Meh. I totally understand Microsoft's position - it absolutely requires its user base to move to Windows 10, and has been severely punished by having a user base stuck on versions going all the way back to XP. Something has to change - people don't upgrade unless they are forced to.
Do you hear yourself? What if people don't need to upgrade ? Sorry, but I'm the one knowing best about if I need to upgrade my OS.
And when you pay for a machine, a lot of money, and you pay for a system, a lot of money, you expect to have the choice of what you do with said machine and system.
Plus, do you know why people sticked to XP ? Because it worked. Same with windows 7.
If you don't need a new system, there is no reason to change. It's work. It's uncertainty. It will break things. And I won't even begin with the w10 spywares.
Not to mention the way it's been done which is downright disrespecteful.
I'm not necessarily sure regular people understand bitrot. Some of the largest botnets in the world were created from XP machines where users could install major updates but it wasn't done automatically.
Automatically installing security updates is fine. Upgrading users to a new major release that deprecates a shitton of working hardware and software for no reason but to make life for MS easier, is not fine.
This ads in the OS is a bullshit I keep hearing. Why is this not a problem with Android or iOS? I have not met much ads, apart from the install office stuff.
Spyware? The telemetry enabled them to have faster feedback and the quality of Win10 improved before my very eyes. If you have developed an app and used a telemetry framework, you should know that it is not spying. If they were to spy they'd do it differently, not by asking you to please provide us some data for QoS.
App store is bad? Is it not bad for the other major OS-es? It is good if it is called apt-get?
The App store provides sandboxing and isolation, security to the users, where a single install of a software cannot break others. When the containerization arrives (as new features come to Win10 continously) this will be even cooler, as legacy apps can be packaged and spread through the app store. No more problems with installing stuff unattended, or having to accept EULAs, as those can be stored on an account level in the Store. No more installshield madness.
> The telemetry enabled them to have faster feedback
I know the commercial pitch.
telemetry is a polite name for spywares. The fact one of the goal is the OS improvement doesn't change that. If I kick you in the face to scratch my hand, I still kick you in the face.
> App store is bad
I never said app store were bad. I just said MS was pushing 10 so they can get the app store in so they can improve their sales. Not because they wanted to help anybody. I like stores. Altough comparing app stores to package repo is like comparing a group of libraries and book clubs to the only book shops available in the city.
You are conflating "ad-supported programs" (remember Opera at version 9? That was ad-ware, on the desktop) with "advertisements in the OS itself". Let me assure you that I'm not seeing any ads on my Android devices. Rhetorical question: Do ad-supported apps have ad-free, paid versions? Answer: Yes, they do (and if not, too bad for them, not going to use).
Should an OS that I have paid for (the Windows tax, never mind that it's not listed as a separate item on the invoice) be ad-supported on top of that? I'll leave that one open, as I don't see The One Correct Answer.
> This ads in the OS is a bullshit I keep hearing. Why is this not a problem with Android or iOS?
Because neither iOS nor Android contain ads in the core OS. This is a different issue than ad-enabled third party apps.
> I have not met much ads, apart from the install office stuff.
And the Tomb Raider lock screen, and all that crap in the start menu, and…
> If you have developed an app and used a telemetry framework, you should know that it is not spying
The EULA states that they're selling your telemetry data to third parties. Sometimes opt-out, sometimes hardcoded (try to make the start menu search not connect to the internet). That's a tad different from just using opt-in (or even fully opt-out) telemetry for internal debugging purposes (which Microsoft has been doing since at least XP times, and which I don't mind).
> Is it not bad for the other major OS-es?
It is, which is why I don't use them, or don't use their app store.
> It is good if it is called apt-get?
A decentralized package manager and a centralized, heavily censored, tithed app store are two completely different concepts.
> The App store provides sandboxing and isolation, security to the users, where a single install of a software cannot break others
All features that are not inherently tied to the concept of an app store.
The ads in iOS are a problem. But those ads are in the app store, they're not on my home screen.
(The behaviour of a web page in chrome being able to switch me from chrome to the app store to show me an ad is baffling and terrible. If you're talking about sucky ads that's a great example of piss-poor experience on iOS.)
Backporting security updates is a huge cost, as involves enormous amounts of tests on old platforms as well. Having one windows to support is a huge win for Microsoft, and the whining of the people seems to be a cost they are willing to take. (it has other benefits for them, and for the users as well apart from security)
Also note: when people say they moved to Ubuntu, they do the same whining about systemd and every innovation they perceive as "breaking change". Ordinary people are the greatest burden of progress, because usually they cannot (or do not wish to put effort into) understand the greater picture and the benefits to them.
Sidenote: GWX is broken. I had to do my update with manually downloaded installer media as windows update on win7 and GWX didn't work.
Boohoo. Maybe Microsoft should have priced that into the product before they sold it, instead of using borderline illegal methods to scam people out of providing the service they expect?
Progress for the sake of progress - now that's what I'd call a cult: never mind that computers are tools that people buy to do other stuff (e.g. work): People Are Stupid, We Know Best. All Hail The Glorious Progress, Newer Is Always Better!
> Sorry, but I'm the one knowing best about if I need to upgrade my OS.
I can't speak about you, but I certainly don't think I know best about when to upgrade my OS. I rarely need new features, and hate unnecessary changes to my running system like anybody else. But I've seen spreading malware crap far to often to take chances.
Remember the time when you had to disconnect the computer from the internet while installing Windows XP, because unpatched installations would be taken over in minutes by worms? For most people (unless you have an excellent firewall and don't browse the web), the only sane option is to keep everything up-to-date with all security updates.
If Microsoft decides they can't afford to backport security updates to older versions after some years, then at some point we have to swallow the toad and upgrade. It's just the unfortunate reality of current OSes.
Well...how about "our HW vendor has been promising WinX drivers for some months now, but for now, supported OSes end at Win 8.1"? Is MS still in the best position to decide "eh never mind, it's not like you are actually using that very specific piece of hardware - off to WinX you go"?
In other words, "I am not capable of deciding" does not translate into "therefore everyone gets force-fed the upgrade (because of course they're not capable of deciding, either)."
Well I agree if you have a good reason (like a lack of driver) then you absolutely should be able to delay or cancel the update.
I think there are two different questions. Should updates auto-install by default (after a warning), and should you be able to reject any update? I'd say yes to both, but unfortunately Microsoft tends to no for both sometimes.
Oh, lots of people are asking; just that MS does not want to hear the answer ("your previous OSes are so good that the risks of an upgrade outweigh the perceived benefits"). Product cannibalization is the term, I believe.
As a web developer I'm also happy to see Windows 10 getting more popular. The happy day when all browsers are finally evergreen is getting at least a little bit closer.
Sure they do - when the upgrades are pleasant and don't break things.
People will update firefox any day of the week, because they've made such updates many times in the past; only a small fraction of users have been burned by radical user interface changes or breaking compatibility with existing sites; and most of those who have had a problem with changes have found a configuration option (albeit hidden) to disable the change.
On the other hand, updating from Windows 7 to Windows 10 means a bunch of user interface changes you can't opt out of; and a bunch of your existing software no longer working.
It doesn't take a genius to tell if you bundle your security updates with radical user interface redesigns and break compatibility with a bunch of existing software, some users aren't going to apply the security updates.
Firefox might be an unfortunate example. Mozilla also started trying to push major UI changes and features users didn't want, and look at the chart of their market share since then.
I understand it, but would have preferred some transparency.
"Users: this is what we are planning. We know it's uncomfortable, but it's best because of _ and _. Please make arrangements now if you want your computer to continue operating as-is (without security or updates), because as of _, the OS upgrade will be rolled out automatically".
The other thing to remember is that they made their own bed: they wanted to be able to sell users each individual "new" version of the OS, which created this mentality in the first place.
Like the (currently) top comment wisely says: if you focus relentlessly on the user, all of this is a much smaller problem, because your upgrades are amazing, and users want to upgrade voluntarily.
This is very short sighted on multiple fronts. If you force someone into an upgrade they didn't actually want they're going to be annoyed, and they may revert the upgrade.
If you then start showing ads as part of your OS after the upgrade, those people are going to be really upset.
Then once they find out just how much data about them you are collecting, some of them are going to have such a damaged option of your company they will never buy another product from you.
That all is just talking about home users of Windows and their experience. The amount of money wasted by Windows 10's aggressive upgrade in corporations is probably in the billions of dollars. Think about how many calls and trouble tickets have probably come in over the last year about the unintended upgrades.
Lastly, I personally only use my PC for gaming. I don't like Windows 10. I've had to turn off auto-update on my Windows 7 machine because the attempts to trick me into upgrade have gotten more and more aggressive and I can't be sure that I'm not fall for it late at night or just wake up one day with my machine upgraded to an OS I don't want. That's bad.
The amount of money wasted by Windows 10's aggressive upgrade in corporations is probably in the billions of dollars. Think about how many calls and trouble tickets have probably come in over the last year about the unintended upgrades.
It's probably far less of a problem for enterprise customers, because they have the tools to control updates centrally within their IT departments. Microsoft is surely well aware that professional sysadmins won't tolerate things like having arbitrary updates applied to their systems by Microsoft, and for sysadmins in larger organisations there is enough real revenue at stake that Microsoft will do something about it, hence LTSB in Windows 10 Enterprise.
The thing I don't understand is why Microsoft think smaller businesses or power users -- the kind of people who were running Pro on Windows 7 or 8.x -- would be any more willing to compromise on that count, and why they think that market is going to voluntarily update to Windows 10 Pro, which appears to be a very different kind of product to its namesake in earlier versions.
People do upgrade when they know from experience that their system won't regress. It's not necessarily a Windows LTS ala RHEL what's needed, but something inbetween Windows XP is unsupported and Windows 10 breaks your usage must be possible if MS doesn't want to lose more desktop users. And let's not forget that the heavy desktop users (prosumers, etc.) are those who most of the time are consulted by family and friends for advice regarding computers. So, if you alienate them, there's a high chance they will recommend a Linux desktop for most common computer usage.
I totally understand Microsoft's position - it absolutely requires its user base to move to Windows 10, and has been severely punished by having a user base stuck on versions going all the way back to XP.
I wish my punishment for writing some software and issuing a few updates for security defects was also measured in billions of dollars.
It doesn't matter what Microsoft "absolutely requires", because they don't own and have no authority over their customers' computers. They do not have any right to force their customers to do anything with those computers.
There won't be Windows 11. That's why all of this is happening -- Microsoft changing the model.
(Almost) nobody is complaining about Google forcing them to update Android to the next version -- it just happens. That's what Microsoft is doing right now.
Naw, it's almost the opposite I'd say. Many phones (esp. if you don't buy it directly but get it from your carrier) stop seeing updates very quickly. If you want to stay up-to-date, you have to install a custom ROM or buy a new phone.
Once I decided not to upgrade. But it used to pop up every now and then and I used to cancel the notification. Once by mistake, I pressed ok and there was no way to cancel the update. Then it bloated my phone(Samsung S4) like anything and phone keeps complaining out of disk space and I have to keep deleting my photos(and also uninstall apps) for getting more and more space for the stupid android it's own junk
> (Almost) nobody is complaining about Google forcing them to update Android to the next version
Because updating to a new Android version doesn't break my apps, my hardware, nor my workflows.
Meanwhile, every Windows major releases deprecates entire classes of hardware (Need a working parallel port? Too bad!), breaks various kinds of business critical software, and completely restructures the UX so that people have to re-learn how to do trivial things.
That's the theory, in practice with the very short support and the vendor versions, Android just never gets updated. People are just buying new phones.
Which is probably why you can get $50 phones on AliExpress, and maybe the only way to have an up to date Android phone without shelling out 300 or 600 dollars.
There won't be Windows 11. That's why all of this is happening -- Microsoft changing the model.
They'd like everyone to believe that, but I suspect the picture will look quite different by the start of 2020 when Windows 7 support runs out. It's certainly possible that MS will win this one through sheer determination, but it's certainly also possible that their senior management will be removed and the replacements will steer the ship back towards a more traditional and trusted path, and there's also a significant chance that with so long to go some other party will mount a credible attack on Microsoft's dominance on the desktop by then.
I can't see any of the current Linux distros taking over desktops in any big way, even with Microsoft's current strategy, by 2020. The application base just isn't there.
In this context, I think Linux has most potential as the foundation for more targeted platforms that might compete for specific niches within the traditional desktop space, along the lines of Chrome OS or SteamOS. Android has shown that you can build a very successful, very widely used platform on top of Linux within the kind of time frame we're talking about here.
I love how anti-Microsoft articles are still considered "activism" by some people. Does this article contribute to any kind of conversation that hasn't been had a thousand times before on HN?
Meh. I see many users happy with the free upgrade, and many business badly hurt because they were using the home version instead of a properly configured pro/enterprise.
I just don't buy in the hyperbole., besides windows 7 is out of support and windows 8 is going off next year. Those users will be the next in line into botnets.
At least microsoft takes backward compatibility seriously and upgrades are relatively painless compared to, say, linux.
This is exactly my issue with the forced upgrade. With a browser like Chrome, automatic upgrades are there from day one. Everybody expects them, and they happen silently anyway. On the other hand, Windows 7 users never signed up for forced OS upgrades when they purchased the OS. (Especially not an upgrade that downloads gigabytes of data, forces your computer offline for hours, and sometimes even bricks your computer.)
Windows 7 is not out of support. It is out of mainstream support which means Microsoft develops and releases no new features for it. Windows 7 is in Extended support until 2020, which means it continues to get security patches, which is really all anyone cares about.
To offer a counterpoint, I've had several people in the family who tried to update to windows 10 and couldn't manage to do it - even with all the prompts, nagging, and supposed auto-installation. And hilariously, all you have to do is to press Next a couple of times and wait an hour.
I'm one of those people who updated early, and had a lot of problems - with Wifi, touchpad, and incompatible software (Cisco VPN). And still, I'd advocate that Microsoft should just update everything automatically. Yes, it hurts some users (who should be able to opt-out easily!) but is the right option for >95% of home users.
Heck, I wouldn't even announce it as a new version. If the user had Windows 7 and updates to the latest windows, keep "Windows 7" in the info box and keep the glass theme (and put the real version in the small-print). Then at some point drop the version number altogether (something I believe MS is planning to do soon anyway), and offer the user to "download the exciting modern theme for free!".
The truth is, the difference between Windows 8.1 and 10 is smaller than between some service packs for previous versions. Actually, 10 rolls back some much-hated changes in 8, so it is very close to 7 in some regards.
The way I see it, there are two ways to get people to run current Windows: 1) secretly update it under their seats and don't make a fuss about it or 2) make people excited so they really want to upgrade (like 95 or XP). What MS is doing now - show ads and make it look like they have ulterior motives to update your 'perfectly fine' OS - might not be the best solution...
That approach is not compatible with making users explicitly agree with the new privacy policy that basically allows Microsoft to access your data. So it might have been the corporate lawyers that demanded this to be an upgrade that requires explicit consent.
True. But most of the changes to the privacy policy are to make Cortana work, which in the current state works like crap for me anyway.
If they'd not shove that into their OS, but make it a separate product (that actually worked and not just opened Bing all the time), people would be more willing to sign their terms (and might even pay for it).
"Requires explicit consent" my ass. Perhaps "well, we should require explicit consent, but what would happen, for example, if a bug went through the QA unnoticed and upgraded the boxes anyway?" (Highly hypothetical: my bet is still on incompetence)
Maybe this is OK for home-users, but many businesses run critical software on Windows computers. If you automatically implement upgrades that may break 3rd party software it can be a huge problem and is totally inexcusable for a business that's paying for a stable OS.
Business users have fine-grain control over Windows updates via WSUS. If they are not managing updates on critical infrastructure, something else was going to bite them eventually that might not be as polite as Windows 10.
Yes. A catch with the upgrades is that when Microsoft revises them they will show up in the update queue. As long as you don't approve them your users will never seen them.
Set up Windows Server Update Services[1] and you can control every single update that presents itself to your machines. Here's a screenshot from my WSUS which shows the pending W10 upgrades I have not yet approved: https://imgur.com/0LN5N7n.png
Right, but doesn't WSUS need some extra infrastructure?
The average small business or power user isn't running Windows Server with domains and so on set up. They're probably running a handful of Pro machines for users, or even just a single machine.
In that context, I think my previous question stands. Can someone who is running Windows 10 Pro then control the Windows updates they do or don't install?
Minimally WSUS needs a server OS to run on, Active Directory, and a Group Policy to point clients at it.
If you buy Windows Pro and don't put it on a domain there's no real difference between that and Home except that you're paying more for capabilities you aren't using. For denying updates in such a scenario, you're stuck doing everything manually on each machine via unsupported methods and hoping your users don't undo your changes.
Minimally WSUS needs a server OS to run on, Active Directory, and a Group Policy to point clients at it.
Right, but how many small businesses or power users have those? To a first approximation, the answer is probably "none".
If you buy Windows Pro and don't put it on a domain there's no real difference between that and Home except that you're paying more for capabilities you aren't using.
Well, the above isn't actually true. For example, I'm writing this on a machine with 32GB of RAM running Windows 7, which Pro can use but Home editions can't.
But that aside, whatever Microsoft choose to call their different editions and however much they change what terms like "Pro" actually mean between Windows versions, the reality is that there is a huge market of small businesses and power users who want to run Windows, don't want or need the kinds of management tools traditionally associated with Enterprise editions and Windows Server, but do require stability and reliability in their IT systems. With Windows 7, they had that. With 10, they don't.
For denying updates in such a scenario, you're stuck doing everything manually on each machine via unsupported methods and hoping your users don't undo your changes.
I'm going to do something I don't usually do and guess what the person I'm debating with is like in real life here. You're some sort of sysadmin or CIO within a non-technical organisation large enough to use Enterprise, or at least to be within its target market, right?
The reason I'm expecting that is that you refer to what a huge amount of the market actually does, using tools provided for that exact purpose, as "unsupported". I work with quite a few different small businesses, freelancers, and other such users, mostly in technical industries. It is absolutely routine in these organisations for everyone to have admin rights on their own PC and to handle their own updates, not least because it's very unlikely that there is any dedicated IT staff to manage these things centrally.
The thing you seem to consider weird or dangerous is what millions of professional Windows users do all the time. The sky has not yet fallen, the networks have not yet been taken over by botnets, and actual work has not been interrupted by Windows 10 barging in unannounced. Which is lucky, because if it could, it looks like that entire segment of the market would be out of luck.
My suspicion is that most organizations don't manage upgrades and/or use home licensing where they should not.
I have had upgrades for Windows 10 sitting in my WSUS review queue for a long time now and simply not taking action has led to them not being installed. https://imgur.com/0LN5N7n.png
School IT guy here. Doing fine. I use WSUS like a good boy and not a single machine out of 700 in my org has ever presented a Windows 10 popup to a user. No hacky workarounds are required.
I've never heard of that. I've been testing Office 2016 in preparation to deploy it over the summer. I've had roughly 20 users on it and not one of them has been forced to use a Microsoft login. We don't use Office 365, could that have something to do with it?
I have a copy of Office 2016 Home & Office and I needed a MSFT ID in order to activate it. It seems the product key is then tied to that MSFT ID. So, when I leave my company this copy of Office is going to stick with my ID and cannot be activated by a new employee unless I forfeit the license.
I suppose you may have bulk licenses which may not require the MSFT ID.
What would you need it for, in the age of LibreOffice? (For ticking a checkbox that explicitly says "MS Office", I get it.) MS Office is a fine collection of extremely powerful tools (I have yet to see any tool with the power and flexibility of MS Access), but an overkill for 90% of users.
No, your computer illiterate family members (as well as anyone who has any mental disabilities for that matter and can't understand what is going on) are going to get screwed. There's something about throwing them under the bus that doesn't sit right with me. It's almost like victim blaming your computer illiterate Windows using family members who get caught up in malicious malware downloads and stuff
My in-laws were bitten by the "Click [x] to update" dark pattern ("The computer installed Win10 by itself") and the keyboard and trackpad were unresponsive after the update.
I only had a spare keyboard laying around, and had to finish the install (disable all spyware) and delete the faulty drivers without a mouse, that wasn't exactly fun.
The perception of MSFT in the IT Industy has been improving. Seems like it has been largely due to their open source and innovation activities.
I have recently competed against MSFT in the field. And I can assure you they are up to their old dirt bag tricks. The one I disliked the most was modifying customer contracts to inflate sales numbers of some of their products.
When I see news like this I'm not surprised.
Their moves don't seem genuine. Just some PR plan. Putting lipstick on a pig.
While they cannot take back open sourcing some of the core technologies liberally, this doesn't mean their management had to be become friendly as well.
Microsoft is so big that it's no wonder that one team does something great for everyone while another team partly voids the improvement by doing something stupid. Windows 8 and 10 have, as usual, improved the kernel and the surrounding subsystems but the stuff on top got worse in many aspects.
My conclusion is that Microsoft is in need of a charismatic leader who keeps quality in check and regression to a minimum. Someone who doesn't tolerate the stuff they're pulling right now.
So funny how few months ago some people were so excited to finally change their unix system to Windows after they revealed the wannabe-unix-support in the Windows 10, but everyone forgot what kind of cancer the Microsoft is and has always been.
They wouldn't have to do this if they would just make the next version of windows better than the previous versions.
Technically they usually are, but then management starts making decisions about what is best. Not what is best for the user, what is best for Microsoft. If they just focused on the users, it would all work itself out. People would want to upgrade. Instead we get to login to our local machine with a Microsoft account, data tracking, etc. These are all things good for Microsoft.
As far from an MS fanboy as I am, this is one thing I need to disagree on: WinX, from my experience, seems like a well-made system; at least on fresh installs. The spying "features" can all be disabled (apparently), and function all-local, no MS account required.
The botch (which just keeps getting worse) is the forced-by-any-means upgrade; if you have an upgrade path planned, and you're in the middle of testing, having all the workstations pull the rug from under you (because "This is where you want to go today!") is, IMNSHO, borderline criminal.
In other words: We had wanted to upgrade. Within weeks. Now we're dug in the trenches, locked down and hoping we didn't miss one of the upgrade backdoors; the upgrade plan is, of course, scrapped altogether. In a sentence: COMPLETE LOSS OF TRUST.
The data collectors can be disabled, but MS has renamed services or otherwise introduced remedies to prevent disabling of the collectors, and therefore it's safe to distrust in that regard.
Only Entreprise customers can fully opt out of all data collection. [1] All other users can only disable a subset and their PCs will submit "Basic Telemetry" regardless of what they do. Microsoft has defended this:
" Windows 10 still phones home to Microsoft with telemetry data including an anonymous device ID, information about the type of device that's being used, and data from application crashes. That sort of data has been key to solving problems with the operating system and other applications, according to an explanation published Monday from Microsoft Corporate Vice President Terry Myerson."
Undocumented registry edits based on peoples guesses and other hacks from random blogs are not a solution.
Microsoft has used updates to change service and update names related to Telemetry already. Some of the "tips" in the comments are also wrong, like using the hosts file to block certain domains which Telemetry services don't respect.
Unless it's a documented method from Microsoft it doesn't count. Their stated aim is that all non-Enterprise customer will take part in "Basic" telemetry. Until they change that stance, random hacks from the blogosphere are at best unreliable and at worst dangerous and give a false sense of privacy and security.
> Unless it's a documented method from Microsoft it doesn't count.
Oh, I didn't realize that we were playing a board game. No, in real life when something actually works...people can use it. The registry edit does indeed work. I've used it. Plenty of people use it. So yeah - that does too count.
Apple doesn't support HomeBrew and tons of other things that developers do on OS X, but nobody sits there and says "that doesn't count".
Linux distros don't support every single configuration that Linux users put in...but nobody says "it doesn't count".
The difference is that Apple doesn't actively try to prevent Homebrew from working, while Microsoft has issued updates with the purpose to rename NT services and other things, in order to defeat the workarounds.
The spying "features" can all be disabled (apparently), and function all-local, no MS account required.
Even if that is all true today -- and I'm expressing no view here on whether it is -- with mandatory updates there is no guarantee anything will continue to work the same way tomorrow. If there is one thing Microsoft has proved beyond any doubt over the past few months, it is that we can't trust it not to abuse Windows updates. This is why the trust issue has become a major PR problem, though I suspect many in senior management at MS are still in denial about how bad that problem really is.
>WinX, from my experience, seems like a well-made system;
I've had the opposite experience. The OS that's supposed to have all the drivers didn't have all the drivers and I know a ton of people who were stuck without wifi (and a few who could not even connect through ethernet), had graphics problems which basically made their OS unusable, had all sorts of performance issues (especially on small netbooks that auto upgraded), the list could just go on.
You shouldn't have to disable spyware when installing an OS. You shouldn't have to install powershell to remove candy crush (which is what you had to do when Win10 first came out). You shouldn't have to uninstall adware on a new OS. You shouldn't need an SSD and other newer/high-end hardware to run an OS, especially when other operating systems run flawlessly on low-end hardware.
Nah, Windows is a trash OS and it seems like the only people who use it are people who are forced to because of program compatibility.
That is the run-of-the-mill set of issues I've had with any Windows upgrade, and something I'd be willing to dismiss as teething problems: usually not MS's fault but the OEM's (especially drivers and shovelware); plus the HW requirements didn't go up so dramatically, compared to W7.
The "spy on everything" and "you MUST have cloud" attitude are actual OS issues, I agree.
> Nah, Windows is a trash OS and it seems like the only people who use it are people who are forced to because of program compatibility.
I was on linux for 10+ years, and I switched to Windows after they released 10 because I was truly happy with it after trying the tech preview. The program compatibility is just a bonus. Almost all of my family uses Windows over OS X because they can't stand the weird ass intentionally hobbled UI of OSX.
I disagree, my point remains that many people have different preferences than you in what they want from an OS, and many people do legitimately prefer Windows over OS X (or linux, but most people don't really know that's an option.)
I see you comment negatively on Microsoft articles just about every single time they're posted. It makes me think that you have some sort of agenda and so I don't really trust your opinion at all.
For myself, having used Linux since early Red Hat releases and Macs (professionally) since System 6 - I am certain that OS X and every Linux desktop are absolute garbage compared to Windows.
Anyway, to address your concerns:
> You shouldn't have to disable spyware when installing an OS.
You don't have to. Problem solved.
> You shouldn't have to install powershell to remove candy crush.
You don't have to do that either. Problem solved.
> You shouldn't have to uninstall adware on a new OS.
There is none. Problem solved.
> You shouldn't need an SSD...
You don't need one. Problem solved.
> Nah, Windows is a trash OS and it seems like the only people who use it are people who are forced to because of program compatibility.
Well, that's your opinion. I use it because it's the best. So, given that you're obviously wrong that "people only use it program compatibility [and no other reason]" we'll have to conclude that your opinion is not based on facts.
It's telemetry and it's not spying. Do you use a smartphone? If so, you are already running something that has telemetry in it.
> I consider Candycrush is adware
Who cares? Again...do you use any smartphone? Do you realize that just about every smartphone that people use has some sort of app on it that has some ads? You're making a big deal out of absolutely nothing.
> Well it runs terribly whithout [an ssd].
Well my long time experience with Windows says otherwise. You apparently don't use Windows, so how would you even know? Besides that, why would you want a non-SSD for any OS in 2016?
> For myself, having used Linux since early Red Hat releases and Macs (professionally) since System 6 - I am certain that OS X and every Linux desktop are absolute garbage compared to Windows.
It is your tiny zelaot opinion - looking at your comments you're either an ms maniac or you've fallen into the trap of cognitive dissonance. Most linux DEs are far better in performance, customization and usability just like linux is a better platform than windows(at any situation - the network effect doesn't count). M$ Frozen OS is absolutely unstable and overrated complex bloatware with a more and more lame theme and feature at each release - why would it be any better than any random toy DE? It's constantly freezing and crashing while the UI is a complete user experience failure hidden under a huge pile of aggressive marketing.
And if these aren't enough there are fanatics like you who spread it like candy - it's surely good to have a Nagware Spyware Adware OS at work with a wonderful mail client which can't decide what to do: freezing, crashing or both!
Your opinion is based on issues people experience. OS support forums are filled to the brim with users' woes, and anyone could look at them and conclude that most OSs are trash. Would you yourself be so principled then?
Given that I use my Windows machine solely for gaming these days, the fact that I am not allowed to disable the real time virus scan permanently is a mark against Windows being a well made system. It's a notable loss of control over my system.
> The spying "features" can all be disabled
I've yet to find a way to disable the telemetry on a non-enterprise system. I'd appreciate any links to instructions on how to do this.
I appreciate knowing how to do this, but I don't think booting into safe mode and deleting an exe counts as being "allowed" to disable scanning. It's a workaround, but definitely not a solution from MS.
Ouch. That's worse than I thought. Well, one more item in the "risks" column; not that it matters anymore (being 1001th such item, where the tipping point was at 200 ;)).
They wouldn't have to do this if they would just make the next version of windows better than the previous versions.
Indeed. I made a similar argument when Adobe went subscription-only with Creative Cloud. That move seems like a clear signal to customers that Adobe thinks locking those customers in is more valuable than whatever new features or performance improvements or bug fixes Adobe is going to offer, since if the latter were more valuable then presumably customers would have been willing to pay for a new version and choose to install it anyway.
> If they would just make the next version of windows better than the previous versions.
They've done that. Every single time. That's why Windows is the most widely used desktop OS on the planet. On the desktop, it's better than OS X and it's better than Linux and if you disagree then you're obviously out of whack with the rest of the world's priorities because everybody uses Windows and they do so because Windows gives them what they want.
Yes, Windows 10 has some annoyances - just like every other OS in existence. Big deal. Windows has absolutely gotten better with each version. I've been using it since Windows 3 and honestly, saying that Windows hasn't gotten better with each version makes it seem like you have no clue at all what you're talking about.
Also, to the people complaining that you can't turn things off: You've been misinformed. You can turn off every single item that has been discussed and you can do it without "booting into safe-mode to delete an exe" for instance - http://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/3569-windows-defender-rea...
One hand Apple does the same with OS X, where every Mac from 2008 onwards basically still receives free OS updates. On the other hand those OS upgrades are usually barely more than a UI refresh and never seem to cause any problems knocks on wood.
I usually wait out half a year or something before upgrading because I don't have any pressing reasons to upgrade, maybe one computer that gets the new version so I can test stuff.
Windows seems to change radically with each version. And none of the changes seem to be permanent. At least the OS on my Mac really changed when it changed and then it stayed the same for 15 years again.
I agree that it never really feels like it though. The last big features that really changed/improved things were 2 finger right click and scroll, Spotlight and Time Machine.
When I bought my laptop I got Windows 8.1 with it. I didn't want to delete it immediately so I dual boot Ubuntu and used Windows only occasionally. Then one day I couldn't start Windows because it was stuck in infinite update loop, even though I turned off updates because of those annoying "please update to win 10" messages. Now I run only Ubuntu.
Automatic updates are a no go and now they brought it to Windows 7! I feel like they're hacking my computers and now I'm constantly checking that 10 isn't being installed behind my back! It's stressful!
I was recently invited to a demo of a complex 3D rig. A couple of days earlier someone must have given in to the Windows 10 update nag. Suffice to say, once the system was on location it never got out of a reboot loop.
Fortunately a replacement was on hand but imagining a botched live performance in front of a large audience is cringe inducing.
When you see Grandpa running a 'Windows 10 update blocker' and 'Start Menu reverting utility' something must have gone very wrong during UX development, or the company simply doesn't care about its users.
On the flip-side, I've never seen recent converts being so happy with their Linux installs, nor have I had so many requests for that "Linux thing".
There are use cases where Windows simply doesn't belong, such as digital signage and ATMs. It's a pity many developers keep choosing what they are comfortable with instead of the right tool for the job.
Digital signage and ATMs? I think the Windows Embedded line is built specifically with these in mind (of course there are non-Windows options as well); hacking and slashing through the desktop Windows would bite you in such use cases :)
Microsoft loses credibility? What does that mean? People complain all day on the Internet while Microsoft's desktop monopoly of 90% falls 0.1%? Microsoft has nothing to lose and much to gain by getting more of their customers on the latest version of Windows.
In fact, developers, especially web developers, should be excited that Microsoft is upgrading everyone they can.
That means "OS vendor has a backdoor open in our systems, on purpose" is very bad news. Very, very, very, very bad news. As in "audit noncompliance bad news". This is not a matter of mom-and-pop shops with three computers, or of any interest to the home user, but the fallout might be massive (as in "time to look for a different vendor, can't have that").
Thanks for the hyperbole. I guess you used the word "might" so you can't be wrong when nothing changes? As I explained, there won't be any consequences.
Future is sort of hard to predict, at least for me. But you seem significantly more capable thereof; come on, enlighten me!
(The "might" expands to this: a retraction of the, ahem, telemetry, and the continuous update policy - at least for the enterprise segment - is one way the MS could avoid this trap it's built for itself; given their behavior to date, I doubt it will)
My example why I can't upgrade and regularly have to fight the updates that try to force me again and again: two notebooks, one older, one relatively recent.
Windows 10 breaks things on both. On the older, even if the "Update to 10" says "everything's OK," after the update the machine is so unstable that it gets often stuck and crashes regularly. It has enough RAM, the cause is "officially unsupported" Intel WiFi card that I can't replace with the newer.
On the newer notebook, the touchpad remains effectively broken: its sensitivity is different, the scroll areas can't be activated. The screen is somehow also more prone to temporary "burn-in" effects. The notebook is specifically not listed by the manufacturer as "upgradable to Windows 10." Microsoft however forces upgrade again and again.
From my point of view, Windows 10 upgrade definitely has problems with notebooks.
I have win10 on several of my machines and while I think the UI is a nice fix of the lousy win8 UI, thing is buggy as hell. I was getting video driver crashes during sleep and other sleep-of-death bugs on multiple devices, including a Surface. And the file browser crashes a lot.
The update tool claims your system (including drivers and software) is compatible with Windows 10, only later to realize that some hardware doesn't work or an application doesn't start anymore. While these are rare, it's unacceptable to force people to update when it's incompatible to upgrade the existing installation.
Oh yeah, I went through that a few months ago 48 minutes to install only for it to fail, ~70 minutes for it to back out. Then my mistake I hit upgrade again and had to do the entire 128 mins again :( Still on Windows 8.1 on that machine
I have a machine that got stuck at around 42% through the upgrade process and I left it there for a whole day before holding down the power button to shut it off. Then the recovery process started.
Another data point: Windows Media Center is either not available in the to-be-upgraded-to-licensed version of Windows and you have to buy it now, or it's not available anymore, don't remember. But people's HTPC's were updated and there was no Media Center anymore. What did users do? They installed a non-Windows media center solution, completely replacing Windows. This cannot be in Microsoft's interest, unless they want to rid themselves of those users.
In the US, at least, WMC was the only commercially-available software that supported anything other than copy-freely CableCard programs. So if you were planning on watching Game of Thrones (HBO is usually a channel whose programs are copy-flagged), MS screwed you pretty badly.
I spent a chunk of yesterday talking my girlfriend's dad through downgrading back to Windows 7 since his laptop had (helpfully) upgraded on him which killed his ability to use QuickBooks to manage his business. Fun fun.
At this exact moment, I'm trying to troubleshoot the dreaded "Remote procedure call failed" error on my barely used Windows 10 laptop which breaks all the fake apps (aka Windows store apps) that come bundled with the OS. If you want reliable apps on Windows 10, use real Windows apps not Windows store apps.
Up until about two weeks ago, I thought people were being unreasonably whinny about the changes in Windows 10.
This was before I noticed that Candy Crush Saga silently installed itself on my Windows 10 machine. Not only that but it was listed as a running application in the Task Manager. Think about it: the system is silently installing & running third party apps without your consent (!) and there's no option to control that behavior. (This is not me having hallucinations, see [1] for other reports of that behavior).
I don't know why it took that long but it seriously compromised any trust I had with the company.
Slight correction, but it doesn't take away from your overall comment: On Windows 10 installs that Candy Crush "app" is actually a silently bundled advertisement/link to manually installing the game. The point about insidiously injecting unwanted data into your computer still stands, but this is a minor difference.
Thanks for the correction! I was in panic mode when I found that app listed in the Task Manager, I really thought my computer had been compromised and I uninstalled that app right away without actually looking at it. Glad to know it's 'only' an ad and not arbitrary code.
But as you point out, it's still an obvious violation of trust...
I have two identical machines sitting in the same room. Upgraded one; other (this one) still running Win7. I used to go back and forth, getting a feel for what is different. The third time resetting the Win10 new browser home-page, new tab page and search engine back to my preferred ones, I began to doubt they had my interests at heart. Now I find myself never using the Win10 machine; its just too much grief and frustration. I don't want to waste time undoing the automatic changes they keep making.
well, since linux is far from easy for most non-tech people and not 100% working for all windows apps, I presume popularity of up-to-date hacked distros will soar.
so far i don't see a single reason to move from Win7, and I instructed my fiancee to not interact with any update dialogs on her laptop, just move them outside of screen. Well done, Microsoft, well done
Most days I'm taking calls from people who's business machines have updated to Windows 10 and something has stopped working.
What is the rationalle for forcing people to upgrade the OS on business machines that are mid-life and doing their job perfectly well as is? It's not your decision Microsoft, and you're costing these people money.
I feel like people are losing sightnof the big picture here, which at it's core, Microsoft has always been opposed to user freedom.
Windows is a closed source black box that you dont have control of. You can spruce it up all you want, but its the cold hard truth.
Foss is the future, so those ofnus freeing ourselves of the clutches of proprietary where we can will be ahead of the game when in 6 months we learn via document leaks, (because those of us paying attention) realize the NSA backdoors are so deep now good luck being a dissident and running doze.
While I agree this is a loss of trust I think this is a total logical move from Microsoft. Windows 7 first came out in 2009, and they can't afford to keep supporting an old OS in today's market. And leaving their users with an unsecured OS isn't smart for PR in the long run either.
Apple's point of view on this is "upgrade or be left in the cold", which I personally think is worse.
Microsoft is currently transitioning whole desktop division to the Iphone model. They tried to succeed in mobile for 20 years now (CE release) and failed regularly every single time, often times _destroying_ their strategic mobile partners (palm, nortel, very famously sendo, finally nokia). Ballmers last 'brilliant' plan was to kill their own Desktop business in an effort to gain mobile foothold with unified Windows Phone platform. Obviously that didnt work either, backup plan is ... there is no backup plan, they will simply transform desktops into disposable walled garden centrally managed phone systems full of junk apps pushed from the mothership and a steady revenue generated by all the spywar^^^buildin analytics.
Microsoft dreams about that 30% cut of every app sold, and they will murder desktop to get it.
What I never got an answer to is how Windows users cope with the abysmally long update times and reboot/update/reboot cycles. Just the process to check for updates takes ages on most machines, regardless of RAM or SSD. On Linux (Debian, Arch, Fedora) or FreeBSD this is just a matter of a couple minutes, applying the upgrade included. This is one of the huge advantages which, if we can show it to Windows users, they might get more envious and ready to try an Ubuntu release.
I do understand Microsoft's insistence to allow removing particular upgrades selectively, and that might be used as an argument for the inefficient update system, but if you do that, it's just as easy to leave a broken Windows, so I don't buy it.
If Microsoft could at least take some hints from Apple, where you have always just one latest version of a component, it might be step forward. As it stands, you'll have 4 MSVC runtimes, 3 .Net runtimes, and so on, all complicating matters. A little streamlining of their components with an improved update software implementation should do wonders.
That said, I'd love read more about this from someone who knows Windows deeper than me, because I cannot believe MS so ignorant of the abysmal update times.
reply