Windows 10: I know what I'm doing

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Windows 10: I know what I'm doing

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

fishmech posted:

No version is going to be the last version.

Netflix was in fact horrible for the internet because they chose a really stupid way to attempt to deliver their content, which no one else did because they knew it was a terrible idea.

Similarly, people refusing to update their computers or taking forever to do it are provably responsible for massive amounts of malware and other internet crap. This wasn't some idea invented by Microsoft last week.

Funny how Comcast didn't recognize this "horrible distribution method" until after Netflix stopped paying them for data hosting. And how they stopped crying wolf after Netflix started paying them, again, with absolutely no change in their distribution method.

And Satela came out and said that they were going to eventually do away with the stand alone version of Office in one of his early speeches. Since he sets the course of the company, should I listen to him or to you regarding their plans? Or did I miss him or another Microsoft rep buying back that statement?

Eletriarnation posted:

I agree that Microsoft has self-interested reasons to do this, but they also have somewhat legitimate security reasons to do it too so I'm not sure what that changes.

Except that the systems they are force upgrading are just as secure as Windows 10. They aren't giving free upgrades to Windows XP and Vista users. No, the actual systems with security problems are the ones that have EOLed and are no longer the ones getting security updates, and they are the ones they specifically didn't give a free upgrade option to. If they were doing this to Windows 7 systems in 2020, you might be able to make a point, but not in 2016, FOUR YEARS BEFORE Windows 7 might stop being as secure as Windows 10.

There is a term applied to the TSA that I believe is applicable here: Security Theater. It makes some people feel safe but does nothing but waste most peoples' time without an actual benefit to them.

Sir Unimaginative posted:

What conditions would qualify, to your satisfaction, as "time to do it properly" and "a desire to make the change"?

I can't speak for him, but there are a lot of teething issues with Windows 10 that Microsoft straight up doesn't acknowledge as issues. They obviously don't give any thought or care about the user, they care about the developer reach of UWP.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 20:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 21:50

A Shitty Reporter: Oct 29, 2012; Dinosaur Gum

Sir Unimaginative posted:

What conditions would qualify, to your satisfaction, as "time to do it properly" and "a desire to make the change"?

What do the words 'social contract' mean to you? Just curious.

What's that supposed to mean? Microsoft aren't doing this out of some sort of moral obligation, they're doing this because it's more profitable and less work for them. And quite frankly you're wrong and rude here. I donate a fifth of all my income to hunger prevention and anti-hate groups, and that's before taxes. So take your insinuations and shove them down your sycophantic throat.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 20:48

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Arsten posted:

Funny how Comcast didn't recognize this "horrible distribution method" until after Netflix stopped paying them for data hosting. And how they stopped crying wolf after Netflix started paying them, again, with absolutely no change in their distribution method.

Uh, because the thing they were doing before was the industry standard, and then they tried to save a few million a year by switching to an alternate method that's a major issue at their traffic load. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc - all the huge bandwidth companies have stuck to in-network CDNs long ago because it's more reliable as compared to doing poo poo outside the networks and hoping other networks can negotiate link upgrades on your behalf.

There were radical changes in the Netflix distribution method when they went to having normal CDNs and private links to trying to use interconnect networks as a CDN provider.

Arsten posted:

And Satela came out and said that they were going to eventually do away with the stand alone version of Office in one of his early speeches. Since he sets the course of the company, should I listen to him or to you regarding their plans? Or did I miss him or another Microsoft rep buying back that statement?

They've wanted to "eventually" do that for over a decade, but it's unlikely to ever actually happen because a lot of their business really prefers the normal system.

An Angry Bug posted:

What's that supposed to mean? Microsoft aren't doing this out of some sort of moral obligation, they're doing this because it's more profitable and less work for them. And quite frankly you're wrong and rude here. I donate a fifth of all my income to hunger prevention and anti-hate groups, and that's before taxes. So take your insinuations and shove them down your sycophantic throat.

Tell me more about all the profits in foregoing payment for what would be billions of dollars in upgrade licenses on any other upgrade cycle. :allears:

fishmech fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Apr 15, 2016

# ? Apr 15, 2016 20:58

Eletriarnation: Apr 6, 2005; People don't appreciate the substance of things...
objects in space.; Oven Wrangler

Arsten posted:

Except that the systems they are force upgrading are just as secure as Windows 10. They aren't giving free upgrades to Windows XP and Vista users. No, the actual systems with security problems are the ones that have EOLed and are no longer the ones getting security updates, and they are the ones they specifically didn't give a free upgrade option to. If they were doing this to Windows 7 systems in 2020, you might be able to make a point, but not in 2016, FOUR YEARS BEFORE Windows 7 might stop being as secure as Windows 10.

7 and 8 can be secure but don't force security updates in the same way that 10 does, which is a problem when you're talking about people that don't know or don't care to update like I said before. Microsoft has decided that it makes sense to force people to install updates on 10 so it kind of makes sense that they are going to force people to upgrade to 10 too.

It would be really weird for them to offer free upgrades from XP to 10 in part because XP has already been EoL for a while and in part because all the machines running XP are old as hell, most incapable of running Windows 10 well. The same applies to Vista, just not as strongly.

How many people are still running Vista, even? I figured everyone would have long since upgraded to 7 or retired those machines, since it's not like Vista offers lighter hardware requirements than 7 as a reason to not upgrade.

Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Apr 15, 2016

# ? Apr 15, 2016 21:23

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

fishmech posted:

Uh, because the thing they were doing before was the industry standard, and then they tried to save a few million a year by switching to an alternate method that's a major issue at their traffic load. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc - all the huge bandwidth companies have stuck to in-network CDNs long ago because it's more reliable as compared to doing poo poo outside the networks and hoping other networks can negotiate link upgrades on your behalf.

There were radical changes in the Netflix distribution method when they went to having normal CDNs and private links to trying to use interconnect networks as a CDN provider.

And yet, that's still what they do - they just cut a check to Comcast, now. Different =/= Worse. If it did, Windows 10 wouldn't be worth forcing onto others in your mind.

fishmech posted:

They've wanted to "eventually" do that for over a decade, but it's unlikely to ever actually happen because a lot of their business really prefers the normal system.

You obviously don't know how the Office volume licenses have moved in the last decade. Here's a hint: It's per user for applications that upgrade automatically (first step was updating office via Windows update). Sure, you can stay on 2010/2013 this time around with your licensing, but the "stand-alone" version of 2016 functions identically to the 365 version. How long until the licensing follows the code base? Not long based on Microsoft's burning desire to be a grown up cloud provider.

Eletriarnation posted:

7 and 8 can be secure but don't force security updates in the same way that 10 does, which is a problem when you're talking about people that don't know or don't care to update like I said before. Microsoft has decided that it makes sense to force people to install updates on 10 so it kind of makes sense that they are going to force people to upgrade to 10 too.

It would be really weird for them to offer free upgrades from XP to 10 in part because XP has already been EoL for a while and in part because all the machines running XP are old as hell, most incapable of running Windows 10 well. The same applies to Vista, just not as strongly.

How many people are still running Vista, even? I figured everyone would have long since upgraded to 7 or retired those machines, since it's not like Vista offers lighter hardware requirements than 7 as a reason to not upgrade.

But, if they cared about user security, they would have simply released a patch that automatically installs security updates to 7 and 8 users (it's already the default option). Unobtrusive. Doesn't move people to an environment they are unfamiliar with. Doesn't harass them constantly to upgrade. Is not security theater.

Now, it's true that XP and Vista (i only brought that up because it has been EOLed already, not because of a huge user base) are dead, but those are the systems that are still the internet problem. Offer free upgrades to Chinese and Russian users of Windows XP and most of that problem goes away. But Microsoft isn't interested in security. They care about UWP. So they release a harassment to upgrade and pay lip service to security amongst other things to convince and cajole people into adopting what will make them feel relevant, again.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 21:44

gourdcaptain: Nov 16, 2012

Eletriarnation posted:

7 and 8 can be secure but don't force security updates in the same way that 10 does, which is a problem when you're talking about people that don't know or don't care to update like I said before. Microsoft has decided that it makes sense to force people to install updates on 10 so it kind of makes sense that they are going to force people to upgrade to 10 too.

It would be really weird for them to offer free upgrades from XP to 10 in part because XP has already been EoL for a while and in part because all the machines running XP are old as hell, most incapable of running Windows 10 well. The same applies to Vista, just not as strongly.

How many people are still running Vista, even? I figured everyone would have long since upgraded to 7 or retired those machines, since it's not like Vista offers lighter hardware requirements than 7 as a reason to not upgrade.

I have a relatively high end Vista era laptop I purchased seven years ago still in use (Core 2 Quad) as my dad's primary laptop (gave it to him to replace his slightly older, much less high end laptop when I stopped using it two years ago) but I stuck a Linux Mint install on it before giving it to him, so I don't think that counts. It still works pretty well for his solely web surfing and streaming media needs apart from roasting his lap when he uses it.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 21:46

Space Cadet: Jun 1, 2000; Destruction, hence, like creation, is one of Nature's mandates.

Sir Unimaginative posted:

What conditions would qualify, to your satisfaction, as "time to do it properly" and "a desire to make the change"?

Well to my satisfaction as you put it is when I felt that Windows 10 was actually ready to be deployed in my house, when I could make sure all my systems were backed up and ready and that I had the time available to deal with issues that may arise instead of praying the upgrade (which did go smoothly) not gently caress up. As for the desire, when there was actually something that would create a desire to actually run Windows 10, I'm not sure how that part could possibly be unclear. What makes you sport wood for Windows 10 over 7 or 8.1?

# ? Apr 15, 2016 21:52

Super-NintendoUser: Jan 16, 2004; COWABUNGERDER COMPADRES; Soiled Meat

So the Windows 10 update nagging has got me finally ready to upgrade my HTPC. It's the only Windows PC I have. I'm a little concerned about my way out, I know you can roll back from Win10 to Win8 internally, but I'm wondering about a full reinstall, should it come to that.

The issue is my HTPC was first running Windows Vista, then updated to Win7, and then Win8, now Win8.1. I'm not sure what media to use to reinstall the OS, and what CD Key to use. I really have no idea. I have an OEM Windows Vista code, but I'm not sure where it ended up. If I did install Win10 and had to flatten and reinstall, I have no idea what to do.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 21:56

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

SIR FAT JONY IVES posted:

So the Windows 10 update nagging has got me finally ready to upgrade my HTPC. It's the only Windows PC I have. I'm a little concerned about my way out, I know you can roll back from Win10 to Win8 internally, but I'm wondering about a full reinstall, should it come to that.

The issue is my HTPC was first running Windows Vista, then updated to Win7, and then Win8, now Win8.1. I'm not sure what media to use to reinstall the OS, and what CD Key to use. I really have no idea. I have an OEM Windows Vista code, but I'm not sure where it ended up. If I did install Win10 and had to flatten and reinstall, I have no idea what to do.

If you run the update from the little window, you don't need to supply a key.

And, after the install, if you want a factory-reset, there is a place to do that within Win 10 itself. It's really easy that way. You can then roll back to 8 if something goes completely wrong by installing 7 without a key and then upgrading to Windows 8 with your 8. Key.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 21:59

Super-NintendoUser: Jan 16, 2004; COWABUNGERDER COMPADRES; Soiled Meat

Arsten posted:

If you run the update from the little window, you don't need to supply a key.

And, after the install, if you want a factory-reset there is a place to do that within Win 10 itself. It's really easy that way. You can them roll back to 8 if something goes comply wrong by installing 7 without a key and then upgrading to Windows 8 with your 8. Key.

I'm sorry, I don't really follow.

I get the following:

1) if you upgrade win8 to win10 you can rollback inside Win10, I've done this before
2) If you upgrade to win10 you can run the refresh tool, which reverts win10 back to a clean install

My question is if i need to reinstall from nothing, like a disk failure or whatever, what do I do? I don't know my CD Key, if I use a tool like nirsoft, will it give me the valid key? It's been upgraded from Vista->7->8->10 so what key will I get back, and what I can use that key for? Is there a way to validate it? Also I'd need an ISO, but I figure I can always track that down.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 22:02

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Arsten posted:

And yet, that's still what they do - they just cut a check to Comcast, now. Different =/= Worse. If it did, Windows 10 wouldn't be worth forcing onto others in your mind.

You obviously don't know how the Office volume licenses have moved in the last decade. Here's a hint: It's per user for applications that upgrade automatically (first step was updating office via Windows update). Sure, you can stay on 2010/2013 this time around with your licensing, but the "stand-alone" version of 2016 functions identically to the 365 version. How long until the licensing follows the code base? Not long based on Microsoft's burning desire to be a grown up cloud provider.

No, dude, they're doing something different - the thing they had been doing before they switched to Level 3 for CDN service, the thing every other big time bandwidth users does. There are huge differences in structure of your data delivery when you have CDNs hosted inside ISP networks versus relying on CDNs being hosted outside all of them.

And you obviously don't know that none of that means that Office standalones are going to go away.

SIR FAT JONY IVES posted:

My question is if i need to reinstall from nothing, like a disk failure or whatever, what do I do? I don't know my CD Key, if I use a tool like nirsoft, will it give me the valid key? It's been upgraded from Vista->7->8->10 so what key will I get back, and what I can use that key for? Is there a way to validate it? Also I'd need an ISO, but I figure I can always track that down.

You don't have a key. Your hardware configuration is hashed in some manner and then when Windows 10 is installed on that configuration again, it sends that to Microsoft to check if it's still close enough.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 22:04

Factor Mystic: Mar 20, 2006; Baby's First Post-Apocalyptic Fiction

An Angry Bug posted:

What gives them the right to unilaterally decide that? Microsoft aren't our IT departments. They're a company that sells a product to end users.

Microsoft has only recently become a company that cares about selling WIndows to end users (System Builder nod &wink and Windows 95 PR nonwithstanding). But for the last decade+, the business model has been that you're not purchasing a copy of Windows, you're purchasing a PC, from an OEM, that is pre-licensed with Windows.

So you're right that Microsoft wasn't your IT dept... Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc were. Except that that model sucks in the post-iPhone era, where the update cycle for hardware & software is majorly compressed, and also because Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc don't care about your Windows experience as much as selling you a cheap laptop. In the new world, you're going to be frustrated if you think of this OS model as a static preinstalled disk image which shouldn't change. Microsoft wants you to think of Windows as a service (they literally use that phrase). Similar philosophy with Apple. In this world, Microsoft actually is your IT dept, or at least, is connected to users in a way it wasn't before.

Downside: there's some hand holding when people don't want an IT dept. Upside: there's some hand holding from the IT dept for clueless folks who ultimately power botnets. Another upside is the radically reduced turnaround from feedback on a feature to feature update.

The calculus is pretty obvious -- the price of getting everyone up to date is some temporary irritation. Totally worth it.

Plus, it's free.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 22:21

Head Hit Keyboard: Oct 9, 2012; It must be fate that has brought us together after all these years.

So I'm thinking it's finally time to get this update going. I'm going to be updating from 7 and this will be the first time I've installed Windows on something other than a brand new never before used hard drive. Is there anything in particular I need to know or do before I set it in motion?

# ? Apr 15, 2016 22:28

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Head Hit Keyboard posted:

So I'm thinking it's finally time to get this update going. I'm going to be updating from 7 and this will be the first time I've installed Windows on something other than a brand new never before used hard drive. Is there anything in particular I need to know or do before I set it in motion?

Do a full backup using Backup and Restore in Windows 7, make sure you choose the option to make a disk image. That way you'll be sure you can return to Windows 7 if there is something major that won't work under Windows 10.

Note that this will mean you need a bunch of disk space on something larger than your system drive is.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 22:39

Eletriarnation: Apr 6, 2005; People don't appreciate the substance of things...
objects in space.; Oven Wrangler

Arsten posted:

But, if they cared about user security, they would have simply released a patch that automatically installs security updates to 7 and 8 users (it's already the default option). Unobtrusive. Doesn't move people to an environment they are unfamiliar with. Doesn't harass them constantly to upgrade. Is not security theater.

Now, it's true that XP and Vista (i only brought that up because it has been EOLed already, not because of a huge user base) are dead, but those are the systems that are still the internet problem. Offer free upgrades to Chinese and Russian users of Windows XP and most of that problem goes away. But Microsoft isn't interested in security. They care about UWP. So they release a harassment to upgrade and pay lip service to security amongst other things to convince and cajole people into adopting what will make them feel relevant, again.

If they put out a patch that looked like any other and caused all updates to become automatic, you would have people complaining about how Microsoft slipped them this update and now they can't control their Windows 7 anymore and have to reinstall everything instead of how Microsoft slipped them this upgrade and now they are running Windows 10 and have to rollback. Not only that, but they'd still be on 7 and 8 and Microsoft would still be pushing out all these updates to 7 and 8 until EoL and then these people would be insecure unless they one day decided to upgrade. The entire point is to get as many people as possible off of 7 and 8.

A lot of the XP copies out there in China and Russia are not activated with legit licenses and wouldn't get free upgrades to 10 even if that were offered to XP and Vista. Also, I suspect that Microsoft really doesn't want to waste development time on an upgrade process for XP and Vista too, considering how few people would benefit and how it would probably be an awful mess for XP at least.

You can say it's all about UWP, but what you are suggesting would be at least as much of a pain in the rear end for them as what they are doing and would be a lot less effective at accomplishing other legitimate goals.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 23:05

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

fishmech posted:

No, dude, they're doing something different - the thing they had been doing before they switched to Level 3 for CDN service, the thing every other big time bandwidth users does. There are huge differences in structure of your data delivery when you have CDNs hosted inside ISP networks versus relying on CDNs being hosted outside all of them.

No, Netflix is still hosting with L3 and, I believe, Cogent. Comcast throttled Netflix content through all access lanes Netflix could buy (which was from fix or six interconnect networks, iirc) until it was sub-SD quality and Netflix now pays them to not congest their connections. They are still pushing and developing Open Connect and working to setup a distribution system outside of terminating internet providers. You can find this all in Netflix's filing with the FCC.

fishmech posted:

And you obviously don't know that none of that means that Office standalones are going to go away.

They have been working for a decade specifically to make this happen. And the new CEO has accelerated this model's licensing penetration and tied it into their other major initiative, which is the cloud push where this licensing model is king. Why on earth do you think that means that stand alone versions will just magically stay forever?

Eletriarnation posted:

If they put out a patch that looked like any other and caused all updates to become automatic, you would have people complaining about how Microsoft slipped them this update and now they can't control their Windows 7 anymore and have to reinstall everything instead of how Microsoft slipped them this upgrade and now they are running Windows 10 and have to rollback. Not only that, but they'd still be on 7 and 8 and Microsoft would still be pushing out all these updates to 7 and 8 until EoL and then these people would be insecure unless they one day decided to upgrade. The entire point is to get as many people as possible off of 7 and 8.

And people can not install that update (or uninstall that one update, because you can still do that even on Win10). But that's aside from the point: This is an easy thing to do that shows a commitment to security.

Heck, let's just concentrate on Windows 10 security: Why haven't they enforced UAC at the level it was turned on by default in Vista? That would stop a whole slew of issues from arising. Especially if they lock it to the top tier of UAC. That would put them in line, system security wise, with both OS X and Linux. Similar question: Why haven't they enforced development on system vs user app installations? Not that this is done en masse on either Linux or OS X, but both have the ability to install and run applications from the User environment.

Both of these, on Windows 10 and without even invoking 7/8, would demonstrate that this is more than security theater. But it's not. 10 isn't fundamentally more secure because of automatic updates (which you can disable entirely) and a great many 7 and 8 systems get automatic updates out of the box, as that is how it's configured.

Eletriarnation posted:

A lot of the XP copies out there in China and Russia are not activated with legit licenses and wouldn't get free upgrades to 10 even if that were offered to XP and Vista. Also, I suspect that Microsoft really doesn't want to waste development time on an upgrade process for XP and Vista too, considering how few people would benefit and how it would probably be an awful mess for XP at least.

True, but a lot of copies are legit. And that issue dwarfs by several orders of magnitude any issue we may see today in the first world relating to security and Windows 7/8 - and they aren't going away anytime soon as no real efforts have been made to get these issues resolved outside of an occasional idea to make stock holders happy (like Windows XP's activation, which was targeting how much Win2k was pirated, but was cracked pre-release).

Eletriarnation posted:

You can say it's all about UWP, but what you are suggesting would be at least as much of a pain in the rear end for them as what they are doing and would be a lot less effective at accomplishing other legitimate goals.

What I am saying is that this has nothing to do with a goal of "Security" and everything to do with all of their other goals for where they want both Windows (in all three flavors) and their developer support to be.

I simply think it should be an optional upgrade, not a "We are going to install in 15 minutes unless you click here to stop me!" style thing where getting a cup of coffee and talking to a spouse can potentially ruin your morning and/or the several following days. As I noted before, Windows 10 is still teething. I love it and use it as my main Windows system, but I have see quite a few catastrophes arise from the automatic installation and the excuse that "it's for security!!!" just doesn't fly when it is obviously to pursue their own ends. Someone wanting to play it safe and not upgrade for a year after release is not some crazy guy avoiding all security updates while he touches himself with rats in a box in an alley off of Times Square. In reality, it's probably a person who has been burned by Microsoft products, before.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 23:40

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Arsten posted:

No, Netflix is still hosting with L3 and, I believe, Cogent. Comcast throttled Netflix content through all access lanes Netflix could buy (which was from fix or six interconnect networks, iirc) until it was sub-SD quality and Netflix now pays them to not congest their connections. They are still pushing and developing Open Connect and working to setup a distribution system outside of terminating internet providers. You can find this all in Netflix's filing with the FCC.

They have been working for a decade specifically to make this happen. And the new CEO has accelerated this model's licensing penetration and tied it into their other major initiative, which is the cloud push where this licensing model is king. Why on earth do you think that means that stand alone versions will just magically stay forever?

Incorrect. Netflix has returned to inside-major-ISP hosting, although they still use L3 and Cogent services for minor ISPs. There was absolutely no throttling of Netflix, the links overloaded and they still have never been upgraded - they returned to in-network hosting and private links so the interconnect network overloading stopped. You're also submitting a filing from freaking 2014, of course it's not going to tell you what they're doing now!

It doesn't matter, because it's not going to actually happen.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 23:48

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

fishmech posted:

Incorrect. Netflix has returned to inside-major-ISP hosting, although they still use L3 and Cogent services for minor ISPs. There was absolutely no throttling of Netflix, the links overloaded and they still have never been upgraded - they returned to in-network hosting and private links so the interconnect network overloading stopped. You're also submitting a filing from freaking 2014, of course it's not going to tell you what they're doing now!

Yes, which included the time after their agreement with Comcast and after the congestion cleared up. Also, it wasn't those links specifically (because they bought access to links from carriers that had good peering links with Comcast, they didn't only use L3) it was Netflix traffic specifically. Netflix traffic was specifically lovely for Comcast subscribers and other external traffic was fine.

If this were a hardware congestion issue all external traffic would have been affected, not just between Comcast and Netflix. That means everyone trying to do stupid poo poo like play games on Euro servers from Illinois wouldn't have been able to because the external congestion would have created latency that was unplayable. But, of course, that didn't actually happen, which means it was throttled.

fishmech posted:

It doesn't matter, because it's not going to actually happen.

Sure it won't.

# ? Apr 16, 2016 00:01

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Arsten posted:

Yes, which included the time after their agreement with Comcast and after the congestion cleared up. Also, it wasn't those links specifically (because they bought access to links from carriers that had good peering links with Comcast, they didn't only use L3) it was Netflix traffic specifically. Netflix traffic was specifically lovely for Comcast subscribers and other external traffic was fine.

If this were a hardware congestion issue all external traffic would have been affected, not just between Comcast and Netflix. That means everyone trying to do stupid poo poo like play games on Euro servers from Illinois wouldn't have been able to because the external congestion would have created latency that was unplayable. But, of course, that didn't actually happen, which means it was throttled.

Sure it won't.

This is incorrect. Other services that could only be delivered over those links suffered at the same time Netflix streaming had issues. The only ISP that was actually suspected of throttling was Verizon, and that was only for customers on Verizon Wireless. Of course, most other websites out there either used in-network CDNs like a sane company, or were using low amounts of bandwidth relatively, and could be accessed through multiple interconnect networks. But Netflix traffic was solely coming though certain sets of links.

No, not all external traffic, because again there were and are multiple different interconnect providers and most services could fail over to a different link. Netflix was not throttled except by Verizon for Verizon Wireless customers. Very few other services on the net were exclusively available through the links that Netflix became exclusively available for. And notably, Level 3 and Cogent did not notice throttling occurring, which they would have been in a position to see. What they were reporting was completely oversaturated links to tons of major ISPs at peak Netflix times, not links with plenty of bandwidth to spare and only Netflix connections slowed! That's why what they were after was to strike deals to upgrade links to support the services they were trying to sell to networks.

I also want to note that Netflix had been using the stupid system of refusing to internally host under standard terms for several years before they started having problems, because Netflix streaming traffic was simply not a big enough load to cause issues. If there was going to be throttling to spite Netflix, that would have started within months of the first changeover, not years later when traffic had grown significantly.

# ? Apr 16, 2016 00:15

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

fishmech posted:

This is incorrect. Other services that could only be delivered over those links suffered at the same time Netflix streaming had issues. The only ISP that was actually suspected of throttling was Verizon, and that was only for customers on Verizon Wireless. Of course, most other websites out there either used in-network CDNs like a sane company, or were using low amounts of bandwidth relatively, and could be accessed through multiple interconnect networks. But Netflix traffic was solely coming though certain sets of links.

No, not all external traffic, because again there were and are multiple different interconnect providers and most services could fail over to a different link. Netflix was not throttled except by Verizon for Verizon Wireless customers. Very few other services on the net were exclusively available through the links that Netflix became exclusively available for. And notably, Level 3 and Cogent did not notice throttling occurring, which they would have been in a position to see. What they were reporting was completely oversaturated links to tons of major ISPs at peak Netflix times, not links with plenty of bandwidth to spare and only Netflix connections slowed! That's why what they were after was to strike deals to upgrade links to support the services they were trying to sell to networks.

I also want to note that Netflix had been using the stupid system of refusing to internally host under standard terms for several years before they started having problems, because Netflix streaming traffic was simply not a big enough load to cause issues. If there was going to be throttling to spite Netflix, that would have started within months of the first changeover, not years later when traffic had grown significantly.

Wow, you have that wrong. It started with Netflix jumping over to L3. Comcast refused to upgrade the L3 links because Netflix was an L3 customer. This was how it started out, right after Netflix abandoned ship. Then Netflix signed a deal with Cogent, which was near capacity on its links to Comcast and when it maxed those links, Cogent asked Comcast to do what they had a long history of doing: Upgrading those links. Comcast refused. Cogent's CEO even noted that this was completely different than each and every time the data congestion hit max in the past. Note that after Netflix signed the deal, Comcast upgraded with Cogent. Then Netflix got with Tata, Telia, XO, and NTT and, suddenly, all of those links simply couldn't handle the load, even when spread across all six interconnects. And, yet, other ISPs weren't having these issue with those same six interconnects. The other major American ground ISPs weren't having anywhere near the same amount of issues with Netflix quality.

On top of that, you have this same strategy being used by Comcast before with Voxel (On Talia, I think) in 2010, which didn't use anywhere near the amount of data that Netflix did.

# ? Apr 16, 2016 00:41

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Arsten posted:

Wow, you have that wrong. It started with Netflix jumping over to L3. Comcast refused to upgrade the L3 links because Netflix was an L3 customer. This was how it started out, right after Netflix abandoned ship. Then Netflix signed a deal with Cogent, which was near capacity on its links to Comcast and when it maxed those links, Cogent asked Comcast to do what they had a long history of doing: Upgrading those links. Comcast refused. Cogent's CEO even noted that this was completely different than each and every time the data congestion hit max in the past. Note that after Netflix signed the deal, Comcast upgraded with Cogent. Then Netflix got with Tata, Telia, XO, and NTT and, suddenly, all of those links simply couldn't handle the load, even when spread across all six interconnects. And, yet, other ISPs weren't having these issue with those same six interconnects. The other major American ground ISPs weren't having anywhere near the same amount of issues with Netflix quality.

On top of that, you have this same strategy being used by Comcast before with Voxel (On Talia, I think) in 2010, which didn't use anywhere near the amount of data that Netflix did.

Uh according to Netflix themselves and Level 3 and Cogent it wasn't just Comcast they had issues with, it was also Verizon, AT&T and several other cable companies. The main reason it was different from every time there had been congestion in the past was that never before was it just one company trying to push so much data on its own. And in fact, according to Netflix's reports, Verizon had the most problems with them. The only major cable companies that didn't have issues with Netflix were ones that had signed on to Netflix's special program for bringing in in-network CDN stuff again, but this time the cable company paying Netflix instead of Netflix paying standard rates for hosting.

You're basically talking about bullshit that marginally competent internet nerds came up with to excuse netflix.

# ? Apr 16, 2016 00:48

A Shitty Reporter: Oct 29, 2012; Dinosaur Gum

Netfix revealed the woeful state of the infrastructure that those companies caused by embezzling funds they were given to upgrade it. All of them doing it at once isn't an excuse.

# ? Apr 16, 2016 01:33

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

An Angry Bug posted:

Netfix revealed the woeful state of the infrastructure that those companies caused by embezzling funds they were given to upgrade it. All of them doing it at once isn't an excuse.

They did not do that, because all the companies involved had great infrastructure. The only problem was Netflix attempting to push massive bandwidth in a way most large companies stopped doing long ago.

# ? Apr 16, 2016 01:36

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

fishmech posted:

Uh according to Netflix themselves and Level 3 and Cogent it wasn't just Comcast they had issues with, it was also Verizon, AT&T and several other cable companies. The main reason it was different from every time there had been congestion in the past was that never before was it just one company trying to push so much data on its own. And in fact, according to Netflix's reports, Verizon had the most problems with them. The only major cable companies that didn't have issues with Netflix were ones that had signed on to Netflix's special program for bringing in in-network CDN stuff again, but this time the cable company paying Netflix instead of Netflix paying standard rates for hosting.

You're basically using peak congestion that other networks experiencing to say that Comcast doing what it had to do, when, if you had even looked at the information provided by Netflix you could see that the other providers averaged around 720p (the OCA using ISPs averaged closer to 1080). Comcast, alone, averaged sub SD quality and specifically took steps to ensure it stayed that way until they got their money.

fishmech posted:

You're basically talking about bullshit that marginally competent internet nerds came up with to excuse netflix.

Hilarious, coming from the person who outright dismisses information and thinks that an Open Connect appliance costs money. If you are an ISP, they give you them for free. You pay money if you want to distribute content on Open Connect, which is a completely different matter.

# ? Apr 16, 2016 01:37

Ojjeorago: Sep 21, 2008; I had a dream, too. It wasn't pleasant, though ... I dreamt I was a moron...; Gary’s Answer

fishmech posted:

They did not do that, because all the companies involved had great infrastructure.

Level3's infrastructure is hot garbage.

# ? Apr 16, 2016 01:37

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

An Angry Bug posted:

Netfix revealed the woeful state of the infrastructure that those companies caused by embezzling funds they were given to upgrade it. All of them doing it at once isn't an excuse.

I thought the government money was paid to telephone companies. While Comcast was once AT&T@Home, how much of that did really went to the non-telephone companies? I'm under the impression that not much did.

# ? Apr 16, 2016 01:38

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Whizbang posted:

Level3's infrastructure is hot garbage.

Well yeah, but ol AAB over there thinks it was Comcast/Cablevision/Verizon/AT&T that were the problem. I mean really the crux of Netflix's issues was that Level 3 and Cogent couldn't provide the service they were trying to sell to Netflix.

I mean their infrastructure is fine for their current business, which has way less netflix data to carry these days.

Arsten posted:

I thought the government money was paid to telephone companies. While Comcast was once AT&T@Home, how much of that did really went to the non-telephone companies? I'm under the impression that not much did.

Comcast was never ATT@Home, though they did buy out ATT's cable business.

When the government gave a bunch of money to telcoms and cable companies int he 90s for 90s standard broadband (definition: about 512 kilobits) they instead primarily invested that money into building out the cellular network, fiber backbones, and preparing the way for serious backhaul from cell towers.

Arsten posted:

You're basically using peak congestion that other networks experiencing to say that Comcast doing what it had to do, when, if you had even looked at the information provided by Netflix you could see that the other providers averaged around 720p (the OCA using ISPs averaged closer to 1080). Comcast, alone, averaged sub SD quality and specifically took steps to ensure it stayed that way until they got their money.

Hilarious, coming from the person who outright dismisses information and thinks that an Open Connect appliance costs money. If you are an ISP, they give you them for free. You pay money if you want to distribute content on Open Connect, which is a completely different matter.

Again, dude, it was by no means exclusively Comcast that had issues with Netflix. It was most major ISPs in the country. Comcast is simply the largest ISP in the nation and so suffered the most from overloaded links with regards to Netflix quality. There was no throttling except from Verizon, for Verizon Wireless users.

I get that you really love Netflix but you're repeating things that simply aren't true. And Netflix does indeed charge for OpenConnect appliances to small time ISPs, as well as attempting to dodge data center costs inside ISPs. Fortunately they stopped pulling the latter bullshit.

# ? Apr 16, 2016 01:45

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

The whole Netflix thing is an interesting discussion but this is incredibly off-topic.

I strongly feel no PC owner should have a forced upgrade at any time until they explicitly enter some kind of input that starts the process. For home users Security Updates ought to be forced but it should optional for driver updates. The telemetry data for marketing purposes is concerning but that's what you get with a free Operating System.

# ? Apr 16, 2016 02:21

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

fishmech posted:

Comcast was never ATT@Home, though they did buy out ATT's cable business.

When the government gave a bunch of money to telcoms and cable companies int he 90s for 90s standard broadband (definition: about 512 kilobits) they instead primarily invested that money into building out the cellular network, fiber backbones, and preparing the way for serious backhaul from cell towers.

I wish my cell towers had serious backhaul.

fishmech posted:

I get that you really love Netflix but you're repeating things that simply aren't true.

I have no specific love for Netflix and, having worked with them deploying an OCA to a small time ISP (which paid nothing for said OCA, by the way), I wish they would accidentally burn. But this situation was clearly manipulated by Comcast for their own gain.

But I think we've derailed this enough. :hfive:

# ? Apr 16, 2016 02:25

Eletriarnation: Apr 6, 2005; People don't appreciate the substance of things...
objects in space.; Oven Wrangler

Arsten posted:

And people can not install that update (or uninstall that one update, because you can still do that even on Win10). But that's aside from the point: This is an easy thing to do that shows a commitment to security.

OK, so if people can just choose not to do it then you're back at the place where you have to rely on user choice to make the user secure for the most part. The point for Microsoft is taking that choice away because many people make the wrong decision. This is putting you directly at odds with them because you have confidence in your own ability to make the choice, which is understandable, but this is what you get when you share an OS with a lot of people who don't know what they are doing and it has a developer that caters to those users.

quote:

Heck, let's just concentrate on Windows 10 security: Why haven't they enforced UAC at the level it was turned on by default in Vista? That would stop a whole slew of issues from arising. Especially if they lock it to the top tier of UAC. That would put them in line, system security wise, with both OS X and Linux. Similar question: Why haven't they enforced development on system vs user app installations? Not that this is done en masse on either Linux or OS X, but both have the ability to install and run applications from the User environment.

Both of these, on Windows 10 and without even invoking 7/8, would demonstrate that this is more than security theater. But it's not. 10 isn't fundamentally more secure because of automatic updates (which you can disable entirely) and a great many 7 and 8 systems get automatic updates out of the box, as that is how it's configured.

I'm pretty sure they scaled back the UAC default from the highest level that it was in Vista because it was so drat annoying that it counterproductively caused people to turn off UAC entirely. I won't get into app development because I'm not an expert on it, but I'm not really following you on why not making all the right decisions w/r/t app development makes the upgrade policy security theater - they don't seem related to me.

If I'm understanding correctly to disable automatic updates in 10 you have to tell the OS you have a metered internet connection when you don't, disable specific updates you don't want one by one, or muck around with group policy which is an option only in Pro that most people know literally nothing about. In 7 there's a checkbox that says "hey, let me do this manually." The fact that they both have automatic updates on by default doesn't really make them equivalent because it's way easier to just disable them and forget about it in 7, which comes right back to the point that this is designed to fix problems with low-information users who don't know or don't care.

quote:

True, but a lot of copies are legit. And that issue dwarfs by several orders of magnitude any issue we may see today in the first world relating to security and Windows 7/8 - and they aren't going away anytime soon as no real efforts have been made to get these issues resolved outside of an occasional idea to make stock holders happy (like Windows XP's activation, which was targeting how much Win2k was pirated, but was cracked pre-release).

How would you fix security for Windows XP and Vista? Are you really saying that they should offer Windows 10 upgrades to everyone who has XP and Vista (and what about people who don't meet min spec) to remain ideologically consistent? What about if the XP users decide not to upgrade too, should Microsoft put out security updates for XP forever to demonstrate that they're really serious about security? Are you sure you're not making the perfect the enemy of the good here?

quote:

What I am saying is that this has nothing to do with a goal of "Security" and everything to do with all of their other goals for where they want both Windows (in all three flavors) and their developer support to be.

I simply think it should be an optional upgrade, not a "We are going to install in 15 minutes unless you click here to stop me!" style thing where getting a cup of coffee and talking to a spouse can potentially ruin your morning and/or the several following days. As I noted before, Windows 10 is still teething. I love it and use it as my main Windows system, but I have see quite a few catastrophes arise from the automatic installation and the excuse that "it's for security!!!" just doesn't fly when it is obviously to pursue their own ends. Someone wanting to play it safe and not upgrade for a year after release is not some crazy guy avoiding all security updates while he touches himself with rats in a box in an alley off of Times Square. In reality, it's probably a person who has been burned by Microsoft products, before.

Fundamentally I agree with you that Microsoft shouldn't be force-upgrading people's machines, but I agree from a standpoint of being nice to people. I don't think that being nice to people here really serves their interests, even the security ones - they are a for profit company and I expect them to be evil if it is profitable. If you don't want to deal with that, the only way to be sure is to flatten and install Linux.

And I don't think you're crazy to not upgrade for a while but you need to understand that you are actively resisting Microsoft's declared will so you really ought to not be surprised when they pull a fast one on you.

Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Apr 16, 2016

# ? Apr 16, 2016 05:34

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Eletriarnation posted:

OK, so if people can just choose not to do it then you're back at the place where you have to rely on user choice to make the user secure for the most part. The point for Microsoft is taking that choice away because many people make the wrong decision. This is putting you directly at odds with them because you have confidence in your own ability to make the choice, which is understandable, but this is what you get when you share an OS with a lot of people who don't know what they are doing and it has a developer that caters to those users.

Some people are always going to make the wrong decision. Always. Even with Windows 10, you are going to find people in your travels that haven't updated since it went Gold, automatic updates not withstanding. Why? Because you can disable windows update in easy ways that are all over Google. Plus, Updates aren't Security. They are Updates. You can find multiple instances of Microsoft either having to patch the same vulnerability multiple times or patching a vulnerability and immediately introducing another without going too far back and on systems they update right here right now.

And, note, that now they aren't just rolling out security updates - they are rolling out software and feature updates. When in the history of Microsoft has this ever been without a host of new bugs?

So, saying "well, it's automatically updated! You'll not find unupdated Windows boxes anymore!" is ridiculously hopeful and bordering on naive. The first page of Google hits shows at least four different methods (one of them is even on the Microsoft Answers community site!), two of which are five steps, to completely disable updates. And those will be searched and followed the first time you inconvenience someone with an update reboot.

Eletriarnation posted:

How would you fix security for Windows XP and Vista? Are you really saying that they should offer Windows 10 upgrades to everyone who has XP and Vista (and what about people who don't meet min spec) to remain ideologically consistent? What about if the XP users decide not to upgrade too, should Microsoft put out security updates for XP forever to demonstrate that they're really serious about security?

You're taking that to an extreme. I offered those as a real "problem area" elder systems and security, which isn't a significant problem in the western world. I also offered fixes to Windows 10, without bringing up 7/8 (or XP) that would show actual security changes that would lend truth to the statement that Windows 10 was more secure. But they aren't doing anything to make it more secure - not even the simple things that other OSs have had for decades.

Eletriarnation posted:

Are you sure you're not making the perfect the enemy of the good here?

If that was the case, I'd be complaining that the upgrades that have happened haven't stopped people from disabling 10's windows update. I am specifically saying that "updates" do not equal "security". This idea is further confounded by the fact that all three OSs - 7, 8, and 10 - currently supported by Microsoft will get those same updates.

Eletriarnation posted:

Fundamentally I agree with you that Microsoft shouldn't be force-upgrading people's machines, but I agree from a standpoint of being nice to people. I don't think that being nice to people here really serves their interests, even the security ones - they are a for profit company and I expect them to be evil if it is profitable. If you don't want to deal with that, the only way to be sure is to flatten and install Linux.

And I don't think you're crazy to not upgrade for a while but you need to understand that you are actively resisting Microsoft's declared will so you really ought to not be surprised when they pull a fast one on you.

And Microsoft (and you) ought not be surprised when people get upset by it, either. Bringing up platitudes about how it's "ultra secure because updates!" is not only false, but it's not a fix to the problem(s) that were caused for them. Someone getting tossed out a 10th floor window onto the street below and having bystanders go "Hey, at least you got fresh air, now" aren't having their problems fixed. They need the paramedics (or coroner).

And people won't install Linux, they'll just find some way to take back their feeling of control, like disabling WU so it never happens again if they stay with 10 or by using the uninstall feature (and then using the restore option from their shitbox Dell when that fails).

We obviously aren't going to agree. We should cut this and get some beers.

# ? Apr 16, 2016 06:54

ilkhan: Oct 7, 2004; I LOVE Musk and his pro-first-amendment ways. X is the future.

Press: Windows updates are a mess and a pain in the rear end. When will MS get their poo poo together?
MS: Introducing Windows 10! Upgrades are free! Simple, no mess updates and new features and everyone will be up to date and secure.
Press: Windows updates are a mess and a pain in the rear end. When will MS get their poo poo together?

# ? Apr 16, 2016 16:34

xamphear: Apr 9, 2002; SILK FOR CALDÉ!

ilkhan posted:

Press: Windows updates are a mess and a pain in the rear end. When will MS get their poo poo together?
MS: Introducing Windows 10! Upgrades are free! Simple, no mess updates and new features and everyone will be up to date and secure.
Press: Windows updates are a mess and a pain in the rear end. When will MS get their poo poo together?

The "press" wasn't wrong either time. It's possible to gently caress things up in different ways.

# ? Apr 16, 2016 17:18

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Arsten posted:

"hurf blurf windows XP" is a bad reason to support this. Just you wait until they take what they have called the "last version of Windows" into the pay-by-month/pay-by-year realm like they did with Office.

This will unironically be better for everyone involved.

# ? Apr 16, 2016 17:30

Khablam: Mar 29, 2012

A) I am competent with computers
and
B) I received Windows 10 by accident

are mutually exclusive statements. If you think A), but got B), you are part of the problem, the problem MS are trying to fix with an auto-updating OS.

Hope this helps people.

Arsten posted:

Except that the systems they are force upgrading are just as secure as Windows 10. They aren't giving free upgrades to Windows XP and Vista users. No, the actual systems with security problems are the ones that have EOLed and are no longer the ones getting security updates, and they are the ones they specifically didn't give a free upgrade option to. If they were doing this to Windows 7 systems in 2020, you might be able to make a point, but not in 2016, FOUR YEARS BEFORE Windows 7 might stop being as secure as Windows 10.

It's as free as possible without them being shot by shareholders.
Anyone with half a brain can think "well, 7 is so cheap it's almost free, I can get that and then go to 10" - as has been highlighted ITT and just about everywhere. MS have taken zero steps to block these keys even though it would be trivial to do it. In fact it seems nearly any 7 key, even re-used, will work.
They are being as lenient on this as I have ever seen any company being. Presumably they thought "here's the latest thing for COMPLETELY FREE" would be good enough PR to offset the upgrade push, but maybe they underestimated the hate-boner the industry has for MS.

Arsten posted:

I also offered fixes to Windows 10, without bringing up 7/8 (or XP) that would show actual security changes that would lend truth to the statement that Windows 10 was more secure. But they aren't doing anything to make it more secure - not even the simple things that other OSs have had for decades.

Windows 10 is more secure by design even ignoring the updates issue and this is particularly true in the enterprise version with Device Guard and Credential Guard / EDP.
UAC is enabled out of the box for home, just not on maximum as people like you whine and go "my computer i am smart enough why ask" and react by turning it completely off. They've also improved Defender, smartscreen, EUFI secureboot is new, and a host of other security features.

Also you're missing the point. It's not "for security" as much as "making several older versions of Windows secure is more costly than one".

# ? Apr 16, 2016 18:02

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Khablam posted:

Windows 10 is more secure by design even ignoring the updates issue and this is particularly true in the enterprise version with Device Guard and Credential Guard / EDP.

Except the few additional security features are only great for enterprise. Enterprise IT is not where the security problems are. And the upgrades aren't free for Enterprise, either.

Khablam posted:

UAC is enabled out of the box for home, just not on maximum as people like you whine and go "my computer i am smart enough why ask" and react by turning it completely off.

You obviously aren't paying attention to what I've said.

Khablam posted:

They've also improved Defender, smartscreen, EUFI secureboot is new, and a host of other security features.

Defender is a stand alone program that shares a code base with both MSE and Endpoint. The fact that these improvements are only in Windows 10 is a testament to why this upgrade push isn't about security. Smart screen's improvements are shared back to Windows 8.1. UEFI Secure boot is also available in 8.

Khablam posted:

Also you're missing the point. It's not "for security" as much as "making several older versions of Windows secure is more costly than one".

... Which they will be doing regardless of Windows 10 adoption because they have a support end date of 2020 for the oldest currently supported version.

# ? Apr 16, 2016 19:20

Khablam: Mar 29, 2012

Arsten posted:

You obviously aren't paying attention to what I've said.

Locking it to the top is a complete non-starter given the pushback on Vista trying to do that. The settings at the moment are perfectly logical and a good match of security without annoyance.

Arsten posted:

... Which they will be doing regardless of Windows 10 adoption because they have a support end date of 2020 for the oldest currently supported version.

Do you not understand the concept of 'going forward...' or do you think to solve the issue further MS should have reneged on the support of existing OSes? You can fix the problem going forward whilst still supporting existing OSes in the manner you said you would.
I don't know why you're painting this as either/or.

e: your argument "it's not about security or MS would be motivated to do X" is a non-starter when they have done X in the past and gotten a bad rap for it. Why would they be motivated to do the same thing, again?
The "waaa my computer" crew would throw a bitch-fit that they couldn't turn it off, and you know it.

Khablam fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Apr 16, 2016

# ? Apr 16, 2016 20:25

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Khablam posted:

Locking it to the top is a complete non-starter given the pushback on Vista trying to do that. The settings at the moment are perfectly logical and a good match of security without annoyance.
e: your argument "it's not about security or MS would be motivated to do X" is a non-starter when they have done X in the past and gotten a bad rap for it. Why would they be motivated to do the same thing, again?

They wouldn't have any where near the issues from UAC because the timing is very different. UAC was implemented after 25 years of applications being written to run as administrators 100% of the time (because it made their lives easy). It caused no end of problems because absolutely no developer seemed to even bother to update their applications after VIsta's release. The options their support presented for several years was "Turn off UAC" or "Go back to XP." This is no longer the case with most developers (though I have run into a few of them on the Enterprise side). Moving it up to max wouldn't significantly affect any general user in their day-to-day.

Khablam posted:

Do you not understand the concept of 'going forward...' or do you think to solve the issue further MS should have reneged on the support of existing OSes? You can fix the problem going forward whilst still supporting existing OSes in the manner you said you would.
I don't know why you're painting this as either/or.

"Solve this issue going forward"? What issue are you trying to solve, hm? Are you basically saying that Windows 10 is a security-oriented upgrade because at some point in the future, Microsoft might release a new feature that's enough of a security road block to cause a shift in security management that will leave 7 and 8 in the dust? Microsoft has done that sort of thing all of four times in 20 years. It may happen, but I'm skeptical - and I'm certainly skeptical it'll be any time soon should it even be on the books.

But, there are 100s of ways, if Microsoft was actually interested in security, there are dozens of things they could do to make life more secure without causing an uproar or forcing their new system on people. But, if they force their new system on people, they get what they need: A relevant platform for developers to target and that will enhance their phone offerings to Enterprise.

Khablam posted:

The "waaa my computer" crew would throw a bitch-fit that they couldn't turn it off, and you know it.

Yes, they would. But it's not like they couldn't disable it - they always do. Take automatic updates: it can be disabled in five steps and multiple methods are all over a quick Google search, so yeah, they would whine. But they whine about every feature change across every operating system, find a way to disable it, and move on.

It is odd, to me, that you are saying that doing any changes to make Windows 10 more secure than 8 or 7 in most cases is bad because people will complain....but somehow doing something far more intrusive that people are already complaining about is okay. Why can't you see to it to let people decide to stay with 7 and pay for 10 on their own next year, or when they buy their next Dell?

This Windows 10 upgrade does not offer more security to those that upgrade. It offers new features (Edge, Hello, App Store, Cortana, Continuum, etc) and is free at the moment (and gets you out of tiles, if that was your rage-against-the-man thing in 8.1) and those are fantastic reasons to upgrade.

You may also note that Microsoft itself isn't saying Windows 10 is more secure than 7 or 8. If you check their feature comparison between the versions. "Powerful security" is checked on 7, 8 and 10 with no caveats or fine print delineating the security provided amongst the three. They are rightfully advertising the myriad features of Windows 10. The closest features to have a security bent are Device Guard (which is really just an extension of the File Download Security Warning) and Hello.

Arsten fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Apr 16, 2016

# ? Apr 16, 2016 22:06

Avenida: Jul 14, 2015

Arguing over whether or not Windows 10 is inherently more secure than Windows 7 or 8 is kind of missing the point.

Microsoft isn't force-feeding people Windows 10 because it's more secure.

They're force-feeding people Windows 10 because they're desperate to get as many people as possible off 7 and 8. They're terrified of Windows 7 becoming the next Windows XP, with a support burden lasting far longer than is reasonable because people have the "it just works, so I'm not gonna give it up" mindset.

# ? Apr 16, 2016 22:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 21:50

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

There are under the hood improvements to Windows 10 that go beyond additional functionally.

Technology has changed and Microsoft is staying competitive by giving consumers a free Operating System. There less of a need to buy a new PC every few years and having a fragmented Platform (7, 8,8.1) is just bad.

# ? Apr 16, 2016 22:46

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Windows 10: I know what I'm doing

«‹›500 »