Microsoft to Windows 10 consumers: You'll get updates LIKE IT or NOT Microsoft's licensing on the upcoming Windows 10 OS means that most users will find their systems updating on command from Redmond without any option to stop this. The Licensing Agreement for Windows 10, as found in the latest release candidate build 10240 of Windows 10 Professional, stated: The software periodically checks …
This post has been deleted by its author
It won't be that long before someone comes up with a 'fix' for this. Even if it is simply blocking a whole string of IP addresses in the firewall.
The current system is bad enough where you can suddenly have you system reboot from underneath you if you don't set it up right. To force updates onto PC's is in my mind a breach of the Computer Misuse Act.
It is my right to refuse updates if I don't want them at that point in time.
Will MS be willing to cough up for the Data charges for forcing their updates upon us when we might be roaming?
Somehow I doubt it.
Another fine mess they are creating for themselves.
>There is a perfect fix for this already, it's called a Linux distro.
Few people care about the OS. Apple have it right when they market capabilities, not specs. Do you have a Linux distro which allows you to use the best (only usable?) diagramme tool - Visio?
If I had some of Google's billions and wanted to thwart MS' desktop control, a drop-in, cross-platform replacement for Visio would be high on my list.
Windows does have some excellent apps which don't have a high-quality equivalent in the *nix world. The good news is that MS appears to be running out of useful features to add, which means catching-up should get easier. With the success of Apple in BYOD and Linux in the datacentre, there's also a greater market for cross-platform tools.
It is my right to refuse updates if I don't want them at that point in time
That will depend on the terms of the EULA, and whether Microsoft decide to grant you that "right", I would have thought. The whole point of the EULA is to limit and restrict purchaser rights to the maximum extent permitted by law, and to confer maximum protection upon MS.
You can of course decline the W10 EULA, and stick with W7, or install another operating system of your choice.
That will depend on the terms of the EULA, and whether Microsoft decide to grant you that "right", I would have thought.
It's about time that over-restrictive EULAs were called out and challenged against the various consumer protection laws that exist. Microsoft aren't alone in putting that sort of thing in a EULA but they are a big user of such terms, thinking that they can successfully defend the terms after the fact because they can easily manipulate the legal process with their billions if some poor farty out there tries to challenge them.
Well, this may just be going beyond the extent permitted by law in more than a few countries.
Maybe the Corporate States of America will permit Microcruft to force windows upgrades down people's throats over a cellphone connection while roaming at $3 per megabyte.
In Europe, I much doubt that one.
But then there's TTIP that seems to be going through, because banksters and corporate foam whippers already control every western government I know of.
So consumer rights of any kind will be a thing of the past.
The courts could decide these are unfair terms and conditions.
One of the reasons why I no longer use windows was I got fed up with the unexpected long shut-down, boot or restart when I was in a hurry or applications no longer worked or needed tweaking to work properly. They've still shut me out!
Australian Consumer Law.
It dictates that all terms and conditions of a sale, MUST be made apparent to the consumer prior to the point of purchase. The EULA pops up after the consumer has paid, gone home, opened the package and tried to install the software.
This, makes it not only unenforceable, but also illegal should Microsoft (or any other software vendor), try to force any part of the EULA onto the consumer.
I've used it a few times, on both software vendors, and also other dipshits who thought putting a slip of paper inside the box that I only get to see after I've paid my money.
Why would anyone want a 'fix' to stop important security updates & fixes? Anyone declining updates puts themselves at risk as well as others.
Some of you are being awkward just for the sake of it. Having said that, as I.T Admins you'd be using the Enterprise version which you having full control over updates. If you are the kind of Admins who do not deploy updates after a week or two of testing then you should be removed from your jobs.
How many of these updates recently have killed Office applications?
I had one humdinger of an issue recently which borked my Excel applications the security updates stopped any of MS' own Active-X controls working on their own products. The only way to fix the issue was to remove the update and, on my other machines, stop that update buggering up the system there.
And this wasn't just one single security update which did that.
So, back to your question: Why would anyone want a 'fix' to stop important security updates & fixes? the answer would surely now be obvious.
"Why would anyone want a 'fix' to stop important security updates & fixes? Anyone declining updates puts themselves at risk as well as others."
Because some of us have learned that accepting patches sight-unseen is a proven recipe for disaster, and that it's much smarter to wait a week or so and see what complaints pop up to make sure that any given patch will not screw up our systems. This isn't some hypothetical risk - it happened several times this year alone.
If you read the article you should see the concern here isn't for enterprises with test labs and a release cycle, who get pretty strict control over how these updates roll out. This is a concern for home and SMB installations.
Obviously what one does should depend on the severity of the vulnerability and whether it's known to be exploited in the wild, but those of us who manage our own patch processing (even "just" on home systems) should have the ability to make that risk assessment.
You wont get patches sight-unseen. The insider program is going to continue even after the official release. Any updates will first be rolled out to the insiders and then to the general public. Although how much that will help only time will tell.
A.K.A. MicroSofts like of Alpha Testers... Really if your not already on W7/W8.. To get the *cough* free *cough* Windows OSX Update... Why would you reserve yourself to this special place in computer Hell for yourself? Probably the same 'dolts that actually convinced themselves that W8+Metro was the BEST THING EVER!!
Really such users should probably bight the built and, install Cinnamon Mint instead!
Yeah. Right. Like Windows 7?
When I'm at work, I sometimes want to take my PC home. So, I go to power it down, only to be told (paraphrased) "do not turn your computer off, 31 updates in progress"
Smeg that! I've a bus to catch, and it's bleeding cold outside. I'll be an hour or so travelling home.
Rip it from its cable, shove it in my laptop bag, and head home. If the thing overheats, there's no WiFi on the way (there isn't) or the battery runs out mid-way, "Ahh, Didums!"
(Yes, I found the 'fix' - the well-hidden Control key when going to shut down, but I don't always remember...)
Rip it from its cable, shove it in my laptop bag, and head home. If the thing overheats, there's no WiFi on the way (there isn't) or the battery runs out mid-way, "Ahh, Didums!"
That's the simple joy of enterprise IT: As a user there is no need to care. I certainly don't.
Happened to me last night 22 feckin updates took about 15mins to complete its run and closedown. Its not like there is a warning or any useful estimation of how long they will take to load
Its the second time in about 6 weeks MS has shat on me from on high.....Grrrrrr
A few examples for you:
1) I'm away from the house and roaming via a data connection on my phone (especially if abroad). I don't want my laptop to suddenly download hundreds of MBs of updates and cost me a fortune in data costs.
2) I'm in the middle of playing a game. I don't want Windows to start stuttering away whilst it's busy installing a pile of updates at the same time. In fact replace "playing a game" with any sort of PC behaviour you don't want interrupted.
3) Important work: I'm working on some major work, and Windows updates have (from time to time) caused problems (BSODs, reboot loops etc). I probably want to postpone those updates until a less critical time.
These are just a few of the examples as to why I use the "Notify, but let me choose" option in Windows 7. I get to choose when the updates are downloaded and installed in order to prevent any problems for me. By all means leave "Auto" as the default, but if a user wants to change this, they often have a good reason for doing so and MS blocking it is not helpful in the slightest.
A few examples for you:
Let me add to that.
As Microsoft have made very clear - and highlighted in the article - this "auto patching" will apply to feature updates and not just security updates.
In other words, your environment and UI can/will change on an almost daily basis, purely at the whim of Microsoft.
"Oh, we thought it would be really cool to make Notepad a Modern-UI-only app"
"We've acquired TwitBookrCloud(TM) Inc and we want everyone to have the client app embedded into their desktops as a non-removable feature. What do you mean, you don't want it? It's cool! It's hip! It's So Hot Right Now!"
THAT is my biggest objection. "Why do you want to block security updates?" is a straw-man.
Need I remind you that Microsoft have already shown cavalier disregard for the distinction between security patches and feature updates - how many Windows Updates under 7 or 8 have the generic description "Resolves issues with Windows" but turn out to be entirely non-essential feature tweaks?
Exhibit A: KB3035583, that is described as "Install this update to resolve issues with Windows" - but actually adds the incessant "RESERVE YOUR COPY OF WINDOWS 10 NOW!!1!!" nag to the system tray.
Before anyone accuses me of being a troll or a linux fanboy - no. I like Windows. I have a lot of respect for Microsoft. Version after version of Windows has improved my computing experience. And their view of the ideal personal OS has - largely - matched my own until now. But from Windows 8 onwards, they've shown that their priorities are:
- moving everyone to cloud computing, via enforced Microsoft accounts and online everything (example: Cortana voice assistant, cool. But why should I have to create a Microsoft account to get any functionality?)
- out-Googling Google on data collection ("Allow us to collect data about your browsing history to improve browser page prediction?" --> Default answer: yes)
- dumbing down the UI, to please - who? Even my 60-something-year-old mother, who I'd hold up as a paragon of "doesn't understand computers", doesn't like the Modern UI and finds it confusing.
- monetizing every little aspect of the computing experience
TL;DR: Their vision of computing is divergent from mine. I will stick with Windows 7 as long as I can.
Replying to my own post - terribly bad form, I know.
Firstly, I seem to have attracted a downvoter. Every one of my posts of the last few days that are remotely critical of Microsoft has a single down-vote. Hello, whoever you are, my unknown stalker. My very own Millon De Floss.
Secondly, let me illustrate my point above with a car analogy (*groan* - no, really, bear with me, please).
Ford release a new car, and promise that they'll update it continuously, without you needing to do anything or take it to a dealer, free of charge. Great! What's not to like?
At first, all is wonderful. "We've noticed that the front brake pads wear unevenly on this model, so we've given your car a new improved pad design." "We uploaded new ECU firmware, you now get bettter MPG".
Then you come to your car one morning and find that the HVAC knobs have been removed, and are now soft buttons on the touch-screen, two levels down from the main screen. They look pretty, but you can't use them with gloves on.
The car will now refuse to move at all unless your seatbelt is buckled, "for your safety and because focus* groups say they prefer it". Safe, sure, but now it's a total nuisance if you want to just pop your car out of the garage to wash it.
When you switch on the radio, it nags you to subscribe to Spotify. Every time.
And so on.
See? I feel very strongly that changes of user interface and functionality, no matter how well-intentioned, should not be pushed upon the user (and OWNER) of the system without informed consent and choice.
I emphasise "owner" because that's who should be in control of the PC. In a corporate environment, I accept that the owner is not necessarily the user - and if I'm using a PC given to me by my employer, I can't really grumble if they choose to reconfigure it. But in a home environment, owner == user, at least most of the time.
*- "Focus" groups. In the context of Ford cars. Heh. I made a funny.
Unfortunately, Owner != user anymore.
I don't OWN my windows-7 (and my well-decent Vista Asus lappie on a recovered-from-dumpser machine - it only wanted about 100 meg. of "Left-handed website" shit removed to make it an object to desire) )
Although I own the H/W, I don't own the OS.
Maybe I'll vote "OXI" for "No Outside Assistance!" like the Greeks did. Didn't help, they still got shafted.
"Exhibit A: KB3035583, that is described as "Install this update to resolve issues with Windows" - but actually adds the incessant "RESERVE YOUR COPY OF WINDOWS 10 NOW!!1!!" nag to the system tray."
That one again. Following earlier advice here I said no to that and hid it.
Windows Update (on Windows 8.1 here) promptly changed its settings to automatic so I had to change them back to "Let me choose", which is my preferred setting. I noticed that with this month's patches KB3035583 came back again, though at least it wasn't ticked.
Another data point: I have less than stellar bandwidth so when I saw a 750MB patch waiting in the wings a couple of months ago I decided to shut down my system for the day instead of waiting for that (a variation on the "I've got a bus to catch" theme). That 750 MB whopper never came back. I hadn't hidden it or anything so where did it go?
Is it any wonder I prefer to wait a while and review patches before applying them?
Another thing: Other OSes give me a link to click on for a full description of patches. Windows Update doesn't even give me the KB number in text so that I can select it and shove it into a search engine; instead I have to type it in manually, and "We can't find that KB article" happens all too often.
Other OSes give me a link to click on for a full description of patches. Windows Update doesn't even give me the KB number
I keep saying this.
MS could port rpm and yum[1] to Windows - it's a couple of hours' work - and have granular, divisible upgrades that said what they did and did what they did. It's an easy win - the licence explicitly permits this, with just one, very simple, condition[2]. I cannot work out why they do not.
Vic.
[1] Or rpm and apt. Or dpkg and apt. dpkg and yum will take a little longer (but not that much).
[2] rpm, dpkg, yum and apt are all GPL - so MS could redistribute all of these - with or without modification - for free, just as long as they are prepared to hand over the source code to any of these that they use. That's a really easy situation...
Alright for MS - one size fits all and totally for their convenience
MS seem to have lost focus on the fact they need us "customers" regardless of us being EU, B2B, B2C, Enterprise or rocket feckin scientists.
And sadly we all have different needs and wants which they as a provider need to accommodate or we vote with our feet as many have done........ simples!!
"Anyone declining updates puts themselves at risk as well as others."
Not declining so much as re-timing.
In the home segment, could be gaming, trying to get a document finished on a slower machine, or could be just a bit cautious given the recent history of borked updates. I'm assuming the update process can tell if you are on battery and not run upgrades then. Perhaps with this new wifi thingy, the update process could tell if you were on a mobile connection and delay updates. Perhaps it should be possible to associate the update process with a named connection (e.g. home wifi) so that it will wait until that named connection is in use before starting.
In general: This sort of looks like Windows becoming Fedora for home users and RHEL for large companies. What could *possibly* go wrong with simultaneous updates of scores of millions of computers in the homes of technically unsophisticated users?
@keithpeter
That's really the heart of the problem, isn't it?
Technically unsophisticated users are going to make bad decisions if they have to administer their own system software. Hell, even sophisticated users do.
But when unsophisticated users make bad decisions, they don't say, "Oh, good gracious, I probably should have made a different decision." They say, "effing Microsoft broke my computer."
I'm not sure I'm behind Microsoft's choice, but I do understand their motivation.
What could *possibly* go wrong with simultaneous updates of scores of millions of computers in the homes of technically unsophisticated users?
What indeed.... Let's though this pile of Tat, at that wall... (of massively), unwilling of Windows OSX users out there, and see what sticks! Before we feed our latest creation off to the Banksters. No sense in pissing them off... Since they'll be the first to transition to Linux, should they be provoked into doing so....
And, so congratulations! EVERYONES A BETA TESTER NOW! Save the Insiders... They get promoted to become MicroSoft's Alpha Team!
Me I'm the kinda guy that prefers to wait till six months after the first Service Pack, before installing.
"Why would anyone want a 'fix' to stop important security updates & fixes? "
Why? Because. for example, Windows is used to control medical gadgetry where an unexpected pause by the OS can be fatal to a patient. One can say, "Well, it shouldn't be used for such a purpose" but who's to tell the idiots who program medical equipment that it's a bad idea to use a toy OS intended for home users in a critical application?
Microsoft amazes me. They have an unerring knack for doing exactly the wrong thing, in spite of reports about the problems their aggressiveness has caused in the past.
Now, let's not exaggerate things too much. Or, if your doctor/clinic/hospital really uses consumer versions of WIndows then maybe you should look elsewhere for your health care?
Enterprise Volume License customers will be on the Long Term Support Branch and their IT staff will decide when to update their computers.
Did you even bother to read the article? Microsoft will be pushing new features, and possibly removing existing features, by way of the mandated update process. This is the most onerous license has ever forced on consumer versions of Windows. You'd think they'd learnt a lesson when they forced the Metro Start Screen on purchasers of new Windows 8 computers but no.
I see nothing in the Windows license du jour that guarantees that all Windows 10 updates will be defect free, or at least not cause any failures or regression in software behavior. And no penalties for Microsoft implied when an update causes a system not to run. (All the more reason to not have any version of Windows installed in your auto. The bastards could download an update as you're rolling down the motorway and crash the vehicle, giving new meaning to BSOD.) I'll probably experiment with Windows 10 in a few months with a non-critical system that will do me no real harm if it fails. Right now, I am looking at Linux alternatives for myself, a difficult balancing act because I get paid to fix Windows systems and software.
"Why would anyone want a 'fix' to stop important security updates & fixes?"
Great question.. Lets ask the business customers who can still decline the bloody things.
Because numb nuts.. It is a really really good Idea to patch your virus magnet a week AFTER patch Tuesday. So when they screw up in a spectacular way, as is Microsoft's habit, then you can delay updating until they sort the problem out.
"Anyone declining updates puts themselves at risk as well as others."
Yes. I can see having a working computer is a serous risk..
"Some of you are being awkward just for the sake of it."
Yep. Or as it is also known.. Sensible.
"Having said that, as I.T Admins you'd be using the Enterprise version which you having full control over updates. If you are the kind of Admins who do not deploy updates after a week or two of testing then you should be removed from your jobs."
Because testing fixes the problem?
You posted this from your phone.. didn't you..
> "Anyone declining updates puts themselves at risk as well as others."
>Yes. I can see having a working computer is a serous risk..
Well, yes, having an operating MSWindows machine (hesitant to use the words "working" and "Microsoft" together) *IS* a serious risk.
<blockqoute>Why would anyone want a 'fix' to stop important security updates & fixes? Anyone declining updates puts themselves at risk as well as others.
Some of you are being awkward just for the sake of it. Having said that, as I.T Admins you'd be using the Enterprise version which you having full control over updates. If you are the kind of Admins who do not deploy updates after a week or two of testing then you should be removed from your jobs.</blockqoute>
Yeah 'cause MicroSoft NEVER install such utterly useless and annoying crap like KB905474 (Windows XP WGA Phonehome Spy/Nag-ware), and will boldface lie to you, about how "Critical" this Update was at the time!
In more recent times... (Of unwanted, or unbidden, unasked for Nagware's), we have KB3035583. Which after how many Months this crap has been up, and gets set to "hidden DO NOT alert me about this again...". Just keeps popping up every month again as an "Important Update"....
So I for One will trust MicroSoft IMPLICITLY to never abuse such a mechanism EVER... I've never once said! I might have mentioned somewhere in passing, a old Hitchhikers quote about not trusting MicroSoft in this capacity more then I could spit a lightly fried Stoat.... In a Bun!
Well I still don't, and as if I actually needed reason to avoid Windows 8.x / Windows OSX like the Plague.... I'd say look no further.... As far as MicroSoft's history of destructive / disruptive history of Windows Updates go.... When you have Security Houses... Warring you to perhaps, let that KB3065718 (SQL Server Remote Code Execution). Which MicroSoft postponed last month, because they thought it wasn't quite ready for prime-time. Are telling their Customers that, they may well still want to give KB3065718, the slip. Should they actually value stability, over updates.
Yep.... Sign me up for Windows OSX TOUT SUITE.... I also never said!
"Why would anyone want a 'fix' to stop important security updates & fixes?" Because they're on holiday with their laptop on an expensive metered 3G connection in a poor signal area.
I'm not suggesting that the user should stop the update indefinitely. But an option to postpone it by 2-4 weeks would solve the vast majority of problems with this.
Of course there will always be a smaller number people who are permanently in low/expensive bandwidth areas. For them, I'd suggest... don't use Windows 10.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
