5 ms·
The thing is that a lot of things here are genuinely useful for most users, e.g.: - Blocking malicious sites. - Page prediction. - Improving typing predictio
by danieldk 11y ago
The thing is that a lot of things here are genuinely useful for most users, e.g.:
- Blocking malicious sites.
- Page prediction.
- Improving typing prediction.
- Finding open hotspots and automatic sharing of network credentials with contacts.
- Cortana.
- Search suggestions.
Multiple of these are also already done by Google and Apple, but the riots are much smaller. So, it's probably a mixture of: bad wording, spreading privacy options across too many configuration screens, and all that fuelled by some good old Microsoft hatred (I can't remember people being quite as upset about Android or iOS).
I think everyone would be better off if one of the first configuration steps would give three choices:
1. Protect my privacy completely. No data is sent at all to Microsoft.
2. Only send anonymized data to Microsoft. Data is used in a non-identifiable manner, enables some features such as blocking malicious websites and search suggestions.
3. Send useful data about me to Microsoft. Sends non-anonymous data to Microsoft to tailor Cortana and Windows to your needs. Data is not used for advertising purposes or given to third parties.
Simple to understand and everyone can make pick their own trade-off.
- frik 11y agoYou are right. Another annoyance: - non-optional forced auto updates (except on Enterprise "long term servicing branch" edition) Give the user the choice. Compare it to iOS, Android, OSX, Linux everywhere the user has the choice to stop the auto-update, often for important reasons no one thought before.
- billyhoffman 11y agoWe used to say the same thing about application software. However Chrome's auto-update feature has been a tremendous benefit. I would argue this is a reasonable direction for consumer OSes to go
- nickspacek 11y agoChrome's auto-update is barely noticeable and quite polite, in that it doesn't nag you to restart (or forcibly shut down your current work). Doesn't stop you from shutting it down and barely slows down the next time it starts.
- frik 11y agoA browser is one thing, it's just an application. The OS is the lowest layer, if you can't control it, you can't trust it. And there is always the option to stop the update in Chrome. If you don't run the OS behind a hardware firewall that can scramble SSL, Win10 will send a lot of data unfiltered and non-optional to its vendor - unacceptable for an operating system (the lowest layer).
- sliverstorm 11y agoif you can't control it, you can't trust it Exactly, which is why Microsoft and enterprise IT like to control the updates. If they can't control the updates, they can't trust the computer! Unpatched, dated, or even EoL OS versions has been a big problem for a long time, and it's arguably even more serious of an issue than dated versions of Chrome. You want that control for yourself, and I can relate to that, but 99% of users cannot be trusted with that control which is why this happened.
- frik 11y agoExactly, which is why Microsoft and enterprise IT like to control the updates Neither enterprise IT nor consumers can control it, do you get it? Only with the very expensive "Enterprise Long Term Servicing Branch" License, which only a small group of large corporations will be able to license. No other operating system exists that behave in such a way. It's a "Windows as a Service", but many still want a traditional onprimise Windows, the same goes for all other Microsoft software incl. Office and Sharepoint.
- yuhong 11y agoNot true, any company who buys Win10 Enterprise with Software Assurance using volume licensing (minimum order is only 5 units) can get access.