Microsoft explains what you’ll lose by upgrading to Windows 10

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

I cannot think of a single person that built a custom PC and bought Windows 7 Home Premium or Windows 8.x non-pro.

I never found a single good reason why I'd choose Win7 Pro over Home Premium, it doesn't have a single feature that I use. So my custom PC is using Home Premium.

[mr moose]

Well it depends on the updates. 8 to 8.1 was around 3.5 GB and I am pretty sure lots of people with data caps (or even people with just slow connections) don't want updates like that to start being downloaded all of a sudden.

 

I am pretty sure most users did update, because by default updates were downloaded and installed automatically. If they didn't update then it was because they themselves didn't want the updates automatically, and now Microsoft are taking that away from them. It just seems really, really, really stupid to me.

 

Well, I can't find an official figure from MS about it but several forum are reporting between 50 and 700 Mb per month average.    Going from 8 to 8.1 was not an update, that was an upgrade.   It may sound stupid (just like the dolby thing), but I am betting it is because the average user haven't been updating and  getting into trouble, which reflects poorly on windows and causes unnecessary help desk work load.

[Misanthrope]

-quoting only TL;DR part to save space but did read-

 

TL;DR: Microsoft has many reasons to keep people on up to date software, even if it means to force it, i don't particularly agree with it, but i see their point.

 

That's if you take those reasons at face value. And yes I know, most of you will go "oh he's gonna be that guy" but it must be said: I do not trust them. I do not think all of this effort is entirely altruistic in nature. For example I do not believe this will be the "last version" of windows, too many things have to go exceptionally right and actually flawless for it to be the end all be all solution and not only that but it is impossible to predict if future technology will render even the most modular of OSes unable to cope in it's structure and such.

 

But more importantly, I don't think Microsoft has earned our trust to blindly accept automatic updates, mainly because big or small updates, they are no strangers to regressions. (Extreme example for illustration purposes incoming) For all we know they could easily decide one day "We are pushing a small update that will remove the desktop and send everyone back to the metro ui by default with no option to bypass it" and home users will basically have to just take it. And that's just one of the many examples, it is not out of the question that the NSA could secretly order a backdoor to be pushed as an update and even if you didn't want it too bad, you can't really wait to see if the upgrade was safe you have it already, automatically.

 

And that's just moral objections, technical objections are far worst since they could easily brick thousands if not millions of systems with an "oops, didn't expect this minor update to fuck up the entire installation" scenarios. As someone who actually has used a rolling release OS in the past (Arch Linux) I know that things can and often do go very wrong. Ironically enough this automatic, no user input updates should be reserved for professionals and very patient power users that can deal with a completely borked system without any panic or significant time and resources loss. Yes MS has a lot more money and means to test things better than the Arch Linux communities, but that simply doesn't makes them immune to oversights and plain old fuck ups. And the stakes are so high right now that it could either be the best Windows version ever released or the biggest public melt down we've ever seen on the Personal Computers history.

[RH00D]

Well sometimes you have to give stupid users the option to do stupid things because removing that can also do harm. I mean, a lot of people download Trojan horses but we shouldn't remove the ability to download things from the home version just because of that. I don't see what the issue was with letting updates automatically get installed by default, but then give users the option to not download updates automatically.

 

We should allow stupid users to do stupid things so then they can parade around "Microsoft products sucks because it got a virus!!1 What an insecure OS!" Even though it was the user's fault they will still blame the OS and that still hurts Microsoft's product perception.

 

Oh, so you want to equate removing the ability to download anything from the Internet because people download Trojans to enforcing auto updates because they never update their system? Flawless analogy there, LAwLz. Definitely not a straw man. I r8 8/8 m8.

[Nowak]

Ya know, Microsoft forcing updates on Windows 10 Home is probably gonna be a really good thing. It will force them to more thoroughly test updates before pushing them out, to ensure that they don't break things like a few updates have done before.

[LAwLz]

I never found a single good reason why I'd choose Win7 Pro over Home Premium, it doesn't have a single feature that I use. So my custom PC is using Home Premium.

Same

I always used to recommend Home Premium to people since Professional didn't offer anything special that made it worth the extra cost. Hell the only reason I am not using Home Premium right now is because I got a bunch of Windows licenses for free.

 

 

 

Well, I can't find an official figure from MS about it but several forum are reporting between 50 and 700 Mb per month average.    Going from 8 to 8.1 was not an update, that was an upgrade.   It may sound stupid (just like the dolby thing), but I am betting it is because the average user haven't been updating and  getting into trouble, which reflects poorly on windows and causes unnecessary help desk work load.

Well rumors says that Microsoft are planning yearly upgrades from now on, so these 3.5GB upgrades (like 8.0 to 8.1) might become more and more common.

They might be doing this because the average users don't install updates, but I find that reasoning hard to believe.

 

Ever since Vista (maybe even earlier than that) the default has been to download and install updates automatically. I find it hard to believe that the average Joe goes into the control panel, goes into the security section, finds the Windows Update option, ignores the warning you get when you select the option to not download updates and then saves the changes. Most of the "average Joe"s I know think their computer explodes if they click anything in the control panel.

 

I am leaning more towards what AlexGoesHigh said, that they want to force users to upgrade to avoid fragmentation.

 

 

 

We should allow stupid users to do stupid things so then they can parade around "Microsoft products sucks because it got a virus!!1 What an insecure OS!" Even though it was the user's fault they will still blame the OS and that still hurts Microsoft's product perception.

 

Oh, so you want to equate removing the ability to download anything from the Internet because people download Trojans to enforcing auto updates because they never update their system? Flawless analogy there, LAwLz. Definitely not a straw man.

I don't see how that's a straw man. You said users screwed themselves over so now they no longer have the option to do it, for their own good. That's the same as in my analogy. Maybe I misinterpreted your argument.

[geforceftw]

At least i can still use my phone for my floppy disks.

[RH00D]

I don't see how that's a straw man. You said users screwed themselves over so now they no longer have the option to do it, for their own good. That's the same as in my analogy. Maybe I misinterpreted your argument.

 

You seriously cannot see how enforcing updates and removing the ability to download anything from the Internet are fundamentally completely different things? I'm done replying to you on this. Say whatever you want in your next response, its not going to incite me to continue in this discussion.

[Peter Vaughan Truslow]

We found him !!!! So you're the one that uses WMC !!!!

two of the computers in my house are almost exclusively used with WMC. it's annoying sometimes, but for the most part I love it

[pcexplosion]

Would the updates be tested before hitting Win 10 home users?

[DeathRtH]

 

If you're running Windows 7 Professional, Windows 7 Ultimate, Windows 8.x Pro you get Windows 10 Pro. I cannot think of a single person that built a custom PC and bought Windows 7 Home Premium or Windows 8.x non-pro.

 

 

 

Now, you will say that doing this kind of auto update puts millions of users at risk for receiving a faulty update that causes BSOD or other curruption. This won't happen, here is why. The Insider preview program is continuing! Yes, any update that will reach Windows 10 Home users will have to go through the following process below.

 

MS Internal testing -> Insider Fast Ring -> Insider Slow Ring -> Windows 10 Home users

 

Then, even when it reaches Windows 10 Home it can do staggered availability such as only 1% of Windows 10 Home users, then if there is no bad reports, continue pushing to the rest of the Windows 10 Home users. You might say "If the update has to go through two Insider rings before getting to Windows 10 Home users then that is a lot of time that Windows 10 Home users are left vulnerable without the update available." That is still better than the current scenario where updates are released once every 30 days on Patch Tuesday where currently users could go up to 29 days without being able to get an update that is already finished. Also, as always, Microsoft could still push updates direct skipping Insider testing if it was super urgent like how they already do out-of-band releases for some updates, skipping the wait until the next Patch Tuesday.

 

 

I saw no valid reason to go Pro over Home Premium, for me there was no feature Pro had over Home Premium that warranted me spending an extra $30, and why spend $30 on features I wont use when I can, get a game, or put it somewhere else. I honestly have talked to very few people who went for Pro over Home Premium because of the lack of real benefit in day to day usefulness for most users. To me it just sounds like greed, they know how many people turn off auto update and see this as a good way to give them an incentive to spend more on pro, by removing a feature that has been free for years. 

 

Yes because bugs never slip through testing, that would be why MMO's, and any kind of software with alpha/beta programs never have any major bugs slip through. I'm sure we will never see a completely broken update slip through even once. /s

 

I have no doubt that this will backfire in some way on them, but only time will tell how it will.

[Pesmerga]

Weren't gadgets already dead due to a security flaw? D:

[Nowak]

Weren't gadgets already dead due to a security flaw? D:

They still exist in Windows 7.

[Trik'Stari]

As long as I don't have to reinstall everything I've already got installed, I'll be happy.

 

Although....I don't like the sound of not being able to turn updates off. Gonna have to find a workaround for that.

[DeScruff]

I never found a single good reason why I'd choose Win7 Pro over Home Premium, it doesn't have a single feature that I use. So my custom PC is using Home Premium.

The only reason I can think of for why I'd want to upgrade to Win7 Pro, is if I wanted +16GB of Ram (yeah there is a 16GB limit on Win7 Home Premium according to MS' website).

However I'm not Linus with a million chrome tabs open, and I don't do video editing so 8-16GB is more then enough for me at this time.

(Actually I do have Pro, my old boss gave me a key. I forgot about that because I never use "Pro" features.)

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

I don't like the sound of not being able to turn updates off. Gonna have to find a workaround for that.

Oh but that's easy.

[Trik'Stari]

Oh but that's easy.

When I can play all of my games on there I will HAPPILY switch.

[RH00D]

I saw no valid reason to go Pro over Home Premium, for me there was no feature Pro had over Home Premium that warranted me spending an extra $30, and why spend $30 on features I wont use when I can, get a game, or put it somewhere else. I honestly have talked to very few people who went for Pro over Home Premium because of the lack of real benefit in day to day usefulness for most users. To me it just sounds like greed, they know how many people turn off auto update and see this as a good way to give them an incentive to spend more on pro, by removing a feature that has been free for years. 

 

Yes because bugs never slip through testing, that would be why MMO's, and any kind of software with alpha/beta programs never have any major bugs slip through. I'm sure we will never see a completely broken update slip through even once. /s

 

I have no doubt that this will backfire in some way on them, but only time will tell how it will.

 

You just compared video game testing to Microsoft OS patch testing. I can't.

[flibberdipper]

NO FUCKING FLOPPIES?!?!?!?!?!?

 

I legit can't live without floppies, because I use them all the freaking time. Time to switch to OS X.

[sgloux3470]

Why are people saying "no floppies"?  It clearly says you can just install drivers for them.

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

You seriously cannot see how enforcing updates and removing the ability to download anything from the Internet are fundamentally completely different things? I'm done replying to you on this. Say whatever you want in your next response, its not going to incite me to continue in this discussion.

I wasn't saying this is like removing the ability to download things. What I was trying to say is that your way of justifying this chance is bad because with the same reasoning Microsoft could justifiably remove the ability to download things.

Isn't your argument that the average users will turn auto updates off and then leave their system vulnerable, therefore they shouldn't have the option to turn updates off? It's for their own good.

If that is not your argument then I would like for you to elaborate. If that is your argument then that's a very poor argument because again, the exact same logic (remove useful features because some people harm themselves with them) can be used to justify removing the ability to download stuff.

[Trik'Stari]

You just compared video game testing to Microsoft OS patch testing. I can't.

Windows has released plenty of bugged and glitched updates in the past that caused problems. There is absolutely NO reason for them to stop us from not auto updating.

[Derangel]

I wasn't saying this is like removing the ability to download things. What I was trying to say is that your way of justifying this chance is bad because with the same reasoning Microsoft could justifiably remove the ability to download things.

Isn't your argument that the average users will turn auto updates off and then leave their system vulnerable, therefore they shouldn't have the option to turn updates off? It's for their own good.

If that is not your argument then I would like for you to elaborate. If that is your argument then that's a very poor argument because again, the exact same logic (remove useful features because some people harm themselves with them) can be used to justify removing the ability to download stuff.

 

I'd say it's a damn good reason. If the amount of phenomenally stupid PC users didn't astronomically outnumber the smart ones it could be something to debate but considering most people who use PCs barely know how to turn the fucking thing on you can't say that something shouldn't be done to prevent people not updating. Having it as an option on install like XP-8.1 obviously isn't working so the best option now is just to force it. I'd like a hidden option somewhere to turn it off though, just in case for whatever reason I don't want updates as soon as they're released. MS tried to have built in virus and trojan protection in Windows, but Norton was a bitch about it and sued them to have it removed.

[Maslofski]

no! not my desktop sticky notes!

[ChrisxIxCross]

NOOOOOOOOO NOT FLOPPY DISKS ! 

 

 

Windows 10 is now dead to me 

DON'T COPY THAT FLOPPY!