4 ms·

Maybe the way to block it is still: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080351 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080351 Subkey: HKLM\SOFTWARE\Po

by acqq 11y ago

Maybe the way to block it is still: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080351 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080351 Subkey: HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\WindowsUpdate DWORD value: DisableOSUpgrade = 1 The MSFT decision to perform forced updates is covered, for example, by Extreme Tech, February 2: "Look out: Microsoft shifts Windows 10 to ‘Recommended’ update, automatic download" http://www.extremetech.com/computing/222326-look-out-microsoft-shifts-windows-10-to-recommended-update-automatic-download http://www.extremetech.com/computing/222326-look-out-microso... I still believe they shouldn't have done that and I hope they get sued, heavily. Even if nobody dies, it's not OK. People had fully working computer and some of them wont. I have one such computer, which works on Windows 7 but doesn't on Windows 10.

justinclift 11y ago
I'm really hoping this crap badly affects the computers of some large justice/gov systems around the world (and/or the home computers of senior judges). That should get the right people involved for sticking the boots in.
- saidajigumi 11y ago
  If the IT staff for any large organization hasn't reviewed their inventory for affected systems and taken appropriate steps... that's outright incompetence. The writing has been on the wall for years and MS clearly documents unaffected systems (which includes Windows 7 Enterprise) and the required Group Policy to block the update[1]. [1] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080351 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080351
  - justinclift 11y ago
    Senior judges often don't operate that way. ;)
  - acqq 11y ago
    It's the same link I've already given above? And fascinatingly for you, "the writing was on the wall," and for some other commenters, it's unimaginable that it even happens. The perceptions of individuals are really hugely different.
    - tekklloneer 11y ago
      The difference in context is important. If you're working in IT, the writing was on the wall.
      - saidajigumi 11y ago
        This is exactly what I was getting at. For individuals and small organizations that often have no dedicated IT staff at all, they're the ones who'll get hit by Microsoft's forced-upgrade policy. But for any large organization with deployed Windows systems, that absolutely requires a managed Windows environment for an ocean of reasons. That means a competent Windows IT staff that handles all those things, including: security configuration and updates, controlled testing and release of updates, data retention and deletion policies, and on and on. For such shops, handling a change like this from Microsoft is already day-in-the-life. They already have to vet updates that may (and do) break business-critical software, while also ensuring that critical security updates are pushed out in a timely manner, etc.
      - chris_wot 11y ago
        There are literally millions of businesses with no IT department who bought consumer workstations or laptops running outside of a domain. There are millions of small businesses who literally don't have the expertise (or frankly, the need) to run a domain controller, and who certainly don't have enough money to justify purchasing a server and a Windows server license to do so. I'm genuinely curious as to whether I'll be down voted for this. It's completely the case, and I'm not asking not to be downvote do, but could folks at least explain why they don't like the comment?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - xjay 11y ago
    Not sure why someone would downvote this. Incompetence is pretty much a constant in IT in varying degrees, but I'd expect IT professionals to know about kb3080351. It's certainly not "news" given the media attention this subject has had ever since the "explosion" in June/July, when Microsoft chose to ignore that opt out setting, and even re-enabling telemetry prior to the upgrade. Edit: I can take a downvote defending a factually correct point, which was originally posted by saidajigumi (who was downvoted, which is why I posted my somewhat cheeky (in retrospect) response, and why I upvoted his post). I don't think most people disagree about it being unfortunate for normal users to be upgraded, but that wasn't what our comments were about.
- yardie 11y ago
  If the sys admin is doing there jobs correctly than system updates should be coming from a Windows update server using group policy rather than directly over the Internet. Nothing kills productivity like 1000 PCs trying to download the same files simultaneously.
  - acqq 11y ago
    What about a lot of computers which aren't in the possession of huge enterprises?
    - yardie 11y ago
      "the computers of some large justice/gov systems around the world"
      - acqq 11y ago
        For example, the computers important guys use at home, and somebody still dies because the computer isn't available when it should have been? I know, EULA. That EULA is a "wild card" is the main problem now.
        shiven 11y ago
        the computers important guys use at home Hillary's email-gate? So, no, important guys should not be using home computers that control/decide life or death situations.
        acqq 11y ago
        > Hillary's email-gate? I'm failing to see how the topic you mention helps to understand better the issue discussed here, that people can and should be able to depend on their own personal computers even for some life-influencing situations, and that it's bad (in my opinion) having EULAs which absolve in this case MSFT from absolutely everything. You really believe the proper use of personal computers is just for playing games? OK then, I don't, but no need for further discussion.
- kbart 11y ago
  "I'm really hoping this crap badly affects the computers of some large justice/gov systems around the world" Enterprise editions are not eligible for free upgrade to W10, so it's not likely. Also, there are additional safeguards, for example, you must get upgrades directly from MS, not WSUS (as per standard business practice). I'm sure MS thought that well and chose targets that are not likely to defend themselves in courts (home users and small business).
  - justinclift 11y ago
    It's unfortunate, but that's probably correct. :( Kind of wondering if this action by MS would count as abusive behaviour by a monopolist.
kozukumi 11y ago
Reading that KB article and Microsoft are being total dicks with such complicated instructions when they could have offered a download to a tiny program which simply allows the user to opt-out of all upgrade prompts for N months.

by acqq 11y ago

justinclift 11y ago

I'm really hoping this crap badly affects the computers of some large justice/gov systems around the world (and/or the home computers of senior judges). That should get the right people involved for sticking the boots in.

saidajigumi 11y ago
If the IT staff for any large organization hasn't reviewed their inventory for affected systems and taken appropriate steps... that's outright incompetence. The writing has been on the wall for years and MS clearly documents unaffected systems (which includes Windows 7 Enterprise) and the required Group Policy to block the update[1]. [1] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080351 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080351
- justinclift 11y ago
  Senior judges often don't operate that way. ;)
- acqq 11y ago
  It's the same link I've already given above? And fascinatingly for you, "the writing was on the wall," and for some other commenters, it's unimaginable that it even happens. The perceptions of individuals are really hugely different.
  - tekklloneer 11y ago
    The difference in context is important. If you're working in IT, the writing was on the wall.
    - saidajigumi 11y ago
      This is exactly what I was getting at. For individuals and small organizations that often have no dedicated IT staff at all, they're the ones who'll get hit by Microsoft's forced-upgrade policy. But for any large organization with deployed Windows systems, that absolutely requires a managed Windows environment for an ocean of reasons. That means a competent Windows IT staff that handles all those things, including: security configuration and updates, controlled testing and release of updates, data retention and deletion policies, and on and on. For such shops, handling a change like this from Microsoft is already day-in-the-life. They already have to vet updates that may (and do) break business-critical software, while also ensuring that critical security updates are pushed out in a timely manner, etc.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      There are literally millions of businesses with no IT department who bought consumer workstations or laptops running outside of a domain. There are millions of small businesses who literally don't have the expertise (or frankly, the need) to run a domain controller, and who certainly don't have enough money to justify purchasing a server and a Windows server license to do so. I'm genuinely curious as to whether I'll be down voted for this. It's completely the case, and I'm not asking not to be downvote do, but could folks at least explain why they don't like the comment?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- xjay 11y ago
  Not sure why someone would downvote this. Incompetence is pretty much a constant in IT in varying degrees, but I'd expect IT professionals to know about kb3080351. It's certainly not "news" given the media attention this subject has had ever since the "explosion" in June/July, when Microsoft chose to ignore that opt out setting, and even re-enabling telemetry prior to the upgrade. Edit: I can take a downvote defending a factually correct point, which was originally posted by saidajigumi (who was downvoted, which is why I posted my somewhat cheeky (in retrospect) response, and why I upvoted his post). I don't think most people disagree about it being unfortunate for normal users to be upgraded, but that wasn't what our comments were about.
yardie 11y ago
If the sys admin is doing there jobs correctly than system updates should be coming from a Windows update server using group policy rather than directly over the Internet. Nothing kills productivity like 1000 PCs trying to download the same files simultaneously.
- acqq 11y ago
  What about a lot of computers which aren't in the possession of huge enterprises?
  - yardie 11y ago
    "the computers of some large justice/gov systems around the world"
    - acqq 11y ago
      For example, the computers important guys use at home, and somebody still dies because the computer isn't available when it should have been? I know, EULA. That EULA is a "wild card" is the main problem now.
      - shiven 11y ago
        the computers important guys use at home Hillary's email-gate? So, no, important guys should not be using home computers that control/decide life or death situations.
        acqq 11y ago
        > Hillary's email-gate? I'm failing to see how the topic you mention helps to understand better the issue discussed here, that people can and should be able to depend on their own personal computers even for some life-influencing situations, and that it's bad (in my opinion) having EULAs which absolve in this case MSFT from absolutely everything. You really believe the proper use of personal computers is just for playing games? OK then, I don't, but no need for further discussion.
kbart 11y ago
"I'm really hoping this crap badly affects the computers of some large justice/gov systems around the world" Enterprise editions are not eligible for free upgrade to W10, so it's not likely. Also, there are additional safeguards, for example, you must get upgrades directly from MS, not WSUS (as per standard business practice). I'm sure MS thought that well and chose targets that are not likely to defend themselves in courts (home users and small business).
- justinclift 11y ago
  It's unfortunate, but that's probably correct. :( Kind of wondering if this action by MS would count as abusive behaviour by a monopolist.

kozukumi 11y ago

Reading that KB article and Microsoft are being total dicks with such complicated instructions when they could have offered a download to a tiny program which simply allows the user to opt-out of all upgrade prompts for N months.