Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #181632 > unrolled thread

Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10

Contents

  Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-21 05:42 -0800
    Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-01-21 09:19 -0600
      Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-21 20:07 +0100
        Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-01-21 13:52 -0600
          Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-01-21 20:46 -0600
            Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-01-22 00:29 -0600
              Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-22 16:38 +0000
              Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-01-22 23:46 -0600
            Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-22 13:42 +0100
              Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-01-22 23:49 -0600
                Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-23 10:44 +0100
                  Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-01-23 14:21 -0600
      Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-22 08:14 -0800
      Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-01-22 17:51 +0000
    Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-21 11:12 -0500
    Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-21 16:25 +0000
      Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-24 03:29 -0800

#181632 — Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro

I did a repair reinstall a few days ago and noticed that now I have
"Windows Fax and Scan" listed on my Start Menu. And when I click on the
shortcut, it actually runs. It has created a subfolder in my Documents
folder which is simply named "Fax". I don't want that folder and also
want to completely remove "Windows Fax and Scan" (which henceforth I
will refer to as "WFAS") from my computer.

Yes, my copy of Windows 10 Pro is fully updated as I write this.

The only method I've found available for getting rid of WFAS is the
following:

1. Open Settings
2. Click on System
3. Click on Optional features
4. Click on the "Windows Fax and Scan" listing
5. Click on Uninstall

I did all this, but although WFAS disappeared from the Optional features
list, it did nothing to remove the "app" or whatever the hell it's
called. The shortcut is still there in my Start Menu and clicking on it
opens WFAS. The Fax subfolder is still present in my Dcuements folder.

By the way, before attempting to use this method, I saw that WFAS is no
longer listed here:
1. Open "Programs and Features"
2. Click on "Turn Windows features on or off"
3. Click on the plug sign next to "Print and Document Services"

WFAS used to be listed here, but it isn't now. I read somewhere on the
internet that it was removed by an update.

Like most people these days, I don't have a land line so having WFAS
installed is bullshit. And I don't want it taking over my scanner's
ability to scan, which I've read that somebody experienced as a problem.

-- 
John C.
Take back Microsoft from India.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#181636

"John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I did a repair reinstall a few days ago and noticed that now I have
> "Windows Fax and Scan" listed on my Start Menu. And when I click on the
> shortcut, it actually runs. It has created a subfolder in my Documents
> folder which is simply named "Fax". I don't want that folder and also
> want to completely remove "Windows Fax and Scan" (which henceforth I
> will refer to as "WFAS") from my computer.
> 
> Yes, my copy of Windows 10 Pro is fully updated as I write this.
> 
> The only method I've found available for getting rid of WFAS is the
> following:
> 
> 1. Open Settings
> 2. Click on System
> 3. Click on Optional features
> 4. Click on the "Windows Fax and Scan" listing
> 5. Click on Uninstall
> 
> I did all this, but although WFAS disappeared from the Optional features
> list, it did nothing to remove the "app" or whatever the hell it's
> called. The shortcut is still there in my Start Menu and clicking on it
> opens WFAS. The Fax subfolder is still present in my Dcuements folder.
> 
> By the way, before attempting to use this method, I saw that WFAS is no
> longer listed here:
> 1. Open "Programs and Features"
> 2. Click on "Turn Windows features on or off"
> 3. Click on the plug sign next to "Print and Document Services"
> 
> WFAS used to be listed here, but it isn't now. I read somewhere on the
> internet that it was removed by an update.
> 
> Like most people these days, I don't have a land line so having WFAS
> installed is bullshit. And I don't want it taking over my scanner's
> ability to scan, which I've read that somebody experienced as a problem.

Microsoft decided to move hence hide where to uninstall/install the
Windows Fax & Scan service.  Used to be you went to appwiz.cpl, and
could select/deselect the fax service.  Some folks report to look under
Settings -> Apps -> Apps & Features to find an "Optional features" link.
Nope, not there anymore.  Now it's been moved to Settings -> System ->
Optional Features, and you'll find the fax service there (that's where I
find it for Win10 22H2).  That's where you reported finding it.  If
installed, clicking on it presents a Remove button.

If you show the Start Menu, and enter "fax", it is listed with the
optional jump list.  One of the entries in the jump list is Uninstall.

Alas, I've had to deal with government agencies that won't accept
e-mails, and demand you send them a fax.  I don't have a telco/POTS
landline anymore, either, but I do have VOIP service and digital phone
service.  VOIP is over the Internet whereas digital phone is with my ISP
(Comcast who reserves 2 channels in the cable modem just for voice
service).  So, I could send a fax using those comm methods.  

You can use an online faxing service.  However, you lose privacy in that
whatever you send them they can see.  Yet when you send a fax, often it
goes to a shared fax machine that anyone walking by can view your fax,
not just the intended recipient, but then you might be sending to a
department rather than a particular person.  Unless you have an
encrypting fax machine, and so does the recipient, faxes are never
secure, but then neither is the vast majority of e-mail since little of
it is encrypted using x.509 or PGP certificates.  In addition to lack of
privacy with online faxing services, the free service tiers often limit
how many faxes you can send per day, and how many pages for each fax,
and some will plaster a cover sheet onto your fax advertising the faxing
service you used.  Some, like Fax.Plus, provide a desktop app, but
that's just a web-centric app (instead of using their web app) that
still uses their online service to do the faxing.

You might think you will never send a fax, but sometimes it is not your
choice.  You want some transaction to transpire, have to supply
information, and the recipient demands a fax.  I've had that happen with
the gov't, and with contracting companies where I had to send them a
copy of my driver license.

In the Start Menu, I went to "Windows Accessories -> Windows Fax and
Scan" entry, right-clicked on it, and selected More -> File location.
It is a shortcut under the following folder:

C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Accessories

The shortcut's target field points to:

%windir%\system32\WFS.exe

I don't know what DLLs, or other support files on which wfs.exe is
dependent.  However, if after the uninstall the wfs.exe file still
exists, you could rename it to, say, wfs-ORIGINAL.exe (and remove the
shortcut from the Accessories folder, and from the Start Menu).  I
wouldn't delete the wfs.exe file since updates, sfc.exe, or dism might
replace it, yet renaming it could result in you having both wfs.exe and
wfs-ORIGINAL.exe at some point.

Windows Fax and Scan is considered deprecated, not removed by updates.
Deprecated means no longer supported.  With the intense decline of fax
machines, or fax modems, the need to send/receive faxes is rare.  Plus,
attachments to e-mail work just as well, and only the intended recipient
sees the fax, not everyone walking by a fax machine.

I left Windows Fax & Scan installed. The ancilliary software that came
with my Canon printer does not include faxing, so I don't have a problem
with WFAS usurping the fax function as other users have noted.  However,
since you never want to fax, why would you have other fax software
installed to be concerned if WSAS usurped the fax function?

I have both WFAS still installed, and the ancilliary software that came
with a Canon printer which includes a scanner.  When I run the Canon
scanner tool, there is no usurping of the scan function by WSAS.  The
Canon scanner works just fine.  You read that some folks noted WSAS
usurped the scan function, but did they actually report an intercept of
the scan function, or an intercept of the fax function (assuming the
printer's ancilliary software included a fax function)?  If you never
will fax, why would you be intigating some fax function in
printer-supplied software?

Do you have other fax software installed to be concerned if WFS will
usurp its faxing function?  Did you test the scanning software that came
with your printer to actually determine if WFS was usurping its scan
function?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181640

On 2025-01-21 16:19, VanguardLH wrote:
> "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

>> Like most people these days, I don't have a land line so having WFAS
>> installed is bullshit. And I don't want it taking over my scanner's
>> ability to scan, which I've read that somebody experienced as a problem.
> 
> Microsoft decided to move hence hide where to uninstall/install the
> Windows Fax & Scan service.  Used to be you went to appwiz.cpl, and
> could select/deselect the fax service.  Some folks report to look under
> Settings -> Apps -> Apps & Features to find an "Optional features" link.
> Nope, not there anymore.  Now it's been moved to Settings -> System ->
> Optional Features, and you'll find the fax service there (that's where I
> find it for Win10 22H2).  That's where you reported finding it.  If
> installed, clicking on it presents a Remove button.
> 
> If you show the Start Menu, and enter "fax", it is listed with the
> optional jump list.  One of the entries in the jump list is Uninstall.

You also need capable hardware. An old fax machine will probably work 
badly with a modern phone that is VoIP behind your back, because VoIP 
waveform is not guaranteed to be in sync with the original(1), contrary 
to what happens with a public switched telephone network (PSTN). There 
is a relatively new fax protocol specific for VoIP lines, meaning you 
need modern machines with that capability on both ends.

(1) On internet, packets can arrive out of time, even in reverse order.


> 
> Alas, I've had to deal with government agencies that won't accept
> e-mails, and demand you send them a fax.  I don't have a telco/POTS
> landline anymore, either, but I do have VOIP service and digital phone
> service.  VOIP is over the Internet whereas digital phone is with my ISP
> (Comcast who reserves 2 channels in the cable modem just for voice
> service).  So, I could send a fax using those comm methods.

You must live in a third world country :-p

(SCNR)

...

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181641

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> On 2025-01-21 16:19, VanguardLH wrote:
>> "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> Like most people these days, I don't have a land line so having WFAS
>>> installed is bullshit. And I don't want it taking over my scanner's
>>> ability to scan, which I've read that somebody experienced as a problem.
>> 
>> Microsoft decided to move hence hide where to uninstall/install the
>> Windows Fax & Scan service.  Used to be you went to appwiz.cpl, and
>> could select/deselect the fax service.  Some folks report to look under
>> Settings -> Apps -> Apps & Features to find an "Optional features" link.
>> Nope, not there anymore.  Now it's been moved to Settings -> System ->
>> Optional Features, and you'll find the fax service there (that's where I
>> find it for Win10 22H2).  That's where you reported finding it.  If
>> installed, clicking on it presents a Remove button.
>> 
>> If you show the Start Menu, and enter "fax", it is listed with the
>> optional jump list.  One of the entries in the jump list is Uninstall.
> 
> You also need capable hardware. An old fax machine will probably work 
> badly with a modern phone that is VoIP behind your back, because VoIP 
> waveform is not guaranteed to be in sync with the original(1), contrary 
> to what happens with a public switched telephone network (PSTN). There 
> is a relatively new fax protocol specific for VoIP lines, meaning you 
> need modern machines with that capability on both ends.
> 
> (1) On internet, packets can arrive out of time, even in reverse order.

That's why I mention that I have digital phone service with my ISP.
That is *not* VOIP: no Internet involved, no packetization.  However, I
have before been able to fax over VOIP.

>> Alas, I've had to deal with government agencies that won't accept
>> e-mails, and demand you send them a fax.  
> 
> You must live in a third world country :-p

There are assholes in every gov't, especially since the gov't seems the
repository for the technically ignorant.  Even in the citizen sector,
there are service folk that don't take credit card, only cash or check.  
Not everyone everywhere is using latest tech, and doubt it is different
in your country.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181648

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 13:52:45 -0600, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

>"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2025-01-21 16:19, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>>>> Like most people these days, I don't have a land line so having WFAS
>>>> installed is bullshit. And I don't want it taking over my scanner's
>>>> ability to scan, which I've read that somebody experienced as a problem.
>>> 
>>> Microsoft decided to move hence hide where to uninstall/install the
>>> Windows Fax & Scan service.  Used to be you went to appwiz.cpl, and
>>> could select/deselect the fax service.  Some folks report to look under
>>> Settings -> Apps -> Apps & Features to find an "Optional features" link.
>>> Nope, not there anymore.  Now it's been moved to Settings -> System ->
>>> Optional Features, and you'll find the fax service there (that's where I
>>> find it for Win10 22H2).  That's where you reported finding it.  If
>>> installed, clicking on it presents a Remove button.
>>> 
>>> If you show the Start Menu, and enter "fax", it is listed with the
>>> optional jump list.  One of the entries in the jump list is Uninstall.
>> 
>> You also need capable hardware. An old fax machine will probably work 
>> badly with a modern phone that is VoIP behind your back, because VoIP 
>> waveform is not guaranteed to be in sync with the original(1), contrary 
>> to what happens with a public switched telephone network (PSTN). There 
>> is a relatively new fax protocol specific for VoIP lines, meaning you 
>> need modern machines with that capability on both ends.
>> 
>> (1) On internet, packets can arrive out of time, even in reverse order.
>
>That's why I mention that I have digital phone service with my ISP.
>That is *not* VOIP: no Internet involved, no packetization.  However, I
>have before been able to fax over VOIP.

When I hear 'digital phone service' I think of SIP and RTP, as example
protocols, but both of those are usually UDP and involve packetization
and the Internet. I must be wrong. Can you steer me in the right
direction?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181649

Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
> 
>> That's why I mention that I have digital phone service with my ISP.
>> That is *not* VOIP: no Internet involved, no packetization. 
>> However, I have before been able to fax over VOIP.
> 
> When I hear 'digital phone service' I think of SIP and RTP, as example
> protocols, but both of those are usually UDP and involve packetization
> and the Internet. I must be wrong. Can you steer me in the right
> direction?

Correction: Comcast does use IP, but only over their privately managed
network which connects to a POS (Point of Service - where VOIP calls
interface to a telco network).  Their voice traffic does not travel the
public Internet.  2 channels in the cable modem are dedicated to digital
voice, and those go to Comcast only, not elsewhere on the Internet.
This differs from VOIP providers with their best-effort services
delivering voice traffic across the Internet.  I consider VOIP to be a
comm service over the Internet and subject to the irregular traffic
delivery thereof.  Digital voice that uses a private network to connect
to a telecomm network is not what users generally refer to as
traditional VOIP.

IP does not have guaranteed order of delivery.  Neither does UDP in its
basic implementation.  TCP does have reliable in-order packet delivery,
but TCP is slower due to the overhead.  UDP has low latency which
equates to smooter voice quality.  Considering how cell phone users have
become accustomed to the crappy quality of cell-based calls, digital
voice is far superior.  Losing a packet for voice traffic is
insignificant.  It's voice, not data.

UDP does not guarantee in-order packet sequencing, or that your packets
arrive at all.  Out of order packets result in dropped packets.  UDP is
used for VOIP.  Digital voice also uses UDP, but can modified, and far
less a problem over a small LAN, or between the voice-capable modem to
Comcast's privately managed network.  For example, each packet can
contain a header describing the number of the packet (from a larger
packet sliced into pieces) along with another header indicating the
packet was part of a larger overall packet, like the total size for the
overall packet.  On delivery, the packets gets dropped in the correct
position in a buffer quickly created via malloc() that can hold the
total byte count, and on arrival each packet's size deducted from the
total size letting the receiving end know when all packets arrived.
This is an example of a custom protocol overlay on UDP similar to the
sliding window protocol used by TCP.  For UDP, I believe only the header
packet(s) must be received first which says how many packets are
supposed to arrive, so UDP packets thereafter can arrive in any order.
UDP doesn't guarantee order on delivery, but that does not prevent
ordering the packets on delivery.  It's the lost packets that are
worrisome, but that is when your traffic is over the Internet, not
within a privately managed network where packet loss is very difficult.

With Comcast digital, only their managed network is involved.  With VOIP
as it is typically understood, your voice traffic hops around in the
Internet to perhaps iffy nodes in the route.  With Google Voice, the
Internet is used between user and a Google POS where thereafter it
traverses over whatever telco Google used at the POS.  The same is/was
true of how magicJack worked.  When I make calls using Google Voice, I
can see I am connecting to some POS: today it was in the 504 area code
(New Orleans, Lousianna), but I've seen it connect to POSes in Alabama
and Virginia, and the call then traverses through whomever telcom is
used at the POS to complete the call.  With Skype, you have to pay extra
for Skype-Out minutes to get access to a POS to let you call landline
and cell phones; else, it's just a chat client between other Skype
users.  Just because I have an assigned phone number for Google Voice,
or other VOIP providers, doesn't mean that is the area code through
which the call is completed.  I'm not making chats over the Internet
between the clients.  I'm making calls that are to landlines, mobile
phones, and VOIP users assigned phone numbers.

You cannot use a SIP phone with Comcast's digital voice service, but you
can use a SIP phone with Comcast's Internet service.  SIP phones are
Internet phones hence VOIP.  You can use a Comcast SIP phone to use
Internet traffic to connect to Comcast's dedicated network.  SIP trunks
can also handle a variety of media (voice, video, data).  VOIP is just
the voice traffic.  SIP can setup and take down VOIP calls.  SIP works
with VOIP.

I use Google Voice, and that is VOIP to a free POS to connect to
landlines and cell phones.  I've used magicJack which is a similar
setup, but wasn't free, and why I switched to Google Voice.  I'm looking
at replacing Google Voice with Ooma, or similar VOIP service, but those
aren't free as is Google Voice.  I still have to traverse the Internet
to get to those VOIP providers instead of using a local dedicated
network for digital phone service.  I've not felt compelled to bother
with SIP phones since, for calls, those are just VOIP services, and I
don't care about videoconferencing, media, or other non-voice traffic.

So, to me, a digital voice line is one that uses a dedicated network to
make the call.  VOIP is over the public Internet.  Whether UDP or TCP is
used in the dedicated network for digital voice really isn't important
since packet order can still be guaranteed with UDP, plus losing a
packet isn't critical for voice communications, especially when compared
to the crappy call quality users are accustomed with cell phones.  I
didn't give up my old POTS line for many years, because cell phones
sucked on call quality.  I kept the POTS line for a couple years while I
trialed digital voice, and decided digital voice was nearly equal to
POTS (with the exception that POTS would still work even if there was an
outage at my ISP, a downed cable, broken modem, but now my cell phone
provides that backup).

Remember that even ancient telco POTS services were also chopped up
(multiplexed).  The age of a dedicated line per call is long long gone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181656

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
> Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
> > 
> >> That's why I mention that I have digital phone service with my ISP.
> >> That is *not* VOIP: no Internet involved, no packetization. 
> >> However, I have before been able to fax over VOIP.
> > 
> > When I hear 'digital phone service' I think of SIP and RTP, as example
> > protocols, but both of those are usually UDP and involve packetization
> > and the Internet. I must be wrong. Can you steer me in the right
> > direction?
> 
> Correction: Comcast does use IP, but only over their privately managed
> network which connects to a POS (Point of Service - where VOIP calls
> interface to a telco network).  Their voice traffic does not travel the
> public Internet.  2 channels in the cable modem are dedicated to digital
> voice, and those go to Comcast only, not elsewhere on the Internet.
> This differs from VOIP providers with their best-effort services
> delivering voice traffic across the Internet.  I consider VOIP to be a
> comm service over the Internet and subject to the irregular traffic
> delivery thereof.  Digital voice that uses a private network to connect
> to a telecomm network is not what users generally refer to as
> traditional VOIP.

  AFAIK, your definitions/interpretations are incorrect.

  VoIP is not only over the (public) Internet. As the name (Voice over
Internet Protocol) indicates, VoIP uses the Internet Protocol (IP). IP
is part of the Internet protocol suite and is not limited to the public
Internet, but can and is used on any Internet, also (semi) private ones.
So your use of Comcast *is* VoIP.

'Voice over IP'
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_IP>

'Internet Protocol'
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol>

  And, as Carlos indicates, your use of "digital phone service"/"digital
voice" is ambiguous, because it's not limited to your narrow definition.

[Networking 'lectures' deleted.]

  Are you aware to whom you are responding?

[...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181667

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:29:52 -0600, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

>Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>> 
>>> That's why I mention that I have digital phone service with my ISP.
>>> That is *not* VOIP: no Internet involved, no packetization. 
>>> However, I have before been able to fax over VOIP.
>> 
>> When I hear 'digital phone service' I think of SIP and RTP, as example
>> protocols, but both of those are usually UDP and involve packetization
>> and the Internet. I must be wrong. Can you steer me in the right
>> direction?
>
>Correction: Comcast does use IP, but only over their privately managed
>network which connects to a POS (Point of Service - where VOIP calls
>interface to a telco network).

It's been 14 years since I finished my 10-year tenure as a data network
design engineer for a major US telco, so I'm probably behind the times
by now, which is why I'm asking.

Above, does IP mean Internet Protocol? If so, that's a big family. Can
we narrow it down? Is it UDP (I'd assume so) or TCP? UDP has much lower
overhead, so it's much better suited to this. Then, once we know the
transport protocol, we can start to figure out the application layer
protocol(s). I was thinking SIP for setup and RTP for the actual call,
but that could be outdated.

>Their voice traffic does not travel the public Internet.

Are you referring to the equivalent of the Comcast local loop or the
entire end to end call? If the former, that's only a tiny piece of the
picture, and if the latter, then I'd say it definitely travels over the
public Internet. Aren't we long past the time when telcos used
non-Internet lines for call transport?

>2 channels in the cable modem are dedicated to digital
>voice, and those go to Comcast only, not elsewhere on the Internet.

OK, but most calls probably don't terminate there, so they have to get
dumped onto the Internet to complete the journey, right?

>This differs from VOIP providers with their best-effort services
>delivering voice traffic across the Internet.  I consider VOIP to be a
>comm service over the Internet and subject to the irregular traffic
>delivery thereof.  Digital voice that uses a private network to connect
>to a telecomm network is not what users generally refer to as
>traditional VOIP.

I'm not entirely sure I can agree with that. What is the telecom network
to which you refer? Where I worked, we decommissioned that in favor of
the Internet, and that was a very long time ago. I'd assume that every
telco has done the same by now. If so, there probably isn't much of a
traditional telecom network still remaining. Telcos like to dump their
traffic onto the Internet at the first opportunity.

<snip>

>So, to me, a digital voice line is one that uses a dedicated network to
>make the call.  VOIP is over the public Internet.

That seems to be a distinction without much of a difference, doesn't it?
I don't see a performance difference either way.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181652

On 2025-01-22 03:46, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 13:52:45 -0600, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
> 
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2025-01-21 16:19, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>> "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> Like most people these days, I don't have a land line so having WFAS
>>>>> installed is bullshit. And I don't want it taking over my scanner's
>>>>> ability to scan, which I've read that somebody experienced as a problem.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft decided to move hence hide where to uninstall/install the
>>>> Windows Fax & Scan service.  Used to be you went to appwiz.cpl, and
>>>> could select/deselect the fax service.  Some folks report to look under
>>>> Settings -> Apps -> Apps & Features to find an "Optional features" link.
>>>> Nope, not there anymore.  Now it's been moved to Settings -> System ->
>>>> Optional Features, and you'll find the fax service there (that's where I
>>>> find it for Win10 22H2).  That's where you reported finding it.  If
>>>> installed, clicking on it presents a Remove button.
>>>>
>>>> If you show the Start Menu, and enter "fax", it is listed with the
>>>> optional jump list.  One of the entries in the jump list is Uninstall.
>>>
>>> You also need capable hardware. An old fax machine will probably work
>>> badly with a modern phone that is VoIP behind your back, because VoIP
>>> waveform is not guaranteed to be in sync with the original(1), contrary
>>> to what happens with a public switched telephone network (PSTN). There
>>> is a relatively new fax protocol specific for VoIP lines, meaning you
>>> need modern machines with that capability on both ends.
>>>
>>> (1) On internet, packets can arrive out of time, even in reverse order.
>>
>> That's why I mention that I have digital phone service with my ISP.
>> That is *not* VOIP: no Internet involved, no packetization.  However, I
>> have before been able to fax over VOIP.
> 
> When I hear 'digital phone service' I think of SIP and RTP, as example
> protocols, but both of those are usually UDP and involve packetization
> and the Internet. I must be wrong. Can you steer me in the right
> direction?

Well, even traditional phone service, POTS, was digital in any advanced 
country. Only the copper line from exchange to the home was analog, 
unless you hired ISDN. But it used dedicated digital virtual channels 
per conversation, constant time delay end to end, no loses.

My ISP uses VoIP internally, sharing the pipe with the rest of the 
internet traffic generated by their clients (so, not saturated). How 
they interconnect with other ISPs, is anybody's guess, though.

Mobile phones are using GSM, as far I know, so PSTN at least to the 
exchanges.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181668

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:42:09 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 2025-01-22 03:46, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 13:52:45 -0600, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>> 
>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-01-21 16:19, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>> "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> Like most people these days, I don't have a land line so having WFAS
>>>>>> installed is bullshit. And I don't want it taking over my scanner's
>>>>>> ability to scan, which I've read that somebody experienced as a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft decided to move hence hide where to uninstall/install the
>>>>> Windows Fax & Scan service.  Used to be you went to appwiz.cpl, and
>>>>> could select/deselect the fax service.  Some folks report to look under
>>>>> Settings -> Apps -> Apps & Features to find an "Optional features" link.
>>>>> Nope, not there anymore.  Now it's been moved to Settings -> System ->
>>>>> Optional Features, and you'll find the fax service there (that's where I
>>>>> find it for Win10 22H2).  That's where you reported finding it.  If
>>>>> installed, clicking on it presents a Remove button.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you show the Start Menu, and enter "fax", it is listed with the
>>>>> optional jump list.  One of the entries in the jump list is Uninstall.
>>>>
>>>> You also need capable hardware. An old fax machine will probably work
>>>> badly with a modern phone that is VoIP behind your back, because VoIP
>>>> waveform is not guaranteed to be in sync with the original(1), contrary
>>>> to what happens with a public switched telephone network (PSTN). There
>>>> is a relatively new fax protocol specific for VoIP lines, meaning you
>>>> need modern machines with that capability on both ends.
>>>>
>>>> (1) On internet, packets can arrive out of time, even in reverse order.
>>>
>>> That's why I mention that I have digital phone service with my ISP.
>>> That is *not* VOIP: no Internet involved, no packetization.  However, I
>>> have before been able to fax over VOIP.
>> 
>> When I hear 'digital phone service' I think of SIP and RTP, as example
>> protocols, but both of those are usually UDP and involve packetization
>> and the Internet. I must be wrong. Can you steer me in the right
>> direction?
>
>Well, even traditional phone service, POTS, was digital in any advanced 
>country. Only the copper line from exchange to the home was analog, 
>unless you hired ISDN. But it used dedicated digital virtual channels 
>per conversation, constant time delay end to end, no loses.

Agreed.

>My ISP uses VoIP internally, sharing the pipe with the rest of the 
>internet traffic generated by their clients (so, not saturated). How 
>they interconnect with other ISPs, is anybody's guess, though.
>
>Mobile phones are using GSM, as far I know, so PSTN at least to the 
>exchanges.

Lots of LTE on this side of the pond.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181671

On 2025-01-23 06:49, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:42:09 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-01-22 03:46, Char Jackson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 13:52:45 -0600, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2025-01-21 16:19, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>>> "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like most people these days, I don't have a land line so having WFAS
>>>>>>> installed is bullshit. And I don't want it taking over my scanner's
>>>>>>> ability to scan, which I've read that somebody experienced as a problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Microsoft decided to move hence hide where to uninstall/install the
>>>>>> Windows Fax & Scan service.  Used to be you went to appwiz.cpl, and
>>>>>> could select/deselect the fax service.  Some folks report to look under
>>>>>> Settings -> Apps -> Apps & Features to find an "Optional features" link.
>>>>>> Nope, not there anymore.  Now it's been moved to Settings -> System ->
>>>>>> Optional Features, and you'll find the fax service there (that's where I
>>>>>> find it for Win10 22H2).  That's where you reported finding it.  If
>>>>>> installed, clicking on it presents a Remove button.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you show the Start Menu, and enter "fax", it is listed with the
>>>>>> optional jump list.  One of the entries in the jump list is Uninstall.
>>>>>
>>>>> You also need capable hardware. An old fax machine will probably work
>>>>> badly with a modern phone that is VoIP behind your back, because VoIP
>>>>> waveform is not guaranteed to be in sync with the original(1), contrary
>>>>> to what happens with a public switched telephone network (PSTN). There
>>>>> is a relatively new fax protocol specific for VoIP lines, meaning you
>>>>> need modern machines with that capability on both ends.
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) On internet, packets can arrive out of time, even in reverse order.
>>>>
>>>> That's why I mention that I have digital phone service with my ISP.
>>>> That is *not* VOIP: no Internet involved, no packetization.  However, I
>>>> have before been able to fax over VOIP.
>>>
>>> When I hear 'digital phone service' I think of SIP and RTP, as example
>>> protocols, but both of those are usually UDP and involve packetization
>>> and the Internet. I must be wrong. Can you steer me in the right
>>> direction?
>>
>> Well, even traditional phone service, POTS, was digital in any advanced
>> country. Only the copper line from exchange to the home was analog,
>> unless you hired ISDN. But it used dedicated digital virtual channels
>> per conversation, constant time delay end to end, no loses.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> My ISP uses VoIP internally, sharing the pipe with the rest of the
>> internet traffic generated by their clients (so, not saturated). How
>> they interconnect with other ISPs, is anybody's guess, though.
>>
>> Mobile phones are using GSM, as far I know, so PSTN at least to the
>> exchanges.
> 
> Lots of LTE on this side of the pond.

Ah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_(telecommunication)

In telecommunications, long-term evolution (LTE) is a standard for 
wireless broadband communication for mobile devices and data terminals 
based on the GSM/EDGE and UMTS/HSPA standards. It improves on those 
standards' capacity and speed by using a different radio interface and 
core network improvements.[1][2] LTE is the upgrade path for carriers 
with both GSM/UMTS networks and CDMA2000 networks. Because LTE 
frequencies and bands differ from country to country, only multi-band 
phones can use LTE in all countries where it is supported.

...

Overview

LTE stands for Long-Term Evolution[7] and is a registered trademark 
owned by ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) for the 
wireless data communications technology and a development of the 
GSM/UMTS standards. However, other nations and companies do play an 
active role in the LTE project. The goal of LTE was to increase the 
capacity and speed of wireless data networks using new DSP (digital 
signal processing) techniques and modulations that were developed around 
the turn of the millennium. A further goal was the redesign and 
simplification of the network architecture to an IP-based system with 
significantly reduced transfer latency compared with the 3G 
architecture. The LTE wireless interface is incompatible with 2G and 3G 
networks, so that it must be operated on a separate radio spectrum.


So it it is IP based.

...

Voice calls

The LTE standard supports only packet switching with its all-IP network. 
Voice calls in GSM, UMTS and CDMA2000 are circuit switched, so with the 
adoption of LTE, carriers will have to re-engineer their voice call 
network.[106] Four different approaches sprang up:

Voice over LTE (VoLTE)
Circuit-switched fallback (CSFB)
Simultaneous voice and LTE (SVLTE)
Single Radio Voice Call Continuity (SRVCC)




I have not read it all, so I don't know how they interconnect with the 
landline network that supposedly has migrated or is migrating from PSTN 
to VoIP. I don't know if this is explained in the article or another 
article.



-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181678

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 10:44:38 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 2025-01-23 06:49, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:42:09 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2025-01-22 03:46, Char Jackson wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 13:52:45 -0600, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025-01-21 16:19, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>>>> "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like most people these days, I don't have a land line so having WFAS
>>>>>>>> installed is bullshit. And I don't want it taking over my scanner's
>>>>>>>> ability to scan, which I've read that somebody experienced as a problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Microsoft decided to move hence hide where to uninstall/install the
>>>>>>> Windows Fax & Scan service.  Used to be you went to appwiz.cpl, and
>>>>>>> could select/deselect the fax service.  Some folks report to look under
>>>>>>> Settings -> Apps -> Apps & Features to find an "Optional features" link.
>>>>>>> Nope, not there anymore.  Now it's been moved to Settings -> System ->
>>>>>>> Optional Features, and you'll find the fax service there (that's where I
>>>>>>> find it for Win10 22H2).  That's where you reported finding it.  If
>>>>>>> installed, clicking on it presents a Remove button.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you show the Start Menu, and enter "fax", it is listed with the
>>>>>>> optional jump list.  One of the entries in the jump list is Uninstall.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You also need capable hardware. An old fax machine will probably work
>>>>>> badly with a modern phone that is VoIP behind your back, because VoIP
>>>>>> waveform is not guaranteed to be in sync with the original(1), contrary
>>>>>> to what happens with a public switched telephone network (PSTN). There
>>>>>> is a relatively new fax protocol specific for VoIP lines, meaning you
>>>>>> need modern machines with that capability on both ends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) On internet, packets can arrive out of time, even in reverse order.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why I mention that I have digital phone service with my ISP.
>>>>> That is *not* VOIP: no Internet involved, no packetization.  However, I
>>>>> have before been able to fax over VOIP.
>>>>
>>>> When I hear 'digital phone service' I think of SIP and RTP, as example
>>>> protocols, but both of those are usually UDP and involve packetization
>>>> and the Internet. I must be wrong. Can you steer me in the right
>>>> direction?
>>>
>>> Well, even traditional phone service, POTS, was digital in any advanced
>>> country. Only the copper line from exchange to the home was analog,
>>> unless you hired ISDN. But it used dedicated digital virtual channels
>>> per conversation, constant time delay end to end, no loses.
>> 
>> Agreed.
>> 
>>> My ISP uses VoIP internally, sharing the pipe with the rest of the
>>> internet traffic generated by their clients (so, not saturated). How
>>> they interconnect with other ISPs, is anybody's guess, though.
>>>
>>> Mobile phones are using GSM, as far I know, so PSTN at least to the
>>> exchanges.
>> 
>> Lots of LTE on this side of the pond.
>
>Ah.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_(telecommunication)
>
>In telecommunications, long-term evolution (LTE) is a standard for 
>wireless broadband communication for mobile devices and data terminals 
>based on the GSM/EDGE and UMTS/HSPA standards. It improves on those 
>standards' capacity and speed by using a different radio interface and 
>core network improvements.[1][2] LTE is the upgrade path for carriers 
>with both GSM/UMTS networks and CDMA2000 networks. Because LTE 
>frequencies and bands differ from country to country, only multi-band 
>phones can use LTE in all countries where it is supported.
>
>...
>
>Overview
>
>LTE stands for Long-Term Evolution[7] and is a registered trademark 
>owned by ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) for the 
>wireless data communications technology and a development of the 
>GSM/UMTS standards. However, other nations and companies do play an 
>active role in the LTE project. The goal of LTE was to increase the 
>capacity and speed of wireless data networks using new DSP (digital 
>signal processing) techniques and modulations that were developed around 
>the turn of the millennium. A further goal was the redesign and 
>simplification of the network architecture to an IP-based system with 
>significantly reduced transfer latency compared with the 3G 
>architecture. The LTE wireless interface is incompatible with 2G and 3G 
>networks, so that it must be operated on a separate radio spectrum.
>
>
>So it it is IP based.
>
>...
>
>Voice calls
>
>The LTE standard supports only packet switching with its all-IP network. 
>Voice calls in GSM, UMTS and CDMA2000 are circuit switched, so with the 
>adoption of LTE, carriers will have to re-engineer their voice call 
>network.[106] Four different approaches sprang up:
>
>Voice over LTE (VoLTE)
>Circuit-switched fallback (CSFB)
>Simultaneous voice and LTE (SVLTE)
>Single Radio Voice Call Continuity (SRVCC)
>
>
>
>
>I have not read it all, so I don't know how they interconnect with the 
>landline network that supposedly has migrated or is migrating from PSTN 
>to VoIP. I don't know if this is explained in the article or another 
>article.

In addition, I like this paragraph from the Wikipedia article on PSTN:

Originally a network of fixed-line analog telephone systems, the PSTN is
now predominantly digital in its core network and includes terrestrial
cellular, satellite, and landline systems. These interconnected networks
enable global communication, allowing calls to be made to and from
nearly any telephone worldwide.[1] Many of these networks are
progressively transitioning to Internet Protocol to carry their
telephony traffic. 

"the PSTN is now predominantly digital in its core network"

"Many of these networks are progressively transitioning to Internet
Protocol to carry their telephony traffic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_switched_telephone_network

When I worked at a telco, I was friends with the folks on the Capacity
Management team. They were thrilled every time a chunk of the
infrastructure was upgraded from circuit-switched to packet-switched
because it dumped a whole lot of freed up capacity on their laps. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181655

VanguardLH wrote:
> "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> I did a repair reinstall a few days ago and noticed that now I have
>> "Windows Fax and Scan" listed on my Start Menu. And when I click on the
>> shortcut, it actually runs. It has created a subfolder in my Documents
>> folder which is simply named "Fax". I don't want that folder and also
>> want to completely remove "Windows Fax and Scan" (which henceforth I
>> will refer to as "WFAS") from my computer.
>>
>> Yes, my copy of Windows 10 Pro is fully updated as I write this.
>>
>> The only method I've found available for getting rid of WFAS is the
>> following:
>>
>> 1. Open Settings
>> 2. Click on System
>> 3. Click on Optional features
>> 4. Click on the "Windows Fax and Scan" listing
>> 5. Click on Uninstall
>>
>> I did all this, but although WFAS disappeared from the Optional features
>> list, it did nothing to remove the "app" or whatever the hell it's
>> called. The shortcut is still there in my Start Menu and clicking on it
>> opens WFAS. The Fax subfolder is still present in my Dcuements folder.
>>
>> By the way, before attempting to use this method, I saw that WFAS is no
>> longer listed here:
>> 1. Open "Programs and Features"
>> 2. Click on "Turn Windows features on or off"
>> 3. Click on the plug sign next to "Print and Document Services"
>>
>> WFAS used to be listed here, but it isn't now. I read somewhere on the
>> internet that it was removed by an update.
>>
>> Like most people these days, I don't have a land line so having WFAS
>> installed is bullshit. And I don't want it taking over my scanner's
>> ability to scan, which I've read that somebody experienced as a problem.
> 
> Microsoft decided to move hence hide where to uninstall/install the
> Windows Fax & Scan service.  Used to be you went to appwiz.cpl, and
> could select/deselect the fax service.  Some folks report to look under
> Settings -> Apps -> Apps & Features to find an "Optional features" link.
> Nope, not there anymore.  Now it's been moved to Settings -> System ->
> Optional Features, and you'll find the fax service there (that's where I
> find it for Win10 22H2).  That's where you reported finding it.  If
> installed, clicking on it presents a Remove button.
> 
> If you show the Start Menu, and enter "fax", it is listed with the
> optional jump list.  One of the entries in the jump list is Uninstall.
> 
> Alas, I've had to deal with government agencies that won't accept
> e-mails, and demand you send them a fax.  I don't have a telco/POTS
> landline anymore, either, but I do have VOIP service and digital phone
> service.  VOIP is over the Internet whereas digital phone is with my ISP
> (Comcast who reserves 2 channels in the cable modem just for voice
> service).  So, I could send a fax using those comm methods.  
> 
> You can use an online faxing service.  However, you lose privacy in that
> whatever you send them they can see.  Yet when you send a fax, often it
> goes to a shared fax machine that anyone walking by can view your fax,
> not just the intended recipient, but then you might be sending to a
> department rather than a particular person.  Unless you have an
> encrypting fax machine, and so does the recipient, faxes are never
> secure, but then neither is the vast majority of e-mail since little of
> it is encrypted using x.509 or PGP certificates.  In addition to lack of
> privacy with online faxing services, the free service tiers often limit
> how many faxes you can send per day, and how many pages for each fax,
> and some will plaster a cover sheet onto your fax advertising the faxing
> service you used.  Some, like Fax.Plus, provide a desktop app, but
> that's just a web-centric app (instead of using their web app) that
> still uses their online service to do the faxing.
> 
> You might think you will never send a fax, but sometimes it is not your
> choice.  You want some transaction to transpire, have to supply
> information, and the recipient demands a fax.  I've had that happen with
> the gov't, and with contracting companies where I had to send them a
> copy of my driver license.
> 
> In the Start Menu, I went to "Windows Accessories -> Windows Fax and
> Scan" entry, right-clicked on it, and selected More -> File location.
> It is a shortcut under the following folder:
> 
> C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Accessories
> 
> The shortcut's target field points to:
> 
> %windir%\system32\WFS.exe
> 
> I don't know what DLLs, or other support files on which wfs.exe is
> dependent.  However, if after the uninstall the wfs.exe file still
> exists, you could rename it to, say, wfs-ORIGINAL.exe (and remove the
> shortcut from the Accessories folder, and from the Start Menu).  I
> wouldn't delete the wfs.exe file since updates, sfc.exe, or dism might
> replace it, yet renaming it could result in you having both wfs.exe and
> wfs-ORIGINAL.exe at some point.
> 
> Windows Fax and Scan is considered deprecated, not removed by updates.
> Deprecated means no longer supported.  With the intense decline of fax
> machines, or fax modems, the need to send/receive faxes is rare.  Plus,
> attachments to e-mail work just as well, and only the intended recipient
> sees the fax, not everyone walking by a fax machine.
> 
> I left Windows Fax & Scan installed. The ancilliary software that came
> with my Canon printer does not include faxing, so I don't have a problem
> with WFAS usurping the fax function as other users have noted.  However,
> since you never want to fax, why would you have other fax software
> installed to be concerned if WSAS usurped the fax function?
> 
> I have both WFAS still installed, and the ancilliary software that came
> with a Canon printer which includes a scanner.  When I run the Canon
> scanner tool, there is no usurping of the scan function by WSAS.  The
> Canon scanner works just fine.  You read that some folks noted WSAS
> usurped the scan function, but did they actually report an intercept of
> the scan function, or an intercept of the fax function (assuming the
> printer's ancilliary software included a fax function)?  If you never
> will fax, why would you be intigating some fax function in
> printer-supplied software?
> 
> Do you have other fax software installed to be concerned if WFS will
> usurp its faxing function?  Did you test the scanning software that came
> with your printer to actually determine if WFS was usurping its scan
> function?

Just checked and it seems the problem resolved itself after I rebooted a
couple of times.

-- 
John C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181657

[snip]

> Alas, I've had to deal with government agencies that won't accept
> e-mails, and demand you send them a fax.  I don't have a telco/POTS
> landline anymore, either, but I do have VOIP service and digital phone
> service.  VOIP is over the Internet whereas digital phone is with my ISP
> (Comcast who reserves 2 channels in the cable modem just for voice
> service).  So, I could send a fax using those comm methods.

The last time I had to send a fax was when I quit AOL (late nineties).

[snip]

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Inspired? The Bible is not even intelligent. It is not even good
craftsmanship, but is full of absurdities and contradictions." -- E.
Haldeman-Julius, The Meaning Of Atheism

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181638

On Tue, 1/21/2025 8:42 AM, John C. wrote:
> I did a repair reinstall a few days ago and noticed that now I have
> "Windows Fax and Scan" listed on my Start Menu. And when I click on the
> shortcut, it actually runs. It has created a subfolder in my Documents
> folder which is simply named "Fax". I don't want that folder and also
> want to completely remove "Windows Fax and Scan" (which henceforth I
> will refer to as "WFAS") from my computer.
> 
> Yes, my copy of Windows 10 Pro is fully updated as I write this.
> 
> The only method I've found available for getting rid of WFAS is the
> following:
> 
> 1. Open Settings
> 2. Click on System
> 3. Click on Optional features
> 4. Click on the "Windows Fax and Scan" listing
> 5. Click on Uninstall
> 
> I did all this, but although WFAS disappeared from the Optional features
> list, it did nothing to remove the "app" or whatever the hell it's
> called. The shortcut is still there in my Start Menu and clicking on it
> opens WFAS. The Fax subfolder is still present in my Dcuements folder.
> 
> By the way, before attempting to use this method, I saw that WFAS is no
> longer listed here:
> 1. Open "Programs and Features"
> 2. Click on "Turn Windows features on or off"
> 3. Click on the plug sign next to "Print and Document Services"
> 
> WFAS used to be listed here, but it isn't now. I read somewhere on the
> internet that it was removed by an update.
> 
> Like most people these days, I don't have a land line so having WFAS
> installed is bullshit. And I don't want it taking over my scanner's
> ability to scan, which I've read that somebody experienced as a problem.
> 

You can send FAX over VOIP, but only at 9600 baud, not at 14400 baud "Fine".

This is what makes the spool dialog for the FAX server. It's not listed
in Apps, nor in Programs and Features. By removing the tick box, they
removed the ability to remove it !

Microsoft Windows Fax Client     WFS.exe

The *only* removal method was

    Programs and Features :
       Windows features :
          Print and Document services :
             Windows FAX and Scan          <=== This is "gone" so "cannot be UNTICKED" :-/

Google and see if you can find a recipe.

It is somehow related to    windows fax-and-scan-client-applications
but the path is shortened
so I'm only guessing at the name.

When you find WFS.exe in WinSxS, that will give you the path name to consider.

Note that file pointers exist in two places. WinSxS would have a "master copy"
while System32 has a hardlink to that. If you are thinking of deleting it,
the various materials are in two places.

I do not see an installer material, for Programs and Features to use to install
and uninstall it, as otherwise I'd tell you to do it manually. There must be
one... somewhere in there.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181639

John C. <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

> Like most people these days, I don't have a land line so having WFAS
> installed is bullshit. And I don't want it taking over my scanner's
> ability to scan, which I've read that somebody experienced as a problem.

  If that is your main reason to want to remove 'Windows Fax and Scan',
then 1) the 'interfering' software was 'Windows Scan', i.e. *different*
software. which is an app (not normal program) which is installed from
the Microsoft Store and 2) without the 'Windows Scan' app, the 'problem'
does not occur. So no need to worry.

  FYI, on my Windows *11* system, the 'Windows Fax and Scan' component
is present and listed under Settings -> System -> Optional features, but
is *not* listed in the 'Start' menu [1]. So you do not see it, unless
you specifically search for it.

[1] You can *get* to it from the 'Start' menu, by selecting 'Windows
Tools' and then you will get a File Explorer windows listing all kinds
of Windows Tools. But 'Windows Fax and Scan' is *not* listed in the main
'Start' menu,

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181697

Frank Slootweg wrote:
> John C. wrote:
> [...]
> 
>> Like most people these days, I don't have a land line so having WFAS
>> installed is bullshit. And I don't want it taking over my scanner's
>> ability to scan, which I've read that somebody experienced as a problem.
> 
>   If that is your main reason to want to remove 'Windows Fax and Scan',
> then 1) the 'interfering' software was 'Windows Scan', i.e. *different*
> software. which is an app (not normal program) which is installed from
> the Microsoft Store and 2) without the 'Windows Scan' app, the 'problem'
> does not occur. So no need to worry.

In another post, I mentioned that rebooting my system seems to have
finally removed WFAS.

>   FYI, on my Windows *11* system, the 'Windows Fax and Scan' component
> is present and listed under Settings -> System -> Optional features, but
> is *not* listed in the 'Start' menu [1]. So you do not see it, unless
> you specifically search for it.
> 
> [1] You can *get* to it from the 'Start' menu, by selecting 'Windows
> Tools' and then you will get a File Explorer windows listing all kinds
> of Windows Tools. But 'Windows Fax and Scan' is *not* listed in the main
> 'Start' menu,

Thanks Frank, but I intend to delay having to use the hated Windows 11
as long as possible. In fact, I'm going to set up another computer and
put a Linux distro on it, then start moving over to it.

Microsoft is a clusterfuck ever since India took it over.

-- 
John C.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10

csiph-web