6 ms·

> I appreciate that the default is to keep users' systems up-to-date. By catering to both the masses and the experts, MS is caught between a rock and a hard pl

> I appreciate that the default is to keep users' systems up-to-date. By catering to both the masses and the experts, MS is caught between a rock and a hard place. Forced, automatic updates are extremely irritating. But, without them, the vast majority of Windows users would never update anything. Never. Windows would have a much worse reputation for security because tens of millions of users would be getting regularly owned by hacks that were patched 8 years ago.

mark-r 11y ago
Something in between is possible. If you were to get annoying popups that you had to dismiss daily until you updated your system, most people would just click OK and deal with it. Unless they were in a hurry, as suggested by the parent.
- acdha 11y ago
  That's what they tried for the previous decade. The only thing which happened was training users to either click cancel without reading or figure out how to disable updates.
  - mark-r 11y ago
    Well with this announcement, they just trained me to disable updates - so I guess that's backfiring on them.
makecheck 11y ago
The thing is, Microsoft's updates shouldn't be these all-encompassing, UI-destroying messes. They should be sensible, useful, smaller updates. If there is any component that stands in the way of small, easy updates, a better-designed component should be created and made available as a free, opt-in update (e.g. state that the older version is unsupported and that all major updates will only occur in the new-better-designed-incrementally-updated design).
- epmatsw 11y ago
  Has Microsoft ever changed a UI in an automatic Windows update? I mean, they did in 8, 8.1, and 10, but those required an opt-in as far as I know...
- scholia 11y ago
  Indeed, Windows 10 is "Windows as a Service", which does exactly that: it provides continuous mostly-small updates, so there's never another "big bang" update. Also, these free updates mean never having to pay for a big one. Obviously people are bitching like mad about this. Some of the most vocal seem to resent every change in Windows since XP SP2. People are also bitching about telemetry, even though both the success of new upgrades depends on it, and even though all this anonymous data is actually driving Windows 10's development (in the same way that it drives Gmail, Facebook etc). I guess it's a fact of life that if you have 1.5 billion users, then the odd hundred million or so will find something to bitch about, whatever Microsoft does....
  - Jedd 11y ago
    > Indeed, Windows 10 is "Windows as a Service" Not quite sure precisely what you're trying to describe with the 'as a Service' thing here. Purchasing options include (though are not limited) methods comparable to previous Win versions, and it runs on hardware I own and am sitting in front of. The aaS appellation is often needlessly overloaded, I find. > which does exactly that: it provides continuous mostly-small > updates, so there's never another "big bang" update. Also, > these free updates mean never having to pay for a big one. Okay, so make a small adjustment to the parent(s), and think of their complaint/observation more like 'If you're going to transition users to a new golden era where every time you turn your computer on you have fast boot times (and a ten minute wait for updates to process), then don't make the transition such a brutally painfully experience - it reduces our trust in them as a vendor that they can actually deliver on promises of constant update golden eras'. Or something like that. > Some of the most vocal seem to resent every change in > Windows since XP SP2. For many (perhaps most?) Microsoft platform users, all of what they require of their computer could still be done just fine with Windows XP SP2. As an aside, it's lovely that you mention specifically SP2 - so obviously a part of a previous 'continuous mostly small update' process that you imply we won't have until we embrace Windows 10. Anyway, all the intervening updates have for many people been a combination of frustration, time, and money misspent, with little practical gain. > People are also bitching about telemetry, even though > both the success of new upgrades depends on it, and > even though all this anonymous data is actually driving > Windows 10's development (in the same way that it drives > Gmail, Facebook etc). I am not one such bitchee, but I can understand the concerns. And if an operating system's success depends on knowing where I am, it's doing something wrong (all my other operating systems, current, and historic, have been successfully used by me without access to these data). And, really, it should not be funding / driving development the same way some service providers acquire personal data and then market it on your behalf.

mark-r 11y ago

Something in between is possible. If you were to get annoying popups that you had to dismiss daily until you updated your system, most people would just click OK and deal with it. Unless they were in a hurry, as suggested by the parent.

acdha 11y ago
That's what they tried for the previous decade. The only thing which happened was training users to either click cancel without reading or figure out how to disable updates.
- mark-r 11y ago
  Well with this announcement, they just trained me to disable updates - so I guess that's backfiring on them.

makecheck 11y ago

The thing is, Microsoft's updates shouldn't be these all-encompassing, UI-destroying messes. They should be sensible, useful, smaller updates. If there is any component that stands in the way of small, easy updates, a better-designed component should be created and made available as a free, opt-in update (e.g. state that the older version is unsupported and that all major updates will only occur in the new-better-designed-incrementally-updated design).

epmatsw 11y ago
Has Microsoft ever changed a UI in an automatic Windows update? I mean, they did in 8, 8.1, and 10, but those required an opt-in as far as I know...
scholia 11y ago
Indeed, Windows 10 is "Windows as a Service", which does exactly that: it provides continuous mostly-small updates, so there's never another "big bang" update. Also, these free updates mean never having to pay for a big one. Obviously people are bitching like mad about this. Some of the most vocal seem to resent every change in Windows since XP SP2. People are also bitching about telemetry, even though both the success of new upgrades depends on it, and even though all this anonymous data is actually driving Windows 10's development (in the same way that it drives Gmail, Facebook etc). I guess it's a fact of life that if you have 1.5 billion users, then the odd hundred million or so will find something to bitch about, whatever Microsoft does....
- Jedd 11y ago
  > Indeed, Windows 10 is "Windows as a Service" Not quite sure precisely what you're trying to describe with the 'as a Service' thing here. Purchasing options include (though are not limited) methods comparable to previous Win versions, and it runs on hardware I own and am sitting in front of. The aaS appellation is often needlessly overloaded, I find. > which does exactly that: it provides continuous mostly-small > updates, so there's never another "big bang" update. Also, > these free updates mean never having to pay for a big one. Okay, so make a small adjustment to the parent(s), and think of their complaint/observation more like 'If you're going to transition users to a new golden era where every time you turn your computer on you have fast boot times (and a ten minute wait for updates to process), then don't make the transition such a brutally painfully experience - it reduces our trust in them as a vendor that they can actually deliver on promises of constant update golden eras'. Or something like that. > Some of the most vocal seem to resent every change in > Windows since XP SP2. For many (perhaps most?) Microsoft platform users, all of what they require of their computer could still be done just fine with Windows XP SP2. As an aside, it's lovely that you mention specifically SP2 - so obviously a part of a previous 'continuous mostly small update' process that you imply we won't have until we embrace Windows 10. Anyway, all the intervening updates have for many people been a combination of frustration, time, and money misspent, with little practical gain. > People are also bitching about telemetry, even though > both the success of new upgrades depends on it, and > even though all this anonymous data is actually driving > Windows 10's development (in the same way that it drives > Gmail, Facebook etc). I am not one such bitchee, but I can understand the concerns. And if an operating system's success depends on knowing where I am, it's doing something wrong (all my other operating systems, current, and historic, have been successfully used by me without access to these data). And, really, it should not be funding / driving development the same way some service providers acquire personal data and then market it on your behalf.