Microsoft is checking everyone's bags for unsupported Office installs
theregister.com
theregister.com
There are other issues as well, Onedrive, Office 2016 and Windows 11 combination has problems - Word and Excel crashes with no rhyme or reason, some documents which were not shared ask for credentials for accessing and so on.
Also there is the fact that they declared that 2016 and 2019 won't be eligible for connecting to Microsoft 365 services after October 2023 (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/deployoffice/endofsupport/...). So there is a clock ticking if you are using those versions of Office.
I wonder how that will affect the Business Basic subscriptions. Everyone uses those for Exchange, but they don’t include Outlook. Business Standard is a bad deal for small businesses vs buying a perpetual version of Office.
Im still upset about the change from device based to user based licensing too. I use several (user) profiles to silo my own work and I’m not buying 4 Office subscriptions.
I really hope the whole cloud subscription thing opens a door for competition and comes back to haunt them. For example, I’d love to host my own instance of Only Office so I can send people files and have them edit online with authentication happening via magic links. It’s not quite there yet because the installation is too cumbersome.
I honestly believe the biggest barrier to entry in the Office space was that everyone used to need MS Office to edit files out of band. Once it’s 100% cloud, I think competition becomes more viable. At least I hope so.
I made the mistake of buying Windows computers for my parents, because that's what they're used to. Microsoft's execrable policies and design made setting these up a clinic on how to piss customers off. Widespread UI defects... bafflingly disorganized design... disregard for user selections... and then the continual hounding hounding hounding for a "Microsoft account." For months, my parents would occasionally call me because Office would stop working and demand credentials (mine, of course, since it was my license).
So I finally shitcanned all of it and installed LibreOffice and Thunderbird (which has improved drastically in the 20 years since I've looked at it). But I still regret not getting them at least one Mac. I have plenty of issues with Apple UI decisions, but Windows and Office are such a shitshow at this point that the Mac looks like a finished product while Windows looks like a failed project cobbled together from... I don't even know what.
Yes, they want the money.
> So there is a clock ticking if you are using those versions of Office.
My solution is Office 2007 (for 32 bit) or 2010 (for 64 bit), either running on Wine or baremetal, and replacing Outlook.com by Gmail.com to which old versions of Office connect perfectly well thanks to Google Workspace Sync.
2007 is wonderful in 32 bit for Wine. 2010 is wonderful in 64 bit native on Windows 11. And you get a "forever" license for like $30 on ebay (the activation server may refuse activation right now, but it can be made to work for new computers, and it's not a problem if you have an already activated one)
They recently cut both from OWA connectivity to outlook.com, but google conveniently provides a pluging (Google WorkSpace Sync) to keep going with gmail.
I'll invest an insane amount of effort to keep them going, just because how how pleasant and reactive they are - and if that requires running in Wine from WSL, so be it.
[1] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/-telephone-activa...
I've reinstalled Office on a spare laptop 2 weeks ago, and it's just fine.
> Are there any tricks that can help? Still the same computer as I originally had it on.
Yes, there are ways to make it work. Use google to find them.
Just for fun I tried running Microsoft's Show or Hide Updates troubleshooter like the article suggested and got "An error occurred while troubleshooting. Error code 0x80070483." Sigh. No wonder everyone bashes Microsoft.
>"This update will run one time silently without installing anything on the user's device,"
By definition not an update to windows or office, using windows update to slip past any friction to having people willingly run spyware on their devices that in no way benefits them.
It's news.
I’m sure whatever their intention is, it does not come from the desire of making less money.
I'm more surprised some people are surprised by The Register headline, it just shows that are most likely young to be familiar with TR which ain't that famous as in the past (think The Verge levels of popularity).
The idea that the OS vendor can push telemetry that scans my computer, not even analyzing activity, but rummaging through my old files, is crazy.
They've taken what was originally a sort of okay idea, automated updates for security, and turned it into something absolutely nuts. I have a windows PC for the occasional game, and these days I feel like I have to treat it as defacto malware.
This is all in service of 365, which is an inferior product. So I understand the bad taste this leaves but it’s not really anything to worry about.
I don't think this is normal. It may be common, but I don't think it is normal. I find this deeply creepy for an OS vendor to think it's okay to push an update that collects data passively from machines. This isn't even collecting telemetry on active users. This is collecting telemetry on installed software.
I get that the Overton window in this shifted a long time ago, and in the tech community I'm in the minority, and especially on hacker news where so many people work for tech companies that track their users every way they can, but I am saying I find it deeply concerning that this sort of thing is a "run of the mill" telemetry update.
I'd go so far as to say this has antitrust implications. MS is using their dominance in one market (operating systems) to collect market data about another market (office software). Their competitors (Google, Zoho, etc) do not have the luxury to scan most of the world's computers on a whim to see what software is installed.
chrome://settings/cleanup>"This update will run one time silently without installing anything on the user's device,"
by definition not an update
> This update is intended to help Microsoft identify the number of users running out-of-support (or soon to be out-of-support) versions of Office, including Office 2013, Office 2010, and Office 2007. This update will run one time silently without installing anything on the user's device.
Sorry, how can this be interpreted in any way other than Microsoft pushing an update who's only purpose is to scan my computer to collect data for them?
And Microsoft has 0 goodwill in this department after pushing updates that made ads start appearing in start menus. These aren't "fears as facts," it's pattern recognition.
Given how little control you have over it, is it your computer?
This level of telemetry and inspection is beyond abhorrent: it underscores MS believes you are the product, you don't own or control your hardware, you will be forced towards buying more products, and you will be forced to deliver your most private thoughts and your attention on a plate for upload and mining.
Therefore anyone caring about privacy, including what files are on their machine, will not run Windows, period.
I agree, but I do run Windows. I do it for only one purpose: to ensure my software works there.
If my software works on Windows, and people adopt it, it's yet another piece of software that they could bring to Linux or another better platform. Think of it like using "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" against Microsoft.
It's not. How Outlook 2010 was cut out from downloading outlook.com mail is concerning. I want to know what their next shot will be. Excel is where I draw the line: if Windows 11 stop letting me use Excel 2010, I will resume my Linux migration attempt.
Microsoft excuses about "security" don't pass my sniff tests and create risks for outlook.com: downloading mail with IMAP or POP over SSL isn't a security risk - or you're doing something seriously wrong.
Why is that concerning? Outlook 2010 does not support the modern authentication and encryption that Exchange Online, and Outlook.com require. It only supports Basic Auth, which was turned off after a long and extended delay.
Really? Then explain me why is it important? Why does it require this specific solution, and why other solutions like say using say POP over SSL are absolutely impossible? And if it's so absolutely required, and other solutions are absolutely impossible, why couldn't it be added?
I mean, Google of all people managed to write a plugin that acts as a middleware between Outlook and gmail.com and solves all this, and unlike Microsoft they didn't have the benefit of having access to Outlook sourcecode or APIs, so clearly, something is off.
To me, this means 1) the lack of "modern" auth and encryption is at best an excuse since 2) there's a proof of concept (from a competitor!) that 3) reliably works as a plugin which is using architectural choices ALREADY BAKED IN outlook.
Maybe Microsoft didn't have the money (nah) human resources (possible) or lost the source code (but didn't it get posted during a hack?) of Office 2010 to tweak it and add the feature.
However, since it came right after the end of the official support period, I seriously doubt it.
I see that more like the same money grab that 1Password did: stop selling regular licenses (here office 2010), move to a subscription model (here office 365), introducing incompatible features as needed to "encourage" the migration (here "modern" auth) , and if customers still don't get the memo, just plainly break the product with some technobabble for plausible deniability (here "encryption" - works as well on the average techie as "think about the children!" works on the average voter)
MFA namely, it requires an interactive process. Other auth standards do not support a challenge-response exchange.
Not to mention increasing encryption standards like TLS1.2 that are not included in that client.
>>Google of all people managed to write a plugin that acts as a middleware between Outlook and gmail.com
Ok and... MS is perfectly cable of doing the same but why? Outside of the problems with traffic and auth, old software has a HUGE security risk, personally I think it should be built into office that once EOL date is reached it simply bricks...
People running old software are a risk to EVERYONE online, as these systems are normally the ones turned into botnets, and other control centers for ransomware.
And why is a challenge required? Shouldn't the decision on which level of protection to use be left to the client? The business should be able to say "thanks but no thanks I like my email server just the way it is".
> MFA namely, it requires an interactive process
Assuming that an interactive process is required (even if that's moving the goalpost), again, that's something that can totally be done in the plugin (show a prompt, and pass that to the server along with the rest of the information stored). It could even be automatized by saving the seed (often shown as a QR code) in the plugin.
> MS is perfectly cable of doing the same but why?
They don't even have to. All I ask is to not take steps to actively destroy software. With a profit motive (replacing Office 2010 by 365 with a yearly fee) "Negligence" is no longer an excuse. I see "Malice" as way more probable.
> old software has a HUGE security risk
A client should never cause a security risk to the server. So if you mean outlook.com, no: if Outlook 2010 can cause a security risk to outlook.com when it connects to outlook.com, then you've done the server part seriously wrong (like how SQL injections means a lack of input sanitation).
If you mean on my own computer, I'm sorry but I run what the hell I want however I want - first sale doctrine and all that.
So if I want to run Windows 7, I will.
> personally I think it should be built into office that once EOL date is reached it simply bricks
OMG what did I just read?
If that's what you seriously believe 1) I'm so glad you're not in charge of the products I use, because 2) you have a great future in sales or as a manager to increase the revenue streams, users be damned.
> People running old software are a risk to EVERYONE online
I'm sorry my freedom is a negative externality to you? Actually, no: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither"
I don't like VMs. I prefer technical solutions like Wine.
And if I go this way, I might as well give the boot to Windows to run Wine on Linux: all I really need is AHK, Office, Edge, and a good Terminal. From my last Linux experiences, I already know Office works great on Wine. Edge is wonderful too, first class citizen on Ubuntu (oh firefox snap, please die already lol)
I'd have to check how well AHK, then mintty or Windows Terminal runs on Wine (Linux terminals offer an abysmal user experience), but I'm ready to do that if that's what it takes to keep Office 2010 running baremetal.
I've been using Office 2007 then 2010 since uni (and back then they were already getting long in the teeth and Office 365 was already being pushed) and ... I don't ever plan to stop as I like many small details, like how Word starts faster than the new notepad.
I'd rather have Microsoft reconsider their move with the data in hand than waste my time on what may (or may not) happen.
So that's where I draw the line: if the OS stops letting me run Excel 2010, it's not Excel I'll change, but the OS that'll get the boot.
I've already got a good experience running Excel 2007 on Wine. Sure I'd prefer keeping Windows 11 because I prefer the UI, but Excel is just more important than anything else.
Edit: I know it's smartass, but it feels appropriate in a comment thread for The Register.
They use flair in their writing, they aren't the Times or IETF. The answer is in the article. Come on.
It would be a bit like a man with a Russian accent offering you tea and finishing with, "and there's no polonium in it."
Wait, I thought they do this for all updates!
"3. Member States shall ensure that the storing of information, or the gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information, in accordance with [the GDPR], inter alia, about the purposes of the processing. This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service."
Windows 10 was a huge improvement. They were making good decisions, getting back on track towards an OS I wanted to use.
Everything since has been nothing but downhill slide. All the shit that opens Edge or does searches with Bing... nobody ever asked for that. I'm a paying customer and I don't want that shit. And they don't even give me a real way to turn it off. I wish they'd stop with this crap.
If people are using outdated version of Office, and happy with it... you know what that means? That there really hasn't been any reason to upgrade to the latest version for those users. Those users just came to the conclusion that there's been fuck-all in the way of meaningful innovation in Microsoft Office in damn near 20 years.
I can't see why else I need Candy Crush and TikTok on my Start menu in a fresh install.
That is why valve created Steam OS originally. Of course MS did not care if they pissed of Valve... but enterprises said "ummm, nice one MS... how about no to that"
you sound like linus ranting about the lack of open design in the GPU market ^-^
Now there's a blast from the past. And I see their flair for snark is still in tact after all these years.
For only blocking reboots: https://majorgeeks.com/files/details/windows_10_reboot_block...
If you really disagree move to Linux, you'll still have updates but you decide when to apply them.
Oh, you bought Office before the renting-apocalypse happened and think you're safe? The Windows you're renting doesn't think so.
> [...] followed by instructions on how to download and install the update, which Microsoft said has been scanned to ensure it's not infected by malware.
>
> "Microsoft scanned this file for viruses by using the most current virus-detection software that was available on the date that the file was posted. The file is stored on security-enhanced servers that help prevent any unauthorized changes to it," the Windows giant said on the update notice page.
However, I've long given up updating Microsoft software due to MS's unacceptable privacy policies and changeing policy on-the-fly so it was interesting when I recently had to move my old MS software to a new machine after a mobo failure. Both Windows 7 and Office 2007 moved OK but after installing Office it was clear from the dial-home-to-Microsoft activation page that MS wasn't happy that I was reregistering old software. (I couldn't care less as I normally use Linux and MS stuff is now just legacy—for compatibility etc.).
That's the background, the point I'm making is that I've always assumed Microsoft would spy on what I was using on my machine (both its own software and stuff from other vendors) and it would know if the software I was using was pirated. Anyone who doesn't assume this I reckon is naïve.
Why wouldn't MS do this? After all one hasn't a clue what's in the data that's been sent back whenever software contacts MS.
Since XP, my practice has been to activate Windows with it partially installed—with only what MS supplied in the package/ISO or with just barely enough third party drivers to get the machine functional with a basic network connection (other noncritical drivers such as nVidia video won't have been installed). Automatic Updates is also permanently disabled.
Before proceeding further with the Windows install I'll install MS Office with absolute minimum features—perhaps only PowerPoint (that's if it's installed at all—usually not as I normally use LibreOffice).
Essentially, both Windows and Office can only report home the absolute minimum of information during activation (Microsoft doesn't tell me what's in the info it's sending home so I do everything possible to ensure that it can only skim off the absolute minimum).
Once activation is finished, the internet is disconnected and I finish both installations and install all other software I use.
That's the last time both Windows and Office ever contact home except for Windows authentication. Any essential updates (KB files) are sourced from elsewhere—never from Windows Update. Even then, I carefully vet any update for nefarious content and unless I'm pretty certain the file is clean then it doesn't get installed—no matter how important the update or security fix is.
The next step is to install the very nifty Advanced Tokens Manager utility which backs up the activation data. So come the next reinstallation one doesn't have to reactivate Windows or Office at all. In essence, my PCs only ever need to contact Microsoft just once: https://download.cnet.com/Advanced-Tokens-Manager/3000-2242_....
Incidentally, the PC that failed last contacted Microsoft in 2012 (that's when the software was last activated). That's an interval of over 10 years, not a bad effort I reckon.
In my opinion all those who value their privacy should act similarly whether they pirate software or not—and especially so if they do.
Do you have a document detailing what you do, or the KB you recommend?
However, here's some general points.
1. If you consider security paramount then install all security patches, just be certain before you install the others. Keep in mind that some—I can't remember which—are not just security patches but they also alter the OS in ways that make tweaking Windows harder and often they can't be uninstalled because in addition to the security patch they're loaded with 'afterthought' OS features that aid and abet MS. For example, they include code that makes it easier for MS to push updates, monitor your PC's activities etc.
(Whilst I've toyed with all versions of Windows to v10, I've little day-to-day experience past Win 7 (I decided long ago I was not going to use anything past W7 for serious work as delousing the OS just took too long),
2. Consider if your internet activity is risky. Do you visit porn and or way out gaming web sites? Do you do internet banking, etc? (I don't and I gave up Internet banking years back—and only use a debit card for online stuff.)
3. You need to be clear about what each KB does before you install it. With Win 7 any KB issued past when Win 8 came out I treat as suspect. In fact, I use very few patches past when the WannaCry ransomware came out in 2017.
Search a specific KB together with terms such as 'Microsoft spyware' and so on. Use search engines such as StartPage instead of Bing and Google. (It's been a while since I last looked but some netizens are rather clued up about the actions of KB patches, so it's worth taking the time to find them.
__
Re Office 2010/2007. I don't use 2010 so what I'm about to say may be just caution on my part. It's possible that 2010 may 'upgrade' Windows with a patch that isn't removed when it's uninstalled (this isn't unusual for Microsoft). This could have some bearing on the matter and it could affect the operation of Advanced Tokens Manager. It's unlikely but it could possibly happen if you initially upgraded from 2007 to 2010 (the keys/tokens might get mixed). Check or test first!
Rest assured that's not how I work :)
I don't want somethings to blindly copy/paste from. I'm more interested in a good baseline to get started with my own things.
> Re Office 2010/2007. I don't use 2010
That's fine, among the things I want to test is comparing Office 2010 native to Office 2007 in wine32 with patches - I have experience with both Office versions, and the difference is functionality is small enough.
I used Office 2007 on a past experiment with Linux, for a 32 bit machine: I wanted to see how fast it could run old software. However, I ran it fully unpatched (yes, that's bad :) because wrestling with KB while running a test on linux seemed futile.
But it was going to be a long term solution, patches would be way up on the priority list!
The list that you're are using yourself for Office 2007 on your Windows 7 would be interesting as it could give me a basis to try to make that same version work within wine32: it would provide me with a starting point to A-B test every patch in your list, to see which ones damages functionality on Linux (I'd do it like a git bisect), then do more research on these "bad patches" to see how important they are and if there're known way to use them.
> Search a specific KB together with terms such as 'Microsoft spyware' and so on. Use search engines such as StartPage. some netizens are rather clued up about the actions of KB patches, so it's worth taking the time to find them.
Oh totally, it's just that it may take a lot of time, so if I can restrict the scope of these actions to a few patches of interest (ex: in your list, but in my list of things that break Office in Wine) I could do more precise research!
In return, I promise to publish the result of my research on github: it will likely be a script to automate Office deployment on wine both in Linux and WSL.
I'm VERY serious about doing what it takes to ensure I'll be able to run old versions of Office and especially Excel for as long as it takes.
Given our "archeological" interest in Office, it may be helpful to join forces.
> It's possible that 2010 may 'upgrade' Windows with a patch that isn't removed when it's uninstalled (this isn't unusual for Microsoft). This could have some bearing on the matter and it could affect the operation of Advanced Tokens Manager
I would suspect as much, given some of the recommended method I see to make Office 2010 work in 2023. That can be explored: I remember from my test conclusions that while Office 2007 was nice, the support for XLS was perfect but XLSX was rough as it was the first version to support XLSX.
BTW, besides our shared interest for Office, your appreciation of in Windows 7 is also... interesting!
I recently tested mintty on a vintage Thinkpad running Windows 7 and I absolutely loved it! It was SO RESPONSIVE!
Should I have go to the VM route for Office (hopelly not), Windows 7 is what I'd be using in the VM. I'm also genuinely considering Office 2007 running on Windows 7 in a offline vintage Thinkpad.
So could I please ask you too about the list of W7 patches you use? From what I understand, most of them are from before 2017, few of them after. Again, a precise list would be a great starting point (though less important as the Office 2007 list, as from what I understand lots of people are still enamored with W7, so there should be such lists floating around)