Woman wins $10k judgment against Microsoft for forced Windows 10 upgrade • Hacker News Board

Re: Woman wins $10k judgment against Microsoft for forced Windows 10 upgrade

#391

Post by freehunter » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 12:08 AM UTC

sametmax wrote: post #301

freehunter wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't Chrome and Firefox do this by default now? Automatically download an update in the background and install it without asking when you close the browser window?

Do not compare an a paid OS I run a business on which upgrade one entire version, force rebooting, freezing my machine and introducing incompatibilities and spywares with an free opensource browser that I can merely swap with any competitor at a click of a button in my start menu. I don't run my main source of income on Firefox or Android. I didn't pay a licence for a browser or a phone OS. I can't find a quick alter…

Hey whoa, calm down there. What's really funny is you're getting upset but then ignore all the people who do make their main source of income in Firefox or Chrome, and need the stability in their browsers to support a specific feature. Remember IE6 and how many applications were coded exactly to that browser? And then people bitched that Microsoft didn't automatically update that browser, even though doing so would have broken compatibility with a ton of business apps.

For me, OS doesn't matter one bit. Sure, one could be more convenient with certain features, but in the long run, everything I do at work depends on the browser, and specifically depends on Firefox. The application I support at work is programmed to work on Firefox and it's the only browser it's tested on. If Mozilla made some breaking change and I was automatically upgraded, my work comes to a screeching halt. Maybe I don't even notice something is broken until I'm giving a client demo. Pretty embarrassing, huh?

So yeah, I can compare an OS to a browser, because the same purpose that the OS serves for you, the browser serves for me. I can't just switch browsers with a click of a button. I can't find an alternative. It's Firefox or nothing, a supported version of Firefox or nothing. Funny how some people have different needs, and funny how some people can dismiss those needs without even a thought, just because they may not apply to themselves.

But luckily my work controls what version of Firefox is released to our PCs. It's not pushed to our internal yum repositories until it's been tested. And funny enough, if your business really depends on a stable Windows environment, you have the tools to do the exact same thing. I recommend you use them.

Re: Woman wins $10k judgment against Microsoft for forced Windows 10 upgrade

#392

Post by chrisbennet » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 12:10 AM UTC

jrs235 wrote: post #63

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…

They changed to behavior of clicking on the "x" - now it interprets that action as "yes, upgrade me".

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/229040-microsofts-latest-...

Re: Woman wins $10k judgment against Microsoft for forced Windows 10 upgrade

#393

Post by NamTaf » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 12:37 AM UTC

marssaxman wrote: post #381

majewsky wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Outdated and thus soon malware-ridden systems are a threat to all systems connected directly or indirectly to them, so users are obliged either to keep their systems clean and up-to-date. Either themselves or through experts, or through automated servicing. Much like how cars must be serviced in regular intervals if they are to be operated on shared infrastructure (roads).

Well, that's a reasonable point of view, but it's not Microsoft's job to make it happen. I could see a reasonable case for the idea that people should be held liable for hosting malware on their computers, and that failing to patch security holes could have some kind of secondary liability consequences. If that were the law, it might well make sense for Microsoft to offer upgrade contracts as a form of insurance. Ref…

Except MS is the one who cops the blame, the negative PR and the reputation of being insecure when malware runs rife across old Windows systems that weren't patched for years.

There's literally no way they can win this. If they force updates they're evil for rebooting PCs. If they don't, users don't update because it's always inconvenient and then they blame MS on malware.

Re: Woman wins $10k judgment against Microsoft for forced Windows 10 upgrade

#394

Post by NamTaf » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 12:46 AM UTC

marssaxman wrote: post #271

freehunter wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I could keep fixing my 92 Toyota Corolla to keep it on the road, but at some point it becomes more effective to just move on. There are some things inherent in older software that go beyond a simple patch, design decisions that may have made sense at the time but don't today. The only real way to go about that is how Apple does it, releasing a huge service pack that makes pretty major changes to the OS. And at th…

Toyota doesn't get to come to your house and tow your Corolla away when they think you ought to move on. You get to decide that: it's your car, and it's your choice. If Toyota feels so embarrassed by the fact that you are driving your Corolla that they want to spend some money trying to convince you to replace it, they can certainly make you a trade-in offer. But maybe you like your Corolla, or you don't feel like de…

Toyota doesn't have to keep paying for your maintenance, whereas MS does keep having to pay for their time to develop patches for XP.

A better :caranalogy: would be whether, as emissions standards come in, you lose the ability to drive your old car unless you upgrade it. Except even then, Toyota doesn't pay for the new ECU instead of your carburetor, but you expect MS to keep maintaining an outdated seucrity model.

Moreover, if you don't upgrade it you DO get forced off the roads, namely by legislation prohibiting its registration.

Re: Woman wins $10k judgment against Microsoft for forced Windows 10 upgrade

#395

Post by NamTaf » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 12:49 AM UTC

DKnoll3 wrote: post #339

moskie wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a crappy metaphor.

Uh...how? Windows 10 advertises Microsoft products, and 3rd party products, and is the first step into being suckered into Microsoft's foray into a paid subscription OS. Sounds like a great metaphor. Let us "upgrade" you to make more money from you.

Because it glosses over the fact that upgrades to OSs have defined security benefits.

A better one would be to say that it's like your bank upgrading your card from signature to chip + pin and issuing a new card number as a result. It's a frustration to change all your automated billing, but they do it because it's more secure and costs them less in fraud protection.

Re: Woman wins $10k judgment against Microsoft for forced Windows 10 upgrade

#396

Post by DKnoll3 » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 1:39 AM UTC

NamTaf wrote: post #395

DKnoll3 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh...how? Windows 10 advertises Microsoft products, and 3rd party products, and is the first step into being suckered into Microsoft's foray into a paid subscription OS. Sounds like a great metaphor. Let us "upgrade" you to make more money from you.

Because it glosses over the fact that upgrades to OSs have defined security benefits. A better one would be to say that it's like your bank upgrading your card from signature to chip + pin and issuing a new card number as a result. It's a frustration to change all your automated billing, but they do it because it's more secure and costs them less in fraud protection.

Actually, that's a great example, glad you brought it up. That's not less secure, and very similar to this situation.

That technology is being hailed as "more secure" because it requires you to insert, and type your secret PIN, correct?

1. In many cases, you can still use it online, just as before, without insertion+PIN.

2. Most stores will still allow you to swipe it, just as before. Some retailers aren't even allowing insertion yet, even though the hardware is there.

3. Even IF everyone required you to insert and type your PIN, you are actually less secure because the little bit you "consented to" when "upgrading" to chip + pin says that card issuers are less liable for fraudulent charges and other problems. http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/understanding-EM...

And it's still not a perfect analogy, because chip+pin isn't going to force me to subscribe to a monthly or yearly fee to use my bank card in the future, like Windows 10 assuredly will. It also doesn't implement additional technology for my bank to spy on me and my activity.

So - who's really safer?

The problem is that product changes are being rolled in with/disguised as security updates. That should be wrong, and while I'm normally on the side of less mandates - this misleading behavior should be addressed by lawmakers.

Re: Woman wins $10k judgment against Microsoft for forced Windows 10 upgrade

#397

Post by Filligree » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 1:52 AM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #59

Filligree wrote: post #33

I had about three GB free on my root partition. Windows 10 was automatically installed. Well, partially. You can probably guess what happened; if this had happened to anyone else in the family, their computer would have been effectively bricked. I used to spend most of my time in Linux anyway, but now I'm justifiably scared of booting Windows.

Windows 10 won't attempt to install unless it has enough space to complete, and they look for 16 GB. So what I suspect actually occurred is that your hypervisor was set up to misreport how much space as available to Windows, so Windows 10 tried to install on the space it thought it had, only to hit the wall on the "real" filesystem below. It is unlikely this ever would have occurred to anyone else in your family, unl…

This was not under a hypervisor, but it did happen as the same time as I was installing some large pieces of software; I'd just recently reinstalled, and was looking forward to playing X-COM 2.

The 3GB number is how much space was free after I excised the broken shards of the Windows 10 installer. So, sure, the space probably got taken up after the installer checked if there was enough, but it's not like I ever told it to start running.

Re: Woman wins $10k judgment against Microsoft for forced Windows 10 upgrade

#398

Post by pdkl95 » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 2:24 AM UTC

blakeyrat wrote: post #344

15charlimit wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we don't want another "XP situation" with Windows 7 If Microsoft had really wanted to avoid that, they'd have made Windows 10 actually attractive to the end user and the tech people that would recommend it to the end user. Instead they jammed it chock-full of spyware and malware-tier garbage that nobody wants, and treat the installbase as a testbed for forced updates that could easily (and have) render machines ino…

End users and tech people always knee-jerk about anything that changes, whether it's a positive change or not. The Ribbon interface they introduced in Office back in 2007 was a huge improvement over the mess of dialogs, toolbars and menus they had before by every metric. People still bitch about it, almost a decade later. The people who bitch about it benefit as much as everybody else from the increased usability, bu…

You should watch the talk[1] by Joe Peacock of fark.com about updating the site (the infamous "You'll get over it" incident).

The solution isn't "change nothing". Instead, you involve the people that use the old (current) version in the process, keep them informed, and get some kind of buy-in. Most importantly, you respect that the user has their own schedule and needs with a migration path that allows the user to make the transition at their own pace.

What you don't do is surprise users at random times, revoke any agency they had, and force changes on them without any consideration fo the user's situation.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnVeysllPDI

Re: Woman wins $10k judgment against Microsoft for forced Windows 10 upgrade

#399

Post by newjersey » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 2:43 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #347

noxToken wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never had a Windows laptop boot up for scheduled updates. In that event, it always waitied for the next manual boot.

I experience that constantly on any laptop I use because I pretty much never turn them off - they go to sleep mode when not used. Every now and then I find the laptop running with a clean desktop after logging in - because it decided to reboot and install updates somewhen during the night. I've been an enemy of automated updates ever since, many years ago, I went to the kitchen to boil the water for a tea, and there…

I think automated updates are fine but require user's intervention to restart. Don't restart automatically on their behalf.

Re: Woman wins $10k judgment against Microsoft for forced Windows 10 upgrade

#400

Post by mnl » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 3:03 AM UTC

Shorel wrote: post #149

Someone1234 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sympathetic both ways on this one. I think Microsoft went "too far" but I also agree that we don't want another "XP situation" with Windows 7. Effectively having 20%+ of the market on a super old OS holding back the industry and less secure. Microsoft claim they're planning to avoid this in the future by no longer releasing named new OS's, and instead just update Windows 10 for "free" forever. Basically the same…

They could keep patching XP to avoid the security issues. This is more about taking control away from users than anything else.

They are patching most of Windows XP as we speak. And not just for customers in the special extended support program. They are pacthing POSReady 2009 until 09/04/2019, and that's really a streamlined XP Pro with very slight differences, as most (not all) of the patches in POSReady won't cause any problems in a regular XP installation and it has "XP Professional" strings everywhere.

They simply decided that it was time to end support for regular customers and moved on.

They also removed most of the XP patches in the Microsoft Download Center a few months ago. I don't understand why they had all of them there for two years after support ended and suddenly they were gone without notice. Microsoft used to be more friendly, at least you could get their old files from ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/. Not anymore. BTW, this helped in my decision to start migration from their ecosystem after 20 years of Registry tweaking.