4 ms·

I mean it isn't a coincidence. But this framing is pretty negative. These apps broke and started crashing because they were updating the start menu. Probably r

I mean it isn't a coincidence. But this framing is pretty negative. These apps broke and started crashing because they were updating the start menu. Probably related to the addition of ads. Then they blocked these versions because they were crashing. It doesn't seem like they are making any effort to block versions that don't cause crashes. (Other than maybe making it a bit harder to keep updating to new internal APIs) It really doesn't seem like they are purposely breaking these tools so that more people see the ads. It is probably such a tiny market that they don't care at this point. They'll definitely ship the ads to 99.9% of users first before they worry about this unaddressed market.

jsheard 3y ago
> It doesn't seem like they are making any effort to block versions that don't cause crashes. See the Tweet I linked, Windows does have a mechanism to only block a specific range of version numbers that are known to cause issues, and they have used that on StartIsBack/StartAllBack before, but the most recent Windows build simply blocks StartAllBack*.exe without any bounds on the version. The developer can get around the block by changing the filenames of course but that's not really the point, if Microsoft is being actively hostile towards this kind of customisation now then they're just going to keep breaking it on purpose.
- TehCorwiz 3y ago
  I dislike this change as much as most people here. However, I do see a situation where it could be warranted. They might simply block all versions because there aren't any version that are actually compatible yet, and once there are it'll get updated. That of course presumes they'll continue treating StartAllBack as they have been so far.
  - aequitas 3y ago
    Innocent until proven guilty. Why block future versions where the developer has fixed issues. Not a user has to wait for the developer to fix the issue and for Microsoft to update their blocklist. It’s hostile behavior that doesn’t make sense unless you want to push users away from these apps. They probably consider any start menu that doesn’t carry their ads as “broken”.
    - TehCorwiz 3y ago
      Why allow new versions until they're tested?

jsheard 3y ago

> It doesn't seem like they are making any effort to block versions that don't cause crashes. See the Tweet I linked, Windows does have a mechanism to only block a specific range of version numbers that are known to cause issues, and they have used that on StartIsBack/StartAllBack before, but the most recent Windows build simply blocks StartAllBack*.exe without any bounds on the version. The developer can get around the block by changing the filenames of course but that's not really the point, if Microsoft is being actively hostile towards this kind of customisation now then they're just going to keep breaking it on purpose.

TehCorwiz 3y ago
I dislike this change as much as most people here. However, I do see a situation where it could be warranted. They might simply block all versions because there aren't any version that are actually compatible yet, and once there are it'll get updated. That of course presumes they'll continue treating StartAllBack as they have been so far.
- aequitas 3y ago
  Innocent until proven guilty. Why block future versions where the developer has fixed issues. Not a user has to wait for the developer to fix the issue and for Microsoft to update their blocklist. It’s hostile behavior that doesn’t make sense unless you want to push users away from these apps. They probably consider any start menu that doesn’t carry their ads as “broken”.
  - TehCorwiz 3y ago
    Why allow new versions until they're tested?