Windows 10 May Reserve Another 7GB For Updates.

[79wjd]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

You do this all the time in many threads, I've seen you do it to @LAwLz, I've see you do it in many Intel threads.  You have a personal ideal that is not supported with anything so you go on the attack accusing the other person of being ignorant, foolish, forum spammer/f5 and god knows what else.

Citation needed  

 

3 hours ago, Hellion said:

Unicorns and bigfoot?….

 

 

Your lack of understanding time management is truly sad. You may be in denial over your situation but everyone else isn’t nearly that foolish. I pigeon hole you based on your proven track record. That of the village idiot that’s set up shop on the forum mashing the F5 key for hours on end looking for new threads to play devils advocate regardless of how ridiculous a rabbit hole you have to jump down. You may think it’s cute or entertaining, the rest find it eye roll inducing with better things to do then ramble on along side you for pages on end playing your little game. Like I said, this is your world. The one where you scream “WHARE UR EVIDANCE?” while providing links to websites owned by the corporation in question or those within the industry with a stake in the company. You fail to understand what a PR department is and when a business is faced with legal or ethical dispute they will tell lies at no end because they have an image to maintain. Kind of like the one you do. The one where you think your opinion is valued and placed upon a pedestal to which can’t be refuted. God forbid someone bring up an opinion you already “covered”. Since your statements become law of the land and written in stone as fact regardless of how mind numbingly retarded they may be.

 

 

So no, I’m not providing you with links to websites. You have proven to be able to use a search engine. I would suggest you do so but we already know the bias you hold, centered on the position you always take and can’t look at anything objectively. This is why it’s a waste of time for the other party. A waste of time when they could be accomplishing something of value in life while you furiously pound your keyboard to get the last word in. Arguing with you is a lost cause. One that I won’t be engaging in.

 

 

So @mr moose is a person with no other purpose in life but to defend various corporations on the internet through the use of proof (albeit proof you might not like)...meanwhile your role seems to be to attack anyone who contradicts an opinion of yours while providing no supporting evidence of any kind; just ad hominem attacks.

 

That's much better.

[TechyBen]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

We can find plenty of threads where an ios update has bricked an iphone to the point it had to go back to apple to be fixed,  but we don't run around claiming that is a reason not to update ios or buy apple.

Buy were they forced updates?

 

Were they time limited forced on the user updates? Or did they have to press "update" to get it?

 

Quote

 even your idea of locking out the network would come with the same degree of issues and setbacks.

No. A different degree. The device would still be useable without a network. Autorun exploits were sorted this way, the autorun system was disabled in Windows 7+ because it had exploits. Desktop gadgets were disabled, because they had exploits. etc. But the rest of the computer was useable. With auto, forced, updates, the entire PC is unusable during this time.

 

It's the equivalent of the law saying "Your car is not safe, we are confiscating it". Or "your car is not safe, you cannot drive it". One I get to keep the car and fix it, or at least admire it for what it can do... the other I get it taken away.

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Buy were they forced updates?

No they aren't, my point was that all update systems have issues and that pointing to some pcs being bricked or borked updates costing hours of downtime being common is not a problem of being forced but of being a software update in 2019.   

9 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Were they time limited forced on the user updates? Or did they have to press "update" to get it?

Either way, if the update is going to fail for whatever reason then  being forced or voluntary will not improve the chance of a smooth update experience.

 

9 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

No. A different degree. The device would still be useable without a network. Autorun exploits were sorted this way, the autorun system was disabled in Windows 7+ because it had exploits. Desktop gadgets were disabled, because they had exploits. etc. But the rest of the computer was useable. With auto, forced, updates, the entire PC is unusable during this time.

 

It's the equivalent of the law saying "Your car is not safe, we are confiscating it". Or "your car is not safe, you cannot drive it". One I get to keep the car and fix it, or at least admire it for what it can do... the other I get it taken away.

Yeah, I get what you are saying,  I just don't think it is any more practical personally.

[TechyBen]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

No they aren't, my point was that all update systems have issues and that pointing to some pcs being bricked or borked updates costing hours of downtime being common is not a problem of being forced but of being a software update in 2019.   

Yes they are (factually, they are forced updates and PC reboots). They literally are forced reboots and updates. There are issues for both systems. But only one system dictates when you can use your computer. You can argue the majority prefer one or the other, you can argue the safety is better for one or the other. But you're flat out bias and wrong, if you state they are not forced reboots and updates.

 

Quote

Either way, if the update is going to fail for whatever reason then  being forced or voluntary will not improve the chance of a smooth update experience.

It does, because I may be doing something that the update is not configured for when it activates... like about to remove hardware or making a backup!

 

 

*The computer should never reboot without my permission. Ever!*

 

Quote

Yeah, I get what you are saying,  I just don't think it is any more practical personally.

I'm not saying it's practical. I'm saying a forced reboot is akin to malware (see the old Windows XP worm that forced shutdown after 30 seconds).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasser_(computer_worm)

 

These kind of issues are at the root of the problem with AI driven cars for example, if someone is hurtling down the motorway at 80mph, do you do an emergency shut down, 90degree into oncoming traffic and "update the software"? No, you ask the user to pull over and wait until then!!!

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

On 1/18/2019 at 9:48 AM, jagdtigger said:

-turned home users into cash cow by stealing their data even against their will

well technically you are presented with a license agreement before you can use Windows. if you click accept you are agreeing to it. 

 

DISCLAIMER: i'm not defending Microsoft's data collection. i think it's disgraceful. however arguing it's against the will of users is false. the user clicks accept, therefore agrees to it. 

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

On 1/18/2019 at 2:29 AM, RorzNZ said:

Windows updates most likely fail due to old or incompatible hardware, it's almost never Microsoft's fault. 

i disagree. i have had many failed updates on otherwise perfectly good hardware that is compatible with Windows 10. 

[79wjd]

10 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

however arguing it's against the will of users is false. the user clicks accept, therefore agrees to it. 

That is patently incorrect. 

 

When a user starts a Windows 10 install for the first time, Satya Nadella is standing over the user's shoulder with a gun to the user's head. They have no choice in the matter. 

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

On 1/13/2019 at 1:41 PM, Drak3 said:

Some settings should be buried that deep so average joe doesn't fuck something up.

that is true. even Apple does that with certain features. 

[Drak3]

12 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

well technically you are presented with a license agreement before you can use Windows. if you click accept you are agreeing to it.

Que the "Reasonable man" agrument fallacy.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

1 minute ago, 79wjd said:

That is patently incorrect. 

 

When a user starts a Windows 10 install for the first time, Satya Nadella is standing over the user's shoulder with a gun to the user's head. They have no choice in the matter. 

yes they have. they can: not click accept, wipe their machine and install Linux (or another OS). 

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Que the "Reasonable man" agrument fallacy.

i don't understand what you mean with that. 

[Drak3]

Just now, firelighter487 said:

yes they have. they can: not click accept, wipe their machine and install Linux (or another OS). 

He's making a joke.

[79wjd]

Just now, firelighter487 said:

yes they have. they can: not click accept, wipe their machine and install Linux (or another OS). 

They'd also be dead though....so, not really an option.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

Just now, Drak3 said:

He's making a joke.

Just now, 79wjd said:

They'd also be dead though....so, not really an option.

it's 3AM here, give me a break ok

[mr moose]

13 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Yes they are (factually, they are forced updates and PC reboots). They literally are forced reboots and updates. There are issues for both systems. But only one system dictates when you can use your computer. You can argue the majority prefer one or the other, you can argue the safety is better for one or the other. But you're flat out bias and wrong, if you state they are not forced reboots and updates.

 

It does, because I may be doing something that the update is not configured for when it activates... like about to remove hardware or making a backup!

 

 

*The computer should never reboot without my permission. Ever!*

A failed update failed for many reasons but one of them was not because it was forced. I said a few pages ago that the restart should only take 5 minutes, then someone said the last update took 12 hours, but that was because the update borked, not because it was forced.

 

 

[Drak3]

Just now, firelighter487 said:

i don't understand what you mean with that. 

It's the idea that the license doesn't hold water because a "reasonable man" wouldn't be expected to agree to the license if he read through it AND understood it.

 

It's a fallacy because a reasonable man uses reason. He would read the document before signing it, and wouldn't sign it if he didn't understand it.

 

And the MS license is easy to understand for us in the US if we passed freshman language arts. Don't know about the rest of the world.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

It's the idea that the license doesn't hold water because a "reasonable man" wouldn't be expected to agree to the license if he read through it AND understood it.

 

It's a fallacy because a reasonable man uses reason. He would read the document before signing it, and wouldn't sign it if he didn't understand it.

 

And the MS license is easy to understand for us in the US if we passed freshman language arts. Don't know about the rest of the world.

In Australia the license agreement doesn't mean shit, windows is an integral part of a computer and therefore under consumer law most of the license agreement would be considered unreasonable (much like the monopoly arguments of the EU).  But no one really cares except the ACCC,  so we haven't seen it tested in the courts yet.

 

 

[jagdtigger]

4 hours ago, 79wjd said:

That is patently incorrect. 

 

When a user starts a Windows 10 install for the first time, Satya Nadella is standing over the user's shoulder with a gun to the user's head. They have no choice in the matter. 

Since microshaft has an effective monopoly this is pretty much true.

[jagdtigger]

4 hours ago, firelighter487 said:

well technically you are presented with a license agreement before you can use Windows. if you click accept you are agreeing to it.  

Seeing how they were forced modify their installer to ask for every permission this is pretty much false....

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, Drak3 said:

It's the idea that the license doesn't hold water because a "reasonable man" wouldn't be expected to agree to the license if he read through it AND understood it.

 

It's a fallacy because a reasonable man uses reason. He would read the document before signing it, and wouldn't sign it if he didn't understand it.

 

And the MS license is easy to understand for us in the US if we passed freshman language arts. Don't know about the rest of the world.

It is unreasonable to expect people to read and understand ToS and privacy policies though.

First of all, the amount of time the average person would have to spend reading ToS and privacy policies would be unfathomable. You would have to spend 76 work days a year to read all of the privacy policies you accept during that year. So no, you can not assume that people read the privacy policies or terms of service (which are usually even longer). Nobody spends over 150 of their work days just reading policies and ToS. Nobody. You would not have a job if you did.

 

Secondly, you're either underestimating the reading comprehension skills required to read these documents, or you are overestimating the average reading skill.

I just ran Microsoft's ToS in the built in Word readability test. It scored 45,2 on the Flesch reading ease test.

That gives it a rating of "Difficult to read" and would be somewhat difficult for the average college student to understand. That is far and above the education level of the average Joe, which sits at around 60-70 (in other words, the reading comprehension of someone in 9th grade).

 

I also ran their privacy policy in the same test and it gave it a Flesch Reading Ease rating of 37,2. That is also somewhat difficult for a college student to read, and it is getting pretty close to the 30,0 line (which is college graduate, same category as the Harvard Law Review papers).

 

You can not expect the average US citizen to be able to read and comprehend documents which college students may find difficult to read. Something labeled "difficult to read" by Microsoft's own programs is not something you can say is "easy to understand".

 

 

Fun fact, the Disney privacy policy has a score of 15, which means it is as difficult to read as Harvard law reviews. How fucked up is that? It's as difficult to understand Harvard law reviews as it is to understand Disney's information to users about how they handle personal data.

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

Fun fact, the Disney privacy policy has a score of 15, which means it is as difficult to read as Harvard law reviews. How fucked up is that? It's as difficult to understand Harvard law reviews as it is to understand Disney's information to users about how they handle personal data.

Upon hearing this news, Disney's legal department got a raise and a time share condo in southern France.

[Amazonsucks]

On 1/21/2019 at 4:45 AM, mr moose said:

all update systems have issues and that pointing to some pcs being bricked or borked updates costing hours of downtime being common is not a problem of being forced but of being a software update in 2019. 

Why would it still be such a problem in 2019. IBM Z Systems have been seamlessly upgraded since the 1960s, and the modern Z14 can still run programs written for the original System 360 from the 1960s while also running the latest applications.

 

Its a problem because Microsoft is incompetent and they make junk. Windows 10 was a downgrade from 8.1.

[Drak3]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It is unreasonable to expect people to read and understand ToS and privacy policies though.

No, it's not. It's unreasonable to want to not hold people to the agreements they willingly make, even if they do not understand it.

[LAwLz]

7 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, it's not. It's unreasonable to want to not hold people to the agreements they willingly make, even if they do not understand it.

Like I said, if people were to actually read the documents, and understand them (which the majority does not have a high enough literary skill to do) then we're talking about well over 1000 hours of reading each year. It's a system which is designed to fail so that people must accept without knowing what they are accepting.

And I disagree that you should be able to hold someone accountable for a decision they did not comprehend. If someone started talking to you in a language you did not know, then they can't just do whatever they want with you because you "agreed" to it.

 

By your logic, fraud should be legal too.

 

Luckily for all of us, it isn't, and in many countries things like ToS are fairly meaningless.

[79wjd]

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Like I said, if people were to actually read the documents, and understand them (which the majority does not have a high enough literary skill to do) then we're talking about well over 1000 hours of reading each year. It's a system which is designed to fail so that people must accept without knowing what they are accepting.

And I disagree that you should be able to hold someone accountable for a decision they did not comprehend. If someone started talking to you in a language you did not know, then they can't just do whatever they want with you because you "agreed" to it.

 

By your logic, fraud should be legal too.

 

Luckily for all of us, it isn't, and in many countries things like ToS are fairly meaningless.

If you don't understand the ToS, then you don't have to agree to it. It's still a choice to accept it. I'd also say that someone who agreed to a contract in a different language when there was no immediacy in accepting it (e.g. they could have found a translator, looked up a translation online, etc...) should also be held to the agreement. A person should be responsible for one's own actions. Being a lazy shit isn't a good excuse.

 

And in regards to spending thousands of hours, first off, is that most ToS don't change all that much all that often. Secondly, skimming and/or jumping to relevant sections is a thing. It's usually pretty easy to find specific topics in a ToS -- I don't need to read the entire document to understand the privacy policy.

 

(specific terms of) A ToS should only be invalid if something in it is unreasonable -- asking for your first born, or if its content is intentionally hidden -- e.g. if the privacy policy makes no mention of collecting data but the discussion about what keyboards you're allowed to use do.