Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft extends free Windows 10 security updates into 2026

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 156 posts

Re: Microsoft extends free Windows 10 security updates into 2026

#141

Post by ManlyBread »

hhh wrote: post #101
ManlyBread wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They make it close to impossible to install windows without making an account, you either need to mess around in the registry or run some weird Powershell commands in order to skip the account creation step. They do this because they know a non-technical person will just create an account instead. It's fucking bullshit and it is 100% intentional.

this is not true, you can just create a local account with Windows 11 Pro and not use the online stuff at all.

I've recently had to reinstall Windows 10 and the screen that forces you to create an account is impossible to skip through normal means. I first tried registry hacks (commonly found in Google) only to find out that this method no longer works. I then tried the Powershell command (which is the same as for Windows 11) and this was the only thing that actually worked.

Re: Microsoft extends free Windows 10 security updates into 2026

#142

Post by p_ing »

fluidcruft wrote: post #103
p_ing wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was never marketed as such; it was a single dev evangelist running their mouth.

> When I reached out to Microsoft about Nixon’s comments, the company didn’t dismiss them at all. “Recent comments at Ignite about Windows 10 are reflective of the way Windows will be delivered as a service bringing new innovations and updates in an ongoing manner, with continuous value for our consumer and business customers,” says a Microsoft spokesperson in a statement to The Verge. “We aren’t speaking to future b…

You missed the weasel words.

> We aren’t speaking to future branding at this time

Re: Microsoft extends free Windows 10 security updates into 2026

#143

Post by fluidcruft »

p_ing wrote: post #142
fluidcruft wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I reached out to Microsoft about Nixon’s comments, the company didn’t dismiss them at all. “Recent comments at Ignite about Windows 10 are reflective of the way Windows will be delivered as a service bringing new innovations and updates in an ongoing manner, with continuous value for our consumer and business customers,” says a Microsoft spokesperson in a statement to The Verge. “We aren’t speaking to future b…

You missed the weasel words. > We aren’t speaking to future branding at this time

The purpose of weasel words is to sell falsehoods as pre-meditated gaslighting. The deception was intentional and the press and public believed the deception as intended. I wasn't suggesting that Microsoft is legally liable about anything, only that many people believed their lie as they intended.

Re: Microsoft extends free Windows 10 security updates into 2026

#144

Post by vel0city »

gpm wrote: post #81
vel0city wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Microsoft employee tasked with teaching devs how to write LiveTiles.

I.e. an official Microsoft representative, again, in front of the press, said it. It was repeated ad nauseam by the press and they made no attempt to correct it - in fact they went around getting the press to say similar things like "Once your device is upgraded to Windows 10, it will continue to be supported for the lifetime of the device at no cost". That's an official binding statement on the company if I ever did…

Also, a journalist on some blog saying something isn't some official binding statement. If they wrote "gpm promised free pancakes for all hackernews posters forever" would that also be an official binding statement to hold you to? Where are my pancakes?

Re: Microsoft extends free Windows 10 security updates into 2026

#145

Post by p_ing »

fluidcruft wrote: post #143
p_ing wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the weasel words. > We aren’t speaking to future branding at this time

The purpose of weasel words is to sell falsehoods as pre-meditated gaslighting. The deception was intentional and the press and public believed the deception as intended. I wasn't suggesting that Microsoft is legally liable about anything, only that many people believed their lie as they intended.

Many people believe the earth is flat but we don't put any credence into their beliefs.

Re: Microsoft extends free Windows 10 security updates into 2026

#146

Post by gpm »

vel0city wrote: post #144
gpm wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I.e. an official Microsoft representative, again, in front of the press, said it. It was repeated ad nauseam by the press and they made no attempt to correct it - in fact they went around getting the press to say similar things like "Once your device is upgraded to Windows 10, it will continue to be supported for the lifetime of the device at no cost". That's an official binding statement on the company if I ever did…

Also, a journalist on some blog saying something isn't some official binding statement. If they wrote "gpm promised free pancakes for all hackernews posters forever" would that also be an official binding statement to hold you to? Where are my pancakes?

Are you seriously comparing a major national newspaper, a core and reputable component of a multi billion dollar business, to "some blog". You'd moved into bad faith arguments awhile ago but that is really beyond the pale.

Substantially the same quote is available elsewhere, it's a newspaper repeating an official position.

Re: Microsoft extends free Windows 10 security updates into 2026

#147

Post by gpm »

vel0city wrote: post #123
gpm wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I.e. an official Microsoft representative, again, in front of the press, said it. It was repeated ad nauseam by the press and they made no attempt to correct it - in fact they went around getting the press to say similar things like "Once your device is upgraded to Windows 10, it will continue to be supported for the lifetime of the device at no cost". That's an official binding statement on the company if I ever did…

> in front of the press No. He was in front of a crowd of developers in a developer training seminar and trying to overhype the buy in of live tiles to suggest they wouldn't be deprecated.

Your defense here is "Microsoft made this promise in front of a different group of people than the press with different financial motives than to get people to use windows so they shouldn't be bound by it"?

a) That's absurd, that's clearly still a reason they should be bound by it

b) That it wasn't in front of the the is clearly false given press widely reported on it, if it wasn't in front of the press they couldn't have reported on it.

c) That it wasn't intended to convince people to use windows is clearly false given Microsoft's simultaneous purely public facing marketing of windows as a thing that would be supported for the lifetime of the device... Microsoft's continued endorsement of the sentiment behind the quote, and Microsoft's decision to not disavow the quote when journalists no doubt asked about it.

Re: Microsoft extends free Windows 10 security updates into 2026

#148

Post by vel0city »

gpm wrote: post #146
vel0city wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, a journalist on some blog saying something isn't some official binding statement. If they wrote "gpm promised free pancakes for all hackernews posters forever" would that also be an official binding statement to hold you to? Where are my pancakes?

Are you seriously comparing a major national newspaper, a core and reputable component of a multi billion dollar business, to "some blog". You'd moved into bad faith arguments awhile ago but that is really beyond the pale. Substantially the same quote is available elsewhere, it's a newspaper repeating an official position.

Your main point was based on an untrue statement of "in front of the press" and attributing their writers making statements as official binding correspondence from a company and yet you say I'm making bad faith arguments. It wasn't a press event, it was a developer training session.

A newspaper repeating an official position that can't be found anywhere else other than a guy giving a talk about live tiles and other news sites like this. And yet we don't care about that he also stated live tiles weren't going away and yet that clearly wasn't true either.

And in the end even if we take an article written by someone unaffiliated with Microsoft as a contract that now binds Microsoft forever, what's "the life of the device"? The warranty period? Two years? Five years? One hundred years?

Where are my pancakes? I saw someone wrote you were going to give free pancakes. After all we have to hold people to things they never officially stated just because other unrelated people keep repeating it.

Re: Microsoft extends free Windows 10 security updates into 2026

#149

Post by gpm »

vel0city wrote: post #148
gpm wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously comparing a major national newspaper, a core and reputable component of a multi billion dollar business, to "some blog". You'd moved into bad faith arguments awhile ago but that is really beyond the pale. Substantially the same quote is available elsewhere, it's a newspaper repeating an official position.

Your main point was based on an untrue statement of "in front of the press" and attributing their writers making statements as official binding correspondence from a company and yet you say I'm making bad faith arguments. It wasn't a press event, it was a developer training session. A newspaper repeating an official position that can't be found anywhere else other than a guy giving a talk about live tiles and other n…

My main point continues to be entirely true, the statement was unambiguously made in front of the press, as proved by the press quoting it.

The same statement as quoted by the newspaper (note: not a blog) globalnews can in fact be found elsewhere, quoted by other press sites. I didn't find the original - perhaps it was taken down or only made in a press release - but since e.g. arstechnica includes it in literal quotes I have no doubt that this is a literal quote of an official microsoft position..

Considering your continued bad faith arguments, and apparently deliberate mistatements of facts, I will now stop responding to you.

Re: Microsoft extends free Windows 10 security updates into 2026

#150

Post by vel0city »

gpm wrote: post #149
vel0city wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your main point was based on an untrue statement of "in front of the press" and attributing their writers making statements as official binding correspondence from a company and yet you say I'm making bad faith arguments. It wasn't a press event, it was a developer training session. A newspaper repeating an official position that can't be found anywhere else other than a guy giving a talk about live tiles and other n…

My main point continues to be entirely true, the statement was unambiguously made in front of the press, as proved by the press quoting it. The same statement as quoted by the newspaper (note: not a blog) globalnews can in fact be found elsewhere, quoted by other press sites. I didn't find the original - perhaps it was taken down or only made in a press release - but since e.g. arstechnica includes it in literal quot…

I've seen multiple posts now suggesting you're giving free pancakes. Where are these pancakes? You haven't said you aren't giving pancakes, must be true.

> and apparently deliberate mistatements of facts

Yeah, you should stop misstating facts like "Microsoft employee tasked with public relations declaring it so at a Microsoft event in front of the press is Microsoft marketing it that way", because that's not what happened.

> as proved by the press quoting it.

The quotes you see are from the recordings of the event. Are Netflix movies also statements given to the press? You can go watch it today. Instead you'll ignore actually looking into it and say I'm just making misstatements despite you not even knowing the source and the history of it.

Post reply on HN