4 ms·

How on earth is MSFT supposed to maintain comparability for quintillions of iterations of hardware across millions of machines with no data on what works and wh

How on earth is MSFT supposed to maintain comparability for quintillions of iterations of hardware across millions of machines with no data on what works and what doesn't? Unlike FAANG they aren't out there pushing listening devices or trying to build exclusive data sets; they are trying to maintain the stability and security of 78.43% of the world's desktop computers. I don't care for the alarmism here when there are blazing infernos of actual malevolence burning in every direction.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago
They could start by being honest and open about what data they gather and give users simple, easy-to-access tools to restrict it if they want. (Most modern users won't care, anyway.) If MS has built an OS that cannot be effectively maintained without being sneaky and deceptive about their data gathering, that's their problem. Don't ask me to sympathize with them just because doing things right is hard.
- SquareWheel 7y ago
  >They could start by being honest and open about what data they gather Are they being dishonest about what they claim to collect? Is there anything deceiving in their privacy policy?
  - chopin 7y ago
    It's completely unverifiable. For big companies I assume dishonesty until proven otherwise. Give me the keys to read the raw stream and we can talk.
    - SquareWheel 7y ago
      It doesn't matter that it's unverifiable; that's just how it works. If they're found to be breaking the rules then they earn exorbitant fees, sanctions, and lawsuits. It's like saying that you expect letter carriers to read every letter they deliver because there's no way to prove otherwise. They can get caught doing it, and if they are they're severely punished. That's your insurance. Nothing is perfect, but somehow it still works. You can't always get 100% assurances; that's the nirvana fallacy. If you insist on it you'll just dismantle a system that was otherwise working perfectly fine. Are mail carriers foolproof? No, but they serve a purpose. Are privacy policies foolproof? No, but they serve a purpose.
      - chopin 7y ago
        Opening letters is a punishable crime, at least where I live. Collecting too much data: Ooops we're sorry. Facebook has breached on multiple occasions their deal with the FTC. Until now not much has come out of it. European data commissioners have requested more detailed information on telemetry to be able to certify Windows 10 for use in public offices and have been stonewalled so far. Not exactly trust-building.
- rstat1 7y ago
  There's a tool that been in win10 for a while now that shows exactly what data is collected. It shows exactly what component of the OS is collecting it. Go in to the Settings app > Privacy > Diagnostics & Feedback and scroll down to the "View Diagnostic Data" section. Its not really all that sneaky or deceptive or dishonest or any of that. Its just being portrayed as such by anyone writing about it in the press for some reason.
  - tgragnato 7y ago
    It should be possible to have a single, giant button for the complete opt-out, and the assurance that no updates, inconsistencies, individual settings, or else could cause analytics to get out of your pc.
    - rstat1 7y ago
      I personally don't see the big deal, but to each their own.
stordoff 7y ago
> How on earth is MSFT supposed to maintain comparability for quintillions of iterations of hardware across millions of machines with no data on what works and what doesn't? Isn't this the same problem they've faced for decades, and largely successfully managed before the telemetry?
- reilly3000 7y ago
  Arguably 'successfully' is relative- Windows 98, ME, Vista etc famously struggled with BSODs all the time. I imagine they were operating in relative blindness, basing their triage efforts on incomplete, angry user reports. They didn't have reliable information on which build was breaking, how many users were getting the same error, how frequently, on which types of hardware. With structured data they can prioritize fixes that affect the most users and verify their patches were effective.
  - rwallace 7y ago
    > Windows 98, ME, Vista etc famously struggled with BSODs all the time. Windows 98 and ME struggled with BSODs because they were still built on something designed as a GUI layer on top of a CP/M clone. Vista mostly fixed all that. I've been running Windows 7 for most of a decade now without a single BSOD.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago

They could start by being honest and open about what data they gather and give users simple, easy-to-access tools to restrict it if they want. (Most modern users won't care, anyway.) If MS has built an OS that cannot be effectively maintained without being sneaky and deceptive about their data gathering, that's their problem. Don't ask me to sympathize with them just because doing things right is hard.

SquareWheel 7y ago
>They could start by being honest and open about what data they gather Are they being dishonest about what they claim to collect? Is there anything deceiving in their privacy policy?
- chopin 7y ago
  It's completely unverifiable. For big companies I assume dishonesty until proven otherwise. Give me the keys to read the raw stream and we can talk.
  - SquareWheel 7y ago
    It doesn't matter that it's unverifiable; that's just how it works. If they're found to be breaking the rules then they earn exorbitant fees, sanctions, and lawsuits. It's like saying that you expect letter carriers to read every letter they deliver because there's no way to prove otherwise. They can get caught doing it, and if they are they're severely punished. That's your insurance. Nothing is perfect, but somehow it still works. You can't always get 100% assurances; that's the nirvana fallacy. If you insist on it you'll just dismantle a system that was otherwise working perfectly fine. Are mail carriers foolproof? No, but they serve a purpose. Are privacy policies foolproof? No, but they serve a purpose.
    - chopin 7y ago
      Opening letters is a punishable crime, at least where I live. Collecting too much data: Ooops we're sorry. Facebook has breached on multiple occasions their deal with the FTC. Until now not much has come out of it. European data commissioners have requested more detailed information on telemetry to be able to certify Windows 10 for use in public offices and have been stonewalled so far. Not exactly trust-building.
rstat1 7y ago
There's a tool that been in win10 for a while now that shows exactly what data is collected. It shows exactly what component of the OS is collecting it. Go in to the Settings app > Privacy > Diagnostics & Feedback and scroll down to the "View Diagnostic Data" section. Its not really all that sneaky or deceptive or dishonest or any of that. Its just being portrayed as such by anyone writing about it in the press for some reason.
- tgragnato 7y ago
  It should be possible to have a single, giant button for the complete opt-out, and the assurance that no updates, inconsistencies, individual settings, or else could cause analytics to get out of your pc.
  - rstat1 7y ago
    I personally don't see the big deal, but to each their own.

stordoff 7y ago

> How on earth is MSFT supposed to maintain comparability for quintillions of iterations of hardware across millions of machines with no data on what works and what doesn't? Isn't this the same problem they've faced for decades, and largely successfully managed before the telemetry?

reilly3000 7y ago
Arguably 'successfully' is relative- Windows 98, ME, Vista etc famously struggled with BSODs all the time. I imagine they were operating in relative blindness, basing their triage efforts on incomplete, angry user reports. They didn't have reliable information on which build was breaking, how many users were getting the same error, how frequently, on which types of hardware. With structured data they can prioritize fixes that affect the most users and verify their patches were effective.
- rwallace 7y ago
  > Windows 98, ME, Vista etc famously struggled with BSODs all the time. Windows 98 and ME struggled with BSODs because they were still built on something designed as a GUI layer on top of a CP/M clone. Vista mostly fixed all that. I've been running Windows 7 for most of a decade now without a single BSOD.