Microsoft Office 2019 will only work on Windows 10(blog.descasio.com)
blog.descasio.com
Microsoft Office 2019 will only work on Windows 10
http://www.blog.descasio.com/microsoft-office-2019-windows-10/
190 comments
They're entitled to make whatever business decisions they like, but of course those of us who don't want anything to do with Windows 10 won't now buy their new product in this case, so only time will tell whether the business decision has the effect they're hoping for. Microsoft's strategy under Nadella seems to be shifting towards the extremes of enterprise-scale customers and lightweight home users at the expense of the SMEs and power users in between, so this decision seems consistent with their recent pattern.
If you don't want anything to do with Windows 10 they've lost you as a customer already. Losing sales to people who refuse to update to Windows 10 will be more than offset by people who upgrade in order to use this version of Office, not to mention the savings from not supporting and testing for older versions of Windows.
I don't see many people upgrading Windows in order to upgrade Office. Those, who are enthusiasts, that have to have the latest version, are on Windows 10 already. Those who are conservative and have older Windows edition, and will have similar attitude to upgrading the Office.
Looking around me, people are fine to run 2007/2010/2013, it seems I'm the only one running 2016.
What I see to be a worse thing than supporting Windows 10 only, is that for the retail/non-o365 version there is no install media. It is click-to-run only.
Looking around me, people are fine to run 2007/2010/2013, it seems I'm the only one running 2016.
What I see to be a worse thing than supporting Windows 10 only, is that for the retail/non-o365 version there is no install media. It is click-to-run only.
> What I see to be a worse thing than supporting Windows 10 only, is that for the retail/non-o365 version there is no install media. It is click-to-run only.
Why is that? Because of the necessity to download a multi-GB install file after purchasing the key?
Why is that? Because of the necessity to download a multi-GB install file after purchasing the key?
As long as you can download the installer once and save it to DVD/USB, I think that's a legitimate decision too. Producing physical install media, boxes etc. is an overhead that I'm guessing most people would rather do without these days.
You can use the same installer file (downloaded once) for multiple installations. It works as long as you bought the required licenses. So packaged installer media would only really benefit people in remote places where an internet connection is non-existent or slow/expensive, but MS has obviously decided to optimise that case out.
What exactly is wrong with Windows 10 though? In my opinion, it has been a huge improvement over Windows 8/8.1. Also, the Linux subsystem feature seems pretty usable to me.
The list is long but top reasons for me after having used it for a while:
- start menu completely random. Like typing "upd" doesn't display anything but typing "update" shows windows update. And the behaviour doesn't seem to be stable. Sometimes old control panels show, sometimes not. Seems to be erratic through time and across different machines.
- microsoft dropping unwanted apps regularly in the start menu. Candy crunch, all sort of ads for sponsored software
- Frequent forced reboots
- Microsoft trying to force my hand on everything. Like default apps, making it difficult to change the default or for videos and images requiring me to confirm on every single different file extension one by one, or not allowing to select an app by its file path for all images or videos (only allowing me to pick from a shortlist of useless apps), making it difficult to create local accounts, all these multiple opt out confirmations are annoying. No means no.
- telemetry
- two control panels and making things worse, settings progressively moving between the two such that the location of a setting is unpredictable. The new control panel often gives the feeling of having been simplified (which in itself is fine) but also to hide the access to more advanced options (not fine).
- generally speaking the big buttons, all grey UI is not particularly pleasant
- many small usability features. Like when prompting for credentials, the RDP client doesn't allow you to access the username and password boxes with the keyboard, you have to select them with your mouse. It feels unfinished.
- I haven't had blue screen for a long time on windows 7, while it has become quite common on windows 10
- repeated interruptions. The OS should be discreet and not be interrupting your workflow unnecessarily. They since removed the full screen notifications in windows 10, but didn't for Windows Server 2016.
There are notable improvements too. Like finally being able to copy-paste in command lines was long overdue. The server features are also much better (hyper-v, powershell functionalities, IIS, etc). But on balance I think it provides a poor experience. I am not saying Windows 7 is perfect either, it comes with its own annoyances but I think it's not as bad.
- start menu completely random. Like typing "upd" doesn't display anything but typing "update" shows windows update. And the behaviour doesn't seem to be stable. Sometimes old control panels show, sometimes not. Seems to be erratic through time and across different machines.
- microsoft dropping unwanted apps regularly in the start menu. Candy crunch, all sort of ads for sponsored software
- Frequent forced reboots
- Microsoft trying to force my hand on everything. Like default apps, making it difficult to change the default or for videos and images requiring me to confirm on every single different file extension one by one, or not allowing to select an app by its file path for all images or videos (only allowing me to pick from a shortlist of useless apps), making it difficult to create local accounts, all these multiple opt out confirmations are annoying. No means no.
- telemetry
- two control panels and making things worse, settings progressively moving between the two such that the location of a setting is unpredictable. The new control panel often gives the feeling of having been simplified (which in itself is fine) but also to hide the access to more advanced options (not fine).
- generally speaking the big buttons, all grey UI is not particularly pleasant
- many small usability features. Like when prompting for credentials, the RDP client doesn't allow you to access the username and password boxes with the keyboard, you have to select them with your mouse. It feels unfinished.
- I haven't had blue screen for a long time on windows 7, while it has become quite common on windows 10
- repeated interruptions. The OS should be discreet and not be interrupting your workflow unnecessarily. They since removed the full screen notifications in windows 10, but didn't for Windows Server 2016.
There are notable improvements too. Like finally being able to copy-paste in command lines was long overdue. The server features are also much better (hyper-v, powershell functionalities, IIS, etc). But on balance I think it provides a poor experience. I am not saying Windows 7 is perfect either, it comes with its own annoyances but I think it's not as bad.
The start menu searching bugs me to no end. I have a hard time understanding why something like that isn't fixed/improved. It's so terrible, it's impossible to miss.
I just want to agree with your point about search. Search on Windows is horribly broken, unreliable, and poorly designed. But in my opinion it has been in that state since at least Vista and they've only managed to make it worse every release. Integrating Cortana took something barely functioning and piled on complexity.
If Microsoft were to "delete and start again" on two areas, for me it would have to be Windows' Search and the Printer stack. They're almost impressive in their terribleness. I literally use Notepad++'s file search for file content and FileLocator Pro for filenames instead of Windows search because it is more consistent, reliable, and faster.
I actually had a conversation with a Microsoft employee at a conference who then worked on search in Windows 7. And after that conversation I absolutely understood why it was in the state that it was in. He believed it was bad because it wasn't complex enough, wanting to pile in even more supported file type filters and expanding language services. Both of which they wound up doing in Windows 8, making it even more complicated and unreliable.
If Microsoft were to "delete and start again" on two areas, for me it would have to be Windows' Search and the Printer stack. They're almost impressive in their terribleness. I literally use Notepad++'s file search for file content and FileLocator Pro for filenames instead of Windows search because it is more consistent, reliable, and faster.
I actually had a conversation with a Microsoft employee at a conference who then worked on search in Windows 7. And after that conversation I absolutely understood why it was in the state that it was in. He believed it was bad because it wasn't complex enough, wanting to pile in even more supported file type filters and expanding language services. Both of which they wound up doing in Windows 8, making it even more complicated and unreliable.
By the way on search (not in the start menu, in explorer), do you know why it is so slow? It can sometimes take minutes to search for filename in a network drive when listing all files in the same drive in c# takes seconds (and if you even dare to change how results are sorted, it would reset the search from scratch...). That's not specific to Windows 10, Windows 7 does the same. It seems to be doing all sort of unwanted stuff but I don't know what and I don't know how to turn them off to only search by file name.
> "By the way on search (not in the start menu, in explorer), do you know why it is so slow?"
I've given up using it. A work colleague recommended Agent Ransack and I've been happily using that ever since.
I've given up using it. A work colleague recommended Agent Ransack and I've been happily using that ever since.
> - Frequent forced reboots
At least on this point I'll have to anecdotally disagree. I've been on 10 for more than a year now and I haven't suffered even a single forced reboot. Sometimes the OS notifies me of impending restarts, but they're always hours away so I have time to finish my work. It is, IME at least, more stable than all previous versions of Windows.
At least on this point I'll have to anecdotally disagree. I've been on 10 for more than a year now and I haven't suffered even a single forced reboot. Sometimes the OS notifies me of impending restarts, but they're always hours away so I have time to finish my work. It is, IME at least, more stable than all previous versions of Windows.
I'd say it's the best overall Windows version from a UI and features perspective. But the forced updates have caused me so many headaches that I hate it nearly as much as I hated XP during its spyware and rootkit wild west era.
Nothing.
But people have trapped themselves in a corner. They refused to do the free upgrade, now the opportunity has passed, and they are left stuck on an older inferior version which is near EoL for no great reason.
So they just keep parroting poorly reasoned arguments, repeating conspiracies, or acting smug & superior for simply being contrarian.
But people have trapped themselves in a corner. They refused to do the free upgrade, now the opportunity has passed, and they are left stuck on an older inferior version which is near EoL for no great reason.
So they just keep parroting poorly reasoned arguments, repeating conspiracies, or acting smug & superior for simply being contrarian.
> Nothing.
I take issue with this. There are several problems with Windows 10:
- silent updates, that you cannot control them or disable them,
- these updates reset your setting, enable things you explicitly disabled, behind your back,
- Microsoft still didn't document what data they are exfiltrating, and doesn't allow to disable call-to-home functionality.
BTW, that free upgrade still works, it just isn't advertised. For above mentioned reasons, many consider Windows 10 to be the inferior version, not the previous ones.
I take issue with this. There are several problems with Windows 10:
- silent updates, that you cannot control them or disable them,
- these updates reset your setting, enable things you explicitly disabled, behind your back,
- Microsoft still didn't document what data they are exfiltrating, and doesn't allow to disable call-to-home functionality.
BTW, that free upgrade still works, it just isn't advertised. For above mentioned reasons, many consider Windows 10 to be the inferior version, not the previous ones.
> these updates reset your setting, enable things you explicitly disabled, behind your back,
And by settings you mean undocumented registry entries that people found and altered to break core services on purpose? If you start altering undocumented things there's no real assurances that it will work the same way (or state maintained) during an update.
> Microsoft still didn't document what data they are exfiltrating
Basic diagnostic data: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/basic...
Full diagnostic data: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/windo...
> silent updates, that you cannot control them or disable them
You get plenty of control over updates including how "silent" they are, you just cannot disable them entirely.
But is limiting the ability to disable them for the greater good? We still have huge Windows XP botnets running rampant on the internet because people would completely disable updates, get infected, and then start causing harm to their neighbors.
I've read quite a few people that want to disable Windows Update, but they never provide a plan or route for receiving security updates. They just simply opt to run an insecure machine because an update annoyed them one time, and that would be fine if it didn't impact others.
And by settings you mean undocumented registry entries that people found and altered to break core services on purpose? If you start altering undocumented things there's no real assurances that it will work the same way (or state maintained) during an update.
> Microsoft still didn't document what data they are exfiltrating
Basic diagnostic data: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/basic...
Full diagnostic data: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/windo...
> silent updates, that you cannot control them or disable them
You get plenty of control over updates including how "silent" they are, you just cannot disable them entirely.
But is limiting the ability to disable them for the greater good? We still have huge Windows XP botnets running rampant on the internet because people would completely disable updates, get infected, and then start causing harm to their neighbors.
I've read quite a few people that want to disable Windows Update, but they never provide a plan or route for receiving security updates. They just simply opt to run an insecure machine because an update annoyed them one time, and that would be fine if it didn't impact others.
I wonder what the correlation is between:
* People who would seek to disable updates on their computer.
* People who would take negative views on those who refuse to vaccinate their children.
* People who would seek to disable updates on their computer.
* People who would take negative views on those who refuse to vaccinate their children.
Unlike Windows "security" updates, vaccines don't sneak in new "features".
I'm in both camps, at least where Windows is involved. I'm much more willing to update the average Linux or BSD (including macOS) because I still actually trust those updates.
I'm in both camps, at least where Windows is involved. I'm much more willing to update the average Linux or BSD (including macOS) because I still actually trust those updates.
Not true for those that believe in the autism link. That sounds like a "hidden feature" to me. Also, the occasional vaccine that actually gets one sick.
I am in both groups, there's a sample for your study :P
I have experienced the first point many many times, and no, they aren't registry hacks. I've had things get reset straight out of Windows power options among others for example.
Microsoft had some early hiccups in settings being forgetful when reprovisioning them in updates, and apologized for those on the Windows 10 blogs (and especially to Insiders who saw it the most; and also helped report it and fix it). Windows 10 has gotten more reliable to not accidentally forget settings with each major update.
Early on, I think I've seen W10 update my GPU drivers while I was in game, which crashed it. I've also seen my TV mirroring setup wiped out by driver updates that happened behind my back.
Windows 10 doesn't seem to respect the user as much as previous releases.
Windows 10 doesn't seem to respect the user as much as previous releases.
Silent updates: Don't really know what you mean.
Can't control: You can postpone them for quite a while. I'm sure it's at least 30 days, but you can do for much longer I think.
Can't disable: Yea, what a pity, people won't be getting hacked by malware that got preventive updates shipped a year ago.
Reset settings: there was something like that, that's true, but the last time it happened, it was like a year ago, and I do think this is a case of "don't attribute malice to something that can by caused by a mistake".
Didn't still document: Half a month ago they put the windows diagnostic data viewer into windows, you can look up all telemetry that's getting sent back home.
Reset settings: there was something like that, that's true, but the last time it happened, it was like a year ago, and I do think this is a case of "don't attribute malice to something that can by caused by a mistake".
Didn't still document: Half a month ago they put the windows diagnostic data viewer into windows, you can look up all telemetry that's getting sent back home.
Silent updates: it is up to these people, whether they want to risk getting hacked, not up to Microsoft.
Reset settings: still happens. The worse thing is, that firewall rules for application packages have version numbers in them, so when you change the rule, and the package updates... you rule is ineffective. And no, Bing doesn't to know, what I'm searching local start menu for.
Didn't still document: so you know what "cV" or "iKey" values mean? Still, where's the "off" option? Mozilla doesn't get the telemetry from me, and there is an universe of difference, how trustworthy Mozilla is compared to Microsoft.
Reset settings: still happens. The worse thing is, that firewall rules for application packages have version numbers in them, so when you change the rule, and the package updates... you rule is ineffective. And no, Bing doesn't to know, what I'm searching local start menu for.
Didn't still document: so you know what "cV" or "iKey" values mean? Still, where's the "off" option? Mozilla doesn't get the telemetry from me, and there is an universe of difference, how trustworthy Mozilla is compared to Microsoft.
Same as it's up to people if they wanna use vaccine or not? The thing is:
1. Those people then are saying how bad and full of viruses Windows it's, even if it's only their fault. It's good for technically not-inclined users. And MS is only loosing here, as well as those users.
2. This is how you get botnets, which then take your worldwide DNS down. But yeah, it's only up to these people. Why would I care about botnets DDoS'ing half the net? And why would I care that companies are handling my sensitive personal data on insecure computers? Yeah, no worries. It should only be up to them...
1. Those people then are saying how bad and full of viruses Windows it's, even if it's only their fault. It's good for technically not-inclined users. And MS is only loosing here, as well as those users.
2. This is how you get botnets, which then take your worldwide DNS down. But yeah, it's only up to these people. Why would I care about botnets DDoS'ing half the net? And why would I care that companies are handling my sensitive personal data on insecure computers? Yeah, no worries. It should only be up to them...
Those people then are saying how bad and full of viruses Windows it's, even if it's only their fault. It's good for technically not-inclined users.
That's a good argument for making security updates on-by-default. It's not a good argument for making all updates on-whether-you-like-it-or-not.
This is how you get botnets, which then take your worldwide DNS down.
The solution to botnets is to cut offending devices off the Internet at the ISP level. You can't trust local security measures in this context anyway.
And why would I care that companies are handling my sensitive personal data on insecure computers?
You're complaining about the security of sensitive personal data, in a discussion about an OS that can literally deploy arbitrary updates and upload arbitrary information to a third party for use in unknown ways? Your concerns about your privacy are fair, but I think you're on the wrong side of the debate here.
That's a good argument for making security updates on-by-default. It's not a good argument for making all updates on-whether-you-like-it-or-not.
This is how you get botnets, which then take your worldwide DNS down.
The solution to botnets is to cut offending devices off the Internet at the ISP level. You can't trust local security measures in this context anyway.
And why would I care that companies are handling my sensitive personal data on insecure computers?
You're complaining about the security of sensitive personal data, in a discussion about an OS that can literally deploy arbitrary updates and upload arbitrary information to a third party for use in unknown ways? Your concerns about your privacy are fair, but I think you're on the wrong side of the debate here.
> - silent updates, that you cannot control them or disable them,
Have you heard of Group Policy and WSUS? I guess its Enterprise versions only, but anyone who cares deeply about their IT Infrastructure should be running Windows Server and all those services.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/update/w...
Have you heard of Group Policy and WSUS? I guess its Enterprise versions only, but anyone who cares deeply about their IT Infrastructure should be running Windows Server and all those services.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/update/w...
So if you are SOHO, you don't have a right to control your devices?
Disconnect it from the internet and you won't have a problem. If you're going to be on the public internet, you have a duty to make sure you're patched up, just like you don't have the right to go out in public and spread infectious diseases around.
That's not a popular opinion among the subset of users who refuse to apply patches, but it's the correct one from the perspective of security and public policy.
There are plenty of ways around it: maintain your own patching infrastructure and you can do whatever you want. Use Linux and you can do whatever you want. But it's an absolutely correct decision to push patches onto the unwashed masses even if it upsets them.
We would be better off as a society if vaccinations were mandatory too, but we also have some vocal idiots there too.
That's not a popular opinion among the subset of users who refuse to apply patches, but it's the correct one from the perspective of security and public policy.
There are plenty of ways around it: maintain your own patching infrastructure and you can do whatever you want. Use Linux and you can do whatever you want. But it's an absolutely correct decision to push patches onto the unwashed masses even if it upsets them.
We would be better off as a society if vaccinations were mandatory too, but we also have some vocal idiots there too.
If you're going to be on the public internet, you have a duty to make sure you're patched up
And does that include all the non-security patches that change things around in ways maybe I don't want?
Or immediately installing security patches even if they're broken and compromise normal functioning of the system?
I don't see even a moral/ethical argument for mandating those kinds of updates.
And does that include all the non-security patches that change things around in ways maybe I don't want?
Or immediately installing security patches even if they're broken and compromise normal functioning of the system?
I don't see even a moral/ethical argument for mandating those kinds of updates.
You don't see a moral/ethical argument for making sure your PCs don't become part of a botnet? Liability is a well-established legal principle at this point, what you are doing is effectively creating an Attractive Nuisance for attacker, and you should be held liable for anything that happens as a result of your negligence.
Now, is anybody actually going to enforce that? No, of course not. But on the principle of the thing, you are being negligent, and justifying it to yourself on the basis that you're too smart to get a virus. The anti-vaxxer parallel is extremely relevant here, if everybody thinks like that then we have a problem.
Speaking in generals, it's absolutely a correct decision to have automatic/mandatory patching, whichever way you want to look at it. As for specific patches: sure, on a case-by-case basis there may be bad patches that need to be rolled back. You can do that on Windows, and again, you always retain the option to simply not connect your PC to the internet and it makes both of us happy - I don't have to deal with another zombie box on the internet and you don't have to deal with a patch you don't like.
At the end of the day you're just going to have to trust Microsoft to put out good patches. But if you don't trust them, why are you running their operating system? Do you have similar concerns about upstreams in the Linux community? You know patches can break things there too, right?
Now, is anybody actually going to enforce that? No, of course not. But on the principle of the thing, you are being negligent, and justifying it to yourself on the basis that you're too smart to get a virus. The anti-vaxxer parallel is extremely relevant here, if everybody thinks like that then we have a problem.
Speaking in generals, it's absolutely a correct decision to have automatic/mandatory patching, whichever way you want to look at it. As for specific patches: sure, on a case-by-case basis there may be bad patches that need to be rolled back. You can do that on Windows, and again, you always retain the option to simply not connect your PC to the internet and it makes both of us happy - I don't have to deal with another zombie box on the internet and you don't have to deal with a patch you don't like.
At the end of the day you're just going to have to trust Microsoft to put out good patches. But if you don't trust them, why are you running their operating system? Do you have similar concerns about upstreams in the Linux community? You know patches can break things there too, right?
You don't see a moral/ethical argument for making sure your PCs don't become part of a botnet?
I don't see any evidence that giving someone who knows what they're doing the ability to control which updates they deploy and when will cause them to become part of a botnet. Are you suggesting that Windows 10 Enterprise should be similarly constrained for the same reason?
And even if systems do become part of a botnet, the correct solution to that problem is to cut off the offending systems at ISP level anyway, not to rely on their own local security in any particular respect.
But on the principle of the thing, you are being negligent
Objecting to a system that requires automated deployment of arbitrary updates, including updates that may upload arbitrary data, is not only not negligent, it may be positively required for regulatory compliance depending on your circumstances.
The anti-vaxxer parallel is extremely relevant here, if everybody thinks like that then we have a problem.
No it isn't, and this naive and superficial analogy really needs to die.
At the end of the day you're just going to have to trust Microsoft to put out good patches.
Microsoft have proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, that such trust is unjustified. Try again.
But if you don't trust them, why are you running their operating system?
Because the Microsoft of a few years ago that produced Windows 7 is a very different Microsoft to today's that produced Windows 10.
Do you have similar concerns about upstreams in the Linux community? You know patches can break things there too, right?
And yet in many years of running many systems for multiple organisations, the total downtime I have experienced due to Debian unattended security updates is 0, and the number of reports I have ever read of others suffering a bad update through that channel is also 0.
I don't see any evidence that giving someone who knows what they're doing the ability to control which updates they deploy and when will cause them to become part of a botnet. Are you suggesting that Windows 10 Enterprise should be similarly constrained for the same reason?
And even if systems do become part of a botnet, the correct solution to that problem is to cut off the offending systems at ISP level anyway, not to rely on their own local security in any particular respect.
But on the principle of the thing, you are being negligent
Objecting to a system that requires automated deployment of arbitrary updates, including updates that may upload arbitrary data, is not only not negligent, it may be positively required for regulatory compliance depending on your circumstances.
The anti-vaxxer parallel is extremely relevant here, if everybody thinks like that then we have a problem.
No it isn't, and this naive and superficial analogy really needs to die.
At the end of the day you're just going to have to trust Microsoft to put out good patches.
Microsoft have proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, that such trust is unjustified. Try again.
But if you don't trust them, why are you running their operating system?
Because the Microsoft of a few years ago that produced Windows 7 is a very different Microsoft to today's that produced Windows 10.
Do you have similar concerns about upstreams in the Linux community? You know patches can break things there too, right?
And yet in many years of running many systems for multiple organisations, the total downtime I have experienced due to Debian unattended security updates is 0, and the number of reports I have ever read of others suffering a bad update through that channel is also 0.
Spend $39 on Windows 10 Pro for Group Policy features if you really care.
Its not like the "Enterprise" version of Win10 is much more expensive. It gets way more expensive if you want to run a Windows Domain server, but that starts to leave the realm of SOHO users.
Its not like the "Enterprise" version of Win10 is much more expensive. It gets way more expensive if you want to run a Windows Domain server, but that starts to leave the realm of SOHO users.
I really dislike that MS is willing to impair the experience of more experienced users because other users can't be bothered to update. IMO, the MS of old would've let you opt out via a registry hack that you enable once and forget about, rather than constantly screwing with your computer to fix things.
The problem used to be that old registry hack would go viral in an old person email chain or some terrible adware/malware app would suggest it as a way to "speed up your machine" or worse some virus would do it unsuspectingly as a way to cover its tracks and a lot of inexperienced users would suddenly stop updating their machines regularly.
> BTW, that free upgrade still works, it just isn't advertised. For above mentioned reasons, many consider Windows 10 to be the inferior version, not the previous ones.
This is interesting! Can you expand? Where or how can one still upgrade to 10 now? AFAIK even the free upgrade extension for those using assistive technologies has been withdrawn.
This is interesting! Can you expand? Where or how can one still upgrade to 10 now? AFAIK even the free upgrade extension for those using assistive technologies has been withdrawn.
I have been able to do it by acquiring a Windows 10 install CD, booting from it, and doing an upgrade.
For no silent updates, pay for W10 Pro. It's not free, yes, but neither was any other Windows.
Pro has also silent updates. You can just postpone them... for a while.
I think you mean Windows 10 enterprise, not windows 10 pro. Windows 10 pro comes with the same limitations in term of control than windows 10 home. Just with a few features unlocked (like being able to RDP into the machine).
Enterprise LTSB is even better - but I don't think there's a way to obtain it as a home user
Baked-in telemetry, for one.
Windows 7, 8, and 8.1 all had built in telemetry too.
Windows 10 added some additional telemetry for Windows Store Apps and a few built in services to see if anyone is utilizing them, but overall if you set Diagnostic Data to "Basic" your privacy is in a similar state to previous versions of Windows.
Here's documentation on it:
- Basic diagnostic data: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/basic...
- Full diagnostic data: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/windo...
- How Microsoft handles the data, common questions, more info on what is collected, etc: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/confi...
Windows 10 added some additional telemetry for Windows Store Apps and a few built in services to see if anyone is utilizing them, but overall if you set Diagnostic Data to "Basic" your privacy is in a similar state to previous versions of Windows.
Here's documentation on it:
- Basic diagnostic data: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/basic...
- Full diagnostic data: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/windo...
- How Microsoft handles the data, common questions, more info on what is collected, etc: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/confi...
Windows 7, 8, and 8.1 all had built in telemetry too.
Please tell me what built-in telemetry you think we have on our Windows 7 machines (where we typically don't deploy any non-security updates without a good reason).
Please tell me what built-in telemetry you think we have on our Windows 7 machines (where we typically don't deploy any non-security updates without a good reason).
I don't really get what people don't like about baked-in telemetry. C'mon, every software engineer knows that statistics help immensely to make a better product. This is such standard practice and it's anonymized. They do not care about your personal life.
With all that's going on with the world (especially the last decade) a lot of people, like me, feels that having telemetry at the OS level is going too far. And think again about data being anonymized when they have so much of it (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10456855). Even if I trust MS (or Google, or Apple, anybody) 100% it's still too much responsibility.
Even worse for people that are forever locked to Windows because of their line of work, clients or something else. They have no option, they can't even pay more to stop the data collection. Not to mention HIPAA and other problems that may affect small business owners.
Even worse for people that are forever locked to Windows because of their line of work, clients or something else. They have no option, they can't even pay more to stop the data collection. Not to mention HIPAA and other problems that may affect small business owners.
Thanks for the link, I'll make sure to read it.
In regards to trust, you can actually view the diagnostic data since the insider build half a month ago using windows diagnostic data viewer.
Regarding businesses: I do think you can disable all of that using group policy in Windows Enterprise
In regards to trust, you can actually view the diagnostic data since the insider build half a month ago using windows diagnostic data viewer.
Regarding businesses: I do think you can disable all of that using group policy in Windows Enterprise
> In regards to trust, you can actually view the diagnostic data since the insider build half a month ago using windows diagnostic data viewer.
Once again a matter of trust (or not wanting ANY data to be sent, a radio silent OS aside from updates and features that actually require internet access and you opt-in on using them). Would be trivial to lie about the data in the UI. I don't know if it's possible to intercept the data for analysis, so people can verify that it matches the UI.
> Regarding businesses: I do think you can disable all of that using group policy in Windows Enterprise
Nope, even the Security setting still collects data.
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/itpro/windows/manage/con...
Once again a matter of trust (or not wanting ANY data to be sent, a radio silent OS aside from updates and features that actually require internet access and you opt-in on using them). Would be trivial to lie about the data in the UI. I don't know if it's possible to intercept the data for analysis, so people can verify that it matches the UI.
> Regarding businesses: I do think you can disable all of that using group policy in Windows Enterprise
Nope, even the Security setting still collects data.
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/itpro/windows/manage/con...
Just to the first one. I do think that people would already notice improper data being sent to MS after Windows 10 is out for 2 years (or maybe 3 already?). It would be waaaay to risky for them to lie about something like that and actually put personally identifiable info there.
Like I said you can de-anonymize data. I wouldn't know since I'm not a security researcher and haven't tried to analyze Windows traffic with external hardware. It's like asking if nobody would have find out about Spectre in a decade since it's so obvious.
Since everybody else does it now MS, from a competitive standpoint, also has to be a creep with your data. But they own the OS and I don't want that bullshit there.
You can go with the "it was a bug" narrative about all the privacy settings getting reset, saying that the tool showing what they collect is enough, that not being able to pay to stop the data collection is ok (if they "really" have to collect data to be competitive), well for me it's shady business and I don't want my OS doing that. Just tired of this subject to be honest, here's more info if you want to dig deeper https://google.com/#q=Windows+Restricted+Traffic+Limited+Fun...
Since everybody else does it now MS, from a competitive standpoint, also has to be a creep with your data. But they own the OS and I don't want that bullshit there.
You can go with the "it was a bug" narrative about all the privacy settings getting reset, saying that the tool showing what they collect is enough, that not being able to pay to stop the data collection is ok (if they "really" have to collect data to be competitive), well for me it's shady business and I don't want my OS doing that. Just tired of this subject to be honest, here's more info if you want to dig deeper https://google.com/#q=Windows+Restricted+Traffic+Limited+Fun...
All that other creeps are stating that in their privacy agreement openly though.
That was backported to 7 though.
You can disable it in 7 by memorizing the KB #'s of the updates that install them and refusing them, but it's just as much work as installing Spybot Anti-beacon on 10.
You can disable it in 7 by memorizing the KB #'s of the updates that install them and refusing them, but it's just as much work as installing Spybot Anti-beacon on 10.
You can disable it on Windows 7, though. That's the most important point.
If you adopted the policy of only installing security updates, which plenty of people did after GWX if not before, you didn't get that other junk anyway.
The way Microsoft have actively made it more difficult to install only security updates on older versions of Windows recently is yet another reason not to trust them with updates you can't control at all on newer versions. They brought this mistrust upon themselves by abusing their position deliberately and repeatedly, so I don't think anyone can blame the sceptics.
The really sad thing is the number of people, even here on HN where you'd expect to find relatively well-informed discussion, who completely miss the distinction between security updates and updates more generally when debating this issue. I mean, we are literally talking about an organisation that pushed out an entire new operating system via the update process, and they deliberately did so in such a way that many people now have that new OS and didn't necessarily want it or actively did not want it.
If you adopted the policy of only installing security updates, which plenty of people did after GWX if not before, you didn't get that other junk anyway.
The way Microsoft have actively made it more difficult to install only security updates on older versions of Windows recently is yet another reason not to trust them with updates you can't control at all on newer versions. They brought this mistrust upon themselves by abusing their position deliberately and repeatedly, so I don't think anyone can blame the sceptics.
The really sad thing is the number of people, even here on HN where you'd expect to find relatively well-informed discussion, who completely miss the distinction between security updates and updates more generally when debating this issue. I mean, we are literally talking about an organisation that pushed out an entire new operating system via the update process, and they deliberately did so in such a way that many people now have that new OS and didn't necessarily want it or actively did not want it.
Right, and you can disable it in 10 as well.
>it's just as much work as installing Spybot Anti-beacon on 10
Most apps automate the process. In 7 you have to memorize the 8-digit code associated with the updates you don't want.
>it's just as much work as installing Spybot Anti-beacon on 10
Most apps automate the process. In 7 you have to memorize the 8-digit code associated with the updates you don't want.
I'm guessing this is an informed business decision on their part.
It boils down to a pretty simple inequality: Supporting older versions of Windows in the new Office is only worthwhile if the expected additional profits from sales to people who have decided not to upgrade to Windows 10 are greater than the expected additional development cost of supporting older versions of Windows.
Probably there's a fudge factor in there, too. Probably, that fudge factor nudges things away from supporting Windows 7, because Windows XP. I'm guessing it also nudges things away from supporting Windows 8, because I don't know of many people who were willing to upgrade to Windows 8 but no further.
It boils down to a pretty simple inequality: Supporting older versions of Windows in the new Office is only worthwhile if the expected additional profits from sales to people who have decided not to upgrade to Windows 10 are greater than the expected additional development cost of supporting older versions of Windows.
Probably there's a fudge factor in there, too. Probably, that fudge factor nudges things away from supporting Windows 7, because Windows XP. I'm guessing it also nudges things away from supporting Windows 8, because I don't know of many people who were willing to upgrade to Windows 8 but no further.
Someone who doesn't want Windows 10 also likely doesn't want Windows 8. They are likely sticking with a non-supported Windows 7, and so I'm with Microsoft on this one. Personally, I'm hoping things like this drives more people to Linux to make it a truly valid alternative for average users.
Windows 7 is supported until 2020 for security updates, which is the main thing that matters.
And given that Windows 10 only just overtook Windows 7 in popularity according to reports this week, the idea that Windows 7 is some sort of legacy system just doesn't fly, no matter how much Microsoft might wish it so. They made a turkey with Windows 8. They made a turkey with most editions of Windows 10. There is a reason so many of us have been holding out on 7 and/or switching platforms over the past few years, and the reason is simply that more recent Windows releases haven't been attractive enough to use them instead.
And given that Windows 10 only just overtook Windows 7 in popularity according to reports this week, the idea that Windows 7 is some sort of legacy system just doesn't fly, no matter how much Microsoft might wish it so. They made a turkey with Windows 8. They made a turkey with most editions of Windows 10. There is a reason so many of us have been holding out on 7 and/or switching platforms over the past few years, and the reason is simply that more recent Windows releases haven't been attractive enough to use them instead.
As it is, "those of you who don't want anything to do with Windows 10" will need to either get over it or switch to another platform. Windows 7 only has a couple years left. As it is, a surprising number of good apps are released through the Windows Store and only operate on Windows 10 machines. This will continue to increase over time.
As it is, "those of you who don't want anything to do with Windows 10" will need to either get over it or switch to another platform.
We already did, for multiple businesses. We bought a few last Windows 7 machines while you could, and since then we're on other OSes as needs dictate. Contrary to popular opinion, the sky has not fallen, and it turns out that which OS you run your browser and web apps on doesn't really matter, and that there are some areas where the software you can use on other platforms is already better than what you get on a typical Windows deployment.
Windows 7 only has a couple years left.
Until what? Until it stops getting security updates from Microsoft, maybe. It will carry on running just fine beyond that point, though.
We already did, for multiple businesses. We bought a few last Windows 7 machines while you could, and since then we're on other OSes as needs dictate. Contrary to popular opinion, the sky has not fallen, and it turns out that which OS you run your browser and web apps on doesn't really matter, and that there are some areas where the software you can use on other platforms is already better than what you get on a typical Windows deployment.
Windows 7 only has a couple years left.
Until what? Until it stops getting security updates from Microsoft, maybe. It will carry on running just fine beyond that point, though.
Businesses cannot afford the risk of using operating systems without security updates. Realistically, consumers shouldn't either. If you realistically think buying businesses a bunch of Windows 7 PCs and keeping them running past the end of support is okay... keep a polished resume handy, because something is going to happen, and the businesses who you support are going to realize whose fault it was sooner or later.
We are not in a place in the world security-wise where your attitude is workable in a modern business environment.
We are not in a place in the world security-wise where your attitude is workable in a modern business environment.
Businesses cannot afford the risk of using operating systems without security updates.
That's a matter of judgement. Is the risk of downtime, data loss, or other damage from not having a patch on Windows 7 for a security flaw greater than or less than the risk of similarly bad things happening because Microsoft messed up another security update (or a non-security update that they forced on you)?
As a matter of objective fact, my businesses have lost far more time -- orders of magnitude more -- due to botched Microsoft updates, including bad security updates on multiple occasions, then due to any sort of malware or other attacks.
Of course, we're not crazy. We have a variety of other countermeasures layered around our systems that would deal with most threats long before they could reach a PC even if there were some vulnerability there that could theoretically be exploited.
We are not in a place in the world security-wise where your attitude is workable in a modern business environment.
IMNSHO, we are not in a place where PCs that can update their operating system arbitrarily, restart arbitrarily, and upload data arbitrarily is workable either. If we ran Windows 10, we would be in instant violation of just about every NDA or confidentiality agreement we've ever entered into, not to mention violating assorted legal and industry regulations.
What has unpleasantly surprised me about Windows 10 is that more people don't have a problem with this gaping hole in their security and compliance infrastructure. Obviously the big players can't and won't accept those risks, and presumably that's why Windows 10 Enterprise doesn't have the same problems that we refuse to accept in a smaller environment. But the number of places dealing with sensitive data or critical systems who are apparently happy to be wide open to problems here is genuinely shocking to me, particularly after so many have had actual rather than hypothetical problems.
That's a matter of judgement. Is the risk of downtime, data loss, or other damage from not having a patch on Windows 7 for a security flaw greater than or less than the risk of similarly bad things happening because Microsoft messed up another security update (or a non-security update that they forced on you)?
As a matter of objective fact, my businesses have lost far more time -- orders of magnitude more -- due to botched Microsoft updates, including bad security updates on multiple occasions, then due to any sort of malware or other attacks.
Of course, we're not crazy. We have a variety of other countermeasures layered around our systems that would deal with most threats long before they could reach a PC even if there were some vulnerability there that could theoretically be exploited.
We are not in a place in the world security-wise where your attitude is workable in a modern business environment.
IMNSHO, we are not in a place where PCs that can update their operating system arbitrarily, restart arbitrarily, and upload data arbitrarily is workable either. If we ran Windows 10, we would be in instant violation of just about every NDA or confidentiality agreement we've ever entered into, not to mention violating assorted legal and industry regulations.
What has unpleasantly surprised me about Windows 10 is that more people don't have a problem with this gaping hole in their security and compliance infrastructure. Obviously the big players can't and won't accept those risks, and presumably that's why Windows 10 Enterprise doesn't have the same problems that we refuse to accept in a smaller environment. But the number of places dealing with sensitive data or critical systems who are apparently happy to be wide open to problems here is genuinely shocking to me, particularly after so many have had actual rather than hypothetical problems.
Some notes:
- Windows 10 PCs don't update or restart arbitrarily if they're managed with Group Policy. In some cases, you might even want them to, and have a hard time convincing them to reboot themselves when they say they are going to! They've added a massive set of new options for configuring this in the current ADMX templates.
- Having all of your data leaked online by a malicious actor or losing it all to ransomware are both far worse than the worst thing a botched patch has ever done. Losing some productivity sucks; getting pwned can end your business.
- The actual contents of the basic level telemetry aren't that bad. I'm personally irritated that they collect the amount of time each application on a computer is in use, but as long as you have the nightmare that is "inking and typing" disabled, there shouldn't be significant leakage of private information.
- Those same countermeasures you speak of can help with Windows 10's telemetry problem too. You can block said telemetry from ever leaving your network.
- The next major release of Windows 10 is going to include a diagnostics viewer so you can check this content out yourself.
I certainly wouldn't blame someone for having held off so far while Microsoft shuffles through the rocky early issues they have with every OS (they had them with Windows 7 as well). But that's because we still have two years of security updates left. ...If you're still planning on being there in two years, then I'd have serious questions.
- Windows 10 PCs don't update or restart arbitrarily if they're managed with Group Policy. In some cases, you might even want them to, and have a hard time convincing them to reboot themselves when they say they are going to! They've added a massive set of new options for configuring this in the current ADMX templates.
- Having all of your data leaked online by a malicious actor or losing it all to ransomware are both far worse than the worst thing a botched patch has ever done. Losing some productivity sucks; getting pwned can end your business.
- The actual contents of the basic level telemetry aren't that bad. I'm personally irritated that they collect the amount of time each application on a computer is in use, but as long as you have the nightmare that is "inking and typing" disabled, there shouldn't be significant leakage of private information.
- Those same countermeasures you speak of can help with Windows 10's telemetry problem too. You can block said telemetry from ever leaving your network.
- The next major release of Windows 10 is going to include a diagnostics viewer so you can check this content out yourself.
I certainly wouldn't blame someone for having held off so far while Microsoft shuffles through the rocky early issues they have with every OS (they had them with Windows 7 as well). But that's because we still have two years of security updates left. ...If you're still planning on being there in two years, then I'd have serious questions.
Windows 10 PCs don't update or restart arbitrarily if they're managed with Group Policy.
Which is fine for enterprise-sized organisations. As I've acknowledged elsewhere, Windows 10 Enterprise is basically a different product. However, your average office with half a dozen staff isn't using those kinds of tools, and very possibly doesn't want that level of extra hassle to run a handful of machines they use. Lots of SMEs even at somewhat larger sizes don't have full-time sysadmins.
The bottom line is that this is a problem we simply didn't have before. With 7, we could just have someone check out the information on new security updates and push round the list of what to do this month for everyone else to use. These days it's even easier, because you just look at the monthly security-only roll-up, and usually everyone will then just deploy it immediately (or not, if they've screwed something up; we're actually looking into the current situation regarding Spectre/Meltdown mitigation right now).
Given that Microsoft themselves apparently feel that it's OK to wait up to a month before rolling out most security updates, it's certainly reasonable for users to hold off deploying them for long enough to do their homework if anything looks questionable.
Having all of your data leaked online by a malicious actor or losing it all to ransomware are both far worse than the worst thing a botched patch has ever done. Losing some productivity sucks; getting pwned can end your business.
Again, that's a judgement call.
We've never been compromised or leaked personal data, and more importantly, we have other security measures apart from Windows updates to help ensure that that remains the case. Real world security is still about risk management and layered defences, just as it always has been.
Ransomware is countered by any competent backup strategy. On the other hand, for a small business, the downtime from even a small number of PCs becoming unusable can be crippling.
People keep telling me about these bogeymen that will kill my businesses if we don't have security updates installed immediately, but as I mentioned before, it is a matter of objective fact that Microsoft's botched updates have caused us far more harm over the years than external attackers have ever managed. The risk analysis comparing installing all updates whether we want them or not vs. installing no updates at all is very clear, so if those are the options and we're not willing to risk having no updates, evidently Win10 is not a viable platform for us right now.
The actual contents of the basic level telemetry aren't that bad.
Being punched in the face isn't that bad, compared to being shot through the heart. It's still not desirable.
In any case, it doesn't matter. Any mechanism for exfiltrating data that we can't control in advance is a concern for confidentiality agreements and/or regulatory compliance. We have faced the same concern with other software that presumes to update itself: Browsers have always been a bit of a pain in that respect, since obviously they do need Internet connections to unknown servers to do their job, but at least there are clear privacy statements from the main browser developers about what they upload and how to turn off anything potentially dangerous, and the development is relatively "in the open" in terms of what will be in future versions so the risk of anything shady sneaking in is low. None of this is true of Windows 10.
This is also why firewalling the Win10 telemetry isn't an acceptable solution, even with the forthcoming diagnostics viewer. If you know in advance everything that could be uploaded automatically then you can firewall it, but since Windows 10 can update itself as well, you can't reliably know what's going to happen in advance because Microsoft can move the goalposts any time they want. And again, given their recent track record with pushing updates that are user-hostile and in their own interests, it's not credible to argue that they would never abuse that access. The risk assessment just doesn't add up.
I certainly wouldn't blame someone for having held off so far while Microsoft shuffles through the rocky early issues they have with every OS (they had them with Windows 7 as well). But that's because we still have two years of security updates left. ...If you're still planning on being there in two years, then I'd have serious questions.
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Our working assumption is that Microsoft will probably give ground by that point. Windows 10 adoption levels are terrible for a platform they have pushed as hard as they have. Enterprise users are probably OK and many home users will put up with almost incredible amounts of abuse before they actually do anything (see also: smartphones, social networks, etc.) so Microsoft can probably just wait it out on those fronts. However, we expect that they simply can't afford another Vista/XP situation with 10/7 and the SME and power user markets who can and will make other choices.
Of course, if MS don't change course on issues like telemetry and forced updates, we're already moving to other platforms for new systems anyway since you can't buy pre-10 Windows boxes any more, and we'll take a view on what to do with any Win7 systems still in service if and when the axe falls. But as you say, that's a couple of years away yet.
Which is fine for enterprise-sized organisations. As I've acknowledged elsewhere, Windows 10 Enterprise is basically a different product. However, your average office with half a dozen staff isn't using those kinds of tools, and very possibly doesn't want that level of extra hassle to run a handful of machines they use. Lots of SMEs even at somewhat larger sizes don't have full-time sysadmins.
The bottom line is that this is a problem we simply didn't have before. With 7, we could just have someone check out the information on new security updates and push round the list of what to do this month for everyone else to use. These days it's even easier, because you just look at the monthly security-only roll-up, and usually everyone will then just deploy it immediately (or not, if they've screwed something up; we're actually looking into the current situation regarding Spectre/Meltdown mitigation right now).
Given that Microsoft themselves apparently feel that it's OK to wait up to a month before rolling out most security updates, it's certainly reasonable for users to hold off deploying them for long enough to do their homework if anything looks questionable.
Having all of your data leaked online by a malicious actor or losing it all to ransomware are both far worse than the worst thing a botched patch has ever done. Losing some productivity sucks; getting pwned can end your business.
Again, that's a judgement call.
We've never been compromised or leaked personal data, and more importantly, we have other security measures apart from Windows updates to help ensure that that remains the case. Real world security is still about risk management and layered defences, just as it always has been.
Ransomware is countered by any competent backup strategy. On the other hand, for a small business, the downtime from even a small number of PCs becoming unusable can be crippling.
People keep telling me about these bogeymen that will kill my businesses if we don't have security updates installed immediately, but as I mentioned before, it is a matter of objective fact that Microsoft's botched updates have caused us far more harm over the years than external attackers have ever managed. The risk analysis comparing installing all updates whether we want them or not vs. installing no updates at all is very clear, so if those are the options and we're not willing to risk having no updates, evidently Win10 is not a viable platform for us right now.
The actual contents of the basic level telemetry aren't that bad.
Being punched in the face isn't that bad, compared to being shot through the heart. It's still not desirable.
In any case, it doesn't matter. Any mechanism for exfiltrating data that we can't control in advance is a concern for confidentiality agreements and/or regulatory compliance. We have faced the same concern with other software that presumes to update itself: Browsers have always been a bit of a pain in that respect, since obviously they do need Internet connections to unknown servers to do their job, but at least there are clear privacy statements from the main browser developers about what they upload and how to turn off anything potentially dangerous, and the development is relatively "in the open" in terms of what will be in future versions so the risk of anything shady sneaking in is low. None of this is true of Windows 10.
This is also why firewalling the Win10 telemetry isn't an acceptable solution, even with the forthcoming diagnostics viewer. If you know in advance everything that could be uploaded automatically then you can firewall it, but since Windows 10 can update itself as well, you can't reliably know what's going to happen in advance because Microsoft can move the goalposts any time they want. And again, given their recent track record with pushing updates that are user-hostile and in their own interests, it's not credible to argue that they would never abuse that access. The risk assessment just doesn't add up.
I certainly wouldn't blame someone for having held off so far while Microsoft shuffles through the rocky early issues they have with every OS (they had them with Windows 7 as well). But that's because we still have two years of security updates left. ...If you're still planning on being there in two years, then I'd have serious questions.
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Our working assumption is that Microsoft will probably give ground by that point. Windows 10 adoption levels are terrible for a platform they have pushed as hard as they have. Enterprise users are probably OK and many home users will put up with almost incredible amounts of abuse before they actually do anything (see also: smartphones, social networks, etc.) so Microsoft can probably just wait it out on those fronts. However, we expect that they simply can't afford another Vista/XP situation with 10/7 and the SME and power user markets who can and will make other choices.
Of course, if MS don't change course on issues like telemetry and forced updates, we're already moving to other platforms for new systems anyway since you can't buy pre-10 Windows boxes any more, and we'll take a view on what to do with any Win7 systems still in service if and when the axe falls. But as you say, that's a couple of years away yet.
The bit that puzzles me is their store strategy. Apple sets up an app store and the money's rolling in. Google sets up an app store and the money's rolling in. Microsoft sets up and app store, and even removes the feature to disable it in enterprise versions of the OS ... and the last thing I heard about it, they've been paying developers big money to port some of their applications to the Microsoft store. I wonder if they're doing much more than breaking even.
Of course they're at a disadvantage as a desktop OS because their app store is competing with being able to download and install programs from the web.
But I still wonder, if they're focussing on home users, don't they need to offer a bit friendlier to developers if they want people to write apps that they can charge the home users for?
Of course they're at a disadvantage as a desktop OS because their app store is competing with being able to download and install programs from the web.
But I still wonder, if they're focussing on home users, don't they need to offer a bit friendlier to developers if they want people to write apps that they can charge the home users for?
>those of us who don't want anything to do with Windows 10 won't now buy their new product in this case
I’m sure a multi-billion dollar corporation with some very smart people thought of that. They probably even consider it a benefit.
I’m sure a multi-billion dollar corporation with some very smart people thought of that. They probably even consider it a benefit.
That's the same huge corporation that produced Windows Vista and Windows 8, and assorted Windows Phone disasters. I think they've exhausted reasonable benefit of the doubt when it comes to how they make and market Windows.
This is why HN comment sections shouldn't make such sweeping comments... in what way do you draw a link between Vista, 8, and Phone and this topic. Even with all their missteps they're a company with a 700 Billion dollar market cap, shoving a few missteps in the air as proof they're somehow incompetent shows a certain lack of appreciation for how successful of a company they are.
They're a multi-billion dollar corporation that has launched several train wrecks, including two from within the very same team that we're talking about here, in recent years. Of course there are parallels with whether they could produce Windows Vista that a lot of people didn't want, Windows 8 that a lot of people didn't want, and Windows 10 that a lot of people don't want now. Your argument that they have lots of smart people who wouldn't get a basic business strategy wrong just doesn't hold water, at all.
My argument that a company that has managed to manuver 42 years of changing successfully enough to become a 700 Billion dollar company might have some people with businesses acumen and more insight than a random HN commenter is clearly torpedoed because of your 20/20 hindsight review of 2 products based on no actual hard data because ... a random HN commentor wouldn’t have that...
Sure.
I’d love to see the crew you run with that would have managed to keep MS relevant for this long.
I should add, if you really think MS is building products no one wants, you really should put your money where your mouth is and short them. (but please, no cliched response about how the market is just irrational about them)
Sure.
I’d love to see the crew you run with that would have managed to keep MS relevant for this long.
I should add, if you really think MS is building products no one wants, you really should put your money where your mouth is and short them. (but please, no cliched response about how the market is just irrational about them)
Your ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority and straw men aren't going to get us anywhere constructive, so let's ignore those.
I didn't say I thought MS was building products no-one wants. My original suggestion was that their current strategy seems to be pushing towards big, enterprise-scale customers and the low-end home user market, at the expense of the middle ground, and that time would tell whether this was working out well for them.
Clearly they have had some missteps with their OS strategy before -- there's plenty of evidence around about the poor reception and low adoption rates -- so I still don't understand what point you're trying to make here or how anything I've written is at all controversial. Your original reply suggested that they might consider driving a large group of customers away to be beneficial, but it's hard to see how that would be the case here, and you don't seem to have offered any further argument to support your position.
I didn't say I thought MS was building products no-one wants. My original suggestion was that their current strategy seems to be pushing towards big, enterprise-scale customers and the low-end home user market, at the expense of the middle ground, and that time would tell whether this was working out well for them.
Clearly they have had some missteps with their OS strategy before -- there's plenty of evidence around about the poor reception and low adoption rates -- so I still don't understand what point you're trying to make here or how anything I've written is at all controversial. Your original reply suggested that they might consider driving a large group of customers away to be beneficial, but it's hard to see how that would be the case here, and you don't seem to have offered any further argument to support your position.
Agree but Windows 8.1 will be supported until 2023 AFAIK. I would have liked it had they supported it in addition to 10.
I have yet to encounter any arguments in favor of sticking with Windows 8.1 vs. 10. Isn't it pretty much universally regarded as a dud release? It seems like the smarter move here would be to kill the LTS for 8 than devote a bunch of effort to supporting their most popular product on their least popular platform.
Windows 8 was widely accepted as a problematic release and there's no current support for it. But almost no one remains on 8. On the other hand, Windows 8.1 is a perfectly fine OS and there are still significant number of users from what I saw in the latest census. It's slightly faster and lighter than 7 and does not have many of the components of 10 that some users don't seem to like.
My own machine came from OEM with 8.1, but I upgraded during the free phase and while I personally like 10 even more, am sure there are people who are hoping to remain on 8.1 for as long as possible, so it would have been munificent of MS to have supported Office 19 on their platform, but I guess they won't and that's that.
My own machine came from OEM with 8.1, but I upgraded during the free phase and while I personally like 10 even more, am sure there are people who are hoping to remain on 8.1 for as long as possible, so it would have been munificent of MS to have supported Office 19 on their platform, but I guess they won't and that's that.
just to be clear, windows 8.1 is unsupported. Windows 8.1U1 (Update 1) is supported.
Thats more like a Windows 10 build increase than a service pack. Update 1 uses the in place upgrade method to reinstall Windows. If you dont have Update 1 (which should have been called 8.2) you shouldnt expect software to target your environment.
Thats more like a Windows 10 build increase than a service pack. Update 1 uses the in place upgrade method to reinstall Windows. If you dont have Update 1 (which should have been called 8.2) you shouldnt expect software to target your environment.
> I have yet to encounter any arguments in favor of sticking with Windows 8.1 vs. 10
I would assume the same people who liked 7 better than 10 and wanted to stick with it, and for the same reasons.
For users Win 8.1 was basically a better 7, even though it didn't have any chance from recovering from the (deserved) critics against 8, namely "why did you put tablet minded stuff like that tile screen on my desktop OS, and where is the start menu". 8.1 fixed those issues, and was really "win 7, only better.
> Isn't it pretty much universally regarded as a dud release?
Yes and no, 8 overall is regarded as a dud, mostly because of the "here's the new windows 8, oh wait no we didn't mean it here is the real one named 8.1".
> It seems like the smarter move here would be to kill the LTS for 8 than devote a bunch of effort to supporting their most popular product on their least popular platform.
For a company that makes the majority of their money from b2b I wouldn't call "kill the LTS of a major version of your major product after you sold it" a smart move.
I would assume the same people who liked 7 better than 10 and wanted to stick with it, and for the same reasons.
For users Win 8.1 was basically a better 7, even though it didn't have any chance from recovering from the (deserved) critics against 8, namely "why did you put tablet minded stuff like that tile screen on my desktop OS, and where is the start menu". 8.1 fixed those issues, and was really "win 7, only better.
> Isn't it pretty much universally regarded as a dud release?
Yes and no, 8 overall is regarded as a dud, mostly because of the "here's the new windows 8, oh wait no we didn't mean it here is the real one named 8.1".
> It seems like the smarter move here would be to kill the LTS for 8 than devote a bunch of effort to supporting their most popular product on their least popular platform.
For a company that makes the majority of their money from b2b I wouldn't call "kill the LTS of a major version of your major product after you sold it" a smart move.
Someone that paid for 8 would probably disagree. It's no longer a free upgrade, is it? Perhaps people should switch to LibreOffice. It's really more usable according to most people I've talked to.
Most people haven't even heard of LibreOffice, much less tried it. There's a definite sampling bias there.
Why not link to the original article?
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/windowsitpro/2018/02/01/...
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/windowsitpro/2018/02/01/...
This kind of makes sense. I mean, sure, never breaking backwards compatibility is a great way to get popular, but you also end up with systems that are inflexible and hard to maintain.
Also, Microsoft Office 2019 somewhat looks like the title of a science fiction thriller.
Also, Microsoft Office 2019 somewhat looks like the title of a science fiction thriller.
Science fiction thriller with a bad ending.
The real question: will Office 2019 produce documents that can't be read in older versions? It's one thing to say "you need the latest OS to run the latest Office" but another thing to say "everyone you interchange documents with needs the latest OS and the latest Office"...
I've worked on Office. There's a ridiculous amount of effort put into file format backwards compatibility. Someone I know had to consider Office 2007 compatibility when working on a feature within the last year.
Considering windows 10 is the only windows that's not in extended support, that's not too unreasonable.
Sort of misleading:
Both Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 are still in extended support (https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifec...), and of course the older versions are no longer in extended support.
So Windows 10 is the only version not yet in extended support.
Both Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 are still in extended support (https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifec...), and of course the older versions are no longer in extended support.
So Windows 10 is the only version not yet in extended support.
>So Windows 10 is the only version not yet in extended support.
Given that MS has said they're moving away from major version numbers, it's not in any way misleading. Windows 10 will continue to get incremental updates into the indefinite future. MS has intimated it may be the last major version ever, although that's not a hard commitment.
Given that MS has said they're moving away from major version numbers, it's not in any way misleading. Windows 10 will continue to get incremental updates into the indefinite future. MS has intimated it may be the last major version ever, although that's not a hard commitment.
Windows 10 will continue to get incremental updates into the indefinite future.
That's one way to look at it. Another is that Microsoft doesn't offer long-term support for their current OS any more, at least for those users who aren't enterprise-scale where the rules of the game seem to be somewhat different even with Windows 10.
That's one way to look at it. Another is that Microsoft doesn't offer long-term support for their current OS any more, at least for those users who aren't enterprise-scale where the rules of the game seem to be somewhat different even with Windows 10.
Windows 10 Enterprise has the same 18 month service period for each feature update as Home and Pro. Only the LTSB editions, meant for embedded systems like ATMs and medical equipment, have the longer, traditional mainstream and extended support periods.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifec...
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifec...
Microsoft can call Windows a service as much as it wants, but if problems start happening with newer builds of Win 10 Enterprise and million dollar customers start getting upset at losing security updates with their working systems after 18 months, Microsoft's position will surely change. The traditional "Pro" market don't have that luxury, because individually no small business or power user is significant enough to have meaningful leverage.
This is what I mean by the rules of the game being different at enterprise level. Big customers might get Microsoft to change something they don't like, particularly if more than one or two feel the same way and start calling senior people at MS. Smaller customers only have the choice to put up with whatever Microsoft offers or to vote with their wallets and move to another platform.
This is what I mean by the rules of the game being different at enterprise level. Big customers might get Microsoft to change something they don't like, particularly if more than one or two feel the same way and start calling senior people at MS. Smaller customers only have the choice to put up with whatever Microsoft offers or to vote with their wallets and move to another platform.
They haven't moved away from major version numbers, "Windows 10" is just the product name now (like Mac OS X used to be). The major version is "Fall Creators Update" etc (monthly updates provide the equivalent of minor versions).
That's patently and provably false. "Creators update" is the same thing as a service pack, NOT a major revision. Major revisions as follows:
Windows 10 29 July 2015 NT 10.0
Windows 8.1 17 October 2013 NT 6.3
Windows 8 26 October 2012 NT 6.2
Windows 7 22 October 2009 NT 6.1
Windows Vista 30 January 2007 NT 6.0
Creator's update is nothing like a service pack of yore. A defining feature of service packs was that they didn't have any new feature. Only bug fixes and stability/security. Creator's update is a bigger upgrade from base Win10 than Win10 was from Win8, in terms of features.
> A defining feature of service packs was that they didn't have any new feature. Only bug fixes and stability/security.
Pretty much every service pack includes new features.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#Service_packs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Updates
Pretty much every service pack includes new features.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#Service_packs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Updates
Each semi-annual feature update, like Fall Creators Update, is only serviced for 18 months from date of release. They've been saying this for a while but the longer support dates were still published. On February 1st, I was reading Windows lifecycle fact sheet which listed Windows 10's mainstream support would end in 2020 and extended support would end in 2025. [0]
However, less than a day later, that page has been updated and is very different. Most versions of Windows 10 are now listed by version number (corresponding to the semi-annual updates released so far) with end of service dates 18 months after release. Only the LTSB editions (which aren't supposed to receive feature updates anyway) have mainstream and extended support dates (the 2015.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20180127173937/https://support.m...
[1] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifec...
However, less than a day later, that page has been updated and is very different. Most versions of Windows 10 are now listed by version number (corresponding to the semi-annual updates released so far) with end of service dates 18 months after release. Only the LTSB editions (which aren't supposed to receive feature updates anyway) have mainstream and extended support dates (the 2015.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20180127173937/https://support.m...
[1] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifec...
I still use Microsoft Office 2010 at work and it does everything I need it to do. It if it was up to me I'd go backwards. Every newer version seems worse than the last for my use cases. I'm a scientist and I just need to crunch numbers in Excel and write papers in Word.
Just yesterday I was using someone's computer with Word 2013 on it and even with my existing cynicism I was surprised to find that it takes four mouse clicks to bring up an OS-native open file dialog, pointing at the user's default folder as chosen in the options.
All these clicks are for ploughing through the 'Backstage' view giving you various roads for recent documents, favourites, OneDrive etc, despite the fact that most of these things are already addressed by the native open file dialog. (And turning off the 'Backstage' view in the options doesn't actually turn it off for mouse users, only for the Ctrl-O keyboard shortcut.)
After the complaints in the LibreOffice thread the other day about its 'old'-looking menus it was a reminder that modern Microsoft UI is generally a hot mess that I'm happy for them not to rush into.
All these clicks are for ploughing through the 'Backstage' view giving you various roads for recent documents, favourites, OneDrive etc, despite the fact that most of these things are already addressed by the native open file dialog. (And turning off the 'Backstage' view in the options doesn't actually turn it off for mouse users, only for the Ctrl-O keyboard shortcut.)
After the complaints in the LibreOffice thread the other day about its 'old'-looking menus it was a reminder that modern Microsoft UI is generally a hot mess that I'm happy for them not to rush into.
This is completely non-malicious: why are you writing papers in Word instead of more advanced typesetting tools like LaTeX?
Haha oh man. I don't think a single human in academia I work with even knows what that is. We don't need typesetting tools, we just write the text and provide figures and the journal does the typesetting, etc. It just needs to be as easy as possible and looking up LaTex that seems to be a bizarre abstraction that seems even more difficult than typing in Word.
You must be in a very different field than me.... If someone posts a word document on the arxiv, it's almost a reason to ignore it as unprofessional.
If people are judging research by that criteria they are idiots. I'd prefer not to associate with or gain approval of such persons.
It's more about conforming to the standards of the field. I can think of maybe one or two articles written in Word that I've seen on the arxiv ever (maybe it's different outside hepex and astro?).
I was in graduate school in the biological sciences, and the vast majority of papers were formatted using word and some extension for reference management. At one point I really wanted to switch to LaTeX, but it was too much of a learning hurdle given all the other stuff I already had to do.
I find it much easier than writing in Word, and so do my colleagues. In fact, when selecting journals to send a publication to, "requires to send the paper in Word" tends to be a big red flag because of the huge work it takes to handle references, format equations, etc. which are trivial in Latex. (fortunately this requirement almost never happens within my own field, but it does when submitting interdisciplinary work, as some related fields use Word).
You don't even need to actually know the commands to get started with Latex in academia, it's typically fine to download the journal or conference template and fill in the text. All the PhD students I have worked with learned it just fine and fast.
You don't even need to actually know the commands to get started with Latex in academia, it's typically fine to download the journal or conference template and fill in the text. All the PhD students I have worked with learned it just fine and fast.
Because academics shouldn't be typesetting their papers and very few journals accept LaTeX. Most journals will give you a Word template that you're supposed to use and handle the typesetting for you.
Journals wouldn't accept generated PDFs? This genuinely shocking to me. Is this prelevant in all fields?
No. Most places I submit to use PDFs and require authors to typeset themselves. Both Latex and Word templates are typically provided for you to fill your content into.
But I still use Word, because odds are good that for any given paper I'll hit at least one collaborator/editor/proofreader/etc who doesn't know how to use Latex, and so using the lowest common denominator (word) saves us all a lot of complication.
But I still use Word, because odds are good that for any given paper I'll hit at least one collaborator/editor/proofreader/etc who doesn't know how to use Latex, and so using the lowest common denominator (word) saves us all a lot of complication.
Word is why HCI papers have such bad kerning and word spacing in general (ironic, because HCI is the CS field closest to design and typography!). I’m from the PL community, where Latex is fairly standard, but co-authored a UIST paper in Word once, it was a nightmare and still didn’t look very good.
Word just doesn’t do double columns very well, and such a niche use case doesn’t seem to be a priority for Microsoft.
Word just doesn’t do double columns very well, and such a niche use case doesn’t seem to be a priority for Microsoft.
Oh for sure. Column-spanning figures in particular are an unholy nightmare.
Some do, if you've used their templates, and some don't. Most journals want to ensure a uniform look and feel across all their papers.
Which field/journals? Everything I submitted to required LaTeX.
Office 2003 works great for me ;)
The beauty of windows is that the newest version of windows runs the oldest programs. Not the other way around.
I moved to OS X from Windows 7 around 6 years ago and I really missed the Windows at first. But then checked 8.1 and had no regrets, the thing was awful UX-wise, they tried to break my patterns but why?
The only company I partially trust with my data is Apple and I think if I'd have to switch back to Windows right now I'd pick 7 - because it wasn't integrated so well with the Internet and it had no Metro.
What sucks today is the fact that I feel the OSes are gradually getting worse from user perspective - excepting Linux distros - macOS is way less stable and secure than 6 years ago when I first joined the club and Windows after 7 feels like rushed job, just like with ME/Vista.
The only company I partially trust with my data is Apple and I think if I'd have to switch back to Windows right now I'd pick 7 - because it wasn't integrated so well with the Internet and it had no Metro.
What sucks today is the fact that I feel the OSes are gradually getting worse from user perspective - excepting Linux distros - macOS is way less stable and secure than 6 years ago when I first joined the club and Windows after 7 feels like rushed job, just like with ME/Vista.
Because since Windows 9x they’ve had the same patterns and figured it was now or never. Windows 8 went a little too far, but 8.1 was generally well received, and is a very solid OS.
> What sucks today is the fact that I feel the OSes are gradually getting worse from user perspective
Windows10 UI is the same as Windows7. I don't get what you're saying here.
> excepting Linux distros
Linux is by any means objectively the worst UI for end-user. Otherwise the year of linux desktop would arrive.
Windows10 UI is the same as Windows7. I don't get what you're saying here.
> excepting Linux distros
Linux is by any means objectively the worst UI for end-user. Otherwise the year of linux desktop would arrive.
I was surprised to learn that you can't even move the taskbar to another position on the screen in Ubuntu, which is supposed to be the most user-friendly Linux.
"User-friendly" doesn't have to mean "user-empowering", just that it can be used without too much effort. In fact, all examples (that I can think of) of OS UX changes that were supposedly made to be more user-friendly, took away power/choice/features from users. From Windows 10 to OS X.
In the world of Linux DEs, allowing the user to change the DE is considered a "power-user" feature. Sounds quite the opposite of "user-friendly", doesn't it?
In the world of Linux DEs, allowing the user to change the DE is considered a "power-user" feature. Sounds quite the opposite of "user-friendly", doesn't it?
> In the world of Linux DEs, allowing the user to change the DE is considered a "power-user" feature.
The thing is 99.5% of computer users do not care about any of that.
The thing is 99.5% of computer users do not care about any of that.
Windows also has it's user experience weaknesses. Windows reboots in your faces and keeps you from working for dozens of minutes when updating. Other examples: all the viruses, the need for constantly renewed hardware, the loads of crapware that come with most PCs.
> What sucks today is the fact that I feel the OSes are gradually getting worse from user perspective
Looks like you haven't used Win10 yet. Try it. What Microsoft is doing is truly visionary and exciting, in a space where all innovation has been dead for a few years.
Looks like you haven't used Win10 yet. Try it. What Microsoft is doing is truly visionary and exciting, in a space where all innovation has been dead for a few years.
Big highlight note: Folks on Windows 7... probably not in a huge hurry to have the latest and greatest version of Office either. Except for the lack of security updates, Office 2007 would still be "good enough" for most users today. 2010 is still a supported, secure version of Office that does everything most people need it to.
And quite frankly, if you don't need anything newer than that, you'd probably be perfectly happy with Libre Office. I moved our office to using it because our needs are pretty simple: we need to type out letters from time to time, mail them, then move on to the next.
I've been amazed how many obscure Office features (that have been around since well before 2010) that people actually use, and consider a borderline crisis if they're not working right. Where I work, anything not Microsoft Office would become an immediate nonstarter.
But it definitely depends on your environment. For my personal use, I use Etherpad, EtherCalc, and Wekan on Sandstorm.io, despite having access to the full Office 365 through my community college.
But it definitely depends on your environment. For my personal use, I use Etherpad, EtherCalc, and Wekan on Sandstorm.io, despite having access to the full Office 365 through my community college.
True that. Windows 7 with Office 2010 is still the most solid and pleasant combination I can imagine. Since then, both product lines have suffered from Microsoft's new release management, design guidelines, and push to the cloud.
Indeed, still using office 2007
Do note that Office 2007 reached it's end-of-life on October of 2017, and therefore doesn't receive security updates anymore. I'd recommend getting a newer version at this point.
I know this must be a stupid question to ask, but why does a document writing tool need security updates? Can someone hack in and write documents on your behalf?
Macros are the really obvious one. But generally you need security patches any time you are running untrusted content from the internet. What happens if a malicious document overflows a buffer and gains code execution?
This is a particularly big concern with Word since its data format is essentially a direct binary copy of its memory structures.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2008/02/19/why-are-the-micros...
This is a particularly big concern with Word since its data format is essentially a direct binary copy of its memory structures.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2008/02/19/why-are-the-micros...
That's mostly the old DOC, XLS, etc. which is a binary file format. DOCX, XLSX, etc. are XML-based, I believe?
But yeah, to the parent of yours, Office has a lot of features of embedding and triggering dynamic content, and people are constantly finding creative new ways to infect Office files. Security updates for Office is a critical as security updates for your PC.
But yeah, to the parent of yours, Office has a lot of features of embedding and triggering dynamic content, and people are constantly finding creative new ways to infect Office files. Security updates for Office is a critical as security updates for your PC.
That answer should be no. However, there have been exploits that allow installation of malware by opening a malicious document [1].
[1]: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/04/booby...
[1]: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/04/booby...
One fear would be that someone could craft a malicious .docx file that can do any number of things - install keyloggers or adware or ransomware.
Meanwhile in the free/open source world, LibreOffice works about anywhere and LaTeX works on my old chrooted chromebook, allowing me to write all my university stuff on a ~$300 computer.
And it can handle documents with equations created more than 20 years ago. I know a couple of math teachers who went to latex because of incompatibilities of the different version of equation editors in word.
But then you decide to save your Libreoffice Impress presentation with lines in pptx and discover that after reopening your lines are gone. Then again, maybe I shouldn't save in pptx.
> maybe I shouldn't save in pptx
Yes, you could save to PDF, your presentation won't suffer from the lack of transitions between slides. It does mean if you want to reveal one bullet at a time, having one page for each reveal.
Yes, you could save to PDF, your presentation won't suffer from the lack of transitions between slides. It does mean if you want to reveal one bullet at a time, having one page for each reveal.
Just make your presentation with LaTeX! Then your lines will work forever.
I run my whole business on open source. Linux for the computers, libreoffice for the documents, Thunderbird + mail-in-a-box for email services.
Works like a charm.
Works like a charm.
Good for a student but try proposing this to an enterprise of 10k staff.
Here's my pitch: LibreOffice can do everything MS Office can do and it'll save you 2.3M$ up front.
But it can't tho. Also, you would have to train your staff. You make it sound way easier than it actually would.
You have to train your staff for MS products as well.
What makes you think that LibreOffice is not okay for an enterprise?
What's even more interesting is that Office 2019 will only be supported for 5 years instead of 10. Do they actually expect governments and companies to buy a new Office license every 5 years?
Even more of a reason for governments to switch to open source. We're witnessing vendor lock-in and abuse in action here.
I've also noticed since Nadella took over, the Q&A team has been cut (resulting in Windows 10 having way more bugs than previous Windows versions), previous builds/editions get support for even less time (like 18 months only), forcing users to get whatever Microsoft pushed in the latest version of Windows, or risk being vulnerable to malware. If you don't like what Microsoft introduced in Creators Update, and you want to stick to the Anniversary Update, tough luck. You'll have to get Creators' Update or say goodbye to patches.
This will likely result in Windows supporting less and less legacy software in the future, where "legacy" will mean something like 5 years old (as it already does for Office 2019, apparently).
Even more of a reason for governments to switch to open source. We're witnessing vendor lock-in and abuse in action here.
I've also noticed since Nadella took over, the Q&A team has been cut (resulting in Windows 10 having way more bugs than previous Windows versions), previous builds/editions get support for even less time (like 18 months only), forcing users to get whatever Microsoft pushed in the latest version of Windows, or risk being vulnerable to malware. If you don't like what Microsoft introduced in Creators Update, and you want to stick to the Anniversary Update, tough luck. You'll have to get Creators' Update or say goodbye to patches.
This will likely result in Windows supporting less and less legacy software in the future, where "legacy" will mean something like 5 years old (as it already does for Office 2019, apparently).
Do they actually expect governments and companies to buy a new Office license every 5 years?
Nope. They expect them to pay monthly per user with an annual commitment.
https://products.office.com/en-US/compare-all-microsoft-offi...
Nope. They expect them to pay monthly per user with an annual commitment.
https://products.office.com/en-US/compare-all-microsoft-offi...
> Do they actually expect governments and companies to buy a new Office license every 5 years?
No, they view 2019 and similar traditionally licensed versions as a legacy line they'd very much like to retire entirely. They want people on Office 365 subscriptions, and expect to have success moving the market in that direction.
No, they view 2019 and similar traditionally licensed versions as a legacy line they'd very much like to retire entirely. They want people on Office 365 subscriptions, and expect to have success moving the market in that direction.
A huge portion of people who think they need Office, don't actually need it. There are people in my office who are convinced that Office is the only way they can do their super basic spreadsheets, or type their letters.
Open Office has served me just fine for years now, and it would serve most people as well. For Word and Excel, at least.
Open Office has served me just fine for years now, and it would serve most people as well. For Word and Excel, at least.
I remember being excited about Windows 10 a few years ago because it got people on a modern browser.
https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/why-everyone-should-...
Microsoft needs to jettison more legacy so they can move faster.
https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/why-everyone-should-...
Microsoft needs to jettison more legacy so they can move faster.
Microsoft needs to jettison more legacy so they can move faster.
Why? For important business software, stability and longevity are good things.
From a commercial point of view, I know my businesses would have happily paid Microsoft for a version of Windows 7 that continued to get updates for security and for compatibility with new hardware but otherwise stayed much the same. Likewise, we'd pay for ongoing support of key business software like Office (and other big name products from other big name brands) if that were available.
Given genuinely beneficial improvements, we'd pay for genuine upgrades as well, on a timetable of our choosing.
However, we have no interest in upgrade treadmills for anything that matters, whether they are pushed via subscription plans or via incompatibility. So, moving faster in this case is directly costing Microsoft revenues.
While my own anecdotal experience is only that, I have to think we're not the only small businesses making the sorts of decisions we're making for the reasons that we're making them.
Why? For important business software, stability and longevity are good things.
From a commercial point of view, I know my businesses would have happily paid Microsoft for a version of Windows 7 that continued to get updates for security and for compatibility with new hardware but otherwise stayed much the same. Likewise, we'd pay for ongoing support of key business software like Office (and other big name products from other big name brands) if that were available.
Given genuinely beneficial improvements, we'd pay for genuine upgrades as well, on a timetable of our choosing.
However, we have no interest in upgrade treadmills for anything that matters, whether they are pushed via subscription plans or via incompatibility. So, moving faster in this case is directly costing Microsoft revenues.
While my own anecdotal experience is only that, I have to think we're not the only small businesses making the sorts of decisions we're making for the reasons that we're making them.
>Microsoft needs to jettison more legacy so they can move faster.
Microsoft would have significantly more freedom of action if they didn't repeatedly run roughshod over their users' personal agency over their devices.
Microsoft would have significantly more freedom of action if they didn't repeatedly run roughshod over their users' personal agency over their devices.
Everyone uses chrome or firefox anyway. I don't think the browser changes anything to OS adoption.
As a web developer, this is not true. An large number of clients I've worked with have used IE and thanks to Win 10 shipping with Edge (which in itself is a decent browser) I've noticed a huge decline in "but it looks odd in my browser" comments from clients. So while I don't like Windows, or Microsoft in general, I do like the push to get rid of legacy stuff by them.
What I have read so far is that Edge usage on the web is marginal despite (forced?) windows 10 adoption.
Yes it is, but lots of companies have upgraded to 10. Of all the offices I visit I see Edge open a lot. Chrome of course is the most popular, but I'm happy the awful web rendering engine that is IE is soon gone.
One time I used Edge for about two months on my Windows PC just because I was too lazy to download and set-up Chrome after format.
The only reason why eventually I switched to Chrome was Chromecast. Other than that Edge + uBlock Origin was doing everything any modern browsers do.
The only reason why eventually I switched to Chrome was Chromecast. Other than that Edge + uBlock Origin was doing everything any modern browsers do.
Microsoft needs to jettison more legacy so they can move faster.
Move faster to where?
Move faster to where?
New features, fewer bugs, increased profitability... that is, towards the goals of pretty much any (software) company.
For Microsoft, profitability depends quite a bit on people not leaving their comfort zone of "runs any old software thrown at it".
If you are Microsoft, jettisoning legacy means jettisoning customers.
If you are Microsoft, jettisoning legacy means jettisoning customers.
> "New features, fewer bugs, increased profitability"
Can you name me one IDE that has more features, fewer bugs and better profitability than Visual Studio?
I respect that Microsoft are not at the top of all fields they're involved in (search, mobile, etc...), but they aren't exactly struggling to stay competitive with every product they create.
Can you name me one IDE that has more features, fewer bugs and better profitability than Visual Studio?
I respect that Microsoft are not at the top of all fields they're involved in (search, mobile, etc...), but they aren't exactly struggling to stay competitive with every product they create.
I didn't say, nor do I think, that Microsoft has fewer features, more bugs, and lower profit than everybody else.
Rather, that the goals of pretty much everyone in the software business are features, fewest bugs possible, and most profit possible.
I'm not even sure I agree with the great-grandparent post that MSFT needs to jettison legacy. Frankly, I don't know enough about their numbers to have an informed opinion. My point was that it seems pretty clear what the poster meant by "move faster". So the question "to what?" isn't all that helpful.
Rather, that the goals of pretty much everyone in the software business are features, fewest bugs possible, and most profit possible.
I'm not even sure I agree with the great-grandparent post that MSFT needs to jettison legacy. Frankly, I don't know enough about their numbers to have an informed opinion. My point was that it seems pretty clear what the poster meant by "move faster". So the question "to what?" isn't all that helpful.
> "My point was that it seems pretty clear what the poster meant by "move faster". So the question "to what?" isn't all that helpful."
To be honest, I find that strange. Moving faster without setting goals about what you're moving faster for (other than profit) seems like a good recipe for dilution of focus. A company requires focus in order to maximise efficiency. Building up spare capacity just to buy time to run around like headless chickens seems like a wasted opportunity, from a business perspective.
To be honest, I find that strange. Moving faster without setting goals about what you're moving faster for (other than profit) seems like a good recipe for dilution of focus. A company requires focus in order to maximise efficiency. Building up spare capacity just to buy time to run around like headless chickens seems like a wasted opportunity, from a business perspective.
They were definitely struggling with IE. Moving to Edge has brought them neck and neck again.
I think some people in this thread are confusing support and getting new features.
Just because windows 8 doesn’t receive office 2019 doesn’t make it any less supported as an OS.
This decision seems pretty normal to me.
I can imagine if you’re on windows 7, having the latest version of Microsoft office is probably not one of your concerns anyway
I can imagine if you’re on windows 7, having the latest version of Microsoft office is probably not one of your concerns anyway
Given how little Microsoft changes Office between each version, I don't think that's going to be a strong reason to upgrade to windows 10. I can barely notice the difference between Office 2007 and Office 2016 save for the color scheme.
They are slowly, sloooowly implementing live collaboration. 2013 had built-in OneDrive support which had save conflicts 30% of the time even using it on a single computer. 2016 apparently supports the whole live-cursor collaboration thing, though I didn't know that until just now after looking it up. I'm sure it would be useful if you everyone else you're collaborating with has the latest version. It'd probably be easier to just use google drive for the one person that inevitably doesn't.
These are the kinds of decisions that can be frustrating when the software you use depends on the kind of company that made it.
Had Microsoft been split up back in the day into an applications-only company, would that hypothetical company have made the same call? In my experience software companies like to support several OS versions because things don’t change that much.
Had Microsoft been split up back in the day into an applications-only company, would that hypothetical company have made the same call? In my experience software companies like to support several OS versions because things don’t change that much.
Surely it will work on the Mac as well, right? As well as Android and iOS?
I had the same question given the title of the article. I think it should be more accurate to say that they're dropping old Windows support, not that it'll only work on Win10
Usually Microsoft has released Office for Mac as different year numbers than the Windows releases — so I'd expect the next release of the Mac product will be something like 2020 or 2021. (All this may have changed since Office365 etc came about, please correct me if I'm mistaken.)
The main question is: why should we upgrade to Office 2019?
Don't see anything wrong with that.
The New Microsoft™
[deleted]
given libreoffice 6 and gdocs, or even office365, is MS Office still relevant ?
Perhaps more interesting is the question of to what extent will it only work with Office 365
Microsoft abuses it's monopoly position with Office to support it's Windows Monopoly to force some users to upgrade.
Hardly surprising, but in theory this should be illegal.
Hardly surprising, but in theory this should be illegal.
> "Microsoft abuses it's monopoly position with Office to support it's Windows Monopoly."
Not really. Older versions of Office are not going to stop working. For many users, Office suites from the 90s are still sufficient for their uses.
Not really. Older versions of Office are not going to stop working. For many users, Office suites from the 90s are still sufficient for their uses.
For making documents that's true, for reading documents from other people it's not.
Someone that's going to say edit other people's resumes will soon need to upgrade windows OS simply to appease Microsoft and hand them even more money.
Someone that's going to say edit other people's resumes will soon need to upgrade windows OS simply to appease Microsoft and hand them even more money.
> "for reading documents from other people it's not."
I don't see the OOXML standard formats going away any time soon.
I don't see the OOXML standard formats going away any time soon.
I am not sure if that’s what grandparent meant. Office used to be Windows-only. Beside being quite “easy to use” back in the 90s, Office was critical in the success of Windows.
> Office used to be Windows-only
No it wasn't. Microsoft Excel was initially Mac only [0] and there was a bundled product named Microsoft Office for the Mac a year before there was one for Windows. [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Excel
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office
No it wasn't. Microsoft Excel was initially Mac only [0] and there was a bundled product named Microsoft Office for the Mac a year before there was one for Windows. [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Excel
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office
Conclusion: entirely legitimate business decision?