So, we had to wait for it to install the OS, then decline the terms of service, then wait for it to roll-back to the previous OS. I'm using Windows 10 and enjoy it, but I'm still tempted to migrate to another OS just because of these practices.
There is no doubt there are cogent arguments against it. But when I think of the operating systems a lot of botnet computers are running on, I have a hard time not supporting automatic OS upgrades for non-power users.
I think Microsoft went "too far" but I also agree that we don't want another "XP situation" with Windows 7. Effectively having 20%+ of the market on a super old OS holding back the industry and less secure.
Microsoft claim they're planning to avoid this in the future by no longer releasing named new OS's, and instead just update Windows 10 for "free" forever. Basically the same as Apple's current model with MacOS.
I guess how you fall on this topic is answered by the question: "Do the ends justify the means?"
10 is different enough from 7 that they're going to have to learn a lot of new habits - and while that's just the nature of modern life, some people are going to suffer significantly more than others.
I believe there must be a better way of getting the less-literate people to consensually upgrade to Windows 10, without forcing it on them.
It's free if you only consider the cost of licensing the software to the end user.
It's not free if you consider that there is a value to the user's time spent dealing with the upgrade, dealing with consequences like drivers or programs that no longer work ( and in the case of OP), rolling back to the previous OS.
For me, "free" or not, this is the biggest cost: the daunting prospect of investing an unknowable number of hours of my time.
Edit: I see in other posts accusations of paranoia. But how can I not be paranoid when I cannot determine what is being transmitted.
There is no such thing.
I went to his place yesterday and as part of the usual tech support, he said he couldn't open his email and was confused why. Turns out, his machine had upgraded to Windows 10. What was horrible was that Windows decided to be in tablet-only mode (completely unfamiliar to me since I left Windows after Win7.. the Metro UI sucks when forced on non-tablet users). His printer/scanner all went kaput. It really made the entire day crummy. I say shame on you Microsoft. I've got my father an iPad but it isn't a PC replacement. He refuses MacOs because of the stupid touchpad. It is sad.
I switched my grandfather over to it this year and he loves it. No more notifications / nags for updates, adware, and such. All extraneous pain points from windows are stripped away.
Just works.
Huh? You can hook a mouse up to any Mac. Also, in what way are Mac touchpads different from Windows touchpads?
With Windows 10 latest version I was unable to disable a particular update which fails every time. So Windows will reboot regularly, including waking from sleep to do so, and fail to install, leading to 30 seconds plus reboot time at best to get it to wake up. For a tablet.
Since bought a new laptop and installed Linux on it as my main operating system for the first time (dual booting) and am pretty happy so far. Updates no longer reboot the computer for the most part. Missing a few features (especially hibernate), but most things work as well or better than Windows so far.
Somebody at Microsoft seriously needs to be fired for that "feature".
Why? Why would you NOT want to upgrade? I get that restarting in the middle of a skype call is shitty and ridiculous, but it has been a year now.
My non-tech relatives all agree that windows 2000, vista, and 7 are all the same. Why make them move to something else the same? Security - what is that, when this was working fine before? ME was a disaster we would all like to forget - where do you expect their confidence to come from, in win10, when the past hasn't inspired any?
Edit:
>Why would you not want to upgrade?
Because they have been burned before.
It seems like splitting hairs, but terminology matters. It sounds harmless when you say "Microsoft reserves the right to update your machine" but things are clearer when you say "Microsoft reserves the right to change your machine, on their own schedule", which is effectively the right they've conferred on themselves.
Windows 10 (and patches) aren't upgrades, they're changes. They might be better for you, or they might be worse. Nobody should be bullied into changing their machines at a vendor's whims.
One of them was "corrupgrade", which was defined as something billed as an upgrade but was actually worse than the old version. It's still the only one of those terms I remember, just because it's so useful.
There's no doubt Microsoft screwed this up for a number of reasons, including valid and important reasons some people need to stay on Windows 7. And had they not gotten into the whole telemetry mess, 90% of the people who didn't want the upgrade would've gone away.
But I understood the mindset.
The problem here is that in Microsoft's push to get Windows 10 onto as many machines as it can, they seem to have greatly underestimated the number of computers whose age or hardware renders them partially or completely borked by updating to Windows 10. And they seem generally unrepentant to the fact that they've strong-armed people into downloading an update that destroys their computer.
My company's IT has accidentally done things like this before and even when it's on a corporate machine a popup coming up and saying "gonna restart in 5 to do updates" SUCKS while you're working.
Going from "free" to "paid" will guarantee no voluntary upgrades, period. Perhaps if W10 comes bundles with new hardware (just like all Windows versions before it), then - yes, W10 will seep through, but no way in hell anyone will ever explicitly pay Microsoft to upgrade to W10. So they will have absolutely nothing to lose by extending the free offer, so it's exactly what they will do.
Didn't XP teach us all a lesson about locked in/legacy software and it's danger to the security and stability of modern computing? Why is it okay that my iOS and Android devices essentially require an update several times a year but not my PC OS?
In my case, two points come to mind, for me. First: My phone isn't as important as my PC. It's just a convenience. If the update ruins something, I can always re-flash to a clean image, and the phone'll automatically re-sync most of my stuff. Or I can grab the spare from the drawer. Or buy a cheap-o replacement for $50 or so. Second: My PC's set up to support almost 30 years worth of software and a couple different OSes, with some weird hardware configurations. It's a much more complex system. Several things will break during a major upgrade.
> Didn't XP teach us all a lesson about locked in/legacy software and it's danger to the security and stability of modern computing?
Sure. Stick it behind a firewall and don't go questionable places online. Reboot to Linux if you really feel like you need to ;-) My Windows XP machines work just fine, thank you very much!
You're the minority. I don't know a single person outside of tech, or maybe the "office" world that would consider their PC more important than their phone.
"Stick it behind a firewall and don't go questionable places online."
This is a joke right? My Mom's XP is used for browsing mainstream news sites, weather etc. and her PC was thoroughly polluted despite having an active AV/firewall etc. Infections aren't only a problem for those that use BT.
I would agree with anyone claiming that this is a shitty argument: Users to some extend brought this upon themselves, because given the option people would stay on Windows XP or older.
All the people that are still on Windows XP, their user experience has just gotten better, no longer is Windows nagging them about updates and security fixes.
Microsoft is trying to transition people to rolling upgrades, because users suck at letting go of their old unsafe legacy software. They transitioning in a shitty manor, but I'm not sure they have much choice, other than turn their back to Windows 7 and 8 users.
I have co-workers that when they where upgraded to a later version of Windows on our terminal server wanted to know: Can't we just stay on Windows XP. This is people who try to sell consumers what ever happens to be the fashion this month. People that would like nothing better than customers that swap out everything in their home every six month. Everything except the operating system on the computer apparently.
Yes, Microsoft has made a shitty move, but on the other end of that spectrum is end users that would have you run Windows XP service pack 27.
"Can't we just stay on Windows XP"
This is awesome because it highlights my point. Users, if given the choice will defer, defer, defer until it's too late. MS should be applauded for "saving users" from themselves.
Except, uh, they don't?
My tablet (ASUS P01MA/Z580CA) still runs Lollipop and works fine. My phone (Nexus 5X) pops up with an update every month, but there is no coercion to install it, and it doesn't install it without my approval.
So if I'm happy with current configuration, why change it?
Who said it was?
So you're right, no one has a gun to your head but there is no "never" option and you're constantly nagged. Not to mention you're left out of the modern app ecosystem, which these devices are heavily dependent on for their function.
The lawsuits take a lot of work, they only get paid if they win, and they don't always win.
I'm sure there are class action lawyers who are in it for the money, but most lawyers who are in it for the money would go into corporate law, not class action.
"Regulatory capture" is also an example of this idea but I think there's a larger pattern.
But I think there is a bit of a difference here. Apple users opted in. They knew how Apple operates before they bought Apple products. The same cannot be said for long time Microsoft customers.
Here's a list of regressions in iOS 9: - My sideloaded copy of Flux no longer works - The built-in feature, to change the display temperature, is not available on my iPad 2, and the Flux app no longer works. - Can no longer change audio output in Music app, to select between different bluetooth devices - Battery life is worse - BitTorrent Sync can no longer access my photos or videos - For each bug they fixed, new bugs were introduced. In OneNote with text selection, and in Safari.
Why does nobody talk about all of the regressions in each OS update?
And of course, I had to update iTunes. And then of course I could no longer use it for development without updating my MacBook and XCode!
I use my iPad to develop medical software with an enterprise license on a closed environment, and do not need or /want/ the latest version of XCode.
I only used this device because it was provided by work, but I did start to grow fond of it and began using it more and more as a laptop replacement. I knew better than to buy an iOS device, since I've been burned by Apple so many times. I'd be happy to give you a long list of the ways Apple has been just as bad as Microsoft, except, Apple has a nice velvet glove when they are evil, whereas Microsoft is clay footed giant.
I prefer minimalist detailed list interfaces that maximise the use of space.
This push towards giant tiles and block colours with massive images is frustrating. It's almost like diluting information is the goal here.
For now I'm keeping Windows 7 with manual updates - while loathing the fact that I have to use Windows at all - and I suspect there are a lot of people like me.
However, I like the tablet oriented interface, as I have a convertible laptop, and it makes for a truly fantastic comic reader.
Seriously, it's that simple. I check once a week, tops.
I really hope you are.
If we're going for accuracy, it should probably be called spyware.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/229040-microsofts-latest-...
Sadly, a small amount of users don't understand why they can't keep using the same $200 Dell from 1999 forever - just like many users can't understand why Microsoft can't and shouldn't support obsolete operating systems forever.
A huge chunk of users have no need for a new computer, or a new operating system for that matter. They want to have a web browser, e-mail and open documents. For some, that's meant switching over to using a tablet. But for others, they just want to keep using the machine they've got.
And it's not even really a Windows vs Linux thing. If Microsoft would continue to provide security updates for their old OSes or make a paired down version of their new OSes to work on a minimalist or older machine then I would have upgraded them to that instead.
Windows 10 was automatically installed. Well, partially. You can probably guess what happened; if this had happened to anyone else in the family, their computer would have been effectively bricked.
I used to spend most of my time in Linux anyway, but now I'm justifiably scared of booting Windows.
So what I suspect actually occurred is that your hypervisor was set up to misreport how much space as available to Windows, so Windows 10 tried to install on the space it thought it had, only to hit the wall on the "real" filesystem below.
It is unlikely this ever would have occurred to anyone else in your family, unless they're running Windows in a hypervisor that misreports space.
The 3GB number is how much space was free after I excised the broken shards of the Windows 10 installer. So, sure, the space probably got taken up after the installer checked if there was enough, but it's not like I ever told it to start running.
Because I don't want to sit around for 10 minutes waiting for updates to install before I can pack up my laptop.
Because I don't want to arrive somewhere ready to work/play only to have an additional 10 minutes and 2 restarts tacked on to my boot time.
Because I don't want to have random lag spikes nor frame drops in games as my system decides that now is the perfect time to download an update.
Disabling automatic updates isn't stupid if you're willing to manage them in a sane manner.
Apparently Windows 10 randomly resets the update settings though so it's very hard to avoid surprises. This is just user hostile behavior in my book.
I downgraded my 3G. Google "whited00r'
You can't tell the difference between upgrading a single app and and an entire OS ?
rem Compatibility update for upgrading Windows 7
wusa /uninstall /kb:2952664 /quiet /norestart
rem Update that enables you to upgrade from Windows 7 to a later version of Windows
wusa /uninstall /kb:2990214 /quiet /norestart
rem Update to Windows 7 SP1 for performance improvements
wusa /uninstall /kb:3021917 /quiet /norestart
rem Update for customer experience and diagnostic telemetry
wusa /uninstall /kb:3022345 /quiet /norestart
rem Update installs Get Windows 10 app in Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 SP1
wusa /uninstall /kb:3035583 /quiet /norestart
rem Update that enables you to upgrade from Windows 8.1 to a later version of Windows
wusa /uninstall /kb:3044374 /quiet /norestart
rem Update for customer experience and diagnostic telemetry
wusa /uninstall /kb:3068708 /quiet /norestart
rem Update that adds telemetry points to consent.exe in Windows 8.1 and Windows 7
wusa /uninstall /kb:3075249 /quiet /norestart
rem Update for customer experience and diagnostic telemetry
wusa /uninstall /kb:3080149 /quiet /norestart
rem Updated capabilities to upgrade Windows 8.1 and Windows 7
wusa /uninstall /kb:3123862 /quiet /norestart
rem Updated Internet Explorer 11 capabilities to upgrade Windows 8.1 and Windows 7
wusa /uninstall /kb:3146449 /quiet /norestartHas anyone seen any interview where Nadella is pressed with questions on why they think it's OK to treat customer this way? All the interviews I have seen of Microsoft executives have been by docile journalists who prefer to keep their good relationship with the company than ask tough questions.
If let's say, the installer takes 10GB it shouldn't start downloading anything unless there's at least 20GB
This is when I discover the machine that I purchased only about 2 years ago now was actually 32-bit. Didn't even know they were still making them at that time.
IIRC it bailed out in the first phase before downloading everything, but, still, couldn't the little popup check something as basic as bittedness?
Also IIRC it didn't stop bothering us until I went and did some registry hack or something to make it shut up, as it was just taunting us at that point. But I'm less confident about this aspect of my memory.
1) Wired WAN connections are, in fact, quite often quota-limited (perhaps with a generous cap, but still limited).
2) A Wired LAN connection may backed by a wireless WAN connection.
I think the problem is that they are phasing out software to replace it with something that few people are asking for. I like Windows 10. I also liked Windows 8.1, 7, Vista, XP, and 2000. I've been using them to do basically the exact same thing for the past 15 years -- run software and manage files. I think any one of them could have been the operating system that Microsoft declares "this is the last one!".
Good job, Microsoft. Everyone who works on the Windows team should be proud. You've built something that you literally can't give away for free without force-feeding it to users, and that can be defended only by downmodding those who object.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11989084 and marked it off-topic.
You'll note I didn't accuse anyone specific of shilling.
I have a non-techie friend who works in a veterinary clinic who recently texted me that the computers in her office had gone down after being forcibly upgraded to Windows 10. No computers meant having a hell of a time looking up records for the dogs and what medicine they were supposed to get.
Not only is this forced upgrade business unethical, it's potentially dangerous. Some Windows systems haven't been upgraded because they're too important to tinker with.
Disables virtually all possibilities of auto-upgrades.
IMO it invalidates all the awesome OSS work and public outreach Microsoft has been doing. If you gut punch me with your left hand I don't care if you're holding out flowers with your right.
So I'm going to conjecture a non-commercial motive: maybe the US government has asked Microsoft to do this to assist with surveillance. No proof, of course, but it's the only scenario I can think of in which this would make sense. The truth will probably come out someday; I'll be interested in seeing whether I was right.
A spokesperson for the company told the Seattle Times that it denied any wrongdoing and had dropped the appeal to avoid the additional expense of further litigation.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft
I'm ok with security updates being on by default (and truly important ones being more forceful), but the harder you push the more freedom you take away. Do you want to live in a world where someone takes your choice away because they think they know better?
It also makes me sad.
Microsoft was in the best possible position before Windows10
They could have been the peoples OS. They could have said, 'we listened and this is Win10' Win10 is almost great, forced updates, sketchy snooping and forced accounts sort of ruined it.
Have to give them credit tho, the telemetry that cannot be disabled does not bypass the software firewall in case you're blocking the ports, at least not from what I have learned in the span of two days.
I haven't personally used Windows in years, but I remember a completely unproductive day at work when we installed a Visual Studio upgrade that look approximately 24 hours to install (might have been 18, or maybe 36 -- I forget) with no option to cancel. At least that was a bug that Microsoft later admitted to and fixed.
This may sound harsh, but I think it would be for the most benefit for most people.
This is shameful Microsoft.
Just wait until the class action hits.
I currently run Mac with Windows 10 in Parallels VM.
The article doesn't go into what she does for a living, so I'll leave the compensation part alone.
But why did she need to buy a new computer? Did Windows 10 flash her BIOS? Or is it just the standard "oh my computer is slow, better just buy a new one"?
<vomit>