (Score:2)
Boot to the Linux partition and just copy the entire Windows partition and run it through gzip.
Re: (Score:2)
May use pbzip2 instead, but that I what I have been doing for decades. Only thing that works reliably for this complete crapware.
The "fix" doesn't work ... (Score:2)
I went through all the steps to reinstate this crap and I stopped when I found that my Scheduled Tasks didn't list the proper task. Couldn't (quickly enough) find literature on how to establish that task.
However, when I take risks with regedit, I export the whole goddam thing out to a flat plain text file with .reg extension.
Hell, I dfidn't know this fucking easter egg was even there and I've been in the biz 28 years.
In my research, most posts were recommendations starting, with Win7, to remove the goddam t
Are they suffering from collective cretinism? (Score:2)
Because doing something _this_ extremely stupid, without telling their users, for a 50-100M space saving is beyond demented. It looks very much like MS is now run by utterly demented morons that cannot even get simple things right.
Why so large (Score:2)
Why does the Windows Registry typically take up 50-100MB of storage space?
Isn't that a bit large for what is basically just a glorified system-settings database?
Re: (Score:2)
" glorified system-settings database?"
why would that dictate size?
It's too big (Score:2)
was a fine excuse in 1994, not any longer.
Re: Why No Backups? (Score:2, Funny)
Registry hacking is a real rabbit hole. You start, you are never leaving the building.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion the Registry was one of Microsoft dumbest designs.
Lets put in a single point of failure onto a personal desktop solutions, that we sell on the cheapest possible computer hardware.
The old Unix approach of the /etc folder for settings and the .files (hidden) in the home folder for override settings is much more of an elegant and robust design.
While in theory the Registry is faster than config files. In practice the performance gain is minimal on small installs, and get slower for larger/older re
Re: (Score:2)
You know at some point in the future they will upgrade systemd and everyone will be, "Why upgrade systemd it works so well", I so hate new replacement product with such a passion.
Re: (Score:2)