Microsoft reports very little fragmentation of Windows 10 - Over 75% of users on the latest version.

[iamdarkyoshi]

Ugh. I hate the aniversary update.

[suicidalfranco]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Any 30Mb/s service should be plenty to allow for good transfer and ping is due to upload.

try 2Mb/s

you have to upload and download when gaming 

[suicidalfranco]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

I use QOS on my router so nothing can give anyone lag.

don't have such fancy router, only the one i got from the telco

[Delicieuxz]

33 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

And people often do not know what they want. That's a well established fact.

Tell me about it. I mean, you obviously want to have Windows 7 on your PC, and to not have Microsoft force updates on your Windows 10 machine, and yet you seem to not know it.

 

And Aluminium Tech wants Microsoft to get rid of UWP and stop producing terrible patches, and yet they don't know it.

 

And ARikozuM wants everyone to boycott Microsoft over their customer-hostile practices, and doesn't know it.

 

[MrDynamicMan]

4 hours ago, Kevin_Walter said:

Of course there's very little fragmentation. 1: They force everyone to upgrade eventually, and 2: Most of the people who delay updates are probably gamers, and they force updates on them by making games and apps that require said updates.

 

Like Gears of War 4... which is the only reason why I'm even using the latest version of Win 10. 

Most people who delay updates are tech illiterate luddites who dont want to update, with a very mild sprinkling if one or two gamers.

[Shahnewaz]

4 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

- snip -

Surprise surprise.

3 hours ago, vorticalbox said:

dismissing updates is exactly the behaviour Microsoft is trying to eradicate.

And that's not a good thing.

Sure there are people who dismiss any and every update with no reason, but there are far more people who would dismiss or delay an update now and then for good reasons.

[Sakkura]

27 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Actually, it's because Microsoft is licensing their IP that they don't have a right to choose how it's updated. When a person buys a license of software, they retain full rights over that instance of the software, for the duration of the license. The Windows 10 licenses being sold, apart from the enterprise licenses, are perpetual licences, and are the legal property of the people who purchase them. Those licenses refer to individual instances of the Windows 10 software, and those instances of the software are therefore the property of the people who own the licenses to which they refer.

 

A software license is a property, and property rights legally apply to software licenses, and they give the person who own those licenses full decision-making authority over the software the license refers to.

 

Microsoft has no legal, or moral right to unilaterally make system-changing decisions over a person's Windows 10 installation, because those installations are not Microsoft's property. The Windows 10 IP is, but people's installed instances of Windows 10 are not.

That entirely depends on the terms of the license. It is definitely possible to contractually sign away various rights when licensing software.

[Arri]

Windows update broke CSGO for me. I think i gotta turn of Xbox DVR. Damn you MS.

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

That entirely depends on the terms of the license. It is definitely possible to contractually sign away various rights when licensing software.

It is, but then the rights not included within the license are not a part of what's referred to by the license. The license, as it is, is still a personal property. There is nothing in the Windows 10 EULA that leaves the right to control people's updates, and update decisions, with Microsoft.

 

So, when you said "Microsoft is licensing their software, it's their right to choose the terms of that license as well as how it is updated," that statement was incorrect. Microsoft has sold Windows 10 licenses, not leased them, to people, and retains no decision-making rights whatsoever over the licensed content, once the licenses sold. If any authority over content was retained by Microsoft, then that content was not licensed. 

 

With Windows 10, the full legal and proper right to choose how each licensed Windows 10 instance is updated rests with the people who have bought those licenses. Microsoft's behaviour to the contrary is a liberty they are taking, and an abusive disregard of people's own personal property.

[ARikozuM]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

That entirely depends on the terms of the license. It is definitely possible to contractually sign away various rights when licensing software.

Microsoft reserves the right to update your machine on Windows 7, 8, and 10.

[Delicieuxz]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Microsoft reserves the right to update your machine on Windows 7, 8, and 10.

No, they don't. See my above post.

 

For Microsoft to retain such authority over the instances of Windows that they sell, that would imply that those instances remained the property of Microsoft, and weren't actually sold - which would bring into question the matter of what did a person pay for? Ultimately, that would indicate a scam, or a theft, if people were buying copies of Windows, and yet didn't end up possessing anything.

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

No, they don't.

Windows 10 EULA 

 

Section 3-6

 

  Updates. The softwareperiodically checks for system and app updates, and downloads and installs them for you. You may obtain updates only from Microsoft or authorized sources, and Microsoft may need to update your system to provide you with those updates. By accepting this agreement, you agree to receive these types of automatic updates without any additional notice.

[Delicieuxz]

13 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Windows 10 EULA 

 

Section 3-6

 

  Updates. The softwareperiodically checks for system and app updates, and downloads and installs them for you. You may obtain updates only from Microsoft or authorized sources, and Microsoft may need to update your system to provide you with those updates. By accepting this agreement, you agree to receive these types of automatic updates without any additional notice.

This stipulation is not a requirement for the end-user to receive updates from Microsoft, but is a protection for Microsoft against complaints from an end-user whose OS updates, and it causes some harm to their system. This clause prevents an irate end-user from accusing Microsoft's automatic update process as being responsible for damages to their OS, files, productivity, etc, and seeking compensation for damages.

 

It would not be legal for Microsoft to demand that people update their Windows OS, because full decision-making authority for the property which is the instance of the software for which a license was sold, rests with the license-holder, which is the end-user.

 

Windows 10 actually contains in-built means to completely disable all updates from Microsoft, via the Group Policy editor.

[ARikozuM]

8 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

5-minute snip on mobile

 

[Delicieuxz]

22 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

 

LTT is conditionally-incorrect in emphasizing that when a person buys a piece of software, that they're not actually buying the software, due to semantics concerning the definition of "software." There is a distinction between a software Intellectual Property, and an instance of that intellectual property, which is sold via a license. When a software company says "this software is licensed, not sold," that wording is deliberately intended to be slightly conniving, to make it appear to the end-user that they retain fewer rights than they actually do.

 

What's licensed, and not sold, is the software intellectual property, or IP. However, the instances of the software that are distributed via licenses, are in fact sold, as their licenses, and a person who buys one becomes the sole owner of that non-reproducible instance of the software.

 

Further, EULAs are not necessarily legally-binding, because EULAs are not laws themselves, but are informal agreements that are subject to laws. Many companies routinely claim things that are not legally-defensible in their EULAs, and they can write pretty much anything they want in their EULAs. But that doesn't mean that any of it will hold up and be enforceable, when challenged, because their EULAs are only binding to the extent that they agree with actual laws.

 

Involved in the selling of a software license is a transfer-of-ownership over some target, to which the license is for, and represents. In the case of Windows 10, the target of the license is an instance of Windows 10. Any rights reserved over the software would be things that have not been licensed out to people, and which have not been paid for. If you think people have paid simply to use Microsoft's software on Microsoft's own terms, then that would imply that a person never bought a copy of Windows 10, and there would be issues of fraud, theft, false marketing, etc, that Microsoft would have to answer for.

 

To accomplish the outcome of relationship between software-user and Microsoft that you're presuming, Microsoft would have to communicate the availability of their software, and its acquisition, in entirely different ways than they are. Microsoft doesn't do what you're suggesting, because laws don't allow Microsoft to do what you're suggesting. To properly interpret Microsoft's EULAs, and EULAs in general, you have to understand the laws that create the environment in which EULAs are written, and are to be effective within, being entirely subject to all consumer, bartering, contract, property, etc laws.

 

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d1ff4369-afcc-4879-97fa-7a8afd8b3380

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/11345519566/eu-court-says-yes-you-can-resell-your-software-even-if-software-company-says-you-cant.shtml

 

Companies routinely hype and exaggerate their own leverage in their EULAs, while downplaying the consumer's. That doesn't make any of it legal.

 

That said, Microsoft's Windows 10 EULA still doesn't claim to say what you thought it was saying, concerning updates, and the actuality of that part of the EULA is as I wrote before:

Quote

This stipulation is not a requirement for the end-user to receive updates from Microsoft, but is a protection for Microsoft against complaints from an end-user whose OS updates, and it causes some harm to their system. This clause prevents an irate end-user from accusing Microsoft's automatic update process as being responsible for damages to their OS, files, productivity, etc, and seeking compensation for damages.

[AresKrieger]

Now if only they made the updates consistent in quality then this might mean something other than the obvious fact that "duh they force people to update"

 

6 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Microsoft is happy to report that over 75% of devices running Windows 10 (so roughly 300,000 devices) are running the recent released Anniversary Update.

 

Also what are they using to measure this as people who block updates also block analytics

[gamerking]

6 hours ago, 19_blackie_73 said:

how would you even block anniversary update? I wasn't even able too block/deny. Well this is no miracle with this strategy that there's little fragmentation. It's almost a poor result that "only" 78% run on 1607

not very hard just disable windows from calling home . i used glasswire and just nuke the stuff that was downloading the updates . it does break cortana and anything in the windows store ect most apps from there

[Delicieuxz]

6 hours ago, 19_blackie_73 said:

how would you even block anniversary update? I wasn't even able too block/deny. Well this is no miracle with this strategy that there's little fragmentation. It's almost a poor result that "only" 78% run on 1607

Windows 10 updates can be disabled in the Group Policy editor. However, Home editions of Windows 10 don't include the Group Policy editor.

 

 

[Techicolors]

6 hours ago, Kevin_Walter said:

Of course there's very little fragmentation. 1: They force everyone to upgrade eventually, and 2: Most of the people who delay updates are probably gamers, and they force updates on them by making games and apps that require said updates.

 

Like Gears of War 4... which is the only reason why I'm even using the latest version of Win 10. 

yep, this is why i have the latest updates, just to play FH3 

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

It is, but then the rights not included within the license are not a part of what's referred to by the license. The license, as it is, is still a personal property. There is nothing in the Windows 10 EULA that leaves the right to control people's updates, and update decisions, with Microsoft.

 

So, when you said "Microsoft is licensing their software, it's their right to choose the terms of that license as well as how it is updated," that statement was incorrect. Microsoft has sold Windows 10 licenses, not leased them, to people, and retains no decision-making rights whatsoever over the licensed content, once the licenses sold. If any authority over content was retained by Microsoft, then that content was not licensed. 

 

With Windows 10, the full legal and proper right to choose how each licensed Windows 10 instance is updated rests with the people who have bought those licenses. Microsoft's behaviour to the contrary is a liberty they are taking, and an abusive disregard of people's own personal property.

Uhh...

 

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/UseTerms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm

 

Quote

6.      Updates. The softwareperiodically checks for system and app updates, and downloads and installs them for you. You may obtain updates only from Microsoft or authorized sources, and Microsoft may need to update your system to provide you with those updates. By accepting this agreement, you agree to receive these types of automatic updates without any additional notice.

(my emphasis)

[Delicieuxz]

20 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Uhh...

 

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/UseTerms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm

 

(my emphasis)

 

This was already presented, and I already answered what that part of the EULA actually means:

 

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

This stipulation is not a requirement for the end-user to receive updates from Microsoft, but is a protection for Microsoft against complaints from an end-user whose OS updates, and it causes some harm to their system. This clause prevents an irate end-user from accusing Microsoft's automatic update process as being responsible for damages to their OS, files, productivity, etc, and seeking compensation for damages.

 

It would not be legal for Microsoft to demand that people update their Windows OS, because full decision-making authority for the property which is the instance of the software for which a license was sold, rests with the license-holder, which is the end-user.

 

Windows 10 actually contains in-built means to completely disable all updates from Microsoft, via the Group Policy editor.

 

Also, see this post:

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

This was already presented, and I already answered what that part of the EULA actually means:

 

Yeah it means Microsoft have a right to automatically update Win 10 installations. Sure, they might not be able to sue people who manage to deactivate the automatic updates. But they probably aren't interested in doing that anyway, and it's not relevant to the discussion here. Your original claim has been proven wrong.

[Mihle]

I turned updates off on my laptop after the AU. not because windows itself, but because it broke a program I use at school. an it is a pain in the ass to fix.

I still have it on on my desktop, and have never had it or my laptop starting to update when I used it, it has always done it when I turned my computers off.

[Delicieuxz]

25 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Yeah it means Microsoft have a right to automatically update Win 10 installations. Sure, they might not be able to sue people who manage to deactivate the automatic updates. But they probably aren't interested in doing that anyway, and it's not relevant to the discussion here. Your original claim has been proven wrong.

The stipulation applies only to the automatic update feature of Windows 10, and it means that if a person leaves automatic updates enabled, then Microsoft is not liable for any harms that an update causes on a PC. It doesn't mean that Microsoft has a right to update any copy of Windows 10 at their sole discretion, and it doesn't counter a person's right to not update their copy of Windows 10.

 

You have an odd sense for what being proven wrong is, especially considering that what I said is the truth and I have substantiated it, and what you said in your previous 2 posts was already proven in this thread to be false before you even posted it.

 

I was aware of the mentioned part of the Windows 10 EULA when I first said that Microsoft has no intrinsic authority over updates of a person's Windows copy, and I expected that part of the EULA to be brought up. I also knew why bringing it up would be based on a superficial interpretation and incorrect presumption.

 

Microsoft not only can't sue people for deactivating Windows updates, but they can actually still be sued, themselves, for forcing updates upon people, as certain regions in the world (and even in the USA) do not allow for companies to claim the protections against lawsuits that Microsoft is trying to claim in their EULA (again, EULAs are not laws, but are subject to law). Further, Microsoft does not intend to prevent people from disabling Windows 10 updates, as they provide Windows 10 owners with tools to do so.

[Sakkura]

7 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

The stipulation applies only to the automatic update feature of Windows 10, and it means that if a person leaves automatic updates enabled, then Microsoft is not liable for any harms that an update causes on a PC. It doesn't mean that Microsoft has a right to update any copy of Windows 10 at their sole discretion, and it doesn't counter a person's right to not update their copy of Windows 10.

 

Yes it does, very clearly, give Microsoft the right to automatically update copies of Windows 10.

 

Whether a user has a right not to update is unclear, and not relevant anyway - Microsoft isn't suing people who manage to stop the automatic updates.