Sneaky Microsoft upgrade trick

[pendell]

If you have a system you're not going to upgrade; watch out. Clicking on X will NOT cancel the upgrade. You have to click on the "change upgrade schedule" button. Clicking on X means it goes onto your computer that same night.

https://bgr.com/2016/05/25/microsoft-windows-10-upgrade-trick/

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Leecros]

My dad fell into this trap. Fortunately he simply refused the user license agreement and the computer went ahead and reverted back to Windows 7.

Unfortunately to many of us, pressing agree has become muscle memory.

[Grinner]

Interesting. Why are they pushing Windows 10 so hard? Is this merely a programming oversight, or is it intentional?

[Fri]

Windows 10 is actually a fine OS, I'm using it in my office workstation. But the way microsoft forcing the updates is so goddamn sketchy.

Hillariously, it actually reminds me on over-the-top drug pushers from old-timey very special PSA episodes on 80s cartoons who try to trick you to get the first hit in any way possible.

[Douglas]

Interesting. Why are they pushing Windows 10 so hard? Is this merely a programming oversight, or is it intentional?
It's intentional. Microsoft wants as many people on the latest version of Windows as possible, so that they can reduce or eliminate ongoing support for older versions without causing problems or widespread complaints.

[veti]

It's intentional. Microsoft wants as many people on the latest version of Windows as possible, so that they can reduce or eliminate ongoing support for older versions without causing problems or widespread complaints.

Yeah, I've thought about that.

But it doesn't really seem to hold water. The support lifetimes of each existing Windows version have already been published, and I don't see how Microsoft can renege on those. They're committed (they say) to supporting Windows 8.1 up until October 2023, even if only three people are still using it - and after that they can drop it anyway. So what difference does it make how many people migrate to 10?

A less benign, but sadly more plausible, explanation is that Microsoft has ways of monetising Windows 10. We've already seen ads in the start menu, search integrated with Windows Store, and compulsory collection of telemetry from all users, and who knows what else they've got up their sleeve?

[Grinner]

...compulsory collection of telemetry from all users...

Back up there. Can't you opt-out of that?

[Gnoman]

Yeah, I've thought about that.

But it doesn't really seem to hold water. The support lifetimes of each existing Windows version have already been published, and I don't see how Microsoft can renege on those. They're committed (they say) to supporting Windows 8.1 up until October 2023, even if only three people are still using it - and after that they can drop it anyway. So what difference does it make how many people migrate to 10?

You know all that talk about Windows being unstable and full of security flaws? The single biggest contributor to this is people refusing to update. There's plenty of people who refuse to upgrade from XP, and consider it to be Microsoft's fault if they have a data breach or get slammed with a ransomware. This has caused Microsoft to lose massive amounts of money over the years. Doing everything possible to get as many people as possible to update is very clearly in Microsoft's best interest without any conspiracy theories about how they're going to exploit you.

[cobaltstarfire]

Windows 10 is actually a fine OS, I'm using it in my office workstation. But the way microsoft forcing the updates is so goddamn sketchy.



The most expensive form of Windows 10 is fine, because that version lets you control how your personal information is handled and shared, any other form of 10 does not allow you to have control of that stuff. If you don't trust Microsoft any further than you can throw a cinderblock, windows 10 is not acceptable. Sure what it's doing is convenient, but it's not secure (at least not by my guys definition anyway, and he's well educated enough in the area of digital security that I trust his judgement on that)

I decided to ditch 10, when it became clear that it wasn't going to stop reinstalling its bloatware every single time there was an update. Doesn't seem to matter how thoroughly you rip that stuff out, it comes back every time so we gave up. Between that, and its inability to run most games well if at all, and having to do some serious fighting with it deciding drivers that are broken are better for me than drivers that work.... well it feels like Microsoft was telling me that Windows 10 just isn't the system for me...

edit

Back up there. Can't you opt-out of that?


No you can't, possibly in the enterprise version (the most expensive one) but in all the lower ones? No.


When my current machine can no longer use the tubes and such, then I'll upgrade to...something. Maybe Microsoft, maybe something else, but I'm not touching 10 unless there are some pretty big changes to how it behaves.

[noparlpf]

Yeah, I'm not thrilled with how they installed "Get Windows X" on Windows 7 without asking and then made it practically impossible to remove. I ended up wrecking my OS and having to reinstall trying to get rid of that thing. Luckily in the process of that I did notice to manually opt out of the automatic upgrade, but I'm still sore about not having been able to get rid of it. And it's just super sketchy that Microsoft is pushing so hard for upgrades regardless of the user's preferences, and that Win10 has things like half-hidden data gathering "features."

I'm actually posting from a Windows 10 machine now (my Win7 computer is right next to this one, but its mouse is propping up my phone at the moment :smalltongue:) and it's not a bad OS. It took some tweaking (Classic Shell was a major part of that) but overall there are only a few things left that I actively dislike. One of those is the current update system, actually. As far as I'm aware there's no way to schedule the automatic updates for a convenient time or to shut automatic updates off entirely. I understand where they're coming from trying to patch security risks or system instability on as many computers as possible, but it's just rude to minimise my game window in the middle of a boss fight or something so Windows can ask me to OPT OUT of an automatic reboot I didn't ask for in the first place.

[DodgerH2O]

For those serious about avoiding the upgrades (or upgrading on their own schedule and tired of seeing popups) there is software to prevent the behavior.

GWX Control Panel: http://ultimateoutsider.com/downloads/

It has a run-once option and a monitor option. I used the run-once and haven't had Win10 try to sneak on to my system in the last half a year. It's third party but a lot of advanced users swear by it, so I feel comfortable endorsing it.

[DodgerH2O]

Also...


Back up there. Can't you opt-out of that?

You can opt out of Cortana and several other bits that collect telemetry, but...

http://thehackernews.com/2016/02/microsoft-windows10-privacy.html

Edit: Take that link with a grain of salt as it was the first link that I found searching, there are other factors (such as failed attempts causing repeats more than a typical user would experience) but the fact that a telemetry disabled machine made connections to multiple IP addresses over a short time still bothers me personally.

[veti]

You know all that talk about Windows being unstable and full of security flaws? The single biggest contributor to this is people refusing to update. There's plenty of people who refuse to upgrade from XP, and consider it to be Microsoft's fault if they have a data breach or get slammed with a ransomware. This has caused Microsoft to lose massive amounts of money over the years. Doing everything possible to get as many people as possible to update is very clearly in Microsoft's best interest without any conspiracy theories about how they're going to exploit you.

Windows' security has been 'good enough' since Vista, and from where I sit it seems that the biggest contributor to instability now is the update cycle. (Every time Fallout 3 crashes and forces me to reboot - every time - the boot screen tells me there's an update waiting to be installed. Coincidence? I think not.)

As for people still using XP - how does Microsoft lose money from being blamed when their systems go wrong? Those were people who've already ignored several years' worth of increasingly dire warnings, precisely because they refused to pay more money to Microsoft. They're not "customers" in any meaningful sense of the word, any more than I'm a "customer" of Coca-Cola because I drank their product in 2007.

"Doing everything possible to get as many people as possible to update" only makes sense for very limited values of "everything possible". Specifically, it doesn't make sense to do things that drive away more paying customers than the bad press spawned by useless ex-customers.

And I'm an example of that demographic: I bought a new PC a year ago with no OS preinstalled, I paid extra for an install disc of Windows 8.1 to go with it. I would, very likely, do the same again in about 7 years' time when this one reaches its end of life. But I won't pay for Windows 10, not unless MS mends its ways - on current trends, my next machine will run Linux or something similar. I'm a paying customer who's being driven away. How does that "make sense" for Microsoft?

[Gnoman]

Windows' security has been 'good enough' since Vista, and from where I sit it seems that the biggest contributor to instability now is the update cycle. (Every time Fallout 3 crashes and forces me to reboot - every time - the boot screen tells me there's an update waiting to be installed. Coincidence? I think not.)

As for people still using XP - how does Microsoft lose money from being blamed when their systems go wrong? Those were people who've already ignored several years' worth of increasingly dire warnings, precisely because they refused to pay more money to Microsoft. They're not "customers" in any meaningful sense of the word, any more than I'm a "customer" of Coca-Cola because I drank their product in 2007.

"Doing everything possible to get as many people as possible to update" only makes sense for very limited values of "everything possible". Specifically, it doesn't make sense to do things that drive away more paying customers than the bad press spawned by useless ex-customers.

And I'm an example of that demographic: I bought a new PC a year ago with no OS preinstalled, I paid extra for an install disc of Windows 8.1 to go with it. I would, very likely, do the same again in about 7 years' time when this one reaches its end of life. But I won't pay for Windows 10, not unless MS mends its ways - on current trends, my next machine will run Linux or something similar. I'm a paying customer who's being driven away. How does that "make sense" for Microsoft?

How many people have bought Macs because "windows gets viruses all the time! It's all you hear about"? Yes, the people who are refusing to upgrade aren't going to matter to MS one way or another, but the massive amount of bile they spew out turns other customers away.

[Starwulf]

I thought the time for "Free upgrade to Win10" was over now? Here I was thinking I could stop being so careful about what updates to Win7 I allow. Guess it's back to closely monitoring everything.

[veti]

How many people have bought Macs because "windows gets viruses all the time! It's all you hear about"? Yes, the people who are refusing to upgrade aren't going to matter to MS one way or another, but the massive amount of bile they spew out turns other customers away.

I don't know, how many? No-one I know, anyway.

Conversely, how many people have bought Macs because Apple enforces consistency of look, feel and behaviour across all its apps?

By contrast, consider Microsoft's own guidelines for Windows developers - this is directly from (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dn742499%28v=vs.85%29.aspx) the stuff you have to memorise if you want to be an MS certified Windows developer:

"The Close button on the title bar should have the same effect as the Cancel or Close button within the dialog box. Never give it the same effect as OK."

Right.

[Alent]

I thought the time for "Free upgrade to Win10" was over now? Here I was thinking I could stop being so careful about what updates to Win7 I allow. Guess it's back to closely monitoring everything.

July 29th is the official expiration for the free upgrade offer. One hopes it's the end of GWX, as that app should have been decommissioned long ago for having done it's job and then some, but... somehow I expect we'll still be seeing it. :smallsigh:

I'm running into this with my clients right now, not thrilled with some of the time-sensitive work this ambush is causing.

[Khedrac]

And then there is the usability issue.

I am running Windows 10 and relatively happy with it (probably because I don't know enough about the data capture site).

My father was running XP and we recently had to get him a replacement computer. My brother got the shop to build it with Windows 7 and he is semi-OK with it (he's 85 and has dementia so how much he remembers varies from day to day) - we are having rather more problems with the reconditioned laptop, but that's another story.
I have advised him to say "no" to the Windows 10 upgrade prompts, and my brother is turning off the auto-upgrade because of this Microsoft decision.
Why? Because Windows 10's look and feel is sufficiently different that there is no way he will ever remember how to use it.

Forced upgrade to a different way of using a product will cut out a vast number of elderly people who can no longer cope with change.
I wonder if we should report them for age discrimination? (joke)

The sad bit is how ahead of his time Dad used to be with computers, his first home computer (for word processing, spreadhseets etc) was an FTS 88 (big desktop with a build in mnitor and twin 8 inch floppy drives in a separate housing) back in the late 1980s. Hmm, that's a computer so obsolete I cannot find a picture of one on a web search :(

[factotum]

The best bit about this trick is that it explicitly contradicts Microsoft's own UI guidelines for Windows, which state that the close button should *never* do the same thing as the OK button. One rule for us, one for them, I guess.

I've personally been running Windows 10 for a while and not had an issue with it, apart from its tendency to nag me to upgrade my Office (I use Outlook 2007 for e-mail, calendar and tasks, and I see no reason to upgrade it). Games all run fine, Fallout 3 crashed occasionally (and New Vegas more so) but those games were never the most stable to begin with--Fallout 4 has been rock-solid stable, though.

[Jasdoif]

"Doing everything possible to get as many people as possible to update" only makes sense for very limited values of "everything possible". Specifically, it doesn't make sense to do things that drive away more paying customers than the bad press spawned by useless ex-customers.The impression I get is that Microsoft thinks most people/businesses will be willing to accept Windows 10 once they start using it, and the only barrier is actually getting them to start. Or at the very least, that the people who balk at getting Windows 10 free of charge aren't likely to ever pay for it.

[cobaltstarfire]

my brother is turning off the auto-upgrade because of this Microsoft decision.

Keep an eye on it, there have been reports of computers auto-upgrading in spite of being told not to, that was probably a bug, but it doesn't hurt to stay onto of it anyway.


I'm pretty disappointed that 10 turned out the way it has, I was considering upgrading my main machine to 10, until I tried it out. Then I decided to wait and see, since in the past Microsoft has managed to fix their OS's in the past. Hearing that now there are ads in the start bar and stuff tells me that I am right for avoiding this iteration of windows.

I don't want to have to change OS families, because I've used windows of some form for 20 of my 29 years of life (95/XP/Vista/7), I know how to take care of a PC and keep it healthy and secure, and I am sufficiently able to fix any weird problems that arise with one without any tech support. I don't take lightly the thought of switching over to Mac or a Linux box because it'll be a frustrating transition that will require me to rely on someone else to keep running optimally.

[Gnoman]

Hearing that now there are ads in the start bar and stuff tells me that I am right for avoiding this iteration of windows.

There. Are. No. Ads. The closest thing is "recommended apps", which takes all of two seconds to get rid of forever.

[DigoDragon]

I recently switched to 10 and am so far fine with it, but I totally understand the annoyance of getting forced to upgrade because yeah, I didn't want to switch early until some of the first bugs were worked out of the new OS (also, I was planning to upgrade some hardware so wanted to get that done before before the switch, as the newer stuff stuff is coming out with Win 10 drivers).

[lesser_minion]

I'm pretty disappointed that 10 turned out the way it has, I was considering upgrading my main machine to 10, until I tried it out. Then I decided to wait and see, since in the past Microsoft has managed to fix their OS's in the past. Hearing that now there are ads in the start bar and stuff tells me that I am right for avoiding this iteration of windows.

I have to say, if there are 'ads' in the start menu, they're beyond trivial. I don't think I've noticed a single ad there since I started using Windows 10, and I upgraded one machine almost immediately and my current machine came with it pre-installed. To be fair, the plural of anecdote is not data, but still.

If you want to complain about Windows 10, point out that there are almost zero concrete improvements over 8.1 or even 8.0, and definitely nothing that should have warranted an OS upgrade.

As for changing OS families, well, Windows has already been discussed, OS X entails paying Apple tax on top of basically everything and has at least 75% of the same bull**** just better hidden, and anything else that purports to be much more than just rolling your own OS is likely best avoided even now. Operating systems are not in a good place these days.

[Winter_Wolf]

I recently discovered the truly hell bent on not going to W10 can still buy Win 7x64 off Amazon. Happily I've managed to keep my Win7 install intact. My mom ended up "upgraded " to 10, and I gotta say, I'm not a fan. Plus zero guarantee any given program will actually still work, since a number are older and have no compatibility upgrade. Why take a chance on screwing up my whole setup? I'm running GWX control panel from that outsider site. Been a champ so far, no problems.

[cobaltstarfire]

I have to say, if there are 'ads' in the start menu, they're beyond trivial. I don't think I've noticed a single ad there since I started using Windows 10, and I upgraded one machine almost immediately and my current machine came with it pre-installed. To be fair, the plural of anecdote is not data, but still.

If you want to complain about Windows 10, point out that there are almost zero concrete improvements over 8.1 or even 8.0, and definitely nothing that should have warranted an OS upgrade.




You don't care about "ads", I however do. I don't care if it's trivial to you. I don't want "suggested aps" or whatever else being shoved in my face. I don't like having stuff reinstalled after I had gone out of my way to thoroughly rip that stuff out, I don't like the "convenience" features where I have no control over what information is being sent to Microsofts cloud servers without buying the most expensive version of the OS, and I don't like that it can't play most of my games reliably. I also don't really appreciate having to fight the OS over what drivers should be installed and used.

These are all things I have said before!

I can't compare 10 to 8, I said so myself in my last post (have used 95/xp/vista/7). I never used 8 beyond testing it out, because I didn't like its GUI ect. I am aware that the tablet style GUI was "fixed" and I applaud Microsoft for allowing its users to choose their preffered work flow. But that was well after I had already built my current windows 7 machine and I wasn't really interested in paying out another wad of cash for a new OS that soon after buying one.

7 is serving me much better than 10 did over several months of testing, I don't like 10 and the way it's being handled, there's just too much going on with it that frustrates me or makes me uncomfortable.

[noparlpf]

One of the worst parts of Win10 is that they ruined the Solitaire games. I was almost happy that they added Tripeaks and Pyramid, but that app crashes constantly to the point that it's literally unusable. I don't know if that's just me, but at that point it was a clean install and I can run various Steam games with at least medium settings with no trouble. (It's not a gaming laptop so the cpu and gpu on this one aren't especially good.)

[Carlobrand]

Heh. This old relic's still using Windows Vista.

Mwahahahahaimsopoor.:sigh:

[factotum]

and I don't like that it can't play most of my games reliably.

Which games can't it play reliably, out of interest? As I said above, I've not really had any issues playing games on it--certainly no more so than I did on Vista, 7 or 8 (although I only used 8 for a couple of months before going for the W10 upgrade).

[veti]

I recently discovered the truly hell bent on not going to W10 can still buy Win 7x64 off Amazon.

If you really want to go that way - keep in mind that Windows 7 reaches its final end of support life in January 2020. I don't know about you, but I want a computer to last me more than four years.

Windows 8.1 at least extends the lifetime to 2023.

[Donnadogsoth]

If you have a system you're not going to upgrade; watch out. Clicking on X will NOT cancel the upgrade. You have to click on the "change upgrade schedule" button. Clicking on X means it goes onto your computer that same night.

https://bgr.com/2016/05/25/microsoft-windows-10-upgrade-trick/

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Thanks for the tip, pendell.

[Winter_Wolf]

If you really want to go that way - keep in mind that Windows 7 reaches its final end of support life in January 2020. I don't know about you, but I want a computer to last me more than four years.

Windows 8.1 at least extends the lifetime to 2023.

I'm pretty notoriously hard on computer systems. They only last more than two years if I coddle them. Which means I'm constantly having to throttle my performance (laptop, so what I have is what I have) even with a top notch active cooling pad. If a computer can last me four years, I dub the company freaking awesome and keep buying from them.

[NichG]

End of support life doesn't mean end of function anyhow. Just means new stuff may not work (but that's going to be the case with a 4 year old computer no matter what)

[Douglas]

End of support life doesn't mean end of function anyhow. Just means new stuff may not work (but that's going to be the case with a 4 year old computer no matter what)
It can also mean vulnerability to new viruses, because critical security vulnerabilities stop getting fixed when discovered.

[NichG]

It can also mean vulnerability to new viruses, because critical security vulnerabilities stop getting fixed when discovered.

That doesn't put a stop to functionality though, it just means you have to be careful about what you expose the computer to. If you're behind a NAT, don't open spam emails (and definitely don't open unusual attachments), and don't install random software just because a website asks you to, you're going to be miles ahead of someone who has a fully up-to-date OS but doesn't take all those precautions, even with an out-of-date and vulnerable OS. Probably add 'don't randomly use your friends' USB sticks' to that too.

If you're talking about running a publically exposed server, of course its a different situation. But for a personal computer, you can absolutely use it in a way to minimize risk in practice even if its wide open to all sorts of attacks in principle.

[noparlpf]

It can also mean vulnerability to new viruses, because critical security vulnerabilities stop getting fixed when discovered.

How many critical vulnerabilities can be left after ten years of patches? And how many people actually make new viruses for a ten-year-old OS?

[factotum]

How many critical vulnerabilities can be left after ten years of patches? And how many people actually make new viruses for a ten-year-old OS?

In the case of Windows XP, which is still installed on more than 10% of PCs, why would you *not* target it? It's so much easier than cracking an up-to-date OS, and a botnet with 10% of the PCs in the world is still a heck of a big botnet!

As for the first point, there were still security updates for XP being released right up to the last month it was supported, 13 years after it was originally released and 6 years after the last service pack came out. By your logic all the bugs should have been fixed by then, but clearly they weren't.

[halfeye]

If you really want to go that way - keep in mind that Windows 7 reaches its final end of support life in January 2020. I don't know about you, but I want a computer to last me more than four years.

Windows 8.1 at least extends the lifetime to 2023.

Yeah, but then you're stuck with Win 8.1. win 7 all the way for me. I'd go back to Win 2K if it was the same price.

[Murk]

In the case of Windows XP, which is still installed on more than 10% of PCs, why would you *not* target it? It's so much easier than cracking an up-to-date OS, and a botnet with 10% of the PCs in the world is still a heck of a big botnet!


Do you think there's still people making viruses for windows 95? I still have an old set of floppy disks with that one somewhere.

Off-topic questions to all the OS-knowledgeable people here: would there be any huge problems with me trying to install windows 95 on a modern laptop?

[halfeye]

Do you think there's still people making viruses for windows 95? I still have an old set of floppy disks with that one somewhere.

Off-topic questions to all the OS-knowledgeable people here: would there be any huge problems with me trying to install windows 95 on a modern laptop?
Yeah, there would.

First off, and I don't know whether Win 95 is the same or worse, but Win 98 is limited to 0.5 GB of RAM, more than that and you get a "not enough RAM" error.

[DigoDragon]

That doesn't put a stop to functionality though, it just means you have to be careful about what you expose the computer to. If you're behind a NAT, don't open spam emails (and definitely don't open unusual attachments), and don't install random software just because a website asks you to, you're going to be miles ahead of someone who has a fully up-to-date OS but doesn't take all those precautions, even with an out-of-date and vulnerable OS. Probably add 'don't randomly use your friends' USB sticks' to that too.

This is all too true. With an XP machine from earlier this year that had been running for a few years it never had a virus infection (despite getting put through it's paces by a very curious 8-year old). In comparison a friend who bought a new laptop with Win 8.1 and all the latest updates managed to get two viruses in just three days on his machine and had to reinstall the entire thing from scratch.

The difference is the latter clicked on links and emails from shady sources and that installed the bugs.


First off, and I don't know whether Win 95 is the same or worse, but Win 98 is limited to 0.5 GB of RAM, more than that and you get a "not enough RAM" error.

That's funny. :3

Apparently some workarounds exist (https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/253912) to squeeze a little more RAM out of that 0.5 Gb limit.

[Gnoman]

An OS that old will be incapable of using any modern hardware due to lack of drivers, and would be all-but-worthless for most tasks anyway because even old internet browsers are incompatible. The only -and I do mean only- reason to use an extremely outdated OS is compatibility with older hardware or software.

[snowblizz]

An OS that old will be incapable of using any modern hardware due to lack of drivers,
My Vista laptop from 2007 had an attempt to install XP on it when brand new because my computer engineer friend was all on about how bad Vista was. It failed because XP couldn't make use of the laptop's hardware, specifically the graphics card. 9 years later Vista still works on it, though it hasn't taken to aging too well with Windows Udate feeling it needs all of the installed RAM to run after so many years (yes ALL of it). It's 8,5 years ago I stopped wanting to have anything to do with XP though, no matter how supposedly superior it is.

[factotum]

Do you think there's still people making viruses for windows 95? I still have an old set of floppy disks with that one somewhere.

I doubt people would make them specifically for Win95, because there's a bit of a difference between an OS with essentially *no* users these days and one that has more than 10% of global PC market share. That doesn't make Win95 safe, though--there could still be modern viruses that happen to have an infection vector which works on 95.

As for actually installing Win95 on any modern laptop, not a chance. You'd never find the drivers for the graphics card, sound card or network, for a start, quite apart from the RAM issues already mentioned. If you absolutely need to use the OS for something I'd try installing in on a virtual machine (e.g. VirtualBox or the like), which has a slightly greater chance of working; but what could you possibly need it for these days?

[Murk]

but what could you possibly need it for these days?

To look incredibly edgy.

But okay, nevermind me, carry on :smallfrown:

[Bohandas]

It's intentional. Microsoft wants as many people on the latest version of Windows as possible, so that they can reduce or eliminate ongoing support for older versions without causing problems or widespread complaints.

They need to stop making new versions

[Bohandas]

What you people need to do is buy an antivirus program and then completely disable windows update

[Grinner]

What you people need to do is buy an antivirus program and then completely disable windows update

That's...not really how computer security works. There's a number of ways a computer can be attacked, and while a good firewall policy can mitigate some of the risks associated with an unpatched OS, it can't eliminate them. Plus, chances are that most users won't be keeping such close tabs on recently discovered vulnerabilities in Windows processes.

[NichG]

That's...not really how computer security works. There's a number of ways a computer can be attacked, and while a good firewall policy can mitigate some of the risks associated with an unpatched OS, it can't eliminate them. Plus, chances are that most users won't be keeping such close tabs on recently discovered vulnerabilities in Windows processes.

Is there really such a thing as a way to completely eliminate risks in any case (aside from e.g. completely disconnecting the machine)? You're going to have to live with risk almost no matter what you do.

Statistically, do you think more people get infected with stuff due to an unpatched OS, or because of actions they voluntarily but mistakenly took as a user? My offhand guess would be that you see far more stuff happening because people installed random stuff from the web or opened email attachments or things like that rather than blind attacks.

[factotum]

Is there really such a thing as a way to completely eliminate risks in any case (aside from e.g. completely disconnecting the machine)? You're going to have to live with risk almost no matter what you do.

You still do everything you can to *minimise* those risks. Otherwise you might as well say, "Oh, just run an unpatched Windows XP installation with no service packs or antivirus, it'll be *fine*!".

[NichG]

You still do everything you can to *minimise* those risks. Otherwise you might as well say, "Oh, just run an unpatched Windows XP installation with no service packs or antivirus, it'll be *fine*!".

Well I mean, you can do that just fine, so long as you accept the need to be responsible for your own outcome. Put the machine up, get infected, fine, that's how that turned out. Put the machine up behind a NAT, be careful about browsing, clicking attachments, etc, and you can probably be just fine. And even if things do go wrong, thats why you had a backup policy, right?

[Telok]

Is there really such a thing as a way to completely eliminate risks in any case (aside from e.g. completely disconnecting the machine)?

Yes, but you won't like it.

A non-posix compliant, non-microsoft, custom kernel stored on hard drive A that runs a hardware emulator for your networking OS where the virtual machine and it's OS can only see hard drive B. Plus a daily or hourly backup to a ROM drive. Never, ever, share your kernel code.

What you have at this point is a custom OS running custom code that runs the networked OS in a virtual box with separate storage and backup. If anything happens in the virtual box you just wipe it out and load up the most recent backup.

[NichG]

Yes, but you won't like it.

A non-posix compliant, non-microsoft, custom kernel stored on hard drive A that runs a hardware emulator for your networking OS where the virtual machine and it's OS can only see hard drive B. Plus a daily or hourly backup to a ROM drive. Never, ever, share your kernel code.

What you have at this point is a custom OS running custom code that runs the networked OS in a virtual box with separate storage and backup. If anything happens in the virtual box you just wipe it out and load up the most recent backup.

I like this just fine for really critical systems that for some reason also have to be networked. If you've got some kind of military system where if the system were to be hacked, people would die, then I think this level of paranoia is appropriate. But even without that level of extreme paranoia, the virtual machine part of this idea is not just reasonable, its standard in situations where you want a large number of clients to run code on your servers.

When it comes to individual users with personal-use computers though, in most cases there just isn't so much to be lost from the machine being compromised, and not so much threat to make it likely without this level of protection, that this level of security would be worthwhile.

[Draconi Redfir]

If you don't want to be pestered with popups pushing for windows 10, there's a way you can set your computer to not accept automatic updates.

Start > Control Panel > System and Security >Turn automatic updating on/off. In the Important updates menu, select Never check for updates. Deselect Give me recommended updates the same way I receive important updates.


I've had my computer like this ever since i first heard that they would automatically update windows 7 to 10 months ago, i've never been bothered with a popup asking if i want to update.

[Telok]

NichG: I said you wouldn't like it.

[Domochevsky]

If you don't want to be pestered with popups pushing for windows 10, there's a way you can set your computer to not accept automatic updates.

Start > Control Panel > System and Security >Turn automatic updating on/off. In the Important updates menu, select Never check for updates. Deselect Give me recommended updates the same way I receive important updates.


I've had my computer like this ever since i first heard that they would automatically update windows 7 to 10 months ago, i've never been bothered with a popup asking if i want to update.

Well done, Microsoft. Well done. :smallamused:

(Turning automatic updates off is a terrible idea. But so is pushing new OS' via the same means. And then trying to be sneaky about it.)

[factotum]

Well done, Microsoft. Well done. :smallamused:

Yeah...if your hardball tactics are forcing people to go to the lengths of disabling vital security updates on their older OS then you've done something very wrong. Still, the "free Win10 upgrade" period ends in a month and a bit, hopefully then we'll see the back of this.

[Murk]

I hadn't noticed this before, but pretty much every manual download at their website (the microsoft website itself) auto-redirects you to the download page for windows 10.

I tried to manually download the latest version of direct X (for my OS) for my laptop. Even the links on their own support websites and the links from the search tool redirect you from whatever you click on to the "DOWNLOAD WINDOWS 10 NOW" page.

Which... makes it even weirder. They just say "If you want anything from us, you have to take Windows 10 first".

[Avilan the Grey]

Not to hijack a thread by what's wrong with W10?
Personally I find it an excellent operating system. Unlike 8, 98*, 95* and the weapon of mass corruption that was ME.

*The first versions, not the Second Editions, which were excellent.


I hadn't noticed this before, but pretty much every manual download at their website (the microsoft website itself) auto-redirects you to the download page for windows 10.

I tried to manually download the latest version of direct X (for my OS) for my laptop. Even the links on their own support websites and the links from the search tool redirect you from whatever you click on to the "DOWNLOAD WINDOWS 10 NOW" page.

Which... makes it even weirder. They just say "If you want anything from us, you have to take Windows 10 first".

Not too weird; especially for operating systems that are not supported.

[HandofShadows]

It's not that Win 10 is bad, it's that it's being forced on people.

[pendell]

I've heard from a number of people who have upgraded older systems to Win 10, and quite a few of them have had to fall back to Win 7 for one reason or another.

I've made up my mind that when the time comes to upgrade I'm going to get a new computer with Win 10 built for it from the ground up; there's just to much risk for an upgrade on older hardware, IMO.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[anjxed]

It's not that Win 10 is bad, it's that it's being forced on people.

I wonder whats the difference between a new OS with better security patches and vaccinations for children so that they wont get infectious diseases

I prefer people to be safe :)

[Friv]

I wonder whats the difference between a new OS with better security patches and vaccinations for children so that they wont get infectious diseases

I prefer people to be safe :)

The big difference is that you don't die if your computer gets a virus.

[georgie_leech]

I wonder whats the difference between a new OS with better security patches and vaccinations for children so that they wont get infectious diseases

I prefer people to be safe :)

People might object if vaccinations were delivered by teams of doctors breaking into your house and stabbing people during dinner.

[Khedrac]

Not to hijack a thread by what's wrong with W10?
My father is 85 and unfortunately has developed dementia. What he cannot really do any more is cope with change; for this reason I do not want Windows 10 on his PC.
It may be a better operating system.
It may be secure.
There is no chance my father will be able to find any of his documents. We were forced to temporarily switch him from Win XP to Win 7 (hardware issues now resolved) - he could not find his way around that, so what chance does he have with 10?
- Note it may be easier to navigate, but it is different and that is all that matters in this case.
(His previous carer decided to give him a new Smart TV (that he did not really want). Nice idea, but the result is he has not watched any TV since.)

As for myself, I do have a number of issues with it:
1. Even the basic games like Solitaire are now part of the online community - can they be played when offline? (Also what happened to Minesweeper?)
2. I wanted to go back to Civilization III - which like a lot of software will not run under Windows 10
3. I have a very nice old flatbed scanner - official drivers do not support Windows 10, only other I have been able to find covered image with "Unregistered copy" text until I pay for it. Excuse me for trying to use a completely legal, if old, scanner.
4. It seems worse that Win 7 and suddenly deciding that it wants to install a block of updates when you are trying to switch off so you can go out (taking pc with you). Windows 7 was better (not great but better) at offering the option not to upgrade just now.

[Gnoman]

My father is 85 and unfortunately has developed dementia. What he cannot really do any more is cope with change; for this reason I do not want Windows 10 on his PC.

2. I wanted to go back to Civilization III - which like a lot of software will not run under Windows 10

Both my Steam and Non-Steam copies of Civ III work perfectly in Win 10. In my experience, Win10 has better backwards compatibility (apart from a fair bit of DOS and Win 3.1 software that can be run in DOSbox) than any previous Windows version, with several programs I haven't been able to run since Win98 working, and I honestly haven't run into a single program that worked in 7 but not 10.

[snowblizz]

As for myself, I do have a number of issues with it:
1. Even the basic games like Solitaire are now part of the online community - can they be played when offline? (Also what happened to Minesweeper?)

None of the games require being online for anything else than keeping scores and downloading daily challenges. What annoys me is honestly now that they have ads in them.
So much so I stopped because after a game it will run a 30s ad with sound, even though I've muted it. Yes they changed the look of all those games afte making them "apps". I liked the daily challenges thign actually because they added interesting new gameplay modes, but the ad thing I can't abide. Then again, who am I to demand free stuff?



4. It seems worse that Win 7 and suddenly deciding that it wants to install a block of updates when you are trying to switch off so you can go out (taking pc with you). Windows 7 was better (not great but better) at offering the option not to upgrade just now.
That's a settings issue nothing more. It never tries quitting in the middle of something and it'll warn you it wants to do updates. Sure the standard behaviour is to do em as soon as you shut down, but I had to change that option in Vista already.

[anjxed]

People might object if vaccinations were delivered by teams of doctors breaking into your house and stabbing people during dinner.

They wont break into your house, just knock on the door and remind you that your child needs to be vaccinated.
And if you dont agree, Child Protective Services come and get them :smallwink::smalltongue:

[Khedrac]

Both my Steam and Non-Steam copies of Civ III work perfectly in Win 10. In my experience, Win10 has better backwards compatibility (apart from a fair bit of DOS and Win 3.1 software that can be run in DOSbox) than any previous Windows version, with several programs I haven't been able to run since Win98 working, and I honestly haven't run into a single program that worked in 7 but not 10.
Ooh - I might dig out my disks and have another go at installing it - thank-you for this.
(I have changed PC since I last tried it so it may not work for different reasons this time.)

[georgie_leech]

They wont break into your house, just knock on the door and remind you that your child needs to be vaccinated.
And if you dont agree, Child Protective Services come and get them :smallwink::smalltongue:

And if the complainers are correct, only occasionally vaccinate you in your sleep against your will! :smallbiggrin:

[noparlpf]

Apparently my brother did not in fact upgrade intentionally; he paused a game to go to the bathroom and when he came back it was in the middle of installing Win10. He lost a few hours of game progress, and several other files seem to have gone missing.

So yeah, definitely a bit more forceful than just knocking on the door to offer a service.

[georgie_leech]

Both my Steam and Non-Steam copies of Civ III work perfectly in Win 10. In my experience, Win10 has better backwards compatibility (apart from a fair bit of DOS and Win 3.1 software that can be run in DOSbox) than any previous Windows version, with several programs I haven't been able to run since Win98 working, and I honestly haven't run into a single program that worked in 7 but not 10.

Ooh, while I'm at it, a friend of mine is having a hard time getting his Civ V to run in Windows 10, something about not being able to verify it properly. Any advice?

[Gnoman]

Ooh, while I'm at it, a friend of mine is having a hard time getting his Civ V to run in Windows 10, something about not being able to verify it properly. Any advice?

I've had that problem with several Steam games (in both 7 and 10) - clear all local content and reinstall, seems to be a bug in Steam. If it's not a Steam version (not sure if there is a non-steam Civ V), do a full uninstall and reinstall. My copy works just fine.

[pendell]

PC World just put out 10 reasons not to upgrade to windows 10 (http://www.pcworld.com/article/3092365/windows/10-reasons-why-you-shouldnt-upgrade-to-windows-10.html#slide1).

Essentially, if you're happy with new technology and don't have legacy stuff like Windows Media Center or play DVDs, you'll be fine with Windows 10. But a lot of the stuff that was pretty central for windows 7 and earlier users is going away.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[factotum]

Hmmm. The article in question is actually saying that you *should* upgrade to Windows 10, though...it isn't just a flat "Don't upgrade, and here's 10 reasons why", it's more "Here's 10 things that might cause you issues if you upgrade, but you totally should anyway".

[DigoDragon]

I've heard from a number of people who have upgraded older systems to Win 10, and quite a few of them have had to fall back to Win 7 for one reason or another.

I've made up my mind that when the time comes to upgrade I'm going to get a new computer with Win 10 built for it from the ground up; there's just to much risk for an upgrade on older hardware, IMO.

That's a good point. The older the machine, the more inherent risk. I've upgraded two machines to Win10 a few months back. In both cases I first put a fresh install of Win7 on them, video drivers compatible with Win10, and then did the upgrade. No issues so far with either machine. The third machine I worked on was Win7 but had been around for years. Upgrading it to 10 without a fresh install first had a few issues crop up with some software and drivers going bad (had to remove them and install more updated 64-bit versions). It worked out in the end, but took two hours to get through the issues.



Hmmm. The article in question is actually saying that you *should* upgrade to Windows 10, though...it isn't just a flat "Don't upgrade, and here's 10 reasons why", it's more "Here's 10 things that might cause you issues if you upgrade, but you totally should anyway".

I have a laptop on Win7, but have not decided to upgrade. It's a bit old so I'm wary to accidentally mess it up. Laptop hardware seems more fickle in my hands, so I don't know that I wanna take the chance and end up undoing it all because the age got in the way.