Disjointed, unimportant rambling follows... I wouldn't read it (You can go to the bold TL,DR if you..sigh... "Shut up, Me. Just shut up."): Earlier this morning I found myself bouncing back and forth between DuckDuckGo, Microsoft.com, Google, and back to Microsoft.com in a frustrating attempt to find a complete reference to all of the possible policy settings one can set within the registry key: Code: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System My interest in a comprehensive list of the key's values came after my 'umteenth' revision to a script for remapping my server machine's network drives on my workstation - one of those battles that creates a sense of hostility coming from the operating system, as one variation of the script would work for days on end, and then suddenly the drives will map for console access, but not in explorer or vise-versa, if they mapped at all. This time I decided to try a powershell script rather than a batch script, so I helped myself to some copy-pasta from what appeared to be the most agreed-upon answer to a related StackOverflow question. Unsurprisingly, despite the comments regarding the powershell commands used, as well as the command's own help file had stated, using the "-Persist" option did not cause the drives to map in Explorer; they only mapped within the console. So I searched for further documentation on New-Object in relation to MapNetworkDrive, and am rewarded with one of those Microsoft KB articles that tells you exactly how to solve the problem you're having, and why you're having it, and knows what you've already tried and so tells you why that didn't work. You know, one of those KB articles. I promptly added the registry entry and export it for inclusion in the registry settings I set after reinstalling Windows. Now, rather than resume the task that had been interrupted by the malfunctioning drive mappings, I decided to take the moment to learn about any other possibly useful entries for this key. Searching "EnableLinkedConnections" alone simply returned a couple very similar articles from Microsoft.com, and many more from third parties quoting or linking to those articles. Searching "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System" returns articles for the entries that already exist by default and have easy to find, nearly identical names within Group Policy. So, a moment of thought about how Microsoft's reference pages are laid out, and I remove the slashes, and include a few of the key's values that I feel are the most unrelated to eachother and search "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE SOFTWARE Microsoft Windows CurrentVersion Policies System EnableLinkedConnections ValidateAdminCodeSignatures scforceoption". Well, the search engine omits "EnableLinkedConnections" from the results because it doesn't appear on any 'credible' page alongside the other possible values. Just to be sure, I search: "intext:EnableLinkedConnections AND intext:ValidateAdminCodeSignatures AND intext:scforceoption". Interestingly enough, this had 30-something results, but none from Microsoft or even a third party expert site. All 30+ results were either complete registry dumps pertaining to malware analysis, or an equally long system config script produced by some French software. I then try searching a few different combinations of valid values for the key until I find what seems to be the most complete reference page for UAC policy settings in the registry. This page suggests reviewing the Windows 2000 reference documents for more information. I give up on the little quest, and call the single problem-solving registry value gleaned a small win. For a mental break from the technical over-thinking of everything, I search one more time: "has Microsoft fallen to corporate amnesia?". Google refuses to show me any instances of the term in the same sentence as Microsoft, but an article catches my interest regardless. TL,DR-start here https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2012/08/microsoft-lost-mojo-steve-ballmer After reading this rather lengthy article, I find myself enlightened on a couple facts. First, was that perhaps Apple stole more of the iPhone from Microsoft than it did from Nokia. The second regards the workplace drama that explains Microsoft's post-Millennium masochism. I also find my notions of Microsoft possessing very precise evil plans veiled in mediocrity now quite invalidated. The article explains how the dot-com crash followed by the poor management skills possessed by the early development teams and system engineers-turned department leads through seniority had ended an era of Microsoft making its employees rich through its stock sharing that had also been driving the company's capital gains due to the fact that that situation made working together toward greater goals as fast as possible the most profitable option for the employees themselves. Apparantly, once Microsoft's stock had fallen to half of it's former glory, its policies changed for new hires, while the seniority retained the wealth they had accrued, albeit diminished relative to the stock's value. So here you have the teaming hordes of IT geeks and computer systems engineers who had pursued careers at Microsoft in hopes of great wealth now working for a more standard level of compensation. So, with their dreams of riches in shambles, they go to work trying to pull Microsoft out of the gutter, but their efforts are subverted by the remaining senior employees who are still pretty damn rich, but unwilling to take on any projects that could risk detracting from their flagship operating system and software. And I will (reluctantly) tell you from experience that employees that are paid "too much" will become quite complacent and suffer the loss of their drive as a result of financial success. At this point in the article, I can almost feel the day-to-day drain on the lower-tier Microsoft employees' ambitions and motivation. So the article then reveals something even worse as Microsoft adopts a management system called “stack ranking: Learning of this, I find a lot of what I've observed of Microsoft now making a lot of sense. How all those support questions and answers always seem to have a single Microsoft employee's attention which is generally half copy-pasta and half their own thoughts; they do quite generally come off as 'individuals' rather than co-workers. Even when more than one happens to give a response, they won't directly interact with the other rep. More interestingly though, I feel this could also be the reason we're occasionally thrown an otherwise undocumented bone; perhaps in spite of company policies. Like the one I was thrown near the beginning of the Windows 10 tech preview in the form of a registry value to add to a relatively 'shallow' key that didn't require any data to be assigned to it, but allowed for the built-in administrator to access UWP apps such as Settings and the Store without needing to subject the account to UAC elevation prompts. The registry entry that accomplished this has long since vanished from my memory, as I had only entered it once.