3 ms·

> Also, there seems to be a number of people here commenting very strongly in favour of Microsoft Count me (shockingly) in the pro Microsoft group here. After

by capabit 11y ago

> Also, there seems to be a number of people here commenting very strongly in favour of Microsoft Count me (shockingly) in the pro Microsoft group here. After years and years of supporting family PCs, I understand and appreciate what they're trying to do. If you make updating something the user has to do, they'll never do it. If you prompt them to update, they'll never do it. Even if they've had the why of it explained to them many, many times. In anticipation of the inevitable "well this update famously broke X": yes, the risk of an update doing something funky outweighs the risk of running software with known and possibly currently exploited vulnerabilities.

Esau 11y ago
So safety is more important than freedom? The attorney general and the FBI must really love you.
enraged_camel 11y ago
We don't force people to vaccinate their kids, even though unvaccinated kids are a risk to herd immunity. What makes you think it's OK to force users to update their computers?
- adiabatty 11y ago
  Actually, we do. We here in California have pockets of parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids — to the point where a school full of them starts to lose herd immunity. Within the past twelve months, our governor signed a law significantly tightening the requirements to get an exemption; http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_28407108/gov-jerry-brown-signs-californias-new-vaccine-bill http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_28407108/gov-jerry-brown-signs... says that only medical exemptions will get you out of vaccinating your kids here in California.
makecheck 11y ago
Even if Microsoft was just tired of having to ask the user for every little thing, there is a gulf between “ask the user if he or she wants to update” and “auto-install multi-gigabyte blob that changes everything, over a data plan that we don’t pay for, affecting users in dozens of ways that we cannot possibly know in advance” (as Microsoft has now chosen to do). Microsoft could have started really small with this, even updating a single app. There is no non-marketing reason to simultaneously change massive amounts of software. And since it is now clear that parts of Windows 10 really are half-baked (like duplicate settings panels), there are clearly some things that should have waited for a later update, once there was time to finish them. And you know, Microsoft has made billions and billions from software so frankly they do not get to screw around here. Nobody with that much money and that many engineers should get an ounce of sympathy for being so incompetent. They needed to start by doing a lot less, with a lot more care and attention.
deciplex 11y ago
The only problem with that is that Windows 10 is, from a privacy perspective, a downgrade from 7 and 8. Many people are not fond of the UI changes, either, and of course Windows Store is just utter shit, as well.

by capabit 11y ago

Esau 11y ago

So safety is more important than freedom? The attorney general and the FBI must really love you.

enraged_camel 11y ago

We don't force people to vaccinate their kids, even though unvaccinated kids are a risk to herd immunity. What makes you think it's OK to force users to update their computers?

adiabatty 11y ago
Actually, we do. We here in California have pockets of parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids — to the point where a school full of them starts to lose herd immunity. Within the past twelve months, our governor signed a law significantly tightening the requirements to get an exemption; http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_28407108/gov-jerry-brown-signs-californias-new-vaccine-bill http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_28407108/gov-jerry-brown-signs... says that only medical exemptions will get you out of vaccinating your kids here in California.

makecheck 11y ago

Even if Microsoft was just tired of having to ask the user for every little thing, there is a gulf between “ask the user if he or she wants to update” and “auto-install multi-gigabyte blob that changes everything, over a data plan that we don’t pay for, affecting users in dozens of ways that we cannot possibly know in advance” (as Microsoft has now chosen to do). Microsoft could have started really small with this, even updating a single app. There is no non-marketing reason to simultaneously change massive amounts of software. And since it is now clear that parts of Windows 10 really are half-baked (like duplicate settings panels), there are clearly some things that should have waited for a later update, once there was time to finish them. And you know, Microsoft has made billions and billions from software so frankly they do not get to screw around here. Nobody with that much money and that many engineers should get an ounce of sympathy for being so incompetent. They needed to start by doing a lot less, with a lot more care and attention.

deciplex 11y ago

The only problem with that is that Windows 10 is, from a privacy perspective, a downgrade from 7 and 8. Many people are not fond of the UI changes, either, and of course Windows Store is just utter shit, as well.