4 ms·
> 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 blo
by 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 agoI 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 agoInnocent 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 agoWhy allow new versions until they're tested?