3 ms·

Okay Microsoft gets a ton of hate for the, but the standard for today is software that automatically updates and often even one cannot control update at all sin

by tgb 10y ago

Okay Microsoft gets a ton of hate for the, but the standard for today is software that automatically updates and often even one cannot control update at all since the software resides in the cloud. Maybe this is the most egregious case so far, maybe it isn't, but it's clear that we'll be seeing a lot more of this in the future, not just from Microsoft.

Piskvorrr 10y ago
Does that upgrade in the cloud result in nonfunctional computers? QED.
- Sacho 10y ago
  That's semantics. If my work depends on software that broke after an automatic upgrade, then the computer is "nonfunctional" to me. Alternatively, your computer isn't nonfunctional because Microsoft force-installed Windows 10 on it - you can still remove Windows and install something else. I think it was foolhardy of Microsoft to "force" the update(or more aptly, trick people into updating) because it would be practically impossible to verify that the upgrade would go smoothly on all machines. However, I don't see their action as notably different from any other essential software I install on my computer.
  - Piskvorrr 10y ago
    What is notably different is the automated nature of the install: I want to install essential upgrades during scheduled downtime, not meddle with reverts during a working-day rush hour when the computer is supposed to be doing something useful (i.e. people depend on the workstation to be up so they can do their jobs, and other people depend on that, etc.) This is the huge f-ckup.
- tgb 10y ago
  Okay, clearly I made an unpopular comment. But I'll keep playing devil's advocate here. Yes, automatically updating software has long caused computers to become nonfunctional on occasion. This is not a first time, and in fact I haven't seen anyone complain about Windows 10 making their computer nonfunctional I've just seen complaints about it making it different. I'm sure someone has had problems with the Windows 10 update and that you can find an example. But I can also find examples of people with Service Pack updates (or even smaller ones) causing problems, for example. If you were really only interested in the cloud software case (which I assume you singled out because you new the general case to obviously go against your argument), then yes, I still claim this happens in a very important sense. When gmail updated its interface, my mom stopped receiving some emails. Of course, they were hidden in different categories and she really was receiving them, but if she silently misses important emails... in what sense is the computer not nonfunctional? That's like 50% of what she does with it. Or in a more general sense, my parents' previous computer was slowly bogged down by a million iTunes updates that made it more and more of a system hog that made most of the rest of the computer unbearably slow. My argument is that this is a matter of degree. Degree is significant, but people are acting as if this forced update is in a class of its own instead of being just the latest in a long (and growing) line of automatic updates that the consumer has less and less control over. Fight back against it if you wish, but don't pretend most software these days isn't doing (or wishing it could be doing) approximately this already. None of this excuses the fact that they make it appear opt-out in manners that trick the consumer in to "opting in". That's just plain deception.

by tgb 10y ago

Piskvorrr 10y ago

Does that upgrade in the cloud result in nonfunctional computers? QED.

Sacho 10y ago
That's semantics. If my work depends on software that broke after an automatic upgrade, then the computer is "nonfunctional" to me. Alternatively, your computer isn't nonfunctional because Microsoft force-installed Windows 10 on it - you can still remove Windows and install something else. I think it was foolhardy of Microsoft to "force" the update(or more aptly, trick people into updating) because it would be practically impossible to verify that the upgrade would go smoothly on all machines. However, I don't see their action as notably different from any other essential software I install on my computer.
- Piskvorrr 10y ago
  What is notably different is the automated nature of the install: I want to install essential upgrades during scheduled downtime, not meddle with reverts during a working-day rush hour when the computer is supposed to be doing something useful (i.e. people depend on the workstation to be up so they can do their jobs, and other people depend on that, etc.) This is the huge f-ckup.
tgb 10y ago
Okay, clearly I made an unpopular comment. But I'll keep playing devil's advocate here. Yes, automatically updating software has long caused computers to become nonfunctional on occasion. This is not a first time, and in fact I haven't seen anyone complain about Windows 10 making their computer nonfunctional I've just seen complaints about it making it different. I'm sure someone has had problems with the Windows 10 update and that you can find an example. But I can also find examples of people with Service Pack updates (or even smaller ones) causing problems, for example. If you were really only interested in the cloud software case (which I assume you singled out because you new the general case to obviously go against your argument), then yes, I still claim this happens in a very important sense. When gmail updated its interface, my mom stopped receiving some emails. Of course, they were hidden in different categories and she really was receiving them, but if she silently misses important emails... in what sense is the computer not nonfunctional? That's like 50% of what she does with it. Or in a more general sense, my parents' previous computer was slowly bogged down by a million iTunes updates that made it more and more of a system hog that made most of the rest of the computer unbearably slow. My argument is that this is a matter of degree. Degree is significant, but people are acting as if this forced update is in a class of its own instead of being just the latest in a long (and growing) line of automatic updates that the consumer has less and less control over. Fight back against it if you wish, but don't pretend most software these days isn't doing (or wishing it could be doing) approximately this already. None of this excuses the fact that they make it appear opt-out in manners that trick the consumer in to "opting in". That's just plain deception.