241–250 of 451 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 32 days it won't be free any more (July 29)
Thank God for that. I'll finally be able to boot my Windows partition again without worrying if it's going to nuke my Linux install.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are not "forced" to upgrade the OS on an iphone, you will just have a pop up window every day asking you if you want to upgrade now or tonight. You have a choice!
And for each, it respects your wishes. That it's annoying is besides the point, also you're not getting telemetry forcibly installed, either. It's only a dot release that contains security updates.
I am frankly surprised that she's the first one who's tried taking Microsoft to court. I kind of anticipated that there would be a class action lawsuit after Microsoft made Windows 10 a "recommended" update--meaning anyone who had their Win 7 or 8 machines set to install recommended updated automatically would get updated without being made aware of it.
No matter what they do, the users would complain. By leaving the settings on recommended, the user said she wants free IT support from Microsoft. Microsoft, like any other IT dept. would, made the decision to upgrade to an OS which will work better for everyone. Sadly, a small amount of users don't understand why they can't keep using the same $200 Dell from 1999 forever - just like many users can't understand why Mi…
A huge chunk of users have no need for a new computer, or a new operating system for that matter. They want to have a web browser, e-mail and open documents. For some, that's meant switching over to using a tablet. But for others, they just want to keep using the machine they've got.
And it's not even really a Windows vs Linux thing. If Microsoft would continue to provide security updates for their old OSes or make a paired down version of their new OSes to work on a minimalist or older machine then I would have upgraded them to that instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can turn it off via group policy if you have windows enterprise. If you just want to complain that the cheaper version doesn't have the feature you want, and you don't want to pay the higher price for the version that does have it, that's your right, but I don't have much sympathy for that.
I have to pay to not be spied on? And you think that's acceptable?
I now have even less moral issue with not paying to use Windows for personal use. Seriously, they should have just made it free for home users regardless of Win7 license state (I've had terrible luck with "upgraded" versions of Windows -- clean installs only for me, and yes I know about the Insider program and the exception to this...I didn't stay up on the news and I missed the "must be installed by" deadline).
I visited my parents last weekend. My dad says his laptop automatically updated to Windows 10 a month ago and since then he was unable to use the internet (so basically the machine). He was PO'ed. He was tricked into installing it because Microsoft changed the behavior of the upgrade prompt. You can choose "Upgrade now" or "Not now, upgrade later". "Not now, upgrade later" use to behave like and mean "Ask me again la…
The idea of "let's put a popup on everyone's computer telling them they can download the next version of Windows for free" simply reeks of malware shit. Even worse is when they decided to force it on everyone else who doesn't automatically click "OK" on every dialog box they see.
I kinda understand the mindset. In IT, we learn that pretty much everyone will be clueless on how to do something unless you make it nearly impossible for them to not. So when Microsoft's top support question was "how to I upgrade to Windows 10", it doesn't seem out of far field for them to think "how do we make it nearly impossible for them to fail". There's no doubt Microsoft screwed this up for a number of reasons…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to pay to not be spied on? And you think that's acceptable?
You have to pay to have the option to not be spied on, because only the version designed to be used for serious business supports disabling the first-party tracking, because business users are important and home users are just another revenue channel. I now have even less moral issue with not paying to use Windows for personal use. Seriously, they should have just made it free for home users regardless of Win7 licens…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that's Apple's approach. One of my MacBooks is running Yosemite and has been receiving security updates. My other Macbook is running El Capitan, and I hear Sierra is coming out soon. Those seem to be named updates. Maybe they've announced something new for Sierra? Or maybe you were referring to the free updates?
They are all still named OS X.
Also, all Windows releases for the indefinite future will be named Windows 10.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not an excuse. Microsoft can and has been pushing updates to 7 to enable the constant upgrade nagging. They've even been continually pushing new updates that get more and more naggy. There is nothing preventing them from including an update that makes 7's restart logic less sadistic, but they've chosen not to do that.
Can you explain to me why Microsoft should expend time and effort to encourage behavior (staying on Windows 7) that increases their costs and increases fragility in their ecosystem? I'm not sympathetic to the dark patterns they use to push people to upgrade, but I'm 100% onboard with not pushing improvements to an older operating system.
That they are running software on thousands or hundreds of thousands of machines that was advertised as an update but is instead advertware is a crap move on their part. It's probably not a strong legal argument, but IMO they should be paying me to use my system to run software of their choice, much in the way that I would pay to use Azure to run software of my choice on their systems.