Microsoft uses malware tactics to foist Windows 10 on more PCs(smh.com.au)
smh.com.au
Microsoft uses malware tactics to foist Windows 10 on more PCs
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/gadgets-on-the-go/microsoft-uses-malware-tactics-to-foist-windows-10-on-more-pcs-20160524-gp355z.html
148 comments
I'm just waiting for the day when Microsoft moves on to subscription based service. Basically I'm assuming that they want their win10 user base high enough and then one day they say "we changed our licensing policy to subscription based" and then everyone has no choice but to pay $20 or whatever every month or be locked out from their machines. There's probably some small print in the win10 EULA that conveniently allows them to move onto this model under the ruse of "rolling releases"
I expect they won't do that until Win10 is an established rolling release OS. I also expect they will wait until after Windows 7 is no longer supported (2020) and Win10 has over 50% share. Also, I bet it will be rolled into Office365 subscription. People who have Office365 get recommended and security updates for Win10 for FREE! Such a good deal! You get office, and 1TB online storage for just $10/month!
If they can convert 50% of Win10 users (.625/1.25 billion) to subscription that's $6.25 billion / month or $75 billion / year. Their yearly revenue for 2015 was $93.6 billion. With a billion people (their stated goal for Win10) on a subscription model for $12/mo that is +50% yearly revenue -- enormous growth for such a large company. I do not doubt that is the end goal.
EDIT: "current count" of 1.25 billion windows machines was an estimate by business insider from 2011.
If they can convert 50% of Win10 users (.625/1.25 billion) to subscription that's $6.25 billion / month or $75 billion / year. Their yearly revenue for 2015 was $93.6 billion. With a billion people (their stated goal for Win10) on a subscription model for $12/mo that is +50% yearly revenue -- enormous growth for such a large company. I do not doubt that is the end goal.
EDIT: "current count" of 1.25 billion windows machines was an estimate by business insider from 2011.
I understand the reason the upgrade is free is to rather move to an ad supported service.
For now, yes. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "Windows Premium Edition" that's subscription based to remove the ads in the next few years. They can test the water with that, then start adding exclusive features to the paid version over time.
I agree. But I would expect Windows Pro to be that edition. The "pro" doesn't stand for much right now.
> I'm just waiting for the day when Microsoft moves on to subscription based service.
You're probably right, it's probably the future of Windows. Adobe moved to a subscription based service, users hated it yet numbers don't lie, Adobe made tons of money with that move.
You're probably right, it's probably the future of Windows. Adobe moved to a subscription based service, users hated it yet numbers don't lie, Adobe made tons of money with that move.
Probably just for the business users.
"Less evil than Oracle! And cheaper!"
Heady days.
"Less evil than Oracle! And cheaper!"
Heady days.
I just restored one of my neighbour's computers to life after it 'suddenly stopped working, it only shows a black screen with a mouse pointer'. The last thing the thing - which runs Windows 7 - had done was try to install KB3035583, the 'get Windows 10 now or die trying' version. It died.
After restoring Windows' messed-up intestines the machine booted up again. I'd removed all traces of KB3035583 in the hope that this neighbour - a farmer's wife in her 60s - would not be bothered again, nor tricked into 'upgrading'. Being the wise person I am I decided to keep the machine in quarantine for another day, just to make sure Microsoft would not come up with yet another way to foist this miscarriage of an operating system onto hapless users' machines. And, lo and behold, the next day I was greeted by yet another 'update', also summarily hidden and scrubbed, but still... I do these people a favour in helping them with technical stuff, but I don't want to become a full-time guardian. If this keeps up I'll just put some form of Linux on the thing and be done with it, all she uses it for is some light web browsing and mail-related stuff anyway.
To paraphrase a well-known quote, the harder Microsoft pushes, the more users will slip through their fingers and move to better pasture. That they don't realise this is something of a mystery to me.
After restoring Windows' messed-up intestines the machine booted up again. I'd removed all traces of KB3035583 in the hope that this neighbour - a farmer's wife in her 60s - would not be bothered again, nor tricked into 'upgrading'. Being the wise person I am I decided to keep the machine in quarantine for another day, just to make sure Microsoft would not come up with yet another way to foist this miscarriage of an operating system onto hapless users' machines. And, lo and behold, the next day I was greeted by yet another 'update', also summarily hidden and scrubbed, but still... I do these people a favour in helping them with technical stuff, but I don't want to become a full-time guardian. If this keeps up I'll just put some form of Linux on the thing and be done with it, all she uses it for is some light web browsing and mail-related stuff anyway.
To paraphrase a well-known quote, the harder Microsoft pushes, the more users will slip through their fingers and move to better pasture. That they don't realise this is something of a mystery to me.
> If this keeps up I'll just put some form of Linux on the thing and be done with it, all she uses it for is some light web browsing and mail-related stuff anyway.
Why wait?
Why wait?
gwx control panel will disable all the upgrade crap. I've used it on a few machines with good results.
http://ultimateoutsider.com/downloads/
http://ultimateoutsider.com/downloads/
I'm seeing this story in several places, so I'm going to go with the smoke==fire assessment, but can anyone confirm? I hate to pull the [citation needed] card, but this sounds beneath even the Microsoft of the 90s. And if it's true? OMG, today's "open source, and Linux, and ponies!" Microsoft is demonstrating worse behavior than the "convicted abusive monopolist" Microsoft, IMO.
I just witnessed it happen on my father's PC last week. It's even worse than what they're reporting here.
Basically, it brought up a window with a countdown saying that an "update" (won't say what) is scheduled to run in 4 hours. I had the option of changing the update to happen tomorrow, the day after, or the day after that. No close gadget. No opt-out. No alternative. Killing the window via task manager just caused it to relaunch. Cutting the power just made the update run when it restarted. I'd already backed everything up, so I wiped and reinstalled windows 7, and then used Never10 to hopefully stop that shit in future.
Basically, it brought up a window with a countdown saying that an "update" (won't say what) is scheduled to run in 4 hours. I had the option of changing the update to happen tomorrow, the day after, or the day after that. No close gadget. No opt-out. No alternative. Killing the window via task manager just caused it to relaunch. Cutting the power just made the update run when it restarted. I'd already backed everything up, so I wiped and reinstalled windows 7, and then used Never10 to hopefully stop that shit in future.
Honest question, why not just run Windows 10? I find that on older hardware it runs better than Windows 7.
Because of the spyware, because of the in-system ads, because of the two control panels, because of the frequent and uncontrollable forced reboots, because of all the embedded nagware (try skype, try office, try onedrive, try cortana, try candycrunch, try bing - it will make your premium laptop feel like a cheap device purchased at Walmart). Let's be honest, it's a junk OS. And because if you upgrade you loose control of what features you will get (microsoft will force you to accept updates and upgrades), and God knows what other moronic decisions the guys who brought you windows 8's "all apps full screen", the contextual menu at the other side of the screen (bright idea on a 4k monitor!), etc, will force on you with no way to opt out.
And the cavalier approach that Microsoft is adopting to force that upgrade on their users is obliterating the little faith and goodwill I had.
And the cavalier approach that Microsoft is adopting to force that upgrade on their users is obliterating the little faith and goodwill I had.
For my part, it started with a distaste for the Win8 UI, and the fact that they didn't pull every bit of that out from 10. I played with one of the dev previews for a bit (a couple hours, probably), and I didn't like that the local OS pushed for connections to online resources (Cortana, the default assumption that you'll link your MSN account to the machine). I really dislike features that blur the line between my computer and the internet. I don't like the forced-schedule updates, especially when Microsoft is increasingly using the update mechanism for behavioral changes in the OS.
Those are things that I would've probably come to terms with sometime, or taken the time to find a work-around for. At one point, I'd made the decision that after a couple of years of Win10 being out, I'd consider an upgrade (assuming that the claims of increased performance stood up in the real world). What completely turned me against it is the determination with which they've decided to pursue getting people to use it, going as far as several levels of trickery. It's the difference between "Here, have a cookie if you'd like." and "Eat this cookie. Now." that upsets me.
Those are things that I would've probably come to terms with sometime, or taken the time to find a work-around for. At one point, I'd made the decision that after a couple of years of Win10 being out, I'd consider an upgrade (assuming that the claims of increased performance stood up in the real world). What completely turned me against it is the determination with which they've decided to pursue getting people to use it, going as far as several levels of trickery. It's the difference between "Here, have a cookie if you'd like." and "Eat this cookie. Now." that upsets me.
Because if I wanted to spend the time and energy to learn a new ui it'd be macos not metro. Also, my roommate upgraded her few year old laptop and 10 is much slower than 7.
Unless you actively seek out Windows 10 "apps" from the store, you can live pretty much outside of metro. The only times I find myself in any kind of metro app is for some of the settings, but in a lot of cases the equivalent control panel applications are still available.
Is that an argument for or against windows 10? "You can mostly stay away from metro"? If the switch is inevitable, why not switch to an OS that doesn't force the user to navigate two sets of user interfaces, one of which it sounds like you're almost agreeing is bad?
Not calling out you in particular, but I see a lot of people saying "it's not so bad"... In what world is an upgrade where parts are "not so bad" and "avoidable" an upgrade? :)
Not calling out you in particular, but I see a lot of people saying "it's not so bad"... In what world is an upgrade where parts are "not so bad" and "avoidable" an upgrade? :)
I'll admit, I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion (I run Arch Linux at home), but for someone who doesn't like metro, Windows 10 can be used almost the same as Windows 7.
I really wish they'd make the LTSB Enterprise version available to consumers as a kind of "stable" version. I've used it at work, and I find it to be nice and lightweight compared to the pro version.
I really wish they'd make the LTSB Enterprise version available to consumers as a kind of "stable" version. I've used it at work, and I find it to be nice and lightweight compared to the pro version.
I read a lot of people's comments of how their older PCs were bricked while I was fixing two issues when my laptop from 2009 was force upgraded.
I wait until there's been a service pack release before ever installing a new OS. Also I was perfectly happy with Win7.
I wait until there's been a service pack release before ever installing a new OS. Also I was perfectly happy with Win7.
Microsoft's not using the "service pack" terminology any more, but Windows 10 has already had the equivalent of a service pack (the November update/1511) and is scheduled to get a second at some point this summer (currently in testing and called the Anniversary update).
They're also pushing out non-security bugfixes faster than they have in the past; the monthly Cumulative Update packages include security and non-security fixes, including some of the sort of hotfixes you might've had to call MS Support for back in the XP era.
They're also pushing out non-security bugfixes faster than they have in the past; the monthly Cumulative Update packages include security and non-security fixes, including some of the sort of hotfixes you might've had to call MS Support for back in the XP era.
At one point my ThinkPad wouldn't reconnect to wifi after suspend/resume when running Windows 10. That seems to have fixed itself, but I've no idea which update might have solved the problem or even if it was an update.
Now Windows 10 is refusing to recognise the Logitech wireless mouse USB receiver that works fine under Linux and also worked fine under Windows until a few weeks ago.
Honestly, I think Windows now has worse support for legacy hardware than Linux.
Now Windows 10 is refusing to recognise the Logitech wireless mouse USB receiver that works fine under Linux and also worked fine under Windows until a few weeks ago.
Honestly, I think Windows now has worse support for legacy hardware than Linux.
>Honestly, I think Windows now has worse support for legacy hardware than Linux.
I don't know where people got the idea that Windows ever had good hardware support. I switched to Linux right after win7 came out because it ran like shit on my laptop. It said my graphics drivers didn't support aero transparency but my laptop graphics supported transparency on Linux and a whole bunch of other cool shit with compiz and Linux ran flawlessly.
I don't know where people got the idea that Windows ever had good hardware support. I switched to Linux right after win7 came out because it ran like shit on my laptop. It said my graphics drivers didn't support aero transparency but my laptop graphics supported transparency on Linux and a whole bunch of other cool shit with compiz and Linux ran flawlessly.
I hear that linux run flawlessly now, and got massively downvoted when I claimed that this wasn't my experience a couple of months ago. I since decided to try it again. I purchased a lenovo T460p, and I picked that model specifically because it was on ubuntu's list of certified devices.
When the laptop switches on, it makes a horrible sound which reminds me of my 8bit audio days. And impossible to connect an external monitor, while the same laptop on windows could drive a 4K monitor. And couldn't find any useful fix on google.
I am sorry but linux desktop is far far from being ready for primetime.
When the laptop switches on, it makes a horrible sound which reminds me of my 8bit audio days. And impossible to connect an external monitor, while the same laptop on windows could drive a 4K monitor. And couldn't find any useful fix on google.
I am sorry but linux desktop is far far from being ready for primetime.
>lenovo T460p
That model comes with Ubuntu pre-installed and it does run flawlessly. I've seen people run ubuntu on it my self. So perhaps there was some other problems.
I can't find a single bad review except yours.
That model comes with Ubuntu pre-installed and it does run flawlessly. I've seen people run ubuntu on it my self. So perhaps there was some other problems.
I can't find a single bad review except yours.
On lenovo's website I could only find a windows version (on the US or UK websites). And the support page has no drivers for linux. All I can do it to install the default Ubuntu OS image. And the graphic card isn't like an exotic custom graphic card, it's Intel Integrated Graphics...
Whether or not you like it, it should be by consent.
> Honest question, why not just run Windows 10?
Because of the built-in spy functions (in Germany this is a highly sensitive topic for the two dictatorial regimes on German ground in the 20th century where lots of people went to prison because of the surveillance).
With Windows 10, Microsoft infringed the acceptability line for this.
Further dubious point on Windows 10 are that Windows 10 will be the first version that also supports Intel Software Guard Extensions (SGX). If you don't know about this sensitive topic, go read about it.
Because of the built-in spy functions (in Germany this is a highly sensitive topic for the two dictatorial regimes on German ground in the 20th century where lots of people went to prison because of the surveillance).
With Windows 10, Microsoft infringed the acceptability line for this.
Further dubious point on Windows 10 are that Windows 10 will be the first version that also supports Intel Software Guard Extensions (SGX). If you don't know about this sensitive topic, go read about it.
Others have given different reasons.
Mine, as explained at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11416488 , are that Windows 10 lacks the subsystem and toolsets that are a major part of my use of Windows 7. Microsoft removed them from the operating system.
Mine, as explained at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11416488 , are that Windows 10 lacks the subsystem and toolsets that are a major part of my use of Windows 7. Microsoft removed them from the operating system.
I run countless software that is not compatible for some reason or another with Windows 10 and would need to be ran within a VM. In fact, I'd be using Windows 10 to emulate Windows 7 literally 100% of the time. So why not stick with 7 rather than suffer a performance loss from running it within a VM?
That is a perfectly valid reason. Some people I've found are just resistant to change, and as such, put everyone else at more risk by using an older OS (thinking more XP than 7 here).
Can you share the names of the software you use that doesn't work on Windows 10? I'm really just curious. The product I work on in my day job is a Windows application that started its life as a DOS application and uses a graphics library that was designed around Windows 3.1. We really didn't have do to anything to get it to run on Windows 10. In fact, the only real problems we had were due to us still using some 16-bit compiled applications, and those wouldn't run on the 64-bit version of Windows 10 we had.
Can you share the names of the software you use that doesn't work on Windows 10? I'm really just curious. The product I work on in my day job is a Windows application that started its life as a DOS application and uses a graphics library that was designed around Windows 3.1. We really didn't have do to anything to get it to run on Windows 10. In fact, the only real problems we had were due to us still using some 16-bit compiled applications, and those wouldn't run on the 64-bit version of Windows 10 we had.
Mostly modified/custom .dll (nameless things) and some games, though many will work if I jump through some hoops.
Starcraft 2 was broken for months and I still see occasional reports of it crashing. It crashed for me back when I had given W10 a try. It appears to be driver dependent, but many visual novels don't function or will crash or need to be ran in a compatibility mode (and may be missing audio when if that is done).
A few things I rely on have been updated to support, others will never be updated (due to dead development). For example, QTTabBar (a shell extension for Explorer) has been updated for nearly a year.
I use W10 at work and have no issues with it. I will probably be purchasing a W10 laptop soon for when I travel. But I have to jump through far too many hoops to update my home machine.
My real issue is I should be using a UNIX machine that gives me total control over everything without ugly hacks and disabling half the OS (almost literally...) to do what I want it to do. :) However, back when I built my machine, the games I was playing wouldn't run on Linux so I was stuck with W7. Now my station is so customized that replicating it on Linux isn't worth the effort in my eyes....
Starcraft 2 was broken for months and I still see occasional reports of it crashing. It crashed for me back when I had given W10 a try. It appears to be driver dependent, but many visual novels don't function or will crash or need to be ran in a compatibility mode (and may be missing audio when if that is done).
A few things I rely on have been updated to support, others will never be updated (due to dead development). For example, QTTabBar (a shell extension for Explorer) has been updated for nearly a year.
I use W10 at work and have no issues with it. I will probably be purchasing a W10 laptop soon for when I travel. But I have to jump through far too many hoops to update my home machine.
My real issue is I should be using a UNIX machine that gives me total control over everything without ugly hacks and disabling half the OS (almost literally...) to do what I want it to do. :) However, back when I built my machine, the games I was playing wouldn't run on Linux so I was stuck with W7. Now my station is so customized that replicating it on Linux isn't worth the effort in my eyes....
< I find that on older hardware it runs better than Windows 7.>
Great. Now, please tell me how to make my hardware older.
Great. Now, please tell me how to make my hardware older.
It happens automatically. There is no "cancel" button.
There. It's older.
But how do I make it olderer enough to be better on Windows 10?
I still don't understand why this doesn't trigger anti-trust scrutiny. Anyway, I just installed GRC Never10[0], so let's see what happens. I'm guessing MS will roll out a new update to work around it, too.
[0] https://www.grc.com/never10.htm
I still don't understand why this doesn't trigger anti-trust scrutiny. Anyway, I just installed GRC Never10[0], so let's see what happens. I'm guessing MS will roll out a new update to work around it, too.
[0] https://www.grc.com/never10.htm
Why should Microsoft get to decide what someone does with their computer? Is it Microsoft's computer?
Oh, I completely agree with you here. I was just curious why they chose 7 over 10.
Oh, that is a much more interesting question!
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3095675
This notification means your Windows 10 upgrade will occur at the time indicated, unless you select either Upgrade now or “Click here to change upgrade schedule or cancel scheduled upgrade”. If you click on OK or on the red “X”, you’re all set for the upgrade and there is nothing further to do.
This notification means your Windows 10 upgrade will occur at the time indicated, unless you select either Upgrade now or “Click here to change upgrade schedule or cancel scheduled upgrade”. If you click on OK or on the red “X”, you’re all set for the upgrade and there is nothing further to do.
Wow, from their very own docs, huh? I was never a huge fan of some of Microsoft's patterns even when I worked there, but this is a new low in my eyes.
Asking users to actually read something and not just blindly dismiss it is a new low?
From the linked article:
If you're determined to avoid Windows 10 you've simply closed that pop-up by clicking the little X in the top right corner, by now it's probably second nature. This week Microsoft took advantage of this by changing the pop-up so that clicking the X to close it implies your consent to upgrade, tricking even more people into installing Windows 10 against their wishes.
If you're determined to avoid Windows 10 you've simply closed that pop-up by clicking the little X in the top right corner, by now it's probably second nature. This week Microsoft took advantage of this by changing the pop-up so that clicking the X to close it implies your consent to upgrade, tricking even more people into installing Windows 10 against their wishes.
I doubt it's the same pop-up. This one specifically states: 'Based on your update settings you're scheduled to upgrade on ...'. Just closing the pop-up wouldn't change this fact.
Can't really empathise with people complaining about this.
It isn't the same popup, because Microsoft has continually changed it over the past year. They have done everything they can to ignore and circumvent user preferences during this whole process.
It started with OK and cancel, then changed to Upgrade Now and Upgrade Later, with the close button being the only way to decline. Now it is being pushed as an automatic upgrade with a deliberately small and unobtrusive cancel link instead of a prominent button. Also, if you are away from your PC, it will happen automatically.
Look at their own UI guidelines: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dn7...
Dialog boxes always have a Close button.
Don't disable the Close button. Having a Close button helps users stay in control by allowing them to close windows they don't want.
The Close button on the title bar should have the same effect as the Cancel or Close button within the dialog box. Never give it the same effect as OK.
Also, read this: http://blog.ultimateoutsider.com/2015/11/the-gwx-control-pan...
It does seem that, on more than a few occasions, Microsoft has gone out of its way to bypass workarounds people have found that disable the GWX app, from resetting registry settings to re-releasing KBs that were explicitly declined and hidden by users.
It started with OK and cancel, then changed to Upgrade Now and Upgrade Later, with the close button being the only way to decline. Now it is being pushed as an automatic upgrade with a deliberately small and unobtrusive cancel link instead of a prominent button. Also, if you are away from your PC, it will happen automatically.
Look at their own UI guidelines: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dn7...
Dialog boxes always have a Close button.
Don't disable the Close button. Having a Close button helps users stay in control by allowing them to close windows they don't want.
The Close button on the title bar should have the same effect as the Cancel or Close button within the dialog box. Never give it the same effect as OK.
Also, read this: http://blog.ultimateoutsider.com/2015/11/the-gwx-control-pan...
It does seem that, on more than a few occasions, Microsoft has gone out of its way to bypass workarounds people have found that disable the GWX app, from resetting registry settings to re-releasing KBs that were explicitly declined and hidden by users.
Unbelievable, thanks for sharing. I'll be looking out for this dialog on my old Win laptop now that has been nagging me for forever (I don't believe for a second it will run Win 10 well).
I had removed all the Win10 upgrade files and registry keys, etc from my box at one point, yet somehow - probably during an update - the files have come back. It is now showing me that pop-up again.
Happened to my folks.
I had to fix the network issues they had connecting from win10 to win7. Took all day. Just didn't want to work.
I set the other machines to never upgrade using this tool:
https://www.grc.com/never10.htm
Probably the same as the reg hack others post about.
I had to fix the network issues they had connecting from win10 to win7. Took all day. Just didn't want to work.
I set the other machines to never upgrade using this tool:
https://www.grc.com/never10.htm
Probably the same as the reg hack others post about.
I can't assess for truth, but I reckon the sneaky upgrade of Win10 users (those who gave refused until now) is becoming a running joke on 9Gag. And popularity is important when the European commission sets the fines. Just saying.
Yeah I had to fix my fathers friends computer because his wifi didn't work after the upgrade (just needed to plug into ethernet and download the wifi driver). He specifically said he closed the update window.
Not only is this evil but it's really unprofessional and not what I expect from a company like Microsoft. Forcing the update is one thing, but breaking thousands of machines?? And how could they really not see what was going to happen? What is happening up at MS HQ?
And all the guy does is look at porn and browse facebook, literally that's all he does with his laptop, he would be better off with Linux.
I'm glad I don't have to deal with Windows anymore. Once you switch to Linux/Unix and experience a simple OS that stays the hell out of the way using Windows just feels like a chore. Why can't Microsoft make Windows good?
Not only is this evil but it's really unprofessional and not what I expect from a company like Microsoft. Forcing the update is one thing, but breaking thousands of machines?? And how could they really not see what was going to happen? What is happening up at MS HQ?
And all the guy does is look at porn and browse facebook, literally that's all he does with his laptop, he would be better off with Linux.
I'm glad I don't have to deal with Windows anymore. Once you switch to Linux/Unix and experience a simple OS that stays the hell out of the way using Windows just feels like a chore. Why can't Microsoft make Windows good?
Microsoft is trying to unify as many devices as possible, in an effort to secure Windows around the world.
Too many people are running insecure versions of Windows, and frankly I'd rather break them (the small percentage that they are) than have that many botnets out there, sending spam, breaking bitcoin consensus, and all kinds of other nefarious things.
Too many people are running insecure versions of Windows, and frankly I'd rather break them (the small percentage that they are) than have that many botnets out there, sending spam, breaking bitcoin consensus, and all kinds of other nefarious things.
What's insecure about Windows 7? It still receives security updates? In 5 years time, will you consider a fully patched Windows 10 to be an "insecure version of Windows" too? Why not? Did you consider Windows 7 insecure when it was first released?
This is a shortsighted way of thinking. The goal is to move beyond "releases", and to a continuously upgrading OS, like OS X.
Sure, OS X has new releases, but adoption rate is high, and Apple is quick to cut support for legacy versions. Microsoft is working towards that.
The visceral reaction towards Microsoft for trying this is just a general "I want to be in control for the sake of being in control" reaction that carries no legitimate value.
Sure, OS X has new releases, but adoption rate is high, and Apple is quick to cut support for legacy versions. Microsoft is working towards that.
The visceral reaction towards Microsoft for trying this is just a general "I want to be in control for the sake of being in control" reaction that carries no legitimate value.
I think it is more a reaction that Microsoft is suddenly "changing the deal" and forcing users to get something that was never part of the bargain. People are feeling cheated and tricked and lose all trust in Microsoft. Heck, people are getting interrupted with a forced upgrade when they livestream games or present the weather on TV. Who knows if there's more surprises in the windows 10 pipeline?
I hope there are many more "surprises" in store for the luddites who refuse to install a modern operating system on their computers.
This actively harmful view of how computer security works needs to be swiftly punished.
This actively harmful view of how computer security works needs to be swiftly punished.
What's insecure about Windows 7? It still receives security updates?
This is a shortsighted way of thinking. The goal is to move beyond "releases", and to a continuously upgrading OS, like OS X.
Why is "I have a secure OS that still is supported and will be for quite a while, I'll upgrade when I replace this computer/have to reinstall the OS anyways" shortsighted?
Because the people providing support would rather not.
They're the ones telling you to upgrade.
They're the ones telling you to upgrade.
They promised to provide support and got paid for it, so they should do their job, or clearly announce that they are unable to do so.
Their support is telling you to upgrade (for FREE) to Windows 10.
They never said how they would offer you support.
Edit: Also, I'm not entirely sure there are any support contracts for Windows by itself, I think you need to buy a contract from Microsoft for something like that.
They never said how they would offer you support.
Edit: Also, I'm not entirely sure there are any support contracts for Windows by itself, I think you need to buy a contract from Microsoft for something like that.
My MacBook Pro is still running 10.10. Although I occasionally get a notification that an upgrade to 10.11 is available, it's certainly not being forced on me.
And they can totally move to that scheme with windows 10. People (including me) paid for non-upgrading versions and the promise to get upgrades up to point X. I didn't pay for Microsoft to randomly break my workflow and push attention challenges on me before point X. Advertising for Windows 10 is fine, I didn't mind the initial "you can download windows 10 right now for free" reminders particularly much and did upgrade one of my systems quite quickly. I do not appreciate having to jump to hoops to keep other machines (running an OS that is still in support, and will be for quite some time) working as I need them right now.
I don't honestly care what you pictured in your head you were paying for, because it clearly was different from what you got.
Your unhappiness as a customer of Microsoft is completely worth it for me, as someone who would eventually otherwise get spammed by the botnet on your computer, not to mention the Iranian citizen who thanks you for not participating, unwittingly, in a TOR identification network.
I don't know how to put this in a way that will break through your selfishness, but being on the Internet is not just a "you" thing. You're participating in the worlds largest network of computers, and if you get to pick and choose, manually, when you update your computer, then you're going to be a bad actor.
Your "kid" and my "kid" are in the same "classroom", so I'd like for you to keep up with modern "medicine", even if it's temporarily inconvenient to you.
Your unhappiness as a customer of Microsoft is completely worth it for me, as someone who would eventually otherwise get spammed by the botnet on your computer, not to mention the Iranian citizen who thanks you for not participating, unwittingly, in a TOR identification network.
I don't know how to put this in a way that will break through your selfishness, but being on the Internet is not just a "you" thing. You're participating in the worlds largest network of computers, and if you get to pick and choose, manually, when you update your computer, then you're going to be a bad actor.
Your "kid" and my "kid" are in the same "classroom", so I'd like for you to keep up with modern "medicine", even if it's temporarily inconvenient to you.
What essential security flaws do current Windows versions have that justify to force an upgrade right now, or what reasons do you have to believe they will have them soon? You are talking in a lot of hypotheticals.
Like I said elsewhere, this is a shortsighted view. Windows version fragmentation is a security problem, in general, just like any other software fragmentation.
There isn't a specific unsupported thing that's currently out there, but only because Microsoft has committed to supporting legacy versions of Windows. There is a fundamentally superior solution to fixing bugs in many places, and that solution is to only have one place to fix a bug.
This isn't hypothetical, look at OS X. There have already been a number of vulnerabilities they've simply refused to fix in relatively recent legacy versions of their OS, because of the cost in doing so.
From a "how does this personally help me?" standpoint, if Microsoft can cut legacy teams, the people on those teams get to work on new cool things that make your investment in their latest OS more valuable. By forcing them to support legacy versions, you're holding them back, and therefore holding yourself back (since you bought their product).
There isn't a specific unsupported thing that's currently out there, but only because Microsoft has committed to supporting legacy versions of Windows. There is a fundamentally superior solution to fixing bugs in many places, and that solution is to only have one place to fix a bug.
This isn't hypothetical, look at OS X. There have already been a number of vulnerabilities they've simply refused to fix in relatively recent legacy versions of their OS, because of the cost in doing so.
From a "how does this personally help me?" standpoint, if Microsoft can cut legacy teams, the people on those teams get to work on new cool things that make your investment in their latest OS more valuable. By forcing them to support legacy versions, you're holding them back, and therefore holding yourself back (since you bought their product).
I understand that reasoning. I guess the difference is that while I think it is great that they are moving to such a model with windows 10, I don't agree that it justifies what they are doing right now.
They will have to provide security fixes anyways for the product lifetime of Windows 7 and 8.1 they promised, because I don't see large companies, governments etc upgrading now just because. They are not going to shorten the announced life-time, and they will keep providing updates during it.
So even if you don't believe they shouldn't interrupt their users like this, they won't save money by badgering people now about Windows 10 and they are generating a lot of bad press that possibly even actively stops people from upgrading (at least in the computer press I read, focus on windows 10 has shifted from "quite good, we recommend you upgrade" to "Microsoft is fucking their users even worse than last months, here is what you do to stop upgrades")
So from my perspective they are causing massive negative disruption for not much gain.
They will have to provide security fixes anyways for the product lifetime of Windows 7 and 8.1 they promised, because I don't see large companies, governments etc upgrading now just because. They are not going to shorten the announced life-time, and they will keep providing updates during it.
So even if you don't believe they shouldn't interrupt their users like this, they won't save money by badgering people now about Windows 10 and they are generating a lot of bad press that possibly even actively stops people from upgrading (at least in the computer press I read, focus on windows 10 has shifted from "quite good, we recommend you upgrade" to "Microsoft is fucking their users even worse than last months, here is what you do to stop upgrades")
So from my perspective they are causing massive negative disruption for not much gain.
I think you're way over-tuned to the press's perception and it's relevance. 99.99% of people don't care, and Microsoft sells their products to them. The loudest among us do care, but that doesn't mean their voices are proportionate.
My grandfather doesn't care, he just wants to not have his credit card stolen, and upgrading to Windows 10 is Microsoft's recommendation to make sure that doesn't happen.
My grandfather doesn't care, he just wants to not have his credit card stolen, and upgrading to Windows 10 is Microsoft's recommendation to make sure that doesn't happen.
>
The visceral reaction towards Microsoft for trying this is just a general "I want to be in control for the sake of being in control" reaction that carries no legitimate value.
Since Windows 10 brings built-in surveillance functions to the table and will be the first version to support the dubious Intel SGX (Software Guard Extensions), it is much better to be safe than sorry or in your words: better to be in control for the sake of being in control than in no control.
Since Windows 10 brings built-in surveillance functions to the table and will be the first version to support the dubious Intel SGX (Software Guard Extensions), it is much better to be safe than sorry or in your words: better to be in control for the sake of being in control than in no control.
Windows 10 doesn't have built-in "surveillance functions". Your cell phone is much worse, from a "surveillance functions" point of view.
It's got GPS in it, they know where you are all the time!!!
Give me a break...
It's got GPS in it, they know where you are all the time!!!
Give me a break...
> Your cell phone is much worse, from a "surveillance functions" point of view.
It's got GPS in it, they know where you are all the time!!!
That is one of the many reasons why I don't have a cell phone.
That is one of the many reasons why I don't have a cell phone.
You don't have a cell phone but for you the Windows breaking point was when Win10 came out?
I think you're either not being very honest, or you don't know about the myriad of privacy issues Microsoft has had over its entire lifetime...
I think you're either not being very honest, or you don't know about the myriad of privacy issues Microsoft has had over its entire lifetime...
I know that I tolerated some things that Microsoft did for too long. I'm far from perfect here. What Microsoft did in Windows 10 was rather the final straw.
I nevertheless still stand by my thesis that the privacy issues that Windows introduced in the past have been far less severe than the privacy issues cell phones introduce (let alone for the fact that one can be geolocated for the whole time).
By the way: I know quite some people who don't have a cell phone for similar reasons.
I nevertheless still stand by my thesis that the privacy issues that Windows introduced in the past have been far less severe than the privacy issues cell phones introduce (let alone for the fact that one can be geolocated for the whole time).
By the way: I know quite some people who don't have a cell phone for similar reasons.
> By the way: I know quite some people who don't have a cell phone for similar reasons.
Please, I beg of you -- don't even pretend like this view holds a significant percentage of the greater population's mind.
Please, I beg of you -- don't even pretend like this view holds a significant percentage of the greater population's mind.
It's not the greater population but it is many of the key people in the business world and it is especially noticeable in Silicon Valley. Many geeks I know don't have social networking accounts or phones now.
> Your cell phone is much worse
1. You assume another person has a cell phone, a spying cell phone at that.
2. Even if your assumption is true, that makes Microsoft's actions okay because ... ?
1. You assume another person has a cell phone, a spying cell phone at that.
2. Even if your assumption is true, that makes Microsoft's actions okay because ... ?
Well, hopefully this becomes a nice driver for the homebrew computer scene. It's quite possible to assemble an internet capable (not web) computer from discrete chips on a breadboard now. Perhaps the users need some more choices.
“Too many people are running insecure versions of Windows, and frankly I'd rather break them”
Seriously? I think this old Hacker News comment thread¹ does a good job of covering all the points outlining why that’s a bad idea. Also, do you seriously think that upgrading their OS will stop users from continuing to download and install malware?
――――――
¹ — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11638048
Seriously? I think this old Hacker News comment thread¹ does a good job of covering all the points outlining why that’s a bad idea. Also, do you seriously think that upgrading their OS will stop users from continuing to download and install malware?
――――――
¹ — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11638048
> Also, do you seriously think that upgrading their OS will stop users from continuing to download and install malware?
Yes, I do. An operating system without a particular vulnerability cannot be infected by malware that exploits said vulnerability.
As for that thread, you're going to have to be more specific, nothing I read in there is much more than what I said earlier, control for it's own sake.
This is tantamount to the antivax movement.
Yes, I do. An operating system without a particular vulnerability cannot be infected by malware that exploits said vulnerability.
As for that thread, you're going to have to be more specific, nothing I read in there is much more than what I said earlier, control for it's own sake.
This is tantamount to the antivax movement.
> This is tantamount to the antivax movement
Could you please not be offensive. Vaccines don't have keyloggers or forced-adware.
Could you please not be offensive. Vaccines don't have keyloggers or forced-adware.
Neither does Windows 10, but the fact that this comment actually "offends" you tells me we're not playing on a level field.
> Neither does Windows 10
It did. There have been documented cases, and I have discussed this in the past.
----
> but the fact that this comment actually "offends" you
It does. In another comment, you call people refusing to be force updated from a perfectly working (and security-supported) OS (in the name of "security") "luddites". In this comment, you generalize and compare us with a movement that can only be characterized as "willfuly ignorant", to say the least. That is offensive.
I do get the parallels you were trying to point to: people running insecure OSes are detrimental to the rest of the internet community at large. But you get carried away and set up a far too extreme comparison. The people/kids that need vaccines are those that don't have security against pathogens (you wouldn't give someone a second dose/shot of a vaccine, when they've already been vaccinated and it's not even close to time for a booster dose, would you?), but Windows 7 is a perfectly secure OS (at least against non-Microsoft-affiliated agents).
One has to be careful when setting up analogies, for while one may see only the similarities, others will see the differences also.
> tells me we're not playing on a level field
So what? Are you claiming I unleveled the field? The field was already unleveled, especially when you begin with a view that all those who disagree with you are "luddites" "as wrong as the antivaxxers".
You made some claims from a certain level, and I made counter-arguments from a certain level. If the field needed to be level in order to "play", I wouldn't even have presented any counter-arguments from the very beginning.
It did. There have been documented cases, and I have discussed this in the past.
----
> but the fact that this comment actually "offends" you
It does. In another comment, you call people refusing to be force updated from a perfectly working (and security-supported) OS (in the name of "security") "luddites". In this comment, you generalize and compare us with a movement that can only be characterized as "willfuly ignorant", to say the least. That is offensive.
I do get the parallels you were trying to point to: people running insecure OSes are detrimental to the rest of the internet community at large. But you get carried away and set up a far too extreme comparison. The people/kids that need vaccines are those that don't have security against pathogens (you wouldn't give someone a second dose/shot of a vaccine, when they've already been vaccinated and it's not even close to time for a booster dose, would you?), but Windows 7 is a perfectly secure OS (at least against non-Microsoft-affiliated agents).
One has to be careful when setting up analogies, for while one may see only the similarities, others will see the differences also.
> tells me we're not playing on a level field
So what? Are you claiming I unleveled the field? The field was already unleveled, especially when you begin with a view that all those who disagree with you are "luddites" "as wrong as the antivaxxers".
You made some claims from a certain level, and I made counter-arguments from a certain level. If the field needed to be level in order to "play", I wouldn't even have presented any counter-arguments from the very beginning.
Breaking up a comment into isolated parts removes context and is intellectually dishonest, please don't do it.
What you're doing now is invoking moral outrage, which is completely useless in any real conversation, so what you're signaling is that you've completed being useful to talk to, and are now commencing your own justifications for continuing to believe as you do, despite a well-reasoned argument to the contrary.
You've unleveled the playing field by removing rationality from this conversation, but by continuing to use terms from the world of rationality (evidence, claims), you try to mask that fact.
Do you realize that when you do this, you isolate yourself and alienate the person you're talking to? I don't want to talk to you anymore, regardless of the validity of your other points, simply because of how... annoyingly self righteous you're being. It's like a religious conversation now, and why would I engage someone on the Internet in something like that?
What you're doing now is invoking moral outrage, which is completely useless in any real conversation, so what you're signaling is that you've completed being useful to talk to, and are now commencing your own justifications for continuing to believe as you do, despite a well-reasoned argument to the contrary.
You've unleveled the playing field by removing rationality from this conversation, but by continuing to use terms from the world of rationality (evidence, claims), you try to mask that fact.
Do you realize that when you do this, you isolate yourself and alienate the person you're talking to? I don't want to talk to you anymore, regardless of the validity of your other points, simply because of how... annoyingly self righteous you're being. It's like a religious conversation now, and why would I engage someone on the Internet in something like that?
> Breaking up a comment into isolated parts removes context
And it is necessary sometimes, to discuss the individual parts. Just because one strung together a big comment doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to question an individual part of that bigger comment.
> and is intellectually dishonest
One could argue the same about trying to hide a weak argument in a bigger comment with a plea like "please don't break up the comment, it removes context".
> What you're doing now is invoking moral outrage, which is completely useless in any real conversation, so what you're signaling is that you've completed being useful to talk to, and are now commencing your own justifications for continuing to believe as you do, despite a well-reasoned argument to the contrary
Funny, I see the same in you. I feel you were trying to provoke moral outrage by using words like "luddites" and comparing to antivaxxers. If you wanted to have "real conversation", you should have treated your conversation partners with a reasonable amount of respect.
You think your argument is well-reasoned. Guess what, almost every participant in every debate thinks their argument is well-reasoned, or they wouldn't be debating any longer.
> You've unleveled the playing field
Again, our perceptions differ, yet in a mirror-like manner. I felt you had unleveled the playing field by being so sure of your beliefs being well-reasoned that you think anyone that didn't agree with you were stupid; elevating yourself.
> by removing rationality from this conversation, but by continuing to use terms from the world of rationality (evidence, claims), you try to mask that fact.
Completely disagree, and totally understand why you'd think so. Only your own reason makes sense to you (this has been a theme in your other comments, also, see above), so obviously anyone that disagrees with you is unreasonable and irrational.
> I don't want to talk to you anymore ... It's like a religious conversation now
Same here. Only, it seemed like a religious conversation from the beginning that I took a risk while getting into. I guess when one describes thoughts or beliefs (or conversations) as "religious", they mean firm, unbudging belief. And I guess you see that in my arguments as much as I do in yours. Obviously, we can no longer discuss with each other.
Good day to you, sir.
And it is necessary sometimes, to discuss the individual parts. Just because one strung together a big comment doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to question an individual part of that bigger comment.
> and is intellectually dishonest
One could argue the same about trying to hide a weak argument in a bigger comment with a plea like "please don't break up the comment, it removes context".
> What you're doing now is invoking moral outrage, which is completely useless in any real conversation, so what you're signaling is that you've completed being useful to talk to, and are now commencing your own justifications for continuing to believe as you do, despite a well-reasoned argument to the contrary
Funny, I see the same in you. I feel you were trying to provoke moral outrage by using words like "luddites" and comparing to antivaxxers. If you wanted to have "real conversation", you should have treated your conversation partners with a reasonable amount of respect.
You think your argument is well-reasoned. Guess what, almost every participant in every debate thinks their argument is well-reasoned, or they wouldn't be debating any longer.
> You've unleveled the playing field
Again, our perceptions differ, yet in a mirror-like manner. I felt you had unleveled the playing field by being so sure of your beliefs being well-reasoned that you think anyone that didn't agree with you were stupid; elevating yourself.
> by removing rationality from this conversation, but by continuing to use terms from the world of rationality (evidence, claims), you try to mask that fact.
Completely disagree, and totally understand why you'd think so. Only your own reason makes sense to you (this has been a theme in your other comments, also, see above), so obviously anyone that disagrees with you is unreasonable and irrational.
> I don't want to talk to you anymore ... It's like a religious conversation now
Same here. Only, it seemed like a religious conversation from the beginning that I took a risk while getting into. I guess when one describes thoughts or beliefs (or conversations) as "religious", they mean firm, unbudging belief. And I guess you see that in my arguments as much as I do in yours. Obviously, we can no longer discuss with each other.
Good day to you, sir.
There's a lot wrong with what you wrote, but I'll summarize into one point; this isn't a conversation between you and me, it's a discussion in a group. Your replies are not congruent with that, and it ruins my experience of this site.
I didn't read what you wrote, but I'm sure it was important enough to use tricks like selective quotation to get across.
I didn't read what you wrote, but I'm sure it was important enough to use tricks like selective quotation to get across.
Downgrading the component to before the introduction of the flaw would be safer by far.
That is an interesting idea, and on first blush I do think it'd be safer, but it does rely on figuring out exactly when the flaw was introduced, and will result in the "YoYoing" of features, which is confusing from a consumer standpoint.
POCs are a part of any good bug disclosure. It should be easy to test that one is no longer affected. Besides, trying older versions to undo problems is a very old and reliable technique.
I get that, but when you roll back, you don't really control what else you're removing, and you're implying that a roll back wouldn't break other parts of the system, or that it even makes sense, given the state of the system (it could be years before a vuln is noticed).
Imagine waking up one morning and realizing you can't use uppercase on your file names anymore because of a rolled back vulnerability.
Imagine waking up one morning and realizing you can't use uppercase on your file names anymore because of a rolled back vulnerability.
The guys at MSFT just don't give a fuck... I wonder what are their plans with W10 and the next versions. It seems it is mandatory for them that everybody moves to W10, the question is why ? what is MSFT strategy for the next 5/10 years when it comes to Windows ? A closed system like the Xbox ?
To get Microsoft-owned media content in front of more eyeballs. This is what Google (indirectly) did with Android, and what Yahoo wish it could do to shore up its declining share of consumers of its content.
[deleted]
I thought I was the only one! My gaming PC hooked up to our living room TV has nagged about the upgrade for months, and I dutifully closed the popup window each time I saw it. About two weeks ago, I turned on the TV to find a new login screen and noticed that my remote keyboard and mouse daemon had stopped. All in all, Win10 has been just fine, but I had no idea how it managed to install itself without my direct approval.
Can anything damage large companies' reputation irreversibly these days? Whether is Microsoft forcing "upgrades" on PCs or Apple forcing iOS updates with their constant popups (which BTW you can avoid by using a proxy file) or their planned OSX obsolescence. And Google being a web company is free to muck up the UI, tie unrelated products together or discontinue services without any recourse since they're not client applications. Most large software companies' practices seem abusive to me. "We take security seriously" - after they've just been hacked or "We take privacy very seriously" - after they've just handed over user data for some ad cash, etc.
The side effects:
"I live in the Central African bush. We pay for slow satellite internet (per MB d/l). Just ONE of our computers has secretly d/l'ed 6GB for Windows 10. We track & coordinate anti-poaching rangers in the field with these PC's + GPS. F* You Microsoft!"
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4mcdon/i_live_i...
Left to their own devices, people would never upgrade. This is a security risk for MS. (Win 8 support ends January 2018). Chrome was championed for auto updating, and now all browsers do the same. Web apps can auto update whenever they want. Mobile apps auto update. Why shouldn't operating systems?
There's a difference between security and stability updates and major version changes.
I have no compelling reason to upgrade my Windows 7 machine to Windows 10; 7 performs all the tasks I need it to. I do not trust the privacy changes in Windows 10, which is more reason for me not to upgrade.
I've disabled the Windows 10 upgrade path, but otherwise keep it up-to-date on all patches.
What do I do when Windows 7 support ends? I'll cross that bridge when I get to it... but that bridge won't be to Windows 10.
I have no compelling reason to upgrade my Windows 7 machine to Windows 10; 7 performs all the tasks I need it to. I do not trust the privacy changes in Windows 10, which is more reason for me not to upgrade.
I've disabled the Windows 10 upgrade path, but otherwise keep it up-to-date on all patches.
What do I do when Windows 7 support ends? I'll cross that bridge when I get to it... but that bridge won't be to Windows 10.
I agree with your statements about Windows 10. In my case, I don't use my Windows laptop for day to day anymore. It also told me that Windows 10 is not optional and it will happen next week and there is nothing I can do about it. It sits connected to my TV via HDMI cable only to stream DRM related content such ad HBO Go, Netflix, etc.
At least once a week, it takes about 30 minutes to apply updates. Where my computer would restart several times.
At least once a week, it takes about 30 minutes to apply updates. Where my computer would restart several times.
Fortunately that use case is quite well covered by alternative solutions, like Roku, Chromecast, Fire, or a homebrew HTPC running something like Kodi or Plex. The Raspberry Pi is a popular host device for that.
"DRM related content such ad HBO Go, Netflix, etc." None of those will be supported on a device for as long as they will be supported on a PC. Not that I'm a PC fan, but the general purpose operating system idea really shines here.
I disagree. Only a homebrew HTPC is at risk of losing those things. Any of the commercial streaming boxes/sticks from a reasonably reputable company should have support for DRM-protected content for the indefinite future. After several years a specific version of the hardware may stop receiving updates, but that's not a big deal when the original device cost $35 (assuming that you can pick up a similarly-priced replacement in the future).
Chrome has made some pretty major, breaking changes due to auto-updates. I opened Chrome one day to find that my VPN to work would no longer function due to sweeping changes in extension permissions. I would agree with the parent that Chrome's behavior is very similar to what MS is doing now, and probably for similar reasons, except that MS is actually giving warning before they do it. That doesn't make it any more pleasant, but it still will result in a more secure infrastructure.
To further your Chrome analogy, this particular browser update breaks some peoples' favorite sites, rearranges the UI they've grown comfortable with (but inconsistently), displays ads next to the navigation bar, includes a built-in unique advertising id, pushes sponsored extensions on users, deliberately makes it as hard as possible to change the default search engine (and periodically reverts to the default anyway), and is the last update they can choose to decline, after which all future updates will be forced on them, closing all tabs and restarting the browser whenever it feels like it.
Oh, and also, their choice to decline this particular update is being actively subverted using dark patterns to try to trick them into upgrading.
Oh, and also, their choice to decline this particular update is being actively subverted using dark patterns to try to trick them into upgrading.
One reason I can think of, and the reason I'm staying on Win7 as long as possible - Windows 10 installs updates and reboots (killing all open windows, unsaved documents, browser tabs, etc) without asking for permission to do so. This outrages me.
I took screen shots with my phone while the upgrade ran so I can participate in the class action lawsuit that will never happen.
They're a bit blurry because I was using the outrage filter.
I suppose the settlement would be a free one-month trial of MS cloud services. And at the end of the month they'd auto upgrade you to the highest cost tier.
They're a bit blurry because I was using the outrage filter.
I suppose the settlement would be a free one-month trial of MS cloud services. And at the end of the month they'd auto upgrade you to the highest cost tier.
Mobile apps autoupdate by default, there's a difference between that and being forced to auto update. Mobile apps are also usually sandboxed heavily (more so on iOS than Android as I understand it...but I am not a mobile dev).
In my mind, auto updating was not one of the most attractive features of Chrome. In fact, auto updating for Chrome was one of the reasons I and some others I know stayed away from it for so long.
Web apps aren't binary blobs that users have to download and implicitly trust to not do nefarious things to their system. In fact, most browsers sandbox web pages to a large degree. Not to mention it's an entirely different architecture...with its own challenges.
Operating Systems run on hardware ostensibly owned by individuals (although this is constantly being diminished by corporate practices). But average Joe running Win 8 is not a security risk for MS...it is a security risk for average Joe. Backwards support is a huge cost for software companies in general...so I think the auto updating is not so much about protecting you or I, it's about protecting Microsoft's bottom line. And using nefarious tactics to force and trick people into upgrading just underscores this point. It's taking (some) control of "your" system away from you and giving it to Microsoft. Not to mention that OS's are very close to hardware (about as close to hardware as software can be).
Basically...there are tons of reasons why OS's are not mobile apps, desktops apps (like browsers), etc. and shouldn't just be auto-updated with whatever Microsoft decides to send down to your machine on a whim.
In my mind, auto updating was not one of the most attractive features of Chrome. In fact, auto updating for Chrome was one of the reasons I and some others I know stayed away from it for so long.
Web apps aren't binary blobs that users have to download and implicitly trust to not do nefarious things to their system. In fact, most browsers sandbox web pages to a large degree. Not to mention it's an entirely different architecture...with its own challenges.
Operating Systems run on hardware ostensibly owned by individuals (although this is constantly being diminished by corporate practices). But average Joe running Win 8 is not a security risk for MS...it is a security risk for average Joe. Backwards support is a huge cost for software companies in general...so I think the auto updating is not so much about protecting you or I, it's about protecting Microsoft's bottom line. And using nefarious tactics to force and trick people into upgrading just underscores this point. It's taking (some) control of "your" system away from you and giving it to Microsoft. Not to mention that OS's are very close to hardware (about as close to hardware as software can be).
Basically...there are tons of reasons why OS's are not mobile apps, desktops apps (like browsers), etc. and shouldn't just be auto-updated with whatever Microsoft decides to send down to your machine on a whim.
Because it breaks shit?
It is true that it's a security risk, but instead of forcing something that people clearly do not want, why not make something that they do want. Make a product they want to upgrade to.
Everyone is framing this like it's all for the user's benefit, but lets tell it like it is: It's a huge money-grab for MS that happens to have small benefits to users.
It is true that it's a security risk, but instead of forcing something that people clearly do not want, why not make something that they do want. Make a product they want to upgrade to.
Everyone is framing this like it's all for the user's benefit, but lets tell it like it is: It's a huge money-grab for MS that happens to have small benefits to users.
>It is true that it's a security risk, but instead of forcing something that people clearly do not want, why not make something that they do want. Make a product they want to upgrade to.
Two things. First, people want their computers to be secure. Most users do not seem to understand that keeping your system patched is a prerequisite to remaining secure, and those people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into running updates, which is why Windows 10 has gotten so aggressive about enforcing it. If someone gets exploited through a hole in Windows, it comes back to haunt MS; they learned that well and good in the Windows 98 days, and they learned that users will never install updates without being forced to do so in the XP days.
Second, the kind of people who are afraid to install security patches cannot be enticed by any new program or UI modification. They have an defensive dislike of computers. They just want it to stay the same forever, and even if you release new versions that are identical at the UI level, people still won't upgrade to them because they're afraid it'll "break shit", as you succinctly put it.
End users may not like MS's aggression about updates but it is actually sensible for 99% of the userbase out there. MS's problems are unique among desktop OS vendors because of the wide and varied audience that relies on them to provide a good general-purpose OS.
It's reasonable that power users would resent MS's update policies, but MS does not have the luxury of tuning their release policy for the power user. Power users should be using not-Windows.
Two things. First, people want their computers to be secure. Most users do not seem to understand that keeping your system patched is a prerequisite to remaining secure, and those people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into running updates, which is why Windows 10 has gotten so aggressive about enforcing it. If someone gets exploited through a hole in Windows, it comes back to haunt MS; they learned that well and good in the Windows 98 days, and they learned that users will never install updates without being forced to do so in the XP days.
Second, the kind of people who are afraid to install security patches cannot be enticed by any new program or UI modification. They have an defensive dislike of computers. They just want it to stay the same forever, and even if you release new versions that are identical at the UI level, people still won't upgrade to them because they're afraid it'll "break shit", as you succinctly put it.
End users may not like MS's aggression about updates but it is actually sensible for 99% of the userbase out there. MS's problems are unique among desktop OS vendors because of the wide and varied audience that relies on them to provide a good general-purpose OS.
It's reasonable that power users would resent MS's update policies, but MS does not have the luxury of tuning their release policy for the power user. Power users should be using not-Windows.
> Power users should be using not-Windows.
Except that even power users like having large libraries of available software, including things that may not be available on "not-Windows".
I'm fine with aggressive defaults and sensible settings for the 99%, but I'm accustomed to being able to disable things that cause me problems or get in the way of doing what I want to do. If a system doesn't get out of my way, it's possible for it to become more of an impediment than a tool.
Except that even power users like having large libraries of available software, including things that may not be available on "not-Windows".
I'm fine with aggressive defaults and sensible settings for the 99%, but I'm accustomed to being able to disable things that cause me problems or get in the way of doing what I want to do. If a system doesn't get out of my way, it's possible for it to become more of an impediment than a tool.
The problem with making it toggleable is that a lot of people are going to flip that switch by accident, no matter how deep you bury it (even if you bury it in the registry only, someone will write spyware to flip it so that the computer becomes exploitable at a future date).
Most non-game software works on WINE, or, worst case, within a virtual machine. At Windows scale, your software must permanently operate in idiot-proof mode. If you don't need that protection, I believe you should use a different OS as your primary.
Most non-game software works on WINE, or, worst case, within a virtual machine. At Windows scale, your software must permanently operate in idiot-proof mode. If you don't need that protection, I believe you should use a different OS as your primary.
> The problem with making it toggleable is that a lot of people are going to flip that switch by accident
I think that's a smaller problem than not being able to flip the switch at all.
> someone will write spyware to flip it so that the computer becomes exploitable at a future date
...And I think that's inevitable, whether or not there's an official way to do it.
> Most non-game software works on WINE, or, worst case, within a virtual machine.
Wine's a wonderful piece of software and a great work-around in many situations, but I wouldn't want to rely on it as my only option.
I think that's a smaller problem than not being able to flip the switch at all.
> someone will write spyware to flip it so that the computer becomes exploitable at a future date
...And I think that's inevitable, whether or not there's an official way to do it.
> Most non-game software works on WINE, or, worst case, within a virtual machine.
Wine's a wonderful piece of software and a great work-around in many situations, but I wouldn't want to rely on it as my only option.
Even if they had that goal, there are other ways to do it.
When OS X came along, it shipped with an entire virtual machine for its previous OS. And while some low-level things didn’t work there, a surprising number of things did work. It gave people a path forward without requiring instant-OSX-ification of things.
When OS X came along, it shipped with an entire virtual machine for its previous OS. And while some low-level things didn’t work there, a surprising number of things did work. It gave people a path forward without requiring instant-OSX-ification of things.
"keeping your system patched is a prerequisite to remaining secure" Completely false. This will 100% NEVER be a sane security model. The one true way is to have verified secure software installed in the first place. That is not impossible. It is just more expensive than releasing patches as flaws are exposed. Do not be fooled by the general flow indicating correctness.
The type that are afraid of patches are often also afraid of the network, which is quite prudent. You judge them unfairly.
"Power users should be using not-Windows." Well then...
The type that are afraid of patches are often also afraid of the network, which is quite prudent. You judge them unfairly.
"Power users should be using not-Windows." Well then...
>"keeping your system patched is a prerequisite to remaining secure" Completely false. This will 100% NEVER be a sane security model. The one true way is to have verified secure software installed in the first place. That is not impossible. It is just more expensive than releasing patches as flaws are exposed. Do not be fooled by the general flow indicating correctness.
While theoretically possible, it is not currently reasonable to employ this model for modern general-purpose operating systems. We're going to have to live with requisite patching and updates for a long time yet.
While theoretically possible, it is not currently reasonable to employ this model for modern general-purpose operating systems. We're going to have to live with requisite patching and updates for a long time yet.
so it's OK to keep breaking shit "for their own good"?
It's rare that something actually breaks, but yes, if the exploit is serious it's better to break something with a security patch than leave a known attack vector unpatched.
So, since all OS currently have un-patched exploits out there, we should just shut everything down?
k
k
That's not what I said, obviously.
I'm an Android user, and I have disabled auto updating, so I'm not sure my apps auto update.
> Chrome was championed for auto updating, and now all browsers do the same.
And they slowly ruin the UI and introduce incompatibilities with other software that I'd like to use. It's why I'm in Pale Moon instead of Firefox or Chrome right now.
> Web apps can auto update whenever they want.
Are you saying this is a positive attribute of web apps? I suppose it is, from the development side. From the user's perspective, it's one of the things I hate the most about web apps.
> Mobile apps auto update.
Often removing features I like and adding ads or features that I don't, and chewing up my system resources while they do it. I've got auto-updates disabled for most apps on my phone, and I read the changelog before manually updating them. Exceptions: financial apps, e-mail, encryption, and other sensitive pieces of software. I'm not insane...I just don't like things changing out from under me with little-to-no warning.
And they slowly ruin the UI and introduce incompatibilities with other software that I'd like to use. It's why I'm in Pale Moon instead of Firefox or Chrome right now.
> Web apps can auto update whenever they want.
Are you saying this is a positive attribute of web apps? I suppose it is, from the development side. From the user's perspective, it's one of the things I hate the most about web apps.
> Mobile apps auto update.
Often removing features I like and adding ads or features that I don't, and chewing up my system resources while they do it. I've got auto-updates disabled for most apps on my phone, and I read the changelog before manually updating them. Exceptions: financial apps, e-mail, encryption, and other sensitive pieces of software. I'm not insane...I just don't like things changing out from under me with little-to-no warning.
[deleted]
I agree with this viewpoint, but it's not popular with this crowd for obvious reasons (hence your downvotes). I think there's a bit of a double edged sword here. People don't want to upgrade, but want a vendor to provide updates and protection for a long time with OS's. This is the SaaS/webapp model moving to the OS, because big version number upgrades have always sucked for all software - not just OS's.
Where else do people expect a single anonymous purchase of around a hundred dollars to last them for 5+ years with a vendor constantly making improvements to it?
It's a good upgrade, it's free, and people better get used to it. It's a good choice for most people, so unless you feel like compiling your own OS, it's gonna be stuff like this, chromeOS, or buying hardware/OS as a single package (apple).
Yes, plenty of us on here are hackers, or "special users" that might not think it's a good choice, but for the bulk of windows 7, and 8 users this is a good path and their experience will improve with it.
Where else do people expect a single anonymous purchase of around a hundred dollars to last them for 5+ years with a vendor constantly making improvements to it?
It's a good upgrade, it's free, and people better get used to it. It's a good choice for most people, so unless you feel like compiling your own OS, it's gonna be stuff like this, chromeOS, or buying hardware/OS as a single package (apple).
Yes, plenty of us on here are hackers, or "special users" that might not think it's a good choice, but for the bulk of windows 7, and 8 users this is a good path and their experience will improve with it.
Because the decision what operating system to run and what version is one that should not be forced, 'consent' and all that.
[deleted]
Windows 8.1 will have security updates until January 10, 2023: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle
"6. What is the difference between Mainstream Support, Extended Support" https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle#gp/lifePolicy
"6. What is the difference between Mainstream Support, Extended Support" https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle#gp/lifePolicy
Because it's not their damn hardware.
My computer, my rules.
My computer, my rules.
Use Linux. Problem solved.
Of course, if you have special needs (games, proprietary Windows-only software, etc.), you might have to run Windows. My advice would be to simply use an Enterprise version of Windows 7, which doesn't "upgrade" you automatically, and work on moving away from any Microsoft platforms as quickly as possible.
Of course, if you have special needs (games, proprietary Windows-only software, etc.), you might have to run Windows. My advice would be to simply use an Enterprise version of Windows 7, which doesn't "upgrade" you automatically, and work on moving away from any Microsoft platforms as quickly as possible.
>problem solved
And perhaps many new problems introduced (as you point out), so... no, not really.
And perhaps many new problems introduced (as you point out), so... no, not really.
Linux is a viable option for many people. A good portion of people literally only use a web browser.
Just saw a whole school switch to ChromeOS.
Just saw a whole school switch to ChromeOS.
Recently had a project with a C++-on-Linux deliverable. I developed on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, the most recent LTS at the time. Someone else tested on 16.04 LTS, which came out between me finishing development and him testing. Code compiled and failed to link until we built libcurlpp from source.
In short, Ubuntu's been shipping a broken libcurlpp for something like a year. Further research tells me that's not the only package affected, and GCC 5 has generally made life entertaining.
I'm also running 16.04 on a Raspberry Pi, and oh boy is that fun! An even less tested architecture!
* Chromium segfaults on startup, and appears to have been doing so for about a year. Ubuntu continues to package completely broken updates occasionally.
* Most audio from Firefox goes through what I've been calling the noisy Satan filter.
* Initially, all programs segfaulted in ld.so when running in GDB. Currently, it spits out a couple errors and continues.
* nm-applet reliably segfaults a few minutes after starting.
* For some unknown reason, wlan0 has 7 global IPv6 addresses and counting.
But at least it doesn't update without asking. I suppose there's that!
Edit: Not that I think what Microsoft is doing is OK. Just think "just use Linux" often causes more problems than it solves, especially for people who just want Word and Facebook to work.
In short, Ubuntu's been shipping a broken libcurlpp for something like a year. Further research tells me that's not the only package affected, and GCC 5 has generally made life entertaining.
I'm also running 16.04 on a Raspberry Pi, and oh boy is that fun! An even less tested architecture!
* Chromium segfaults on startup, and appears to have been doing so for about a year. Ubuntu continues to package completely broken updates occasionally.
* Most audio from Firefox goes through what I've been calling the noisy Satan filter.
* Initially, all programs segfaulted in ld.so when running in GDB. Currently, it spits out a couple errors and continues.
* nm-applet reliably segfaults a few minutes after starting.
* For some unknown reason, wlan0 has 7 global IPv6 addresses and counting.
But at least it doesn't update without asking. I suppose there's that!
Edit: Not that I think what Microsoft is doing is OK. Just think "just use Linux" often causes more problems than it solves, especially for people who just want Word and Facebook to work.
Still not as bad as development on Windows though.
This is essentially an entire feature of the updater. Imagine the meetings and project management involved.
There are MS employees right here on HN, I wish some of them would chime in with their thoughts on this whole debacle. I imagine most of the employees were kept in the dark about this too, as the nature of MS/proprietary software is secretive and sometimes considered abusive to the employee. Likely they've signed non-disclosure agreements and could lose their jobs for giving an honest assessment of what they think about their employer.
Yeah, I know that worker bees are always the last to know the big picture, but someone somewhere had to make the "X" violate Demeter. Now, there's an argument to be made that the close button is only for the notification that something is going to happen, but come on. Obviously they didn't focus group this.
[deleted]
Windows 10 slows down my whole PC and won't let me downgrade. I was forced to move to Linux or deal with constant lag from all forms of input.
Can't believe I wasted my time putting up with the lag to fix my wifi so I could install updates.
Can't believe I wasted my time putting up with the lag to fix my wifi so I could install updates.
For probably the first time I understand why forum/reddit mods turn to those "megathreads"
Do we need a new story about this every day. ugh.
Do we need a new story about this every day. ugh.
Yes, until Microsoft finally ends this madness?
After rebooting, neither the keyboard nor the trackpad would work. I had a spare USB keyboard (no mouse), and I managed to delete the faulty drivers, which were replaced on reboot by valid ones (the bad drivers were reported as 'up to date', so updating wouldn't do it).
Disabling all the spyware features with only a keyboard during the post-install setup wasn't fun. Thankfully, the device manager is still his old Win95 self, and I could easily navigate through it even though I haven't owned a Windows machine since XP.
I learned after the fact that refusing the User Agreement would revert to the previous version of the OS. I wish I had known that before finalizing the impromptu upgrade.