7 ms·

Meh. I totally understand Microsoft's position - it absolutely requires its user base to move to Windows 10, and has been severely punished by having a user ba

by hoodoof 10y ago

Meh. I totally understand Microsoft's position - it absolutely requires its user base to move to Windows 10, and has been severely punished by having a user base stuck on versions going all the way back to XP. Something has to change - people don't upgrade unless they are forced to.

sametmax 10y ago
> people don't upgrade unless they are forced to. Do you hear yourself? What if people don't need to upgrade ? Sorry, but I'm the one knowing best about if I need to upgrade my OS. And when you pay for a machine, a lot of money, and you pay for a system, a lot of money, you expect to have the choice of what you do with said machine and system. Plus, do you know why people sticked to XP ? Because it worked. Same with windows 7. If you don't need a new system, there is no reason to change. It's work. It's uncertainty. It will break things. And I won't even begin with the w10 spywares. Not to mention the way it's been done which is downright disrespecteful.
- nailer 10y ago
  I'm not necessarily sure regular people understand bitrot. Some of the largest botnets in the world were created from XP machines where users could install major updates but it wasn't done automatically.
  - creshal 10y ago
    Security updates ≠ version upgrades. Automatically installing security updates is fine. Upgrading users to a new major release that deprecates a shitton of working hardware and software for no reason but to make life for MS easier, is not fine.
    - sametmax 10y ago
      +1. What's more it's very clear the ugrade is all about control because Win 10 features: - ads in the OS (FFS!) - spywares - an app store to control the channel of user installs So it's not an upgrade to make people safer, it's just all about MS wanting more, and forcing people in the direction so they can get it. It's not about the customers at all. In no way it's for their own good. And fact you paid for it has no importance, you'll be forced to give more.
      - kodfodrasz 10y ago
        This ads in the OS is a bullshit I keep hearing. Why is this not a problem with Android or iOS? I have not met much ads, apart from the install office stuff. Spyware? The telemetry enabled them to have faster feedback and the quality of Win10 improved before my very eyes. If you have developed an app and used a telemetry framework, you should know that it is not spying. If they were to spy they'd do it differently, not by asking you to please provide us some data for QoS. App store is bad? Is it not bad for the other major OS-es? It is good if it is called apt-get? The App store provides sandboxing and isolation, security to the users, where a single install of a software cannot break others. When the containerization arrives (as new features come to Win10 continously) this will be even cooler, as legacy apps can be packaged and spread through the app store. No more problems with installing stuff unattended, or having to accept EULAs, as those can be stored on an account level in the Store. No more installshield madness.
        sametmax 10y ago
        > This ads in the OS is a bullshit I keep hearing. http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-disable-windows-10-start-menu-ads/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-disable-windows-10-start... > The telemetry enabled them to have faster feedback I know the commercial pitch. telemetry is a polite name for spywares. The fact one of the goal is the OS improvement doesn't change that. If I kick you in the face to scratch my hand, I still kick you in the face. > App store is bad I never said app store were bad. I just said MS was pushing 10 so they can get the app store in so they can improve their sales. Not because they wanted to help anybody. I like stores. Altough comparing app stores to package repo is like comparing a group of libraries and book clubs to the only book shops available in the city.
        hudell 10y ago
        I had to hide the whole notification system because I kept getting office ads as notifications. I have never had anything like that in a mobile OS.
        Piskvorrr 10y ago
        You are conflating "ad-supported programs" (remember Opera at version 9? That was ad-ware, on the desktop) with "advertisements in the OS itself". Let me assure you that I'm not seeing any ads on my Android devices. Rhetorical question: Do ad-supported apps have ad-free, paid versions? Answer: Yes, they do (and if not, too bad for them, not going to use). Should an OS that I have paid for (the Windows tax, never mind that it's not listed as a separate item on the invoice) be ad-supported on top of that? I'll leave that one open, as I don't see The One Correct Answer.
    - kodfodrasz 10y ago
      Backporting security updates is a huge cost, as involves enormous amounts of tests on old platforms as well. Having one windows to support is a huge win for Microsoft, and the whining of the people seems to be a cost they are willing to take. (it has other benefits for them, and for the users as well apart from security) Also note: when people say they moved to Ubuntu, they do the same whining about systemd and every innovation they perceive as "breaking change". Ordinary people are the greatest burden of progress, because usually they cannot (or do not wish to put effort into) understand the greater picture and the benefits to them. Sidenote: GWX is broken. I had to do my update with manually downloaded installer media as windows update on win7 and GWX didn't work.
      - ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
        Your callous attitude basically screws over computer illiterate users, I.e most home Windiws users.
      - creshal 10y ago
        > Backporting security updates is a huge cost Boohoo. Maybe Microsoft should have priced that into the product before they sold it, instead of using borderline illegal methods to scam people out of providing the service they expect?
      - Piskvorrr 10y ago
        Progress for the sake of progress - now that's what I'd call a cult: never mind that computers are tools that people buy to do other stuff (e.g. work): People Are Stupid, We Know Best. All Hail The Glorious Progress, Newer Is Always Better!
    - nailer 10y ago
      > Security updates ≠ version upgrades. That's totally true, but some things blur the lines: - XP SP2 introduced an inbuilt, on by default firewall. It was a major new feature but necessary. - XP user accounts were admin by default, Vista added UAC: another major new feature but also necessary.
- captainmuon 10y ago
  > Sorry, but I'm the one knowing best about if I need to upgrade my OS. I can't speak about you, but I certainly don't think I know best about when to upgrade my OS. I rarely need new features, and hate unnecessary changes to my running system like anybody else. But I've seen spreading malware crap far to often to take chances. Remember the time when you had to disconnect the computer from the internet while installing Windows XP, because unpatched installations would be taken over in minutes by worms? For most people (unless you have an excellent firewall and don't browse the web), the only sane option is to keep everything up-to-date with all security updates. If Microsoft decides they can't afford to backport security updates to older versions after some years, then at some point we have to swallow the toad and upgrade. It's just the unfortunate reality of current OSes.
  - Piskvorrr 10y ago
    Well...how about "our HW vendor has been promising WinX drivers for some months now, but for now, supported OSes end at Win 8.1"? Is MS still in the best position to decide "eh never mind, it's not like you are actually using that very specific piece of hardware - off to WinX you go"? In other words, "I am not capable of deciding" does not translate into "therefore everyone gets force-fed the upgrade (because of course they're not capable of deciding, either)."
    - captainmuon 10y ago
      Well I agree if you have a good reason (like a lack of driver) then you absolutely should be able to delay or cancel the update. I think there are two different questions. Should updates auto-install by default (after a warning), and should you be able to reject any update? I'd say yes to both, but unfortunately Microsoft tends to no for both sometimes.
aswanson 10y ago
How about, I dunno creating a product that makes it worthwhile rather than strong-arm tactics?
- sametmax 10y ago
  +1. Nobody is asking why people DON'T want to upgrade so bad ? It's should be a fraking red flag.
  - Piskvorrr 10y ago
    Oh, lots of people are asking; just that MS does not want to hear the answer ("your previous OSes are so good that the risks of an upgrade outweigh the perceived benefits"). Product cannibalization is the term, I believe.
  - gengkev 10y ago
    Meanwhile the offer of a free upgrade to Windows 10 supposedly ends on July 29, 2016. I wonder what'll happen then...
spacemanmatt 10y ago
Microsoft are victims of their own success. I watched the antitrust trials. They deserve no sympathy. None.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
Your comment baffles me. People have legitimate concerns about upgrading to Win10.
ilkkao 10y ago
As a web developer I'm also happy to see Windows 10 getting more popular. The happy day when all browsers are finally evergreen is getting at least a little bit closer.
michaelt 10y ago
people don't upgrade unless they are forced to. Sure they do - when the upgrades are pleasant and don't break things. People will update firefox any day of the week, because they've made such updates many times in the past; only a small fraction of users have been burned by radical user interface changes or breaking compatibility with existing sites; and most of those who have had a problem with changes have found a configuration option (albeit hidden) to disable the change. On the other hand, updating from Windows 7 to Windows 10 means a bunch of user interface changes you can't opt out of; and a bunch of your existing software no longer working. It doesn't take a genius to tell if you bundle your security updates with radical user interface redesigns and break compatibility with a bunch of existing software, some users aren't going to apply the security updates.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  Firefox might be an unfortunate example. Mozilla also started trying to push major UI changes and features users didn't want, and look at the chart of their market share since then.
appleflaxen 10y ago
I understand it, but would have preferred some transparency. "Users: this is what we are planning. We know it's uncomfortable, but it's best because of _ and _. Please make arrangements now if you want your computer to continue operating as-is (without security or updates), because as of _, the OS upgrade will be rolled out automatically". The other thing to remember is that they made their own bed: they wanted to be able to sell users each individual "new" version of the OS, which created this mentality in the first place. Like the (currently) top comment wisely says: if you focus relentlessly on the user, all of this is a much smaller problem, because your upgrades are amazing, and users want to upgrade voluntarily.
ebbv 10y ago
> people don't upgrade unless they are forced to. This is very short sighted on multiple fronts. If you force someone into an upgrade they didn't actually want they're going to be annoyed, and they may revert the upgrade. If you then start showing ads as part of your OS after the upgrade, those people are going to be really upset. Then once they find out just how much data about them you are collecting, some of them are going to have such a damaged option of your company they will never buy another product from you. That all is just talking about home users of Windows and their experience. The amount of money wasted by Windows 10's aggressive upgrade in corporations is probably in the billions of dollars. Think about how many calls and trouble tickets have probably come in over the last year about the unintended upgrades. Lastly, I personally only use my PC for gaming. I don't like Windows 10. I've had to turn off auto-update on my Windows 7 machine because the attempts to trick me into upgrade have gotten more and more aggressive and I can't be sure that I'm not fall for it late at night or just wake up one day with my machine upgraded to an OS I don't want. That's bad.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  The amount of money wasted by Windows 10's aggressive upgrade in corporations is probably in the billions of dollars. Think about how many calls and trouble tickets have probably come in over the last year about the unintended upgrades. It's probably far less of a problem for enterprise customers, because they have the tools to control updates centrally within their IT departments. Microsoft is surely well aware that professional sysadmins won't tolerate things like having arbitrary updates applied to their systems by Microsoft, and for sysadmins in larger organisations there is enough real revenue at stake that Microsoft will do something about it, hence LTSB in Windows 10 Enterprise. The thing I don't understand is why Microsoft think smaller businesses or power users -- the kind of people who were running Pro on Windows 7 or 8.x -- would be any more willing to compromise on that count, and why they think that market is going to voluntarily update to Windows 10 Pro, which appears to be a very different kind of product to its namesake in earlier versions.
cm3 10y ago
People do upgrade when they know from experience that their system won't regress. It's not necessarily a Windows LTS ala RHEL what's needed, but something inbetween Windows XP is unsupported and Windows 10 breaks your usage must be possible if MS doesn't want to lose more desktop users. And let's not forget that the heavy desktop users (prosumers, etc.) are those who most of the time are consulted by family and friends for advice regarding computers. So, if you alienate them, there's a high chance they will recommend a Linux desktop for most common computer usage.
Silhouette 10y ago
I totally understand Microsoft's position - it absolutely requires its user base to move to Windows 10, and has been severely punished by having a user base stuck on versions going all the way back to XP. I wish my punishment for writing some software and issuing a few updates for security defects was also measured in billions of dollars.
marssaxman 10y ago
It doesn't matter what Microsoft "absolutely requires", because they don't own and have no authority over their customers' computers. They do not have any right to force their customers to do anything with those computers.

by hoodoof 10y ago

sametmax 10y ago

> people don't upgrade unless they are forced to. Do you hear yourself? What if people don't need to upgrade ? Sorry, but I'm the one knowing best about if I need to upgrade my OS. And when you pay for a machine, a lot of money, and you pay for a system, a lot of money, you expect to have the choice of what you do with said machine and system. Plus, do you know why people sticked to XP ? Because it worked. Same with windows 7. If you don't need a new system, there is no reason to change. It's work. It's uncertainty. It will break things. And I won't even begin with the w10 spywares. Not to mention the way it's been done which is downright disrespecteful.

nailer 10y ago
I'm not necessarily sure regular people understand bitrot. Some of the largest botnets in the world were created from XP machines where users could install major updates but it wasn't done automatically.
- creshal 10y ago
  Security updates ≠ version upgrades. Automatically installing security updates is fine. Upgrading users to a new major release that deprecates a shitton of working hardware and software for no reason but to make life for MS easier, is not fine.
  - sametmax 10y ago
    +1. What's more it's very clear the ugrade is all about control because Win 10 features: - ads in the OS (FFS!) - spywares - an app store to control the channel of user installs So it's not an upgrade to make people safer, it's just all about MS wanting more, and forcing people in the direction so they can get it. It's not about the customers at all. In no way it's for their own good. And fact you paid for it has no importance, you'll be forced to give more.
    - kodfodrasz 10y ago
      This ads in the OS is a bullshit I keep hearing. Why is this not a problem with Android or iOS? I have not met much ads, apart from the install office stuff. Spyware? The telemetry enabled them to have faster feedback and the quality of Win10 improved before my very eyes. If you have developed an app and used a telemetry framework, you should know that it is not spying. If they were to spy they'd do it differently, not by asking you to please provide us some data for QoS. App store is bad? Is it not bad for the other major OS-es? It is good if it is called apt-get? The App store provides sandboxing and isolation, security to the users, where a single install of a software cannot break others. When the containerization arrives (as new features come to Win10 continously) this will be even cooler, as legacy apps can be packaged and spread through the app store. No more problems with installing stuff unattended, or having to accept EULAs, as those can be stored on an account level in the Store. No more installshield madness.
      - sametmax 10y ago
        > This ads in the OS is a bullshit I keep hearing. http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-disable-windows-10-start-menu-ads/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-disable-windows-10-start... > The telemetry enabled them to have faster feedback I know the commercial pitch. telemetry is a polite name for spywares. The fact one of the goal is the OS improvement doesn't change that. If I kick you in the face to scratch my hand, I still kick you in the face. > App store is bad I never said app store were bad. I just said MS was pushing 10 so they can get the app store in so they can improve their sales. Not because they wanted to help anybody. I like stores. Altough comparing app stores to package repo is like comparing a group of libraries and book clubs to the only book shops available in the city.
      - hudell 10y ago
        I had to hide the whole notification system because I kept getting office ads as notifications. I have never had anything like that in a mobile OS.
      - Piskvorrr 10y ago
        You are conflating "ad-supported programs" (remember Opera at version 9? That was ad-ware, on the desktop) with "advertisements in the OS itself". Let me assure you that I'm not seeing any ads on my Android devices. Rhetorical question: Do ad-supported apps have ad-free, paid versions? Answer: Yes, they do (and if not, too bad for them, not going to use). Should an OS that I have paid for (the Windows tax, never mind that it's not listed as a separate item on the invoice) be ad-supported on top of that? I'll leave that one open, as I don't see The One Correct Answer.
  - kodfodrasz 10y ago
    Backporting security updates is a huge cost, as involves enormous amounts of tests on old platforms as well. Having one windows to support is a huge win for Microsoft, and the whining of the people seems to be a cost they are willing to take. (it has other benefits for them, and for the users as well apart from security) Also note: when people say they moved to Ubuntu, they do the same whining about systemd and every innovation they perceive as "breaking change". Ordinary people are the greatest burden of progress, because usually they cannot (or do not wish to put effort into) understand the greater picture and the benefits to them. Sidenote: GWX is broken. I had to do my update with manually downloaded installer media as windows update on win7 and GWX didn't work.
    - ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
      Your callous attitude basically screws over computer illiterate users, I.e most home Windiws users.
    - creshal 10y ago
      > Backporting security updates is a huge cost Boohoo. Maybe Microsoft should have priced that into the product before they sold it, instead of using borderline illegal methods to scam people out of providing the service they expect?
    - Piskvorrr 10y ago
      Progress for the sake of progress - now that's what I'd call a cult: never mind that computers are tools that people buy to do other stuff (e.g. work): People Are Stupid, We Know Best. All Hail The Glorious Progress, Newer Is Always Better!
  - nailer 10y ago
    > Security updates ≠ version upgrades. That's totally true, but some things blur the lines: - XP SP2 introduced an inbuilt, on by default firewall. It was a major new feature but necessary. - XP user accounts were admin by default, Vista added UAC: another major new feature but also necessary.
captainmuon 10y ago
> Sorry, but I'm the one knowing best about if I need to upgrade my OS. I can't speak about you, but I certainly don't think I know best about when to upgrade my OS. I rarely need new features, and hate unnecessary changes to my running system like anybody else. But I've seen spreading malware crap far to often to take chances. Remember the time when you had to disconnect the computer from the internet while installing Windows XP, because unpatched installations would be taken over in minutes by worms? For most people (unless you have an excellent firewall and don't browse the web), the only sane option is to keep everything up-to-date with all security updates. If Microsoft decides they can't afford to backport security updates to older versions after some years, then at some point we have to swallow the toad and upgrade. It's just the unfortunate reality of current OSes.
- Piskvorrr 10y ago
  Well...how about "our HW vendor has been promising WinX drivers for some months now, but for now, supported OSes end at Win 8.1"? Is MS still in the best position to decide "eh never mind, it's not like you are actually using that very specific piece of hardware - off to WinX you go"? In other words, "I am not capable of deciding" does not translate into "therefore everyone gets force-fed the upgrade (because of course they're not capable of deciding, either)."
  - captainmuon 10y ago
    Well I agree if you have a good reason (like a lack of driver) then you absolutely should be able to delay or cancel the update. I think there are two different questions. Should updates auto-install by default (after a warning), and should you be able to reject any update? I'd say yes to both, but unfortunately Microsoft tends to no for both sometimes.

aswanson 10y ago

How about, I dunno creating a product that makes it worthwhile rather than strong-arm tactics?

sametmax 10y ago
+1. Nobody is asking why people DON'T want to upgrade so bad ? It's should be a fraking red flag.
- Piskvorrr 10y ago
  Oh, lots of people are asking; just that MS does not want to hear the answer ("your previous OSes are so good that the risks of an upgrade outweigh the perceived benefits"). Product cannibalization is the term, I believe.
- gengkev 10y ago
  Meanwhile the offer of a free upgrade to Windows 10 supposedly ends on July 29, 2016. I wonder what'll happen then...

spacemanmatt 10y ago

Microsoft are victims of their own success. I watched the antitrust trials. They deserve no sympathy. None.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

Your comment baffles me. People have legitimate concerns about upgrading to Win10.

ilkkao 10y ago

As a web developer I'm also happy to see Windows 10 getting more popular. The happy day when all browsers are finally evergreen is getting at least a little bit closer.

michaelt 10y ago

people don't upgrade unless they are forced to. Sure they do - when the upgrades are pleasant and don't break things. People will update firefox any day of the week, because they've made such updates many times in the past; only a small fraction of users have been burned by radical user interface changes or breaking compatibility with existing sites; and most of those who have had a problem with changes have found a configuration option (albeit hidden) to disable the change. On the other hand, updating from Windows 7 to Windows 10 means a bunch of user interface changes you can't opt out of; and a bunch of your existing software no longer working. It doesn't take a genius to tell if you bundle your security updates with radical user interface redesigns and break compatibility with a bunch of existing software, some users aren't going to apply the security updates.

Silhouette 10y ago
Firefox might be an unfortunate example. Mozilla also started trying to push major UI changes and features users didn't want, and look at the chart of their market share since then.

appleflaxen 10y ago

I understand it, but would have preferred some transparency. "Users: this is what we are planning. We know it's uncomfortable, but it's best because of _ and _. Please make arrangements now if you want your computer to continue operating as-is (without security or updates), because as of _, the OS upgrade will be rolled out automatically". The other thing to remember is that they made their own bed: they wanted to be able to sell users each individual "new" version of the OS, which created this mentality in the first place. Like the (currently) top comment wisely says: if you focus relentlessly on the user, all of this is a much smaller problem, because your upgrades are amazing, and users want to upgrade voluntarily.

ebbv 10y ago

> people don't upgrade unless they are forced to. This is very short sighted on multiple fronts. If you force someone into an upgrade they didn't actually want they're going to be annoyed, and they may revert the upgrade. If you then start showing ads as part of your OS after the upgrade, those people are going to be really upset. Then once they find out just how much data about them you are collecting, some of them are going to have such a damaged option of your company they will never buy another product from you. That all is just talking about home users of Windows and their experience. The amount of money wasted by Windows 10's aggressive upgrade in corporations is probably in the billions of dollars. Think about how many calls and trouble tickets have probably come in over the last year about the unintended upgrades. Lastly, I personally only use my PC for gaming. I don't like Windows 10. I've had to turn off auto-update on my Windows 7 machine because the attempts to trick me into upgrade have gotten more and more aggressive and I can't be sure that I'm not fall for it late at night or just wake up one day with my machine upgraded to an OS I don't want. That's bad.

Silhouette 10y ago
The amount of money wasted by Windows 10's aggressive upgrade in corporations is probably in the billions of dollars. Think about how many calls and trouble tickets have probably come in over the last year about the unintended upgrades. It's probably far less of a problem for enterprise customers, because they have the tools to control updates centrally within their IT departments. Microsoft is surely well aware that professional sysadmins won't tolerate things like having arbitrary updates applied to their systems by Microsoft, and for sysadmins in larger organisations there is enough real revenue at stake that Microsoft will do something about it, hence LTSB in Windows 10 Enterprise. The thing I don't understand is why Microsoft think smaller businesses or power users -- the kind of people who were running Pro on Windows 7 or 8.x -- would be any more willing to compromise on that count, and why they think that market is going to voluntarily update to Windows 10 Pro, which appears to be a very different kind of product to its namesake in earlier versions.

cm3 10y ago

People do upgrade when they know from experience that their system won't regress. It's not necessarily a Windows LTS ala RHEL what's needed, but something inbetween Windows XP is unsupported and Windows 10 breaks your usage must be possible if MS doesn't want to lose more desktop users. And let's not forget that the heavy desktop users (prosumers, etc.) are those who most of the time are consulted by family and friends for advice regarding computers. So, if you alienate them, there's a high chance they will recommend a Linux desktop for most common computer usage.

Silhouette 10y ago

I totally understand Microsoft's position - it absolutely requires its user base to move to Windows 10, and has been severely punished by having a user base stuck on versions going all the way back to XP. I wish my punishment for writing some software and issuing a few updates for security defects was also measured in billions of dollars.

marssaxman 10y ago

It doesn't matter what Microsoft "absolutely requires", because they don't own and have no authority over their customers' computers. They do not have any right to force their customers to do anything with those computers.