Next Windows 10 update will be about polish not features

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No it didn't.

 

Even your own article is arguing against you, saying that only 18% of Windows 7 and 8 users use Microsoft's anti-virus software (was a stand-alone download which many people didn't know about) and over 50% of Windows 10 users use it.

Windows did not have a built in anti-virus software until Windows 10.

people not downloading it isn't the same as not having one.  Besides it shipped with vista and 7 as standard, you just needed to turn it on.  

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

I'd say having an anti-virus is a bigger chance than forcing updates.

 

 

I've asked you this before, but I'll ask it again, do you even have evidence that the average Joe disabled updates on their computer? You insist that it was a wide spread issue but so far I have never seen you actually prove that it was.

 

Yeah, it so uncommon we are seeing articles like this in response to what? people updating as they should?

 

https://www.troyhunt.com/dont-tell-people-to-turn-off-windows-update-just-dont/

 

As I have pointed out before, if you start a google search how to disable,  the most common responses are all articles telling you how to disable updates in a response to fix other issues. 

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

people not downloading it isn't the same as not having one.  Besides it shipped with vista and 7 as standard, you just needed to turn it on.   

The argument was for having it included. Windows 7 did not have a built in anti-virus. Windows 10 does.

I think that plays a major role in deleting known malicious files of a computer (which is what the article you linked is about).

 

And before you say "but Windows 7 users just used AVs that were not built in", according to Microsoft 24% of Windows computers in 2013 did not have an up-to-date anti-virus software, and those users were on average 5.5 times more likely to have viruses.

Windows 10 fixed that by including an anti-virus which keeps itself updated by default.

 

Don't you think turning on an anti-virus software for 24% of users, thus lowering their risk of infection by 550% plays a significant role in reducing malware? Come on...

 

 

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Yeah, it so uncommon we are seeing articles like this in response to what? people updating as they should?

"I see a lot of articles about how to turn it off, therefore it is a widespread issue!".

The number of articles about murder has also gone up in the last 20 years, but the number of murders has gone down.

Your argument hinges on the assumption that there is a direct correlation between the number of articles regarding something, and the actual number of occurrences.

 

You either have to prove to me that:

1) A significant number of Windows users has updates disabled.

2) That there is a direct correlation between the number of articles written about something and the actual number of occurrences.

 

You can't back up an assumption by using another assumption.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

The argument was for having it included. Windows 7 did not have a built in anti-virus. Windows 10 does.

I think that plays a major role in deleting known malicious files of a computer (which is what the article you linked is about).

 

And before you say "but Windows 7 users just used AVs that were not built in", according to Microsoft 24% of Windows computers in 2013 did not have an up-to-date anti-virus software, and those users were on average 5.5 times more likely to have viruses.

Windows 10 fixed that by including an anti-virus which keeps itself updated by default.

 

Don't you think turning on an anti-virus software for 24% of users, thus lowering their risk of infection by 550% plays a significant role in reducing malware? Come on...

 

 

"I see a lot of articles about how to turn it off, therefore it is a widespread issue!".

The number of articles about murder has also gone up in the last 20 years, but the number of murders has gone down.

Your argument hinges on the assumption that there is a direct correlation between the number of articles regarding something, and the actual number of occurrences.

 

You either have to prove to me that:

1) A significant number of Windows users has updates disabled.

2) That there is a direct correlation between the number of articles written about something and the actual number of occurrences.

 

You can't back up an assumption by using another assumption.

https://theconversation.com/the-petya-ransomware-attack-shows-how-many-people-still-dont-install-software-updates-77667

 

Pretty staggering numbers (or not so unexpected if you've been working with average joe's for the last 30 years).

 

Given nearly every computer I have fixed for the average joe has not been updated and I have yet to be asked to fix a malware related issue with win 10), I'd say that forced updates play a large role.

 

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

29 minutes ago, mr moose said:

https://theconversation.com/the-petya-ransomware-attack-shows-how-many-people-still-dont-install-software-updates-77667

 

Pretty staggering numbers (or not so unexpected if you've been working with average joe's for the last 30 years). 

 

Given nearly every computer I have fixed for the average joe has not been updated and I have yet to be asked to fix a malware related issue with win 10), I'd say that forced updates play a large role.

Thanks. Finally some actual facts. Let's look into those shall we?

According to the article you linked (or at least the article they link to), 200,000 computers were infected by the ransomware attacks (Petya and WannaCry).

 

Microsoft announced that they had 400 million active Windows 10 users back in 2016.

Back then Windows 10 had fewer users than Windows 7. Windows 10 only became more widely used than Windows 7 in 2019.

So that means at least another 400 million users used other versions of Windows, putting the total amount of users above 800 million.

 

That means that the ransomware attacks managed to infect 0.05% of computers running Windows.

 

Congratulation. You have managed to successfully prove that at least 0.05% of Windows computers do not install security updates within a few months of release.

 

But that's before we even start drilling into how many of those computers were personal computers vs business computers (Enterprise versions of Windows 10 can disable updates still). So in reality we can't even say that the forced update policy would have saved 0.05% of people from ransomware. The proven number is probably not even half of that.

 

It's very pleasant to be able to talk actual numbers with you for once, because in previous threads you've just been basing your posts on assumptions and guesses, which are very hard to argue against. Now that we have solid numbers we can talk about this objectively, and once we do that we see that there isn't really any scientific or objective basis for this belief that "the average Joe is disabling updates if given the choice and that is super bad!".

[mr moose]

33 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Thanks. Finally some actual facts. Let's look into those shall we?

According to the article you linked (or at least the article they link to), 200,000 computers were infected by the ransomware attacks (Petya and WannaCry).

 

Microsoft announced that they had 400 million active Windows 10 users back in 2016.

Back then Windows 10 had fewer users than Windows 7. Windows 10 only became more widely used than Windows 7 in 2019.

So that means at least another 400 million users used other versions of Windows, putting the total amount of users above 800 million.

 

That means that the ransomware attacks managed to infect 0.05% of computers running Windows.

 

Congratulation. You have managed to successfully prove that at least 0.05% of Windows computers do not install security updates within a few months of release.

 

But that's before we even start drilling into how many of those computers were personal computers vs business computers (Enterprise versions of Windows 10 can disable updates still). So in reality we can't even say that the forced update policy would have saved 0.05% of people from ransomware. The proven number is probably not even half of that.

 

It's very pleasant to be able to talk actual numbers with you for once, because in previous threads you've just been basing your posts on assumptions and guesses, which are very hard to argue against. Now that we have solid numbers we can talk about this objectively, and once we do that we see that there isn't really any scientific or objective basis for this belief that "the average Joe is disabling updates if given the choice and that is super bad!".

 

Seeing as you like to indroduce other stats and ignore what has been posted,  I'll just leave these quotes here to support what I have said. 

 

Quote

Only 64 percent of security experts update their software automatically or immediately upon being notified a new version is available. Even fewer – just 38 percent – of regular users do the same.

EDIT this sentence to make more sense as it's qualified later:

Only 38% regular update when the updates come out. 

 

Quote

Regular users took nearly twice as long, with 45 days passing before half of them had completed the same update.

By 45days only half regular users had updated.  The other half are in no hurry/probably won't update at all.

 

Quote

The average Windows 7 PC houses twice as much malware as a Windows 10 machine, according to figures from Webroot.

Quote

 

For PCs used by firms, Webroot saw an average of .04 malware files per Windows 10 device, half the .08 files per machine running Windows 7. Detections were higher for home PCs running Windows, although the latest OS again proved more resilient, with .07 files per Windows 10 device, versus .16 for Windows 7.

 

 

The important thing in this statistic (and whole article actually) is that the infections were higher on home pcs than business/corporate.  The key difference being that corporate pcs run antivirus significantly more often.   So when you can account for that and not the difference is still double between the two OS's, then something other than AV is responsible.   As I said before: why ignore the single biggest change in the OS that corrects user incompetence?

 

EDIT: About the only other factor I can think  of is that many firms won't allow employees to browse porn, as for everything else though, much of the domestic world isn't going in search of new and weird programs.  I don't think it would be enough to double infection rates, especially given other factors are statistically more relevant.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Seeing as you like to indroduce other stats and ignore what has been posted,  I'll just leave these quotes here to support what I have said.  

I asked you to back up your claims. What you managed to find was an example of a patched malware managing to spread to 0.05% of computers. That's a pathetic excuse for "evidence" of a supposed major issue of people not installing updates.

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Quote

Only 64 percent of security experts update their software automatically or immediately upon being notified a new version is available. Even fewer – just 38 percent – of regular users do the same. 

EDIT this sentence to make more sense as it's qualified later: 

Only 38% regular update when the updates come out.  

That's a very misleading statistic. Let's look at the original source for that quote.

 

38% of people said they installed the updates immediately instead of "soon after". How soon is "soon after"? A day? A week? Who knows.

In fact, when looking at the more detailed view (page 5) we see that only a small portion of users install updates later than "soon after". In fact, more experts reported saying that they "eventually" or "never" install updates. Around 90% of regular users reported than they install updates automatically, immediately or soon after.

 

You're trying to make it sound like only 38% regularly update their software when in fact around 90% of "regular users" surveyed update soon after the update is released, if not immediately. And that's when given a choice, since this survey was conducted before Windows 10 was released.

 

But that assumes people even know if they have automatic updates turned on or off, which I think is a pretty high bar for the "average Joe". I don't think most people even know if they have updates turned on or off.

 

Another interesting tidbit from that survey is that only 7 out of the 294 surveyed people said they did not like automatic updates. That's 2.4%.

 

 

 

But I think you're arguing from a flawed premise to begin with. Your making the massive assumption that if given the choice, people turn automatic updates off. I think Chrome is a great example of this not being true. You can turn off automatic updates in Chrome if you want. There are a ton of guides on how to do it when you search for it on Google.

However, something like 95% of Chrome users are on the latest version of Chrome. Why? Because the update process of Chrome does not suck major balls. Maybe Microsoft should work on fixing the mess that are Windows update if they want people to update more frequently?

 

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

By 45days only half regular users had updated.  The other half are in no hurry/probably won't update at all. 

That does not back up your claim though.

Your claim is that if given the choice, people turn off automatic updates. Neither that claim, nor the study, talks or proves anything of that sorts. What it shows is that the average Joe is slower with installing updates, not that they turn automatic updates off.

The study even mentions that programs not having an automatic update mechanism is a major problem, and that the software with most vulnerabilities were the programs without fully automated update mechanisms.

That study looked at software from 2008 to 2012, when automatic updates were far more uncommon than they are today.

 

The study also has a lot of other issues, among other things, it does not look at OS updates. Instead, it looks at things such as Adobe Reader and Word. The problem with this is that Adobe Reader does not get updates like regular programs. Instead it relies on the user downloading a new version of the software and uninstalling the old one. Not even installing a new update is enough because Adobe Reader keeps the old version installed too. In the case of word, updates actually cost money, which probably was a bigger reason for why users didn't install updates, rather than them turning off automatic updates.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

The important thing in this statistic (and whole article actually) is that the infections were higher on home pcs than business/corporate.  The key difference being that corporate pcs run antivirus significantly more often.   So when you can account for that and not the difference is still double between the two OS's, then something other than AV is responsible.   As I said before: why ignore the single biggest change in the OS that corrects user incompetence? 

Don't you realize that you are kind of arguing against yourself here?

What you're saying is that the version of Windows that does not have forced updates (Windows 10 Enterprise) was found to have fewer malicious files than the versions which do have forced updates (home and pro). Doesn't that statistic make you go "oh, maybe it isn't because of forced updates"?

Infection rate of corporate machines dropped from 0.08 to 0.04 files between Windows 7 and Windows 10, but the update policy DID NOT CHANGE FOR CORPORATE MACHINES BETWEEN 7 and 10!

 

Let me repeat that. The update policy and mechanisms did not change between Windows 7 and Windows 10 for corporate installations. They are still the same WSUS/SCCM architecture.

 

Do you understand what this means? That the reduction of infections in corporate environments can not be attributed to the forced update change because it does not apply to enterprise.

 

For crying out loud moose... Just stop and think for a second.

 

Not even webroot cites updates as the reason for reduced malware on Windows 10 machines. They cite Advanced Threat Protection as the reason.

 

Hell, just read some of the links in the article you linked. Did you try clicking on the link in this paragraph from TechRepublic?

Quote

Microsoft has mounted several campaigns highlighting the security benefits of moving from Windows 7 to Windows 10, even going as far as suggesting patches are unable to keep Windows 7 secure.

Guess what, automatic or forced updates are nowhere to be found on the list of reasons given by Microsoft for how they have improved security in Windows 10. Instead they talk about Application Guard, Credential Guard and Windows Defender ATP.

[NunoLava1998]

Honestly that's good, as long as they do some change to the UI.

Metro looks fucking awful. Why do they keep it? Why not let us choose between Metro and Aero (or some other one)?

[dalekphalm]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

people not downloading it isn't the same as not having one.  Besides it shipped with vista and 7 as standard, you just needed to turn it on.  

I would like to clarify and back up what @LAwLz has stated.

 

Windows 7 did not ship with a built-in Anti-virus program. You could optionally choose to download and install Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE), on your own (by going to the website and manually fetching it) if you wanted.

 

Windows 8 shipped with the original Windows Defender (successor to MSE - though I'm unsure as to how comparable it was at the time).

 

EDIT TO CLARIFY: Windows Vista and Windows 7 did ship with an "earlier" version of Windows Defender. There may be some confusion about this, since it uses the same name as the Windows 8 Windows Defender - these are not the same product. The "Windows Defender" included in Windows 7 was strictly anti-spyware, and did not protect against viruses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Defender#Conversion_to_antivirus

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I asked you to back up your claims. What you managed to find was an example of a patched malware managing to spread to 0.05% of computers. That's a pathetic excuse for "evidence" of a supposed major issue of people not installing updates.

 

 

What I gave you was several articles showing a clear difference between the two OS's  and statistics showing that 66% of home user either do not update or only half update more than 45days after a patch is released.  That is a significant number of PC not patched.  The juxtaposition to firm PC's was more or less an interesting comparison because they are supposed to be managed editions, but as the earlier article I linked to explained, many of them are just home versions of windows left to the operator to maintain.

 

If that does not support what I claimed about people not updating then the fact is you are looking for other reason that is wrong. 

 

 

 

 

[Arika]

I wonder what people on this forum do to keep breaking their windows update where it makes them absolutely despise mocrosoft?

 

I've had 4 computers all running w10 at some point in the last few years, I've had a grant total of one problem, but that was my own fault. 

[jagdtigger]

6 minutes ago, Arika S said:

I wonder what people on this forum do to keep breaking their windows update where it makes them absolutely despise mocrosoft?

 

I've had 4 computers all running w10 at some point in the last few years, I've had a grant total of one problem, but that was my own fault. 

Most ppl hate MS for forcing beta updates (the high number of faulty non-insider updates is way too high, and some of them pretty big too) and crapware onto ppl ....

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, Arika S said:

I wonder what people on this forum do to keep breaking their windows update where it makes them absolutely despise mocrosoft?

 

I've had 4 computers all running w10 at some point in the last few years, I've had a grant total of one problem, but that was my own fault. 

Some just despise the bundled apps, you know like calculator and the online solitaire being forced on them like an off sushi in the face.  clearly the world is going to end because a handful of enthusiasts think the MS owes them a unique version of windows.   Despite the fact you can buy exactly that from them if that's what you want. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

I would like to clarify and back up what @LAwLz has stated.

 

Windows 7 did not ship with a built-in Anti-virus program. You could optionally choose to download and install Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE), on your own (by going to the website and manually fetching it) if you wanted.

 

Windows 8 shipped with the original Windows Defender (successor to MSE - though I'm unsure as to how comparable it was at the time).

 

EDIT TO CLARIFY: Windows Vista and Windows 7 did ship with an "earlier" version of Windows Defender. There may be some confusion about this, since it uses the same name as the Windows 8 Windows Defender - these are not the same product. The "Windows Defender" included in Windows 7 was strictly anti-spyware, and did not protect against viruses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Defender#Conversion_to_antivirus

 

The issue is not really defender, but the fact it was available in 7 just not turned on. It was a full AV in windows 7 several years before the article (and it's study) were conducted.  Meaning it is still relevant to the discussion,  how much depends on how we view the data.

 

The claim I have made is that windows 7 users do not update (which leads to more malware), I linked to several articles discussing this, but the discussion has now degrading into claims that because only 0.05% of windows machine gets malware due to LawLz napkin math,  that users must update. Alongside that is that defender was only anti spyware originally so it must not have any effect.

 

Neither of those are quantifiable or backed up by any evidence I have seen.   

[jagdtigger]

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Despite the fact you can buy exactly that from them if that's what you want. 

Oh really? Then where is it? AFAIK none of the versions obtainable by consumers can remove all of t he crapware completely, not to mention the data harvesting.....

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

Oh really? Then where is it? AFAIK none of the versions obtainable by consumers can remove all of t he crapware completely, not to mention the data harvesting.....

Yep, it's hard to make an OS that addresses issue that don't exist. 

 

 

[Chunchunmaru_]

The real question is: will it break anything?

[jagdtigger]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

Yep, it's hard to make an OS that addresses issue that don't exist. 

 

 

Well ppl complain about it so it is a very much existing issue.... Even an "inferior" OS like ubuntu offers you the option to only install the OS with a minimal toolset(GUI, web browser and some basic tools) so you can install only what you need. So what is preventing MS from doing the same thing huh? And why they do everything they can to prevent ppl from disabling their so called telemtry?

[Jito463]

On 7/8/2019 at 7:37 PM, mr moose said:

Windows seven had included antivirus

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

The issue is not really defender, but the fact it was available in 7 just not turned on. It was a full AV in windows 7 several years before the article (and it's study) were conducted.

As @dalekphalm already pointed out, Windows Defender in 7 is not the same as the Windows Defender in 8 or 10.  Microsoft Security Essentials was the AV for Vista/7, and that was not installed by default.  Also, calling MSE a "full AV" is a bit of a stretch.  Its ability to catch anything was woefully overrated.

On 7/8/2019 at 7:54 PM, Waffles13 said:

As far as I know the only thing similar that we have now is in the group policy editor, and even then only on higher end versions of Windows. And, if you jump through those hoops, I'm pretty sure you still don't get the granularity you did in older versions of Windows (note that that may have changed at some point, I haven't needed to mess with any settings in years once I got it all set up).

GPE does give you the exact same options as before (download only, notify but don't download, etc).  Unfortunately, GPE is only available on Professional edition and up.

[dalekphalm]

16 hours ago, mr moose said:

The issue is not really defender, but the fact it was available in 7 just not turned on. It was a full AV in windows 7 several years before the article (and it's study) were conducted.

Source to back up these claims? Windows 7 Defender is not a full AV. It's an anti-spyware program, with minimal functions.

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

As @dalekphalm already pointed out, Windows Defender in 7 is not the same as the Windows Defender in 8 or 10.  Microsoft Security Essentials was the AV for Vista/7, and that was not installed by default.  Also, calling MSE a "full AV" is a bit of a stretch.  Its ability to catch anything was woefully overrated.

GPE does give you the exact same options as before (download only, notify but don't download, etc).  Unfortunately, GPE is only available on Professional edition and up.

MSE was decent. It had mixed detection rates, and was definitely not as good as the best rated AV at the time (Eg: Avast back in that era, or Kaspersky). Had Microsoft actually included MSE into Windows 7, that would have still been a massive improvement over the simple anti-spyware that was Windows 7 Defender.

[ThePD]

On 7/5/2019 at 2:19 AM, RejZoR said:

Audio stack is terrible. The way how we regressed in audio quality (and I'm not talking stupid SNR and shit like that) is just horrifying. Imagine going back to Voodoo times with graphics today. That's how audio regressed when they sacked HW accelerated audio. The software 3D audio is terrible and bland. One would think these days HW accelerated ray traced audio was a norm. Boy you'd be wrong to assume that. Aureal had that years ago and then it all kinda died out. AMD has the TrueAudio thing, but since it's not a widely adopted standard, it's hardly used in any game. Where DirectSound3D with EAX 4.0 or 5.0 extension actually had that and it was superb. You can't believe this until you hear Doom 3 Resurrection of Evil running it on Sound Blaster X-Fi or AE-5...

I remember back in the day I had a Windows XP machine with an awesome sound system and subs. Doom 3 is the game that always comes back to my mind whenever I hear really great audio. Doom 3 and F.E.A.R made me realize how much proper strong audio will add to the immersion in a game.

[ThePD]

17 hours ago, Arika S said:

I wonder what people on this forum do to keep breaking their windows update where it makes them absolutely despise mocrosoft?

 

I've had 4 computers all running w10 at some point in the last few years, I've had a grant total of one problem, but that was my own fault. 

I left auto update on for the longest time but then one of the patches ended up breaking my audio configurations and it took me a significant amount of time to correct that problem. After that I disabled the auto update and update once a month. But before that, the auto update had no problems at all, outside of being moderately annoying with its update notifications.

[RejZoR]

32 minutes ago, ThePD said:

I remember back in the day I had a Windows XP machine with an awesome sound system and subs. Doom 3 is the game that always comes back to my mind whenever I hear really great audio. Doom 3 and F.E.A.R made me realize how much proper strong audio will add to the immersion in a game.

FEAR actually had awful audio. Not in terms of audio effects quality, but its 3D positioning was all messed up beyond usable. And the thing ran EAX 4.0. I really don't know what they messed up, but I couldn't ever tell where enemies are. Opposed to other games where I could close my eyes and tell where things are physically in the game world.

[ThePD]

2 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

FEAR actually had awful audio. Not in terms of audio effects quality, but its 3D positioning was all messed up beyond usable. And the thing ran EAX 4.0. I really don't know what they messed up, but I couldn't ever tell where enemies are. Opposed to other games where I could close my eyes and tell where things are physically in the game world.

F.E.A.R also seemed to have very punchy audio with guns landing on the ground sounding louder than them actually firing. But that may be due to me running it on Windows 10.

[LAwLz]

20 hours ago, mr moose said:

What I gave you was several articles showing a clear difference between the two OS's  and statistics showing that 66% of home user either do not update or only half update more than 45days after a patch is released. 

No, the study with the 45 day median patch delay is not about OSes. It was about programs, some of which did not even include an automatic update feature and required the user to manually install updates.

But that's besides the point because you're moving the goalpost here.

 

The argument you have made countless of times and that has never been backed up is that if given the choice, a large portion, including the average Joe, will go into settings and turn automatic updates off. That has been your argument in several threads when I have said I want a better update system in Windows 10. In some threads you've even gone as far as to say not even warnings and popups would deter people from turning automatic updates off if they were given the choice.

 

A study which says that it takes people 45 days to patch programs which doesn't have an automatic update mechanism, or which has paid updates, is not something that backs up your claim at all.

Your claim = "A large portion of people will turn automatic updates off if given the choice"

The studies claim = "It takes people 45 days on average to update their software manually".

 

 

20 hours ago, mr moose said:

The juxtaposition to firm PC's was more or less an interesting comparison because they are supposed to be managed editions, but as the earlier article I linked to explained, many of them are just home versions of windows left to the operator to maintain. 

I really don't get your reasoning.

The statistics you yourself have linked shows that in companies, the rate of malware has been halved between Windows 7 and Windows 10. The thing is that the update mechanism has not changed for enterprise Windows between Windows 7 and 10, yet you try to attribute the drop in malware to it.

Do you not understand that even your own links do not agree with you? There is absolutely 0 logic behind your statements.

 

20 hours ago, mr moose said:

If that does not support what I claimed about people not updating then the fact is you are looking for other reason that is wrong. 

No, what you have linked does not support the claims you have made. In fact some of the links contradict you, by for example showing that there has been a drop in malware between 7 and 10 despite the update mechanism not having changed for enterprise users.

It's almost as if Windows 10 is more secure, regardless of updates.

 

 

 

19 hours ago, mr moose said:

The issue is not really defender, but the fact it was available in 7 just not turned on. It was a full AV in windows 7 several years before the article (and it's study) were conducted.  Meaning it is still relevant to the discussion,  how much depends on how we view the data. 

No it wasn't.

You had to manually download MSE if you wanted an anti-virus software in Windows 7. It did not have it built it.

Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true.

 

 

5 hours ago, Jito463 said:

GPE does give you the exact same options as before (download only, notify but don't download, etc).  Unfortunately, GPE is only available on Professional edition and up.

Yep, this is what I use and it seems to be working fine.

Computer Configuration -> Administrative Templates -> Windows Components -> Windows Update -> Configure Automatic Updates

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Well ppl complain about it so it is a very much existing issue.... Even an "inferior" OS like ubuntu offers you the option to only install the OS with a minimal toolset(GUI, web browser and some basic tools) so you can install only what you need. So what is preventing MS from doing the same thing huh? And why they do everything they can to prevent ppl from disabling their so called telemtry?

Because there are only a few people who complain, the rest of the world doesn't care.

7 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Source to back up these claims? Windows 7 Defender is not a full AV. It's an anti-spyware program, with minimal functions.

MSE was decent. It had mixed detection rates, and was definitely not as good as the best rated AV at the time (Eg: Avast back in that era, or Kaspersky). Had Microsoft actually included MSE into Windows 7, that would have still been a massive improvement over the simple anti-spyware that was Windows 7 Defender.

 

Defender became  security essentials and was shipped with 7 (maybe not in your country but I've never downloaded it and it's on all my win 7 PC's).  MS made it a full win 7 AV in 2009 (9 years before the article I linked)  It's in the wikipedia page you linked also.  And on this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Security_Essentials