Windows 10 nagging users with Bing advertisements (push alerts)(windowslatest.com)
windowslatest.com
Windows 10 nagging users with Bing advertisements (push alerts)
https://www.windowslatest.com/2021/05/31/windows-10-is-now-nagging-users-with-microsoft-bing-alerts/
230 comments
I had a similar experience when trying out the Minecraft RT beta some time ago. I had gotten a GPU with ray tracing capabilities, and I wanted to try it out, so I went to download the beta. To actually use it, you have to have a Microsoft account, and an "XBox Insider" account or something like that. When you have both of those, and opt-in to the beta, the MS store is supposed to know you want to get the beta version instead of the normal one, and download it for you. Of course that didn't work, so I had to delete the app and re-install multiple times, and even restart the whole system to get it to take. On the restart, I got a new popup about opting in to sending my usage data to MS.
Finally I got it working, and it was a half finished mess. The home screen is full of micro-transactions (and this is a game which is supposed to be for children) and I had to go to a separate guide, not provided by Microsoft, to figure out how to get the special RT maps so I could actually see this feature working. And even then you could not just load up a new game and see raytracing, I had to do some manual work in the file-system to create a texture pack which could be used with an arbitrary map.
The whole thing just reeked of a room full of product managers trying to optimize a KPI around account creation without having taken a moment to go through the process and see what they had created.
Finally I got it working, and it was a half finished mess. The home screen is full of micro-transactions (and this is a game which is supposed to be for children) and I had to go to a separate guide, not provided by Microsoft, to figure out how to get the special RT maps so I could actually see this feature working. And even then you could not just load up a new game and see raytracing, I had to do some manual work in the file-system to create a texture pack which could be used with an arbitrary map.
The whole thing just reeked of a room full of product managers trying to optimize a KPI around account creation without having taken a moment to go through the process and see what they had created.
> Microsoft... what happened?
Intense jealousy of Apple
Intense jealousy of Apple
That explains a lot of the poor decisions Microsoft has made over the years. In particular the changes to the Windows UI. The trouble is they don't have enough taste to pull it off.
*Google.
Just another incredibly sleazy move by Microsoft.
I'm not surprised by this anymore. They've gone from full anti-trust lawsuit for Internet Explorer, to just riding the cliff edge of what they believe they can get away with. See: Skype, Teams installer, Office.
This will continue as long as it's in their interest to be in control of as much of the software stack as possible.
Another side of their underhanded marketing is where decision makers looking at collaboration or business apps are faced with the question of, "why bother evaluating something else (i.e. better) when we get this included in our Microsoft E5 license?"
This will continue as long as it's in their interest to be in control of as much of the software stack as possible.
Another side of their underhanded marketing is where decision makers looking at collaboration or business apps are faced with the question of, "why bother evaluating something else (i.e. better) when we get this included in our Microsoft E5 license?"
My favorite is how when you right-click some highlighted text in Edge, before the "Search the web for this" button, is an additional "Search Bing for this" button.
I'm sure the product designer's thought was, "Maybe they just forgot how excellent Bing is, and they will decide to click this Bing button, rather than using the non-Bing search engine they explicitly configured before!" And not "Let's trap some accidental clicks."
I'm sure the product designer's thought was, "Maybe they just forgot how excellent Bing is, and they will decide to click this Bing button, rather than using the non-Bing search engine they explicitly configured before!" And not "Let's trap some accidental clicks."
Oh this is diabolical IMO. I just tested it to understand what's happening.
Below "search the web", there is always a "search in sidebar" option. "Sidebar" basically splits your window and loads your search in the new pane. I assume this is some custom webview, but it looks very, very similar to a new window/tab.
The kicker: only Bing search can be loaded in the sidebar. So when you change your default search engine away from Bing, the text changes to "search Bing in sidebar" -- because they didn't implement the sidebar for anyone else, but wanted to keep the option there.
Yikes.
Below "search the web", there is always a "search in sidebar" option. "Sidebar" basically splits your window and loads your search in the new pane. I assume this is some custom webview, but it looks very, very similar to a new window/tab.
The kicker: only Bing search can be loaded in the sidebar. So when you change your default search engine away from Bing, the text changes to "search Bing in sidebar" -- because they didn't implement the sidebar for anyone else, but wanted to keep the option there.
Yikes.
Surprisingly, when I tried Edge this feature was really useful. Of course it would be better if they asked me which search engine should pop up. But given Edge is too far from dominant market position, I don't see what legal recourse one could suggest to force the choice unless you entirely ban cross-promotion and product bundling.
That seems, for better or for worse, paved with good intentions.
I can see a modest excuse for restricting the sidebar view to Bing, in that you need to have a reasonably suitable display format for the results.
Microsoft can be aware of and support the case from both sides, but I could imagine Google detecting "User-agent = Edge and the window width=300px", and sending some experience-ruining CSS or JavaScript to try to nudge users back to Chrome.
I know there was a while where various Google properties were unreasonably clunky on Firefox, and I can't imagine it was by accident; doubtless a trillion-dollar company can wire up a few CI instances to make sure things load well on non-Chrome browsers.
Microsoft can be aware of and support the case from both sides, but I could imagine Google detecting "User-agent = Edge and the window width=300px", and sending some experience-ruining CSS or JavaScript to try to nudge users back to Chrome.
I know there was a while where various Google properties were unreasonably clunky on Firefox, and I can't imagine it was by accident; doubtless a trillion-dollar company can wire up a few CI instances to make sure things load well on non-Chrome browsers.
I agree and did try messing with the views a bit vs. bing.com and realized it's not the same. Fair enough!
But to introduce a sidebar in a chrome-based browser just to ship Bing? and then add it to every right click context for only Bing, overriding your other search preferences? and the sidebar just redirects you to open the search in a new tab/window anyway (was at the bottom of the screen for me)?
I didn't love it.
But to introduce a sidebar in a chrome-based browser just to ship Bing? and then add it to every right click context for only Bing, overriding your other search preferences? and the sidebar just redirects you to open the search in a new tab/window anyway (was at the bottom of the screen for me)?
I didn't love it.
The Teams installer is the worst. Every time I open Teams, the damn thing installs itself in the login items on my Mac. This is straight up malware behavior. I wish I could report this to Apple.
The anti-trust thing was kind of ridiculous, though. Would you have preferred to have to get a floppy disk in order to install a web browser? How about Acer replacing IE with its own piece of shit browser in OEM builds? (hypothetical) Looking back, I don't think that was a good use of the Sherman antitrust act.
It wasn’t even really IE. Everyone forgets the bigger issue at play in that case: forcing OEMs to pay for a Windows license even on non-Windows devices. That’s something that anti trust laws are for. The IE thing was just another thing they could tack on as an “abuse”.
Then when I point out this sort of shit to explain why I insist in keeping Win7, people say I am nuts and that Win10 is fine.
Windows 7 is a fine OS if you don't connect it to the Internet, but it's basically screaming "hack me" everywhere you go online.
A few occasional mild annoyances from the marketing team is worth tolerating for a reasonably secure operating system. I'd argue people who feel otherwise need to reprioritize their risks.
A few occasional mild annoyances from the marketing team is worth tolerating for a reasonably secure operating system. I'd argue people who feel otherwise need to reprioritize their risks.
This is the sort of BS paranoia-propaganda that is contributing to the propagation of walled gardens and continued mass user oppression and "herding".
List the last known remote exploit that will work for someone behind a NAT, and that doesn't involve visting a malicious site with all the default settings of IE or downloading and running an executable (at which point nothing will save you but the most authoritarian of walled gardens.)
Don't forget, the new stuff is not free of attack surfaces either.
List the last known remote exploit that will work for someone behind a NAT, and that doesn't involve visting a malicious site with all the default settings of IE or downloading and running an executable (at which point nothing will save you but the most authoritarian of walled gardens.)
Don't forget, the new stuff is not free of attack surfaces either.
First of all, the most common attack surface of most Windows PCs is Chrome. I find almost all malware in either extensions, or via misuse of Chrome features (many customers think they have malware because a spammer has been granted access to Chrome's notifications feature).
However, bear in mind, as others said, NAT isn't a security feature, it's just an annoying roadblock that helpfully makes accessing computers somewhat more difficult. However, quite a few applications on the average PC reach out and touch other services, granting malicious actors plenty of ways into a PC.
I get the hate on walled gardens, as a big antitrust supporter, but unfortunately, Windows 10's app model (universal apps) gets a bad rap because of the Microsoft Store being generally considered attached to it: UWP apps are basically the safest way to run apps, because UWP apps cannot harm other things outside of their little sandbox. And contrary to popular belief, it's entirely possible to create, distribute, and install UWP apps without the Microsoft Store. Microsoft has definitely had some missteps in both rolling out and marketing the newer app model, but it is the future.
Sandboxed applications not only provide unparalleled security, they also are incredibly stable because other apps can't tamper with them either. By being self-contained, developers can generally be confident the app will work on any machine without issue.
However, bear in mind, as others said, NAT isn't a security feature, it's just an annoying roadblock that helpfully makes accessing computers somewhat more difficult. However, quite a few applications on the average PC reach out and touch other services, granting malicious actors plenty of ways into a PC.
I get the hate on walled gardens, as a big antitrust supporter, but unfortunately, Windows 10's app model (universal apps) gets a bad rap because of the Microsoft Store being generally considered attached to it: UWP apps are basically the safest way to run apps, because UWP apps cannot harm other things outside of their little sandbox. And contrary to popular belief, it's entirely possible to create, distribute, and install UWP apps without the Microsoft Store. Microsoft has definitely had some missteps in both rolling out and marketing the newer app model, but it is the future.
Sandboxed applications not only provide unparalleled security, they also are incredibly stable because other apps can't tamper with them either. By being self-contained, developers can generally be confident the app will work on any machine without issue.
> List the last known remote exploit that will work for someone behind a NAT,
NAT is not a firewall (though it's usually paired with one). And the NAT is usually one hop away from the computer, so it provides no protection against an attack coming from the same network (like a worm on a coworker's laptop).
However, AFAIK Windows 7 does have a built-in firewall, which (depending on the settings) might help protect even against an attack coming from the local network.
NAT is not a firewall (though it's usually paired with one). And the NAT is usually one hop away from the computer, so it provides no protection against an attack coming from the same network (like a worm on a coworker's laptop).
However, AFAIK Windows 7 does have a built-in firewall, which (depending on the settings) might help protect even against an attack coming from the local network.
Genuinely interested, why would Win7 be worse than Win10 if you had the same network setup, same browser (same extensions) and behaved the same as you do with Win10?
I ask as even at home, my different devices all use the same browser/extensions, VPN and browsing habits. I use established FOSS where possible and the only problems I have had since Windows 98 are from data breaches (nothing I could have prevented with different OS/software).
Or are we talking about business/corp usage?
I ask as even at home, my different devices all use the same browser/extensions, VPN and browsing habits. I use established FOSS where possible and the only problems I have had since Windows 98 are from data breaches (nothing I could have prevented with different OS/software).
Or are we talking about business/corp usage?
All sorts of security features in the browser only work on newer operating systems:
Hardware-enforced Stack Protection: https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-chrome-this-new-feature...
Significant improvements to ASLR starting in Windows 8: https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2013/12/11/software-defense-...
And many more things. New Windows releases aren't just coats of paint.
Hardware-enforced Stack Protection: https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-chrome-this-new-feature...
Significant improvements to ASLR starting in Windows 8: https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2013/12/11/software-defense-...
And many more things. New Windows releases aren't just coats of paint.
Understanding the difference between security and privacy is why I actually use Edge on Windows for some desktop tasks.
There is no difference between security and privacy. If you have no privacy, compromising your security is easy. If you have no security, compromising your privacy is easy.
Guarding one protects the other.
Guarding one protects the other.
Correct.
Need to do those in different ways at different times.
Need to do those in different ways at different times.
I would not have thought the improvements would have been that significant (I'm old and ignorant).
HeSP is dependent on the cpu? (article noting intel gen 11 and amd ryzen 3 are needed) and ASLR still being implemented on Win7 with http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2639308
We still have to keep a couple winxp and nt boxes alive at work for diagnostic gear (none are online). Thankfully not my job as I am obviously a risk :)
We still have to keep a couple winxp and nt boxes alive at work for diagnostic gear (none are online). Thankfully not my job as I am obviously a risk :)
Forced ASLR isn't the important feature (the browsers already opted themselves in). The increased entropy, which doesn't exist on Win7, is important however.
Remember WannaCry? 67% of infected PCs ran Windows 7, the rest mostly ran Windows XP: https://www.networkworld.com/article/3197762/wannacry-was-a-...
Windows 10 was technically vulnerable, but since Windows 10 has drastically better security features, from a defense-in-depth standpoint, having Windows 10 more or less rendered most computers immune in practice. (Likely, the few 10 machines infected were intentionally crippled by their admins.)
Bear in mind, Windows 7 is an OS from 2009, 12 years ago. It's ancient from a computer security standpoint.
Whether you are personal or corporate, you probably should be running either Windows 10, or choose an alternate operating system entirely like OS X or Linux.
Windows 10 was technically vulnerable, but since Windows 10 has drastically better security features, from a defense-in-depth standpoint, having Windows 10 more or less rendered most computers immune in practice. (Likely, the few 10 machines infected were intentionally crippled by their admins.)
Bear in mind, Windows 7 is an OS from 2009, 12 years ago. It's ancient from a computer security standpoint.
Whether you are personal or corporate, you probably should be running either Windows 10, or choose an alternate operating system entirely like OS X or Linux.
Chrome end of support on Win 7 is in only 7 months from now.
Good choice, the Windows 10 UI and UX are complete trash. I'm not sure who at Microsoft thought it would be a good idea to use this kind of tablet interface even on non-tablet devices. Many times, when you want to change a setting, first you are presented with this flat useless UI, so you almost always have to go to the original one anyway. The look and feel is completely inconsistent and unintuitive. The notifications suck. The Edge bullshit sucks. The update mechanism sucks and wastes the precious lifetime and work of millions of people. I don't want my computer to take hours to install and restart a thousand times while I'm unable to use it. Cortana is useless, search is slow, I don't want a "dynamic", "fancy" animated interface, I don't want changing lockscreen pictures, I want immediate feedback when I click anywhere. Whoever directed this should be fired.
Cannot install Windows 7 on newer Cpu's and cannot get certain drivers anymore.
Wine can probably run most windows 7 software, you're probably better off with Linux (use pop-os if you want something easy with good IME/desktop features. My Thai girlfriend jumped pretty much strait to that from windows after she got tired of all the MS/vendor crap eating up all the I/O.)
I've been saying this for decades at this point, but there is still the occasional snafu. We bought a TomTom GPS, and their MyDrive Connect map updater won't run on wine. Some error with vulkan and a Win32 extension.
Now I have to admit the GPS device itself is also pretty low-quality, so probably I should just return it to the store, but still... What were they smoking? No 3D accelerated map updates for me, I guess.
Now I have to admit the GPS device itself is also pretty low-quality, so probably I should just return it to the store, but still... What were they smoking? No 3D accelerated map updates for me, I guess.
Why is this even surprising? Having your devices advertise to you, crying for your attention 24/7, is pretty much what push notifications are for. Why not leverage it to advertise Bing? It's not like people are going to stop using it, after all; we've proven that.
No, push notifications were invented for a very useful purpose — to notify you when something has happened. You know, emails, instant messages, social media interactions, all that kind of stuff. But then some bright minds figured out that they can also be used to try to manipulate you into doing something that would make the charts go up, since charts going up is apparently the single most important thing in the modern IT industry.
If you read modern documentation and tutorials for push APIs integrated into OSes[1] they'll tell you that the purpose of push notifications is to remind the user that your app is installed and encourage them to open it.
[1]not IMAP IDLE and leaving a socket open, that's not allowed anymore. the app servers connect to the service and if there's new data it must be relayed through the OS vendor's push server which the OS leaves a connection open to and will cause a notification to appear on the "end user's" device.
[1]not IMAP IDLE and leaving a socket open, that's not allowed anymore. the app servers connect to the service and if there's new data it must be relayed through the OS vendor's push server which the OS leaves a connection open to and will cause a notification to appear on the "end user's" device.
Yes, I meant that exact kind of push notifications like APNS and GCM. If you have an official app for your own service, you simply implement them on your backend. If you're making a third-party app for something, then yes, it's inconvenient, especially if that something doesn't cooperate. Though some services that have open APIs offer you a form to specify your APNS/GCM credentials.
The ways Microsoft wants to trick users into using edge, using all sorts of dark-patterns, has rapidly increased with the launch of chromium edge.
Opening Edge on startup, asking in Windows update-screens, putting Edge on the desktop and taskbar, asking to change to Edge when clicking on links, dissuading users when searching for browsers on bing, advertising Edge in the start-menu, it goes on...
Chromium Edge is bringing up the worst in Microsoft again...
Opening Edge on startup, asking in Windows update-screens, putting Edge on the desktop and taskbar, asking to change to Edge when clicking on links, dissuading users when searching for browsers on bing, advertising Edge in the start-menu, it goes on...
Chromium Edge is bringing up the worst in Microsoft again...
I kinda get it. MS is looking at other tech companies that do this without any backlash and keeps wondering why they are singled out. If you ignore their history it is not a completely meritless line of thought. Why shouldn't they try if evey other company gets away woth it?
Maybe because it's an operating system you pay for, and it's more aggressive than competitors.
> MS is looking at other tech companies that do this without any backlash and keeps wondering why they are singled out ... Why shouldn't they try if evey other company gets away woth it?
Since when is MS late to the party on this one? They lost a huge anti-trust action for privileging their own browser decades ago. If anything MS invented this.
on a side note, it does not make sense to anthropomorphize a corporation, and a corporation does not deserve consideration on fairness grounds.
> MS is looking at other tech companies that do this without any backlash and keeps wondering why they are singled out ... Why shouldn't they try if evey other company gets away woth it?
Since when is MS late to the party on this one? They lost a huge anti-trust action for privileging their own browser decades ago. If anything MS invented this.
on a side note, it does not make sense to anthropomorphize a corporation, and a corporation does not deserve consideration on fairness grounds.
I disagree. I do apologize since the language I used may have been a little too much of a mental shortcut, but it was not intended as such.
I am not arguing fairness. I am arguing that process and laws should apply and be applied the same way for all participants. I do not think that is such a radical idea. Frankly, we would all benefit, if justice was truly blind ( long term ).
I am not arguing fairness. I am arguing that process and laws should apply and be applied the same way for all participants. I do not think that is such a radical idea. Frankly, we would all benefit, if justice was truly blind ( long term ).
Is anyone arguing that they shouldn't? This is an article about Microsoft's bad behavior; I'm not sure how whataboutism re competitors is relevant here.
They got slammed for anti-trust with IE and then noticed Apple got away with even worse on iOS. Now they've doubled down.
MS managed to kill established competition on their OS platform with their behavior around IE. Apple doesn't allow competing browser engines on iOS in the first place, so this gives them a kind of a free pass on that one. They could be on the hook for abusing their iOS gatekeeper status against other types of apps, though.
Google really started this though. And they didn’t use anti competitive advertising practices to kill IE, they used them to kill Firefox.
> Google really started this though.
I guess you must be young enough to not remember when Google didn’t exist. The anti-trust trial against Microsoft being referred to above began several months before Google was founded. The FTC inquiries into whether MS was abusing a monopoly position with IE began before Sergey Brin even started at Stanford.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
I guess you must be young enough to not remember when Google didn’t exist. The anti-trust trial against Microsoft being referred to above began several months before Google was founded. The FTC inquiries into whether MS was abusing a monopoly position with IE began before Sergey Brin even started at Stanford.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
No I remember that, I was referring to the browser war happening now. The old IE days aren’t even relevant to what’s happening now though. Except maybe to show that the only reason Microsoft even had to fight that case in the first place is that they weren’t lobbying the government as much as they “should” have.
> The old IE days aren’t even relevant to what’s happening now though.
Why do you say that? MSFT has been engaging in the same behavior for 30 years, trying to force people to use their browser by bundling the browser and default browsing behaviors into the OS. Why does this feel any different than what was happening in 1995? It seems exactly the same to me. Google brought new competition into the middle of an ongoing browser war, and they also do pushy things to nudge people toward their browser. But I don’t see the line you’re trying to draw.
Why do you say that? MSFT has been engaging in the same behavior for 30 years, trying to force people to use their browser by bundling the browser and default browsing behaviors into the OS. Why does this feel any different than what was happening in 1995? It seems exactly the same to me. Google brought new competition into the middle of an ongoing browser war, and they also do pushy things to nudge people toward their browser. But I don’t see the line you’re trying to draw.
Because before Google got involved, an independent third party was actually winning & Microsoft had no chance of regaining dominance in that space.
Firefox is far from dead. I switched back to Firefox from Chrome and it’s been freeing. The extension migration was a pain, but I found almost everything I needed and purged stuff I didn’t.
i'm a firefox user, but firefox is 2,4% from being dead. that's still a lot of people but dangerously close to the kind of numbers where people stop bothering to test if their websites work in it (if they were even doing it to begin with, let's be honest)
TBH at least in my part of the woods web devs test for Chrome, Safari and mobile Safari.
When I've done web dev the other devs are usually pretty excited to have a Firefox user on the team since they never do any testing with it.
Apple killed personal computing and Google/Facebook are killing the open web.
Apple killed personal computing and Google/Facebook are killing the open web.
Some people inside Google's where certainly trying to kill off IE:
Former Google engineer reveals the secret YouTube plot to kill Internet Explorer 6
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/4/18529381/google-youtube-in...
Former Google engineer reveals the secret YouTube plot to kill Internet Explorer 6
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/4/18529381/google-youtube-in...
To be fair, by this time IE was up to IE 8 and even Microsoft was trying to kill off IE 6.
Google started it this time.
As was mentioned the other day: take the time to report Chrome to relevant authorities were you live.
As was mentioned the other day: take the time to report Chrome to relevant authorities were you live.
A recent Windows update added a large “News and Interests” widget to the taskbar. Clicking any of the news headlines or weather links in the widget opens a web page in Edge, even if your default browser is set to something else. Microsoft is pushing Edge anywhere they can.
I'm sick of tech companies giving the only way to decline their preferred approach as "maybe later". No, I'm sure I don't want Bing or Edge next month either. If I change my mind I'm perfectly capable of finding the setting and even if I wasn't I'm sure it's only a DDG (or Bing I guess) search away to docs I'm almost certain you will have
When Microsoft updates Windows 10, they try to get you to sign in to a Microsoft account and present the options "Continue" and "Remind me in 3 days".
No, Microsoft, how about "no"? Or "fuck off"?
No, Microsoft, how about "no"? Or "fuck off"?
Oh yes, I remember immediately googling how to turn this one off. It's a checkbox in settings that's labelled something along the lines of "suggest ways to improve my windows experience"
I remember when I wanted to build cool things on windows because this kinda stuff didn't happen.
[deleted]
The most egrigious offender was the Google+ and YouTube integration. https://johnrockefeller.net/google/
And how Google degraded their search functionality by removing the + operator (which required that the following word be present in every result) because it allegedly interfered with idiotic "Google Plus." And did they restore it after shitcanning Google Plus? No.
Putting a word in quotes achieves the same effect nowadays
There seem to be a lot of cases where no amount of quote marks will convince them to not match similar words, giving me 5,000,000 results of garbage and none of useful content. Ironically, I suspect some of the things I search were deliberately written with unusual language SO they'd be able to easily searched later.
Also, I've found more and more frequently I get the "there aren't any great results" response from them lately, complete with condescending "maybe search for 'cake recipes' instead" explanation box. Honestly, I'd think if you can find things that they know have few/no results, they should be trying to gain direct feedback-- why are you searching for this, and what could help improve results?
It feels like the dominant market players want to create an illusion of endless depth, and any time where you can actually reach the bottom of the barrel is an embarrassment. So you've got Google chastising you for stumping them, and Amazon giving you 98 unrelated garbage results when there are really only two widgets you actually care about in stock.
Also, I've found more and more frequently I get the "there aren't any great results" response from them lately, complete with condescending "maybe search for 'cake recipes' instead" explanation box. Honestly, I'd think if you can find things that they know have few/no results, they should be trying to gain direct feedback-- why are you searching for this, and what could help improve results?
It feels like the dominant market players want to create an illusion of endless depth, and any time where you can actually reach the bottom of the barrel is an embarrassment. So you've got Google chastising you for stumping them, and Amazon giving you 98 unrelated garbage results when there are really only two widgets you actually care about in stock.
No, not for many of us at least.
Has't worked reliably for me and a number of others for close to a decade I think (the first blog post I know of that mention it is from 2011 or 2013 I think.)
Oh, and I think it is the same thing as others mention in this discussion: infantilization and "we know better than you".
But being Google it might also be just general lack of care.
Has't worked reliably for me and a number of others for close to a decade I think (the first blog post I know of that mention it is from 2011 or 2013 I think.)
Oh, and I think it is the same thing as others mention in this discussion: infantilization and "we know better than you".
But being Google it might also be just general lack of care.
i believe there's a setting somewhere to enable verbatim search, but yeah google has steadily been getting worse
I need to confirm this, but it looks like they're adding a 5-second delay to the server response time if the User-Agent is a browser they don't like. (Changed the user-agent to Firefox and the delay immediately went away.)
I have known about that for about as long as I've had this problem and I think it used to work back then but today I consider it a purely decorative element.
> I'm sick of tech companies giving the only way to decline their preferred approach as "maybe later".
I've seen this rehashed through the years. Having worked at 4 different tech companies now, I think I can reconstruct why this happens.
UX: "Okay team, here's the opt-in dialog box."
PM: "Wait, the buttons say 'Yes' and 'No.' We don't want people to click 'No' because my perf and promo is tied to the number of people who click 'Yes.' Look, what if they want to change their minds later? Or what if they want to just think about it and then make a decision to enable my team's feature tomorrow? Are we just going to let those numbers slip by?"
UX: "Uh, well, I suppose we could add a third button, 'Maybe later.'"
PM: "THREE buttons?? Are you kidding me? That's too many. Have you even read the book Essentialism, bro? What if they accidentally click 'No' when they really want to just decide later? Or what if we change the feature enough that we can justify prompting them again with the updated version of the feature? If they clicked 'No' then they might feel that we're harassing them or something with another prompt later on."
UX: "Well, maybe we should err on the side of respecting the user's wishes. Sure, we might give up some of the engagement numbers..."
PM: "NNNGNNGGGHHPHHHTHTTTTHHHHHHHH WHAAAAAT!?!? MY BONUUUUUUS"
UX: "Okay okay okay, how about if we just make the 'No' and 'Maybe later?'"
PM: "Hmmm, that's sort of suggestive too. It might make someone who's thinking 'No' to start thinking 'Maybe later' because that's what they read. I like it. And can we make the 'Yes' sound a little less noncommittal while we're at it? Make it a little easier to click on? Maybe something chirpy and agreeable, like 'Sure!' People love being agreeable, don't they? Don't you?"
I've seen this rehashed through the years. Having worked at 4 different tech companies now, I think I can reconstruct why this happens.
UX: "Okay team, here's the opt-in dialog box."
PM: "Wait, the buttons say 'Yes' and 'No.' We don't want people to click 'No' because my perf and promo is tied to the number of people who click 'Yes.' Look, what if they want to change their minds later? Or what if they want to just think about it and then make a decision to enable my team's feature tomorrow? Are we just going to let those numbers slip by?"
UX: "Uh, well, I suppose we could add a third button, 'Maybe later.'"
PM: "THREE buttons?? Are you kidding me? That's too many. Have you even read the book Essentialism, bro? What if they accidentally click 'No' when they really want to just decide later? Or what if we change the feature enough that we can justify prompting them again with the updated version of the feature? If they clicked 'No' then they might feel that we're harassing them or something with another prompt later on."
UX: "Well, maybe we should err on the side of respecting the user's wishes. Sure, we might give up some of the engagement numbers..."
PM: "NNNGNNGGGHHPHHHTHTTTTHHHHHHHH WHAAAAAT!?!? MY BONUUUUUUS"
UX: "Okay okay okay, how about if we just make the 'No' and 'Maybe later?'"
PM: "Hmmm, that's sort of suggestive too. It might make someone who's thinking 'No' to start thinking 'Maybe later' because that's what they read. I like it. And can we make the 'Yes' sound a little less noncommittal while we're at it? Make it a little easier to click on? Maybe something chirpy and agreeable, like 'Sure!' People love being agreeable, don't they? Don't you?"
This deserves a wall of shame
Yes. I am still not interested in reviewing Android Auto for the play store, and I must have been asked 30+ times by now.
Avast! when it needs restart has a funny "remind me next century" option.
And people wonder why I still don't trust Micro$oft, even if they say they're supporting open source.
They are supporting open source, no? Could depend on your definition of course, but still.. Anyway: the tricky point here is that the division/department/whatever which deals with that is not the same one as the management (or whatever group) pushing for these advertisements. To the point that treating Microsoft as one big untrustable entity and putting a dollar sign in its name becomes a bit weird and overly generalistic. I mean, I don't 'trust' any company they way I'd trust true friends, but dismissing the whole of it seems far fetched. E.g. I use their compiler. Do I have to worry about the compiler betraying trust somehow because some completely unrelated team in a large company pulls of stupid advertising? It's possible of course the complete top layer of management is instructing every single piece below it to do evil, like the compiler team putting backdoors in, but I don't think there are signs of such things going on.
>They are supporting open source, no?
Yes, definitely they are. But with strings attached, in the form of WSL.
I'm patiently waiting for the day when they will announce that some big software/service from them (Office? GUI? Outlook?) will be finally integrated into Linux, but sadly it has to be WSL to work properly/faster/better/with support, that is, Windows, and not the real thing. The next big Linux distribution, the one that every business will take as the standard to make their products (and drivers!) compatible will carry the Microsoft brand. Microsoft attempted to kill Linux in the past, and failed spectacularly, so they're now aiming at controlling it by becoming a Linux vendor, possibly the biggest one.
One doesn't become Platinum Member at the Linux Foundation just for the lulz, especially when it costs about $500000 per year. https://blog.desdelinux.net/en/microsoft-joins-the-linux-fou...
Yes, definitely they are. But with strings attached, in the form of WSL.
I'm patiently waiting for the day when they will announce that some big software/service from them (Office? GUI? Outlook?) will be finally integrated into Linux, but sadly it has to be WSL to work properly/faster/better/with support, that is, Windows, and not the real thing. The next big Linux distribution, the one that every business will take as the standard to make their products (and drivers!) compatible will carry the Microsoft brand. Microsoft attempted to kill Linux in the past, and failed spectacularly, so they're now aiming at controlling it by becoming a Linux vendor, possibly the biggest one.
One doesn't become Platinum Member at the Linux Foundation just for the lulz, especially when it costs about $500000 per year. https://blog.desdelinux.net/en/microsoft-joins-the-linux-fou...
Microsoft has always been a famously schizophrenic company: https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts
As a result, I'm happy to trust e.g. the VS Code team, while I would not extend that trust anywhere near the Windows team.
As a result, I'm happy to trust e.g. the VS Code team, while I would not extend that trust anywhere near the Windows team.
What makes you think the VSCode team has enough autonomy that this kind of crap won't leak in when some enterprising product manager sees a ripe user-base available to exploit to improve their KPI's?
Also VSCode is already set up to enable this type of garbage. The "recommended extensions" popup is a great vector for getting programmers to use the tools MS decides are best for them, and the features for working on remote codebases are great for blurring the lines between a codebase that you actually control, and toolchains which depend on an Azure server somewhere in the middle.
Also VSCode is already set up to enable this type of garbage. The "recommended extensions" popup is a great vector for getting programmers to use the tools MS decides are best for them, and the features for working on remote codebases are great for blurring the lines between a codebase that you actually control, and toolchains which depend on an Azure server somewhere in the middle.
Because the nature of the base product being open source is that the VSCodium devs can patch out any sufficiently bad behaviour, and the risk of this becoming a fork should serve to discourage this behaviour in the first place.
But there’s open source and there’s open source right? I mean theoretically anyone can fork Android, but Google has created a lot of hurdles for actually making one a success.
I think there’s always a risk that a product like this can be set up in such a way that OSS is used mainly as an advertising feature, and essential features can be gradually moved from the open source section to proprietary code.
All I’m saying is that open source is not a panacea, and there are plenty of ways for large well resourced entities to abuse it
I think there’s always a risk that a product like this can be set up in such a way that OSS is used mainly as an advertising feature, and essential features can be gradually moved from the open source section to proprietary code.
All I’m saying is that open source is not a panacea, and there are plenty of ways for large well resourced entities to abuse it
I don’t think this is really related. Google supports open source & they do basically the same sort of stuff. Open source at this point is just common sense. It’s more profitable than a fully proprietary model in many cases.
Open source = "our code isn't worth much anymore, we have other sources of revenue now".
Pardon me, in what cases is open source more profitable than proprietary?
In the cases where you aren’t necessarily trying to profit from it directly but rather provide a platform that ultimately makes you more money. Or really for any case where you aren’t selling the software, because you’re able to reduce the cost of development and maintenance.
What do you mean exactly? Do you mean when offering a service built on open source software, which is developed by some 3rd party groups/communities/organizations?
.NET Core is a great example. Microsoft directly benefits from gaining market share among developers — it helps them sell Azure, etc. Open sourcing it was absolutely necessary to remain competitive. They did it because it’s the right business decision.
They online support open source because they are hoping to leverage that to sell you more Azure services.
LTSC is the answer (despite what MS "advocates" will tell you)
no autoreboot, no MS store, no onedrive, no ads
I've had a legitimate copy on my gaming pc for 18 months now without issue
aliexpress has an excellent range of grey market keys...
no autoreboot, no MS store, no onedrive, no ads
I've had a legitimate copy on my gaming pc for 18 months now without issue
aliexpress has an excellent range of grey market keys...
Why use LTSC over, say, Pro? Genuinely curious. I have been running 16299 on Pro since about when it came out. I would be running win2k if drivers, etc were updated for it.
LTSC is designed for the most conservative of customers, who don't want ANY funny business on their operating systems.
It's technically possible to tweak pro such that it's mostly the same thing, but LTSC comes that way out of the box, fully supported by Microsoft, and that's not going to change because they don't want to lose these lucrative enterprise customers.
It's technically possible to tweak pro such that it's mostly the same thing, but LTSC comes that way out of the box, fully supported by Microsoft, and that's not going to change because they don't want to lose these lucrative enterprise customers.
LTSC/LTSB doesn’t have the Windows App Store - and to my knowledge you can’t install it either. Pro cones with the App Store and to my knowledge you can’t uninstall it.
>and to my knowledge you can’t install it either
Yes you can. https://github.com/kkkgo/LTSC-Add-MicrosoftStore
Yes you can. https://github.com/kkkgo/LTSC-Add-MicrosoftStore
I consider it a feature
no autoreboot, no MS store, no onedrive, no ads
You can't have a legitimate copy of LTSC unless you've got volume licencing.
Pro with a decrapifier script like the one you can find on Spiceworks will work a lot better, and allow you to run UWP games too.
Pro with a decrapifier script like the one you can find on Spiceworks will work a lot better, and allow you to run UWP games too.
> You can't have a legitimate copy of LTSC unless you've got volume licencing.
Apparently the minimum for getting a VL agreement is 5 licenses, and the other 4 can be padded out with cheap/filler licenses. https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2167558-explicit-inst...
Apparently the minimum for getting a VL agreement is 5 licenses, and the other 4 can be padded out with cheap/filler licenses. https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2167558-explicit-inst...
On Pro, I have no auto-reboot, OneDrive is disabled, no ads, and the Store is useful at times and can easily be ignored when I'm not using it. I'm not sure how LTSC would be an improvement.
they're features of the OS controllable in the group policy editor
rather than downloading some third party app that attempts to break the functionality without (hopefully) breaking other features
(also hoping some new update doesn't re-enable what you thought you disabled)
rather than downloading some third party app that attempts to break the functionality without (hopefully) breaking other features
(also hoping some new update doesn't re-enable what you thought you disabled)
Put it into the Dark Patterns Hall of Shame
I think programmers could take some inspiration from the Engineer's Ring creed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer%27s_Ring
I think programmers could take some inspiration from the Engineer's Ring creed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer%27s_Ring
You are not the first to think such things: The Programmer’s Oath:
https://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2015/11/18/TheProgramm...
https://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2015/11/18/TheProgramm...
If you are forced to put up with Windows, do yourself a favor and use LSTC. Almost all of this garbage behavior seems to be restricted to the retail channel builds and major update packs.
Sadly there is apparently no limit to what people will be conditioned to put up with.
Sadly there is apparently no limit to what people will be conditioned to put up with.
> do yourself a favor and use LSTC
Would be nice if you could mention how your typical reader could feasibly (and legally) do this.
Would be nice if you could mention how your typical reader could feasibly (and legally) do this.
Microsoft licensing is such a byzantine hellscape that this assuredly is more complicated than can be easily summarized, but pretty much any of their resellers do have VL upgrade options. I don't normally like linking to vendors as it's not my job to drive them sales, but one of the top links off DDG:
https://softwaremedia.com/shop/microsoft-windows-10-enterpri...
Many people will find themselves happily hoisting a jolly roger with a KMS emulator (several on github) given that they very likely already paid for a retail license of Windows and LTSC is basically just Windows 10 minus all the horrible annoying shit.
https://softwaremedia.com/shop/microsoft-windows-10-enterpri...
Many people will find themselves happily hoisting a jolly roger with a KMS emulator (several on github) given that they very likely already paid for a retail license of Windows and LTSC is basically just Windows 10 minus all the horrible annoying shit.
I don't doubt it's bad but it could be worse, you could be trying to use Oracle software.
"not as awful as Oracle" is hardly an endorsement :)
Or you can buy a $10 key from Amazon, and not worry about KMS stopping working. I have no idea where those keys come from, but they work.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2167558-explicit-inst...
If you want to be 100% legit.
If you want to be 100% legit.
Interesting, am I reading it right that this ...
“ 4x Microsoft Identity Manager - 1 User CAL - Open Business (NK7-00031)”
... means to get a valid single-user LTSC license you need four Identity Manager licenses? That’s odd
“ 4x Microsoft Identity Manager - 1 User CAL - Open Business (NK7-00031)”
... means to get a valid single-user LTSC license you need four Identity Manager licenses? That’s odd
While this is a good tip, there could be strings attached though; recently I was working on a machine like this (not mine, acquired by another company) and it didn't seem possible to apply updates, just saying 'contact your system administrator to update'. So I told the company they'd need to sort that out eventually but they also had no clue, and they called the shop wehere they got it but there also no sane response. This is just one data point of course, but does make me wonder: if you as a normale non-enterprise customer gets this, how would you deal with issues like this?
Maybe we would if you'd said what "LSTC" is.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/whats-new/ltsc/
"With the LTSC servicing model, customers can delay receiving feature updates and instead only receive monthly quality updates on devices. Features from Windows 10 that could be updated with new functionality, including Cortana, Edge, and all in-box Universal Windows apps, are also not included. Feature updates are offered in new LTSC releases every 2–3 years instead of every 6 months, and organizations can choose to install them as in-place upgrades or even skip releases over a 10-year life cycle. Microsoft is committed to providing bug fixes and security patches for each LTSC release during this 10 year period."
"With the LTSC servicing model, customers can delay receiving feature updates and instead only receive monthly quality updates on devices. Features from Windows 10 that could be updated with new functionality, including Cortana, Edge, and all in-box Universal Windows apps, are also not included. Feature updates are offered in new LTSC releases every 2–3 years instead of every 6 months, and organizations can choose to install them as in-place upgrades or even skip releases over a 10-year life cycle. Microsoft is committed to providing bug fixes and security patches for each LTSC release during this 10 year period."
Exactly, I was also befuddled by this.
From sibling comment's link, it is actually "LTSC": Long-Term Support Channel.
From sibling comment's link, it is actually "LTSC": Long-Term Support Channel.
The more revenue from Windows goes down the more they’re going to push stuff like this (& gather and sell user data)
I know this is what everyone says as soon as Win10 is mentioned, but if Win7 still had security updates I never would’ve “upgraded”
I know this is what everyone says as soon as Win10 is mentioned, but if Win7 still had security updates I never would’ve “upgraded”
I moved on to linux and use windows 10 sparinngly on a different image to watch netflix. I removed all the features, registry hive, autoupdates and all that, disabled Cortana, Im pretty sure I castrated the thing. And as soon as Im done with whatever I need it for I shut it down. Works out quite well like this. When I think of people who just accept all that from MS I feel a bit sorry for them but since they don’t seem to mind why would I?
I regret having wasted so many years on windows. All knowledge gained on Linux compounds quite well. On windows, forget about it. All the proprietary convoluted obfuscated software is not dev friendly at all unless you embrace working for corps for the rest of your life
I regret having wasted so many years on windows. All knowledge gained on Linux compounds quite well. On windows, forget about it. All the proprietary convoluted obfuscated software is not dev friendly at all unless you embrace working for corps for the rest of your life
Why don't you watch netflix on linux? DRM is supported there, too.
Or do you want to use linux only for software you trust?
Is it? You don't get 4k netflix on Linux. just 720p. There used to be a workaround to use an extension to change your user agent and then a later one to swap out some player JS but pretty sure both have been broken since late last year.
Ahh ok. Thanks for clarifying. I never used DRM that much on linux
Why would anyone even use windows at this point? This has always been the default operating mode for Microsoft. If you are still signing up for it after 30 years or whatever, I can't say I have much sympathy for you.
Game support is unparalleled, probably (partly) because you can use 10-20 year old design primitives and fully expect it to work on Windows for the foreseeable future (well, ARM desktop machines might be coming, so we'll see if that causes some pain in the industry).
[deleted]
Wine/Proton handles all that these days.
Not quite. Multi-player games with anti-cheat has a serious problem running on Proton.
Yes, quite. He said unparalleled, when, in fact, its highly paralleled save a few hold outs.
Fair point.
You'd think they'd have realised by now how counterproductive these antics are. If you need to consistently plug and annoy users to force them to use your product, they'll be deterred against it even more.
Is it possible that the reason they’re still doing it is because it works, for better or worse?
I also have sporadic advertisements on my start bar (when I press the win key), sometimes it suggests an app, which looks just like any other app, the only difference is a "SUGGESTED" header which is easy to miss. I assume when you click on that, it opens the store app.
It appears at the very top and AFAIK there's no way to disable it.
It appears at the very top and AFAIK there's no way to disable it.
Settings > Personalization > Start, turn off Show suggestions occasionally in Start
Awesome thanks! I couldn't find it
I use the software W10Privacy[1] to change my settings from all the nagging implemetrations. With it, you can (not) completely uninstall Edge, but restrict it so much that it no longer bothers you.
This can also be used to display the internet advertisements, the "important" notices and other hints with which Windows wants to promote its not-so-good products.
[1]https://www.w10privacy.de/english-home/
This can also be used to display the internet advertisements, the "important" notices and other hints with which Windows wants to promote its not-so-good products.
[1]https://www.w10privacy.de/english-home/
I was tired of fighting with my own computer and installed Debian. Could not be happier.
10 or 15 years ago, this behaviour would universally be called adware and shunned, yet now Microsoft does it too?
In addition to the Windows 10 alert, Microsoft Edge has also gained a new full-screen prompt that advises users to restore the ‘recommended’ browser and set Bing as the default search engine.
...complete with Corporate Memphis[1]. That screenshot sums up just about everything I hate about "modern" software: the infantilising "we know what's best for you" language, the intrusive nature of it, and the bland so-inoffensive-it's-offensive art. The message it gives is "you are not a user, you are the product, now be a good obedient little sheeple and do as you're told." No wonder the Win10 upgrade was "free", and they tried to force it really, really hard.
My personal fuckings go out to everyone working there who didn't stand their ground and say NO when asked to implement this shit.
I'm saying this as someone who actually uses Bing, because I get sick of Google's search results censoring and CAPTCHA-hellban too. But I wasn't forced (or "recommended") to do so, and I'd rather use IE11 than Edge just due to the UI alone.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27107820
In addition to the Windows 10 alert, Microsoft Edge has also gained a new full-screen prompt that advises users to restore the ‘recommended’ browser and set Bing as the default search engine.
...complete with Corporate Memphis[1]. That screenshot sums up just about everything I hate about "modern" software: the infantilising "we know what's best for you" language, the intrusive nature of it, and the bland so-inoffensive-it's-offensive art. The message it gives is "you are not a user, you are the product, now be a good obedient little sheeple and do as you're told." No wonder the Win10 upgrade was "free", and they tried to force it really, really hard.
My personal fuckings go out to everyone working there who didn't stand their ground and say NO when asked to implement this shit.
I'm saying this as someone who actually uses Bing, because I get sick of Google's search results censoring and CAPTCHA-hellban too. But I wasn't forced (or "recommended") to do so, and I'd rather use IE11 than Edge just due to the UI alone.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27107820
Google still promotes Chrome as much as it can from its services. 5-10 years ago plenty of freeware were installing Chrome if you did not pay attention to remove some hidden checkbox. Apple nags me about Music subscription almost every time I open Music app. I don't understand what's wrong when Microsoft promotes its software and services.
On Android I turned off the «play protect» because I'm sure what I'm doing, and every time I try to install something it asks me if I want to enable Play Protect™ with no way to turn off their reminders.
Also, some of my apps have some play store popups asking me if I want to update the app every time there's a new version, even though I explicitly turned off auto updates and update notifications, again, with no way to turn off their friendly reminders.
I hate modern «you better do what we think you should be doing» software.
I'm happy that I have LTSC version of Windows that just works and doesn't have those popups (but Windows Defender still has some annoying notifications that can't be disabled AFAIK).
Recently, Whatsapp forced me to update it because it refused to work if I don't. Meanwhile, there are open source IM clients that were made 10+ years ago and still work without any updates just fine. I wish all software was like that.
Also, some of my apps have some play store popups asking me if I want to update the app every time there's a new version, even though I explicitly turned off auto updates and update notifications, again, with no way to turn off their friendly reminders.
I hate modern «you better do what we think you should be doing» software.
I'm happy that I have LTSC version of Windows that just works and doesn't have those popups (but Windows Defender still has some annoying notifications that can't be disabled AFAIK).
Recently, Whatsapp forced me to update it because it refused to work if I don't. Meanwhile, there are open source IM clients that were made 10+ years ago and still work without any updates just fine. I wish all software was like that.
I haven't accepted the whatsapp update and am waiting to be kicked out
I think Google showing Chrome pop ups to users on the latest Firefox or chrome based edge is anticompetitive but we aren’t talking the law here. When we install something like Adobe Flash and it installed Google Chrome, I would be angry at Adobe Flash, not at Google.
On the Apple side, I find the “free” (continues as paid) Apple TV+ nagware on settings menu is much more offensive than the nagware on Apple Music.
The OS showing ads is worse than apps showing ads.
On the Apple side, I find the “free” (continues as paid) Apple TV+ nagware on settings menu is much more offensive than the nagware on Apple Music.
The OS showing ads is worse than apps showing ads.
I don't get the hate towards Corporate Memphis. I'm not sure what would be better instead; a stock photo seems just as bad.
To me the problem isn't in what the ad looks like, but that the ad is there. I also don't like that the ad is shown to a particular group of people, i.e. ones who aren't doing what lies in the company's best interests.
To me the problem isn't in what the ad looks like, but that the ad is there. I also don't like that the ad is shown to a particular group of people, i.e. ones who aren't doing what lies in the company's best interests.
I think it's just the fact that it reeks of the kind of focus-grouped design language where all the edges have been rounded off so that it can't possibly be objectionable to anyone. When you pair this with poor corporate citizenship like this, it just creates a bizarre dissonance between a company which is trying to project a warm and human aesthetic, while they are mistreating users with their actual actions.
But at the end of the day, I don't think it's Corporate Memphis' fault - it just happens to be the design aesthetic which is often paired with this kind of shitty behavior which nobody likes. If somebody is constantly feeding you bitter medicine on a silver spoon every day, you might grow to hate the spoon.
But at the end of the day, I don't think it's Corporate Memphis' fault - it just happens to be the design aesthetic which is often paired with this kind of shitty behavior which nobody likes. If somebody is constantly feeding you bitter medicine on a silver spoon every day, you might grow to hate the spoon.
Greedy corporations trying their damnest to be cutesy and humanlike just make me cringe. That's all.
I think the point is that it's not the design of it you (or I) hate, it's the infantilization. And like GP said, before that it was stock photos of three wonderful, beautiful people in front of a computer pointing and smiling and being happy and all, surely because of the crapware being sold by whatever you're looking at. It's just as infantilizing. IMO corporate memphis is just a new style and tbh, I find it a bit more honest than stock photos at least.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Google has been doing this for years to many users when changing their search engine, and nothing has been made. They own the legislators.
To Microsoft's defense everyone does it. Everytime there is an OS update on iOS, I know I will have to go through a dozen of modals that nag me for apple services.
No. Neither my Mac nor my Linux pop up ads or promotions out of the blue during normal operation. So your statement that everyone does it is simply false.
Maybe if you already use the things that they are pushing on you, you won't notice anything. But every time I've updated my work laptop Apple have tried to make me opt-in to Siri after restarting with the new update -- they even add the obnoxious Siri button back to the touch bar even though I've removed it several times.
But for example, I set my default browser to Firefox once, and macOS has never nagged me about Safari since then. That's a difference isn't it?
I neither use Safari on the Mac nor any of their cloud offerings. No nagging. No ads. No promotions. The only thing I had to say no to is telemetry and Siri on the last major version upgrade (the dialog was already set to my previous choices).
Fully agree. And it still tells me that my iPhone setup is incomplete because I haven't set up Apple Pay yet.
And what a poor defense that is. It's almost not worth mentioning.
and if you visit google properties in edge, you get asked to install chrome, i think on youtube it calls it a browser "optimized for youtube" or something along those lines. To be clear, I'm not trying to justify microsofts behaviour, I think neither of these things should happen.
Good point, bad framing. We should scrutinize Apple just as much. And they're doing it for much longer. At the same time Apple forbids Apps to push ad notifications (unsuccsesfully), which is even worse.
[deleted]
> In addition to the Windows 10 alert, Microsoft Edge has also gained a new full-screen prompt that advises users to restore the ‘recommended’ browser and set Bing as the default search engine.
Can it be disabled / remembered?
Because I'm pretty sure every browser will prompt to set itself as default browser.
Can it be disabled / remembered?
Because I'm pretty sure every browser will prompt to set itself as default browser.
Microsoft has always done this. IE/Edge is there by default, you can't delay forever the machine restart after an update, and they've long since removed the TechNet subscriptions.
I don't see a problem with an OS bundling a browser by default. For so many people today the OS is anyway just some plumbing that runs their browser. But when it starts throwing popups at me to use this instead of that, or to reset my default "by accident" then I have a problem.
And for this I blame Google who was big enough to afford nagging everyone to use Chrome whenever they set foot on Google turf. Youtube, Maps, Gmail, Search? "Hey, try Chrome instead of whatever you're using now". They even went a step further and shot their competition in the foot on those Google owned domains in order to make the value proposition of Chrome feel better.
So I'm not surprised at all that other companies now feel comfortable with pulling the same stunts. Especially since there's no regulatory agency that didn't have it's backbone softened to mush by lobbying and bribery.
And for this I blame Google who was big enough to afford nagging everyone to use Chrome whenever they set foot on Google turf. Youtube, Maps, Gmail, Search? "Hey, try Chrome instead of whatever you're using now". They even went a step further and shot their competition in the foot on those Google owned domains in order to make the value proposition of Chrome feel better.
So I'm not surprised at all that other companies now feel comfortable with pulling the same stunts. Especially since there's no regulatory agency that didn't have it's backbone softened to mush by lobbying and bribery.
The "Good news, IE is now Edge" one was nice in the way it considered I wasn't doing anything of value when it appeared and I had nothing better to do than watch the sales pitch.
A real nice red flag.
A real nice red flag.
It may not be widely known that Gmail users on Windows get a popup telling you to use Chrome [1], and then also an email disguised as a security alert telling you to use Chrome [2]. Google is leveraging their properties to push their browser, and Microsoft is responding in kind. Or maybe vice-versa; either way it's all really obnoxious.
1. https://i.imgur.com/KsD9hFx.jpg
2: https://i.imgur.com/CDs1eIE.png
1. https://i.imgur.com/KsD9hFx.jpg
2: https://i.imgur.com/CDs1eIE.png
The difference is that ads on websites are somewhat expected and usually easy to block and contained inside a browser.
Ads inside an OS are in a different category of annoying. Especially on Windows where it's not just one setting to turn them off, but they're scattered through the OS, they get re-installed with updates and it's a constant game of whack-a-mole to get rid of them.
I don't get the point of comparing Windows 10 to websites. How about you compare it to Windows 7? Somehow, Windows 7 managed to work just fine without nagging you with ads all the time.
I don't get the point of comparing Windows 10 to websites. How about you compare it to Windows 7? Somehow, Windows 7 managed to work just fine without nagging you with ads all the time.
Ads don't have a place practically anywhere. They are annoying in the OS, and also annoying on the websites, in between movie scenes, on the side of city buildings etc either. Reminds me of the Futurama scene:
Fry : So, you're telling me they broadcast commercials into people's dreams?... But how is that possible?
Professor Farnsworth : It's very simple. The ad gets into your brain just like this liquid gets into this egg. Although in reality it's not liquid, but gamma radiation.
Fry : That's awful. It's like brainwashing.
Leela : Didn't you have ads in the 20th century?
Fry : Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games, and on buses, and milk cartons, and T-shirts, and bananas, and written on the sky... But not in dreams.
Fry : So, you're telling me they broadcast commercials into people's dreams?... But how is that possible?
Professor Farnsworth : It's very simple. The ad gets into your brain just like this liquid gets into this egg. Although in reality it's not liquid, but gamma radiation.
Fry : That's awful. It's like brainwashing.
Leela : Didn't you have ads in the 20th century?
Fry : Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games, and on buses, and milk cartons, and T-shirts, and bananas, and written on the sky... But not in dreams.
Not really different, it's leveraging users from a product to another. Gmail and Windows users are both stuck and forcefully promoted "unrelated" products (specific ads tied to OS/website so not easily blockable).
[deleted]
I think the point is that if Google didn't do that and been successful at that, Microsoft would probably not feel the need to promote this as much as they do.
The OS is basically a website now.
website plus gaming, a web game.
My Windows 10 Settings app has a "Rewards" icon. After opening 100 tabs with the Firefox container you get an achievement. On Xbox they have a rewards system for just using your console, like start a few different games.
In the future, the OS will have personalized ads everywhere, "hey buy your favorite cookie now!" inside Outlook, combined with achievements for using it correctly, "Two more emails for Master of Email!"
And of course social interaction, "Ann just saved the file annual report. Do you want to like and share?"
You also have to buy usage time with gold coins or wait 24 hours.
My Windows 10 Settings app has a "Rewards" icon. After opening 100 tabs with the Firefox container you get an achievement. On Xbox they have a rewards system for just using your console, like start a few different games.
In the future, the OS will have personalized ads everywhere, "hey buy your favorite cookie now!" inside Outlook, combined with achievements for using it correctly, "Two more emails for Master of Email!"
And of course social interaction, "Ann just saved the file annual report. Do you want to like and share?"
You also have to buy usage time with gold coins or wait 24 hours.
The rewards basically encourage you to help some PM hit their KPI metrics for career cred.
Complete BS imo, and I work at MS.
Complete BS imo, and I work at MS.
Or any Google app on iOS (i.e. Youtube), when you click on a link, asks whether to download Chrome or open it in Safari.
Shut the fuck up and open it in my default browser, thank you.
Shut the fuck up and open it in my default browser, thank you.
Sometimes I wonder how worse our world could be if Google and Facebook doesn't exist and Microsoft kind of corporates dominating search and social networks.
Products will be shitty AF and no regards even for paid user and expert at annoying them.
Products will be shitty AF and no regards even for paid user and expert at annoying them.
That's called the nineties and no, it was great.
Windows is like Idiocracy. It’s a disastrous shitshow of capitalism gone absurd, yet everyone there thinks it’s fantastic and that Windows is what plants crave.
I have never been a Microsoft Windows user but keep one install for possible use.
Not only is there constant hard sell by the McAfee anti virus and Bing browser but also *hours* long updates and quite a few obvious bugs.
The box in question is a factory installed Lenova Idea Center.
Edge with Bing
I get the Edge-hate. I have my own experiences with lack of accessibility support in earlier versions. But, philosophically speaking, there is no difference between using Edge and Chrome. There are things which simply shouldnt be controlled by a single large company like MS or G. The difference between Chrome and Edge seems to be that Google managed to launch Chrome before they dumped their reputation. And some of the old rep seemingly stuck to Chrome. This is silly.
I actually like Edge. Although it looks like the Windows Marketing team have recently taken a renewed interest in this old victim of theirs and have managed to take over product management and strategy.
- Fancy looking but essentially dumbed down "fly-out" menus rather than full page versions of downloads, history, etc. Very buggy and slow too. Cannot disable.
- Pinterest integration, pricewatch integration, more along these lines to come.
- The ability to disable the various "Search Bing" options was recently removed. These buttons are now also positioned in such a way that they're easy to click accidentally.
- Each release consists of more new features, but also more bugs and more instability. Even without extensions I've been getting an insane amount of crashes lately and no way to find out what happened.
One other thing that has been bugging me since the beginning, is the fact that MS365 Business Standard accounts are the only type that cannot use the browser's synchronisation functionality. Considering even free outlook.com accounts can sync it is actually a little bit insulting.
Edge is actually really good otherwise. It has some nice tiny features that Chrome still lacks, it's faster than Chrome, its devtools are the same as Chrome's, it can use Chrome extensions if you like. Integrations with VSCode are also being worked on that I'm actually excited about.
This shit they're pulling lately is starting to become rather tiresome, though, and I'd hate to have to leave this browser behind because of that. I'd also have no idea which alternative to turn to.
- Fancy looking but essentially dumbed down "fly-out" menus rather than full page versions of downloads, history, etc. Very buggy and slow too. Cannot disable.
- Pinterest integration, pricewatch integration, more along these lines to come.
- The ability to disable the various "Search Bing" options was recently removed. These buttons are now also positioned in such a way that they're easy to click accidentally.
- Each release consists of more new features, but also more bugs and more instability. Even without extensions I've been getting an insane amount of crashes lately and no way to find out what happened.
One other thing that has been bugging me since the beginning, is the fact that MS365 Business Standard accounts are the only type that cannot use the browser's synchronisation functionality. Considering even free outlook.com accounts can sync it is actually a little bit insulting.
Edge is actually really good otherwise. It has some nice tiny features that Chrome still lacks, it's faster than Chrome, its devtools are the same as Chrome's, it can use Chrome extensions if you like. Integrations with VSCode are also being worked on that I'm actually excited about.
This shit they're pulling lately is starting to become rather tiresome, though, and I'd hate to have to leave this browser behind because of that. I'd also have no idea which alternative to turn to.
The problem here isn't "which browser is better?" but "Can software companies, for the love of god, stop trying to force choices on me?"
There is a functional difference between bing and google search though, or am I wrong in still stubbornly googling? The other thing is - perhaps let users choose browser them selves? Or compete by being better instead of being the same...
This is so stupid. I was wondering if I could recommend to less technically-skilled family members to just stick to Edge, but I've decided that I definitely won't, as I do not want to explain countless times how to switch back to Google from Bing, etc. Bing is simply terrible and Microsoft's push of it is ridiculous. I'll keep recommending Firefox + uBlock to everyone.
Also, I find it disrespectful to its customers. Windows is not free. If you buy a computer that already comes with it, you're paying for it. If you buy a license, you paid for it. It is not fair that its users are constantly nagged and mistreated in this way. And by the way, Apple started doing the same with Big Sur: when I open Firefox on macOS, a popup asks me to switch to Safari. This happens once in a while and there's no clear way to dismiss forever this notification. A user pays a lot for Apple hardware: can't they use it without being bothered? And of course Google does the same on their websites (even if luckily uBlock Origin allows me to avoid that).
If only Linux could support all the tools I need for my work, I'd switch to it in a heartbeat and be done with this intrusive and disrespectful nagging.
Also, I find it disrespectful to its customers. Windows is not free. If you buy a computer that already comes with it, you're paying for it. If you buy a license, you paid for it. It is not fair that its users are constantly nagged and mistreated in this way. And by the way, Apple started doing the same with Big Sur: when I open Firefox on macOS, a popup asks me to switch to Safari. This happens once in a while and there's no clear way to dismiss forever this notification. A user pays a lot for Apple hardware: can't they use it without being bothered? And of course Google does the same on their websites (even if luckily uBlock Origin allows me to avoid that).
If only Linux could support all the tools I need for my work, I'd switch to it in a heartbeat and be done with this intrusive and disrespectful nagging.
Yes exactly, this has been the best part of switching to Linux at home. It just does what I tell it, when I tell it, and that's so relaxing. Using corporate platforms is like inviting a Microsoft/Apple/Google representative into your home. Imagine if when you bought an Ikea kitchen setup, it came with an Ikea rep who lived with you and reminded you periodically that the cabinets "work best with Ikea flatware(tm)!".
A computer should be an appliance which executes instructions on command, and that's it. Everything else is electricity theft as far as I'm concerned.
A computer should be an appliance which executes instructions on command, and that's it. Everything else is electricity theft as far as I'm concerned.
Loving the new microsoft.
To add to this: how long can they sustain it, internally, politics-wise?
Adware has been a recurring issue on Windows since XP at least. I remember I used to get pop-ups for free smileys and mouse cursors. Of course, it's encouraged by Microsoft now.
The last two Windows updates I let happen force-installed Edge. I removed it afterwards with a helper tool. After it happened the second time in a row, I deactivated Windows updates. Microsoft can go whistle. Should I ever get into trouble for not having updated Windows, I'll trash the VM and restore from a backup. That's a suboptimal solution to be sure, but I don't know how else to fend off this shit.
The problem with this is that when your VM unwittingly become part of a botnet, you're now a cost to everyone else.
Either keep your OS up to date, or use a different one.
Edit or keep it off the internet.
Either keep your OS up to date, or use a different one.
Edit or keep it off the internet.
> use a different one
Patched stock Debian Linux is less secure than a 6mo out of date W10 machine: change my view.
Patched stock Debian Linux is less secure than a 6mo out of date W10 machine: change my view.
The last big Update (21H1) also rendered all 3D Apps useless, none would work on my machine anymore. Not matter which version of the AMD driver I tried.
When you pay for Windows you are the product.
When you don't pay for Linux, Linux is the product.
The only thing that keeps me in Windows is the VPN connection to work.
Why do you need windows to connect to a VPN? Does openconnect or openVPN not work?
Several VPN applications check for a correctly configured endpoint as a prerequisite to join the VPN. This can involve enforcing OS, OS updates, AV programs, etc. depending on how your system admin has set things up. In such a company performing an end run against this check can get you into trouble
Interesting. I'll have to add that to my list of questions to ask companies in an interview. Not being able to use Linux is a total deal breaker for me.
Well, at least they don't force other browsers to use their IE/Edge engine and make sure ad blockers only work on their browser even if other browsers do decide to dilute their brand by publishing their "browser" as a skin on the default engine.
Not that I agree with MS on this btw.
Not that I agree with MS on this btw.
Why use proprietary software?
"o&o shutup10 and "w10 privacy" are on the top of my list of things to install when setting up a new windows machine
This is the kind of thing which makes me roll my eyes when people try to argue that the "New Microsoft(tm)" is actually benevolent and developer friendly, and I should be happy about things like them acquiring Github.
I just installed Windows again for the first time in 20 years (certain games still won’t run on anything else) and after all the talk of how much things have improved, I was shocked at just had bad it is.
It’s almost dystopian how tracked and marketed I feel. I think I finally have all the switches flipped that I need to stop things popping up in my face, but goodness.
They’re the same as they ever were.
It’s almost dystopian how tracked and marketed I feel. I think I finally have all the switches flipped that I need to stop things popping up in my face, but goodness.
They’re the same as they ever were.
I'm right there with you. I work on macOS and I'm 90% Linux at home, and the odd time I have to boot into Windows for something I'm amazed people put up with it.
I will never call a corporation benevolent, but they certainly are developer friendly right now. Opening the source of many of their frameworks and tools have aided us in debugging many times. It's also possible to get in contact with their developers directly through github.
I don't really feel one way or another regarding their Github purchase. If not Microsoft, then someone else. Right now Microsoft seems like a less bad owner, but time will tell.
I don't really feel one way or another regarding their Github purchase. If not Microsoft, then someone else. Right now Microsoft seems like a less bad owner, but time will tell.
I just think there can be a lot of perverse interests at play when a major software vendor also owns the place where all the code lives.
For instance, VSCodium is not available as a native download for M1 processors because GitHub Actions don’t support M1 yet.
Would Microsoft potentially delay supporting CI/CD for M1 because it’s not in their strategic best interest to support Mac as a development platform? It’s not out of the question to imagine this kind of thing could enter their prioritization process
For instance, VSCodium is not available as a native download for M1 processors because GitHub Actions don’t support M1 yet.
Would Microsoft potentially delay supporting CI/CD for M1 because it’s not in their strategic best interest to support Mac as a development platform? It’s not out of the question to imagine this kind of thing could enter their prioritization process
To be fair, unless Apple collaborated with Microsoft before the launch, it's not trivial to add that as a target to the pipeline in a production ready environment. I'm not even sure Apple allows any virtualized instance which poses a major impediment to implementing this. One can always use a self hosted runner to make it work.
I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm just saying this is the type of situation where an MS-owned github could have interests un-aligned with developers, where it might not be the case with an independent github
I've had this pop-up during a full-screen game OVER top of it. I actually had to alt-tab out of the game to close it because there was no other way to.
I've also had Windows stop me on boot recently to "finish setting up my PC" which was just to ask me to switch to Edge and Bing and to subscribe to Office 365...
I've also had Windows stop me on boot recently to "finish setting up my PC" which was just to ask me to switch to Edge and Bing and to subscribe to Office 365...
I welcome this. Because it might cannibalize some users who might gravitate away from Google to a lesser evil. I also find the Microsoft pop ups less annoying in number and invasiveness compared to iOS
What pop-ups in iOS? You won't see ad popups instigated by Apple on any iOS device to my knowledge. And for app notifications, you have complete control from the very beginning.
I get periodic push notifications about TV+ content, Apple Arcade launches, and Apple Music deals.
Hmm I have never gotten any of those - though I rarely allow notifications when installing an app. Maybe Apple native applications have their notifications allowed on your system?
Upgrading Windows 7 to Fedora Linux was the best decision I made.
HACKERNEWS friendly comment, since my last one got "flagged"
i didn't want to hurt microsoft PR people, my bad!
--
I wonder why microsoft is forced to use same adware tactics to encourage people to use their products
Wouldn't products automatically get users if they are good? specially when they are made by the vendor of the system?
maybe the issue is they are just bad products?
i didn't want to hurt microsoft PR people, my bad!
--
I wonder why microsoft is forced to use same adware tactics to encourage people to use their products
Wouldn't products automatically get users if they are good? specially when they are made by the vendor of the system?
maybe the issue is they are just bad products?
Microsoft... what happened?