51–60 of 71 posts
They're walking back the click-bait title (it used to say “steals your bandwidth”) but it's still somewhat hyperbolic: it could be described as “Windows 10 uses other peoples’ bandwidth to give you updates faster” with equal accuracy. If it's worth discussing a documented feature, could we at least link to the actual source: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/windows-update... It's a valid concern for peop…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not correct. TCP does not know the total amount of bandwidth available on a network link just like it does not know the total amount of unused bandwidth available on the same link - hence the need for additive increase. What will happen is that two TCPs will share the available bandwidth (or close to it) via AIMD. However, if you've ever uploaded a file on an asynchronous Internet connection (i.e. a DSL conne…
Microsoft has been working on something like that for years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_Intelligent_Transfe...
Basically Microsoft's response to concerns over the bandwidth usage is, "Well, the bandwidth was just sitting there not being used. Doesn't affect anything if we use it."
That's just not true and it's an oversimplification of network topology.
Am I the only one having "issues" with Enterprises deciding to turn on usage of MY resources for their benefit by default? aka opt-out vs opt-in? I mean how much bandwidth and connected costs ms things to save themselves by this feature? Hyperbole: what's next? Making my machine crack some crypto in a swarm? mining coins?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they were going to change anything, I think the LAN-only policy they employ for Enterprise and Education should probably be the default. That said, instead of changing anything I'd so much rather see MS take this and run with it, working with ISPs to help them understand that this traffic should be exempt (or even rewarded as a bandwidth credit) because it'll lower ISP costs and improve customer satisfaction simlu…
That's pretty much against net neutrality
It seems like that would be neutral, simple, and sensible, though I'm not quite sure how peering and colocated caches would be treated. Probably the same as bandwidth for the end user since it's up to ISPs and content providers to do that.
Microsoft seems to be setting all their defaults to "screw the user". This isn't good. Distributing Windows 10 as a drive-by install that takes over your machine and turns it into a spamming node is really sleazy. Microsoft is giving away Windows 10. That's a huge problem. It's not a compelling product they can get people to pay for, unlike all previous versions of Windows. Microsoft, for the first time, has to claw…
> Distributing Windows 10 as a drive-by install that takes over your machine and turns it into a spamming node is really sleazy.
You only get the Windows 10 download if you have requested it. This means it is not actually a drive-by install, even if you are determined to use the term to smear Microsoft. (Drive-by installs are not requested and are usually from websites.)
> Microsoft is giving away Windows 10.
This isn't true, and I'm frankly amazed you don't realize that it it's not true.
Microsoft is giving consumers a free upgrade to Windows 10 if they have already paid for Windows 7 or 8. This is no different from Apple or Google giving away OS upgrades to people who have already paid for the product in the same way as Windows users (bundled with hardware).
> It's not a compelling product they can get people to > pay for, unlike all previous versions of Windows.
Yeah, and by the same pretend "logic", Apple and Google don't have operating systems they could get people to pay for either.
> Microsoft, for the first time, has to claw its revenue out of the user some other way.
The business model hasn't changed. OEMs pay to install Windows 10, exactly like every other version of Windows. Microsoft is still in the software business, not, like Google, the surveillance-and-advertising business.
You're welcome to your conspiracy theories, of course. However, perhaps it would be better if you didn't try to support them with facts, because you don't appear to be able to get them correct ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure exactly how it works but there is documentation on what they're calling "Connection Cost". https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/xaml/w... https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/xaml/m... https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh7503...
I wonder how they get those values, considering bandwidth limit parameters can vary depending on contracts even when it is happening to identical networks... (Perhaps some UI allows users to to put this info, similar to Android settings?)
I'm all about peer to peer to make efficient use of resources but this, to me, is another feature that should be opt in by default. If you are like me you have a decent connection, know for a fact you're not utilizing as much as you're given and understand how a P2P protocol can help you and those around you. But your average user doesn't really know what this all means without explanation. IMO most people probably h…
personally, the most shocking part in the write up was the 40GB data limit. Isn't New Zealand supposed to a first world, developed country?
That aside, I've seen the same type of limitation in Australia, albeit was a while ago -- their hotel connection was paid and was metered (something like at 350MB), which I haven't seen elsewhere in countries I've visited. I wonder if it's something common in these regions.
Looked at from a different light, if we had more things like this, on by default, it could force ISPs to remove their caps, or at least raise them significantly. I'd really like to know if the current caps, low as they are, are there for a very good technical reason, or if it's just to protect existing old media outlets. It certainly feel like the later here in Canada.