Credibility and trust: Microsoft blows it by forcing Windows 10 on users
networkworld.com
networkworld.com
Technically they usually are, but then management starts making decisions about what is best. Not what is best for the user, what is best for Microsoft. If they just focused on the users, it would all work itself out. People would want to upgrade. Instead we get to login to our local machine with a Microsoft account, data tracking, etc. These are all things good for Microsoft.
The botch (which just keeps getting worse) is the forced-by-any-means upgrade; if you have an upgrade path planned, and you're in the middle of testing, having all the workstations pull the rug from under you (because "This is where you want to go today!") is, IMNSHO, borderline criminal.
In other words: We had wanted to upgrade. Within weeks. Now we're dug in the trenches, locked down and hoping we didn't miss one of the upgrade backdoors; the upgrade plan is, of course, scrapped altogether. In a sentence: COMPLETE LOSS OF TRUST.
" Windows 10 still phones home to Microsoft with telemetry data including an anonymous device ID, information about the type of device that's being used, and data from application crashes. That sort of data has been key to solving problems with the operating system and other applications, according to an explanation published Monday from Microsoft Corporate Vice President Terry Myerson."
[1] http://www.infoworld.com/article/2987175/microsoft-windows/m...
Microsoft has used updates to change service and update names related to Telemetry already. Some of the "tips" in the comments are also wrong, like using the hosts file to block certain domains which Telemetry services don't respect.
Unless it's a documented method from Microsoft it doesn't count. Their stated aim is that all non-Enterprise customer will take part in "Basic" telemetry. Until they change that stance, random hacks from the blogosphere are at best unreliable and at worst dangerous and give a false sense of privacy and security.
Oh, I didn't realize that we were playing a board game. No, in real life when something actually works...people can use it. The registry edit does indeed work. I've used it. Plenty of people use it. So yeah - that does too count.
Apple doesn't support HomeBrew and tons of other things that developers do on OS X, but nobody sits there and says "that doesn't count".
Linux distros don't support every single configuration that Linux users put in...but nobody says "it doesn't count".
Even if that is all true today -- and I'm expressing no view here on whether it is -- with mandatory updates there is no guarantee anything will continue to work the same way tomorrow. If there is one thing Microsoft has proved beyond any doubt over the past few months, it is that we can't trust it not to abuse Windows updates. This is why the trust issue has become a major PR problem, though I suspect many in senior management at MS are still in denial about how bad that problem really is.
I've had the opposite experience. The OS that's supposed to have all the drivers didn't have all the drivers and I know a ton of people who were stuck without wifi (and a few who could not even connect through ethernet), had graphics problems which basically made their OS unusable, had all sorts of performance issues (especially on small netbooks that auto upgraded), the list could just go on.
You shouldn't have to disable spyware when installing an OS. You shouldn't have to install powershell to remove candy crush (which is what you had to do when Win10 first came out). You shouldn't have to uninstall adware on a new OS. You shouldn't need an SSD and other newer/high-end hardware to run an OS, especially when other operating systems run flawlessly on low-end hardware.
Nah, Windows is a trash OS and it seems like the only people who use it are people who are forced to because of program compatibility.
The "spy on everything" and "you MUST have cloud" attitude are actual OS issues, I agree.
I was on linux for 10+ years, and I switched to Windows after they released 10 because I was truly happy with it after trying the tech preview. The program compatibility is just a bonus. Almost all of my family uses Windows over OS X because they can't stand the weird ass intentionally hobbled UI of OSX.
Now try switching to that window with they keyboard in OS X, without using any 3rd party helpers like HyperSwitch.
You can't do it.
Also try running 2 instances of the same app in OS X. You also can't do that.
OS X is garbage compared to Windows.
For myself, having used Linux since early Red Hat releases and Macs (professionally) since System 6 - I am certain that OS X and every Linux desktop are absolute garbage compared to Windows.
Anyway, to address your concerns:
> You shouldn't have to disable spyware when installing an OS.
You don't have to. Problem solved.
> You shouldn't have to install powershell to remove candy crush.
You don't have to do that either. Problem solved.
> You shouldn't have to uninstall adware on a new OS.
There is none. Problem solved.
> You shouldn't need an SSD...
You don't need one. Problem solved.
> Nah, Windows is a trash OS and it seems like the only people who use it are people who are forced to because of program compatibility.
Well, that's your opinion. I use it because it's the best. So, given that you're obviously wrong that "people only use it program compatibility [and no other reason]" we'll have to conclude that your opinion is not based on facts.
You do if you don't want to be spied on.
>You don't have to do that either. Problem solved.
You did.
http://superuser.com/questions/958562/how-do-i-remove-candy-...
>There is [no adware]. Problem solved.
I consider Candycrush is adware
>You don't need [an SSD]. Problem solved.
Well it runs terribly whithout one.
It's telemetry and it's not spying. Do you use a smartphone? If so, you are already running something that has telemetry in it.
> I consider Candycrush is adware
Who cares? Again...do you use any smartphone? Do you realize that just about every smartphone that people use has some sort of app on it that has some ads? You're making a big deal out of absolutely nothing.
> Well it runs terribly whithout [an ssd].
Well my long time experience with Windows says otherwise. You apparently don't use Windows, so how would you even know? Besides that, why would you want a non-SSD for any OS in 2016?
> The spying "features" can all be disabled
I've yet to find a way to disable the telemetry on a non-enterprise system. I'd appreciate any links to instructions on how to do this.
Indeed. I made a similar argument when Adobe went subscription-only with Creative Cloud. That move seems like a clear signal to customers that Adobe thinks locking those customers in is more valuable than whatever new features or performance improvements or bug fixes Adobe is going to offer, since if the latter were more valuable then presumably customers would have been willing to pay for a new version and choose to install it anyway.
They've done that. Every single time. That's why Windows is the most widely used desktop OS on the planet. On the desktop, it's better than OS X and it's better than Linux and if you disagree then you're obviously out of whack with the rest of the world's priorities because everybody uses Windows and they do so because Windows gives them what they want.
Yes, Windows 10 has some annoyances - just like every other OS in existence. Big deal. Windows has absolutely gotten better with each version. I've been using it since Windows 3 and honestly, saying that Windows hasn't gotten better with each version makes it seem like you have no clue at all what you're talking about.
Also, to the people complaining that you can't turn things off: You've been misinformed. You can turn off every single item that has been discussed and you can do it without "booting into safe-mode to delete an exe" for instance - http://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/3569-windows-defender-rea...
This was before I noticed that Candy Crush Saga silently installed itself on my Windows 10 machine. Not only that but it was listed as a running application in the Task Manager. Think about it: the system is silently installing & running third party apps without your consent (!) and there's no option to control that behavior. (This is not me having hallucinations, see [1] for other reports of that behavior).
I don't know why it took that long but it seriously compromised any trust I had with the company.
[1] https://www.google.ie/search?rls=en&q=windows+10+candy+crush...
But as you point out, it's still an obvious violation of trust...
I'm one of those people who updated early, and had a lot of problems - with Wifi, touchpad, and incompatible software (Cisco VPN). And still, I'd advocate that Microsoft should just update everything automatically. Yes, it hurts some users (who should be able to opt-out easily!) but is the right option for >95% of home users.
Heck, I wouldn't even announce it as a new version. If the user had Windows 7 and updates to the latest windows, keep "Windows 7" in the info box and keep the glass theme (and put the real version in the small-print). Then at some point drop the version number altogether (something I believe MS is planning to do soon anyway), and offer the user to "download the exciting modern theme for free!".
The truth is, the difference between Windows 8.1 and 10 is smaller than between some service packs for previous versions. Actually, 10 rolls back some much-hated changes in 8, so it is very close to 7 in some regards.
The way I see it, there are two ways to get people to run current Windows: 1) secretly update it under their seats and don't make a fuss about it or 2) make people excited so they really want to upgrade (like 95 or XP). What MS is doing now - show ads and make it look like they have ulterior motives to update your 'perfectly fine' OS - might not be the best solution...
If they'd not shove that into their OS, but make it a separate product (that actually worked and not just opened Bing all the time), people would be more willing to sign their terms (and might even pay for it).
[1] https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb332157
The average small business or power user isn't running Windows Server with domains and so on set up. They're probably running a handful of Pro machines for users, or even just a single machine.
In that context, I think my previous question stands. Can someone who is running Windows 10 Pro then control the Windows updates they do or don't install?
If you buy Windows Pro and don't put it on a domain there's no real difference between that and Home except that you're paying more for capabilities you aren't using. For denying updates in such a scenario, you're stuck doing everything manually on each machine via unsupported methods and hoping your users don't undo your changes.
Right, but how many small businesses or power users have those? To a first approximation, the answer is probably "none".
If you buy Windows Pro and don't put it on a domain there's no real difference between that and Home except that you're paying more for capabilities you aren't using.
Well, the above isn't actually true. For example, I'm writing this on a machine with 32GB of RAM running Windows 7, which Pro can use but Home editions can't.
But that aside, whatever Microsoft choose to call their different editions and however much they change what terms like "Pro" actually mean between Windows versions, the reality is that there is a huge market of small businesses and power users who want to run Windows, don't want or need the kinds of management tools traditionally associated with Enterprise editions and Windows Server, but do require stability and reliability in their IT systems. With Windows 7, they had that. With 10, they don't.
For denying updates in such a scenario, you're stuck doing everything manually on each machine via unsupported methods and hoping your users don't undo your changes.
I'm going to do something I don't usually do and guess what the person I'm debating with is like in real life here. You're some sort of sysadmin or CIO within a non-technical organisation large enough to use Enterprise, or at least to be within its target market, right?
The reason I'm expecting that is that you refer to what a huge amount of the market actually does, using tools provided for that exact purpose, as "unsupported". I work with quite a few different small businesses, freelancers, and other such users, mostly in technical industries. It is absolutely routine in these organisations for everyone to have admin rights on their own PC and to handle their own updates, not least because it's very unlikely that there is any dedicated IT staff to manage these things centrally.
The thing you seem to consider weird or dangerous is what millions of professional Windows users do all the time. The sky has not yet fallen, the networks have not yet been taken over by botnets, and actual work has not been interrupted by Windows 10 barging in unannounced. Which is lucky, because if it could, it looks like that entire segment of the market would be out of luck.
I have had upgrades for Windows 10 sitting in my WSUS review queue for a long time now and simply not taking action has led to them not being installed. https://imgur.com/0LN5N7n.png
I agree.
But I feel sorry for the IT support people in companies and schools.
I suppose you may have bulk licenses which may not require the MSFT ID.
OEM installs require the ID it seems: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/office/forum/office_2016-...
And so do retail licenses: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/office/forum/office_2016-...
I only had a spare keyboard laying around, and had to finish the install (disable all spyware) and delete the faulty drivers without a mouse, that wasn't exactly fun.
And also massive UI change. Don't even start with the new start menu etc.
Fortunately a replacement was on hand but imagining a botched live performance in front of a large audience is cringe inducing.
When you see Grandpa running a 'Windows 10 update blocker' and 'Start Menu reverting utility' something must have gone very wrong during UX development, or the company simply doesn't care about its users.
On the flip-side, I've never seen recent converts being so happy with their Linux installs, nor have I had so many requests for that "Linux thing".
There are use cases where Windows simply doesn't belong, such as digital signage and ATMs. It's a pity many developers keep choosing what they are comfortable with instead of the right tool for the job.
I have recently competed against MSFT in the field. And I can assure you they are up to their old dirt bag tricks. The one I disliked the most was modifying customer contracts to inflate sales numbers of some of their products.
When I see news like this I'm not surprised.
Their moves don't seem genuine. Just some PR plan. Putting lipstick on a pig.
Microsoft is so big that it's no wonder that one team does something great for everyone while another team partly voids the improvement by doing something stupid. Windows 8 and 10 have, as usual, improved the kernel and the surrounding subsystems but the stuff on top got worse in many aspects.
My conclusion is that Microsoft is in need of a charismatic leader who keeps quality in check and regression to a minimum. Someone who doesn't tolerate the stuff they're pulling right now.
At this exact moment, I'm trying to troubleshoot the dreaded "Remote procedure call failed" error on my barely used Windows 10 laptop which breaks all the fake apps (aka Windows store apps) that come bundled with the OS. If you want reliable apps on Windows 10, use real Windows apps not Windows store apps.
Do you hear yourself? What if people don't need to upgrade ? Sorry, but I'm the one knowing best about if I need to upgrade my OS.
And when you pay for a machine, a lot of money, and you pay for a system, a lot of money, you expect to have the choice of what you do with said machine and system.
Plus, do you know why people sticked to XP ? Because it worked. Same with windows 7.
If you don't need a new system, there is no reason to change. It's work. It's uncertainty. It will break things. And I won't even begin with the w10 spywares.
Not to mention the way it's been done which is downright disrespecteful.
Automatically installing security updates is fine. Upgrading users to a new major release that deprecates a shitton of working hardware and software for no reason but to make life for MS easier, is not fine.
- ads in the OS (FFS!)
- spywares
- an app store to control the channel of user installs
It's not about the customers at all. In no way it's for their own good. And fact you paid for it has no importance, you'll be forced to give more.
Spyware? The telemetry enabled them to have faster feedback and the quality of Win10 improved before my very eyes. If you have developed an app and used a telemetry framework, you should know that it is not spying. If they were to spy they'd do it differently, not by asking you to please provide us some data for QoS.
App store is bad? Is it not bad for the other major OS-es? It is good if it is called apt-get? The App store provides sandboxing and isolation, security to the users, where a single install of a software cannot break others. When the containerization arrives (as new features come to Win10 continously) this will be even cooler, as legacy apps can be packaged and spread through the app store. No more problems with installing stuff unattended, or having to accept EULAs, as those can be stored on an account level in the Store. No more installshield madness.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-disable-windows-10-start...
> The telemetry enabled them to have faster feedback
I know the commercial pitch.
telemetry is a polite name for spywares. The fact one of the goal is the OS improvement doesn't change that. If I kick you in the face to scratch my hand, I still kick you in the face.
> App store is bad
I never said app store were bad. I just said MS was pushing 10 so they can get the app store in so they can improve their sales. Not because they wanted to help anybody. I like stores. Altough comparing app stores to package repo is like comparing a group of libraries and book clubs to the only book shops available in the city.
Should an OS that I have paid for (the Windows tax, never mind that it's not listed as a separate item on the invoice) be ad-supported on top of that? I'll leave that one open, as I don't see The One Correct Answer.
Because neither iOS nor Android contain ads in the core OS. This is a different issue than ad-enabled third party apps.
> I have not met much ads, apart from the install office stuff.
And the Tomb Raider lock screen, and all that crap in the start menu, and…
> If you have developed an app and used a telemetry framework, you should know that it is not spying
The EULA states that they're selling your telemetry data to third parties. Sometimes opt-out, sometimes hardcoded (try to make the start menu search not connect to the internet). That's a tad different from just using opt-in (or even fully opt-out) telemetry for internal debugging purposes (which Microsoft has been doing since at least XP times, and which I don't mind).
> Is it not bad for the other major OS-es?
It is, which is why I don't use them, or don't use their app store.
> It is good if it is called apt-get?
A decentralized package manager and a centralized, heavily censored, tithed app store are two completely different concepts.
> The App store provides sandboxing and isolation, security to the users, where a single install of a software cannot break others
All features that are not inherently tied to the concept of an app store.
Here's what I get if I press the logo key. (Just now it's advertising "Sonic Dash".)
The ads in iOS are a problem. But those ads are in the app store, they're not on my home screen.
(The behaviour of a web page in chrome being able to switch me from chrome to the app store to show me an ad is baffling and terrible. If you're talking about sucky ads that's a great example of piss-poor experience on iOS.)
Also note: when people say they moved to Ubuntu, they do the same whining about systemd and every innovation they perceive as "breaking change". Ordinary people are the greatest burden of progress, because usually they cannot (or do not wish to put effort into) understand the greater picture and the benefits to them.
Sidenote: GWX is broken. I had to do my update with manually downloaded installer media as windows update on win7 and GWX didn't work.
Boohoo. Maybe Microsoft should have priced that into the product before they sold it, instead of using borderline illegal methods to scam people out of providing the service they expect?
That's totally true, but some things blur the lines:
- XP SP2 introduced an inbuilt, on by default firewall. It was a major new feature but necessary.
- XP user accounts were admin by default, Vista added UAC: another major new feature but also necessary.
I can't speak about you, but I certainly don't think I know best about when to upgrade my OS. I rarely need new features, and hate unnecessary changes to my running system like anybody else. But I've seen spreading malware crap far to often to take chances.
Remember the time when you had to disconnect the computer from the internet while installing Windows XP, because unpatched installations would be taken over in minutes by worms? For most people (unless you have an excellent firewall and don't browse the web), the only sane option is to keep everything up-to-date with all security updates.
If Microsoft decides they can't afford to backport security updates to older versions after some years, then at some point we have to swallow the toad and upgrade. It's just the unfortunate reality of current OSes.
In other words, "I am not capable of deciding" does not translate into "therefore everyone gets force-fed the upgrade (because of course they're not capable of deciding, either)."
I think there are two different questions. Should updates auto-install by default (after a warning), and should you be able to reject any update? I'd say yes to both, but unfortunately Microsoft tends to no for both sometimes.
people don't upgrade unless they are forced to.
People will update firefox any day of the week, because they've made such updates many times in the past; only a small fraction of users have been burned by radical user interface changes or breaking compatibility with existing sites; and most of those who have had a problem with changes have found a configuration option (albeit hidden) to disable the change.
On the other hand, updating from Windows 7 to Windows 10 means a bunch of user interface changes you can't opt out of; and a bunch of your existing software no longer working.
It doesn't take a genius to tell if you bundle your security updates with radical user interface redesigns and break compatibility with a bunch of existing software, some users aren't going to apply the security updates.
"Users: this is what we are planning. We know it's uncomfortable, but it's best because of _ and _. Please make arrangements now if you want your computer to continue operating as-is (without security or updates), because as of _, the OS upgrade will be rolled out automatically".
The other thing to remember is that they made their own bed: they wanted to be able to sell users each individual "new" version of the OS, which created this mentality in the first place.
Like the (currently) top comment wisely says: if you focus relentlessly on the user, all of this is a much smaller problem, because your upgrades are amazing, and users want to upgrade voluntarily.
This is very short sighted on multiple fronts. If you force someone into an upgrade they didn't actually want they're going to be annoyed, and they may revert the upgrade.
If you then start showing ads as part of your OS after the upgrade, those people are going to be really upset.
Then once they find out just how much data about them you are collecting, some of them are going to have such a damaged option of your company they will never buy another product from you.
That all is just talking about home users of Windows and their experience. The amount of money wasted by Windows 10's aggressive upgrade in corporations is probably in the billions of dollars. Think about how many calls and trouble tickets have probably come in over the last year about the unintended upgrades.
Lastly, I personally only use my PC for gaming. I don't like Windows 10. I've had to turn off auto-update on my Windows 7 machine because the attempts to trick me into upgrade have gotten more and more aggressive and I can't be sure that I'm not fall for it late at night or just wake up one day with my machine upgraded to an OS I don't want. That's bad.
It's probably far less of a problem for enterprise customers, because they have the tools to control updates centrally within their IT departments. Microsoft is surely well aware that professional sysadmins won't tolerate things like having arbitrary updates applied to their systems by Microsoft, and for sysadmins in larger organisations there is enough real revenue at stake that Microsoft will do something about it, hence LTSB in Windows 10 Enterprise.
The thing I don't understand is why Microsoft think smaller businesses or power users -- the kind of people who were running Pro on Windows 7 or 8.x -- would be any more willing to compromise on that count, and why they think that market is going to voluntarily update to Windows 10 Pro, which appears to be a very different kind of product to its namesake in earlier versions.
I wish my punishment for writing some software and issuing a few updates for security defects was also measured in billions of dollars.
I do understand Microsoft's insistence to allow removing particular upgrades selectively, and that might be used as an argument for the inefficient update system, but if you do that, it's just as easy to leave a broken Windows, so I don't buy it.
If Microsoft could at least take some hints from Apple, where you have always just one latest version of a component, it might be step forward. As it stands, you'll have 4 MSVC runtimes, 3 .Net runtimes, and so on, all complicating matters. A little streamlining of their components with an improved update software implementation should do wonders.
That said, I'd love read more about this from someone who knows Windows deeper than me, because I cannot believe MS so ignorant of the abysmal update times.
What is the rationalle for forcing people to upgrade the OS on business machines that are mid-life and doing their job perfectly well as is? It's not your decision Microsoft, and you're costing these people money.
Windows 10 breaks things on both. On the older, even if the "Update to 10" says "everything's OK," after the update the machine is so unstable that it gets often stuck and crashes regularly. It has enough RAM, the cause is "officially unsupported" Intel WiFi card that I can't replace with the newer.
On the newer notebook, the touchpad remains effectively broken: its sensitivity is different, the scroll areas can't be activated. The screen is somehow also more prone to temporary "burn-in" effects. The notebook is specifically not listed by the manufacturer as "upgradable to Windows 10." Microsoft however forces upgrade again and again.
From my point of view, Windows 10 upgrade definitely has problems with notebooks.
Microsoft dreams about that 30% cut of every app sold, and they will murder desktop to get it.
I usually wait out half a year or something before upgrading because I don't have any pressing reasons to upgrade, maybe one computer that gets the new version so I can test stuff.
Windows seems to change radically with each version. And none of the changes seem to be permanent. At least the OS on my Mac really changed when it changed and then it stayed the same for 15 years again.
https://www.apple.com/au/osx/whats-new/ (I just learnt that I could wiggle my finger really fast to find my lost mouse pointer)
I agree that it never really feels like it though. The last big features that really changed/improved things were 2 finger right click and scroll, Spotlight and Time Machine.
Windows is a closed source black box that you dont have control of. You can spruce it up all you want, but its the cold hard truth.
Foss is the future, so those ofnus freeing ourselves of the clutches of proprietary where we can will be ahead of the game when in 6 months we learn via document leaks, (because those of us paying attention) realize the NSA backdoors are so deep now good luck being a dissident and running doze.
so far i don't see a single reason to move from Win7, and I instructed my fiancee to not interact with any update dialogs on her laptop, just move them outside of screen. Well done, Microsoft, well done
In fact, developers, especially web developers, should be excited that Microsoft is upgrading everyone they can.
Thanks for the hyperbole. I guess you used the word "might" so you can't be wrong when nothing changes? As I explained, there won't be any consequences.
(The "might" expands to this: a retraction of the, ahem, telemetry, and the continuous update policy - at least for the enterprise segment - is one way the MS could avoid this trap it's built for itself; given their behavior to date, I doubt it will)
(Almost) nobody is complaining about Google forcing them to update Android to the next version -- it just happens. That's what Microsoft is doing right now.
That's because it doesn't happen. You get a new version of Android when you buy a new phone.
Once I decided not to upgrade. But it used to pop up every now and then and I used to cancel the notification. Once by mistake, I pressed ok and there was no way to cancel the update. Then it bloated my phone(Samsung S4) like anything and phone keeps complaining out of disk space and I have to keep deleting my photos(and also uninstall apps) for getting more and more space for the stupid android it's own junk
Because updating to a new Android version doesn't break my apps, my hardware, nor my workflows.
Meanwhile, every Windows major releases deprecates entire classes of hardware (Need a working parallel port? Too bad!), breaks various kinds of business critical software, and completely restructures the UX so that people have to re-learn how to do trivial things.
Can you elaborate? I have Windows 10 and my parallel port is working just dandy.
They'd like everyone to believe that, but I suspect the picture will look quite different by the start of 2020 when Windows 7 support runs out. It's certainly possible that MS will win this one through sheer determination, but it's certainly also possible that their senior management will be removed and the replacements will steer the ship back towards a more traditional and trusted path, and there's also a significant chance that with so long to go some other party will mount a credible attack on Microsoft's dominance on the desktop by then.
(Probably not :))
In this context, I think Linux has most potential as the foundation for more targeted platforms that might compete for specific niches within the traditional desktop space, along the lines of Chrome OS or SteamOS. Android has shown that you can build a very successful, very widely used platform on top of Linux within the kind of time frame we're talking about here.
I just don't buy in the hyperbole., besides windows 7 is out of support and windows 8 is going off next year. Those users will be the next in line into botnets.
At least microsoft takes backward compatibility seriously and upgrades are relatively painless compared to, say, linux.
Windows 7 is not out of support because it's obsolete, it's out of support because of MS commercial strategy.
Windows 7 is not out of support. It is out of mainstream support which means Microsoft develops and releases no new features for it. Windows 7 is in Extended support until 2020, which means it continues to get security patches, which is really all anyone cares about.