[Unverified?] Microsoft buried a Get Windows 10 ad generator inside this month's Internet Explorer security patch (KB 3139929) for Windows 7 and 8.1

[handymanshandle]

11 minutes ago, byalexandr said:

I liked 8.1 too, but when I tried 10 I couldn't go back to 7 or 8.1, I even tried and there were so many 'missing' features that I became accustomed to in 10, most of which were extremely useful and time saving.

The last time  I used Windows 10 for any surmountable period of time was like back during the Insider Preview days specifically build 10074 which I do have to say besides some of the changes to the flow of the OS and even the way the OS looked had seemed to be actually more or less a modernized Windows 7 that had been a little butchered in the process but still at the same time very reminiscent of Windows 7. Which I did like.

I wish I had a better screenshot of my 10074 insider preview but still it was pretty cool at the same time.

[byalexandr]

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

When I use Windows 10, I find it's missing too many features that Windows 7 has. And Windows 10 is a big step backwards from Windows 7 and 8.1 in a number of ways: Reduced control over updates, reduced control over privacy, in-OS advertisements, data collection and telemetry, reduced-functionality start menu, reduced visual customization, pay-to-unlock features such as Solitaire, a bunch of bloat software comes pre-installed...

 

There aren't really any advantages to Windows 10 over Windows 7 or 8.1 DirectX 12? Windows 7 and 8.1 are getting Vulkan. Also, Windows 10 has technical issues, and overall has been far buggier than Windows 7 or 8.1 ever were. I think that there are a great number of reasons why a person might not want to install Windows 10, and I know that for me I prefer using the Windows 7 installation on my PC, rather than the Windows 10 installation.

 

Windows 10 is a for-Microsoft rehash of Windows 7 and 8.1, which reduces user control, takes away some big features, and inject lots of data collection and monetization annoyances. Anything that Windows 10 does usefully is available on Windows 7 and 8.1, but things that Windows 7 and 8.1 do usefully are missing on Windows 10. There are more important features missing in Windows 10 than there are new useful features.

>thread complaining about ads to upgrade in Win7

>says Win10 has ads

 

And as for being buggier, have you used it at all? It's the smoothest OS I've ever used, I haven't had a single bug in the time I've had it besides those shitty Nvidia drivers. Even when it was in beta I had zero issues. I use it as my daily driver, and I have been for over a year now (since January 7 of 2014 I believe, or whenever I registered as an 'Insider').

[byalexandr]

1 minute ago, wcreek said:

The last time  I used Windows 10 for any surmountable period of time was like back during the Insider Preview days specifically build 10074 which I do have to say besides some of the changes to the flow of the OS and even the way the OS looked had seemed to be actually more or less a modernized Windows 7 that had been a little butchered in the process but still at the same time very reminiscent of Windows 7. Which I did like.

I wish I had a better screenshot of my 10074 insider preview but still it was pretty cool at the same time.

[spoiler=]

 

 

 

There's a lot of stuff that's different from 10074. It's pretty much a different OS from that featureless early build.

[Delicieuxz]

4 minutes ago, byalexandr said:

>thread complaining about ads to upgrade in Win7

>says Win10 has ads

 

And as for being buggier, have you used it at all? It's the smoothest OS I've ever used, I haven't had a single bug in the time I've had it besides those shitty Nvidia drivers. Even when it was in beta I had zero issues. I use it as my daily driver, and I have been for over a year now (since January 7 of 2014 I believe, or whenever I registered as an 'Insider').

I have Windows 10 installed. It is de-facto buggier, and Windows 7 was solid from its initial release, and still is solid. Can't get any smoother than completely smooth. Windows 10 loves to hang the start menu, likes its system crashes, and many other issues. If you haven't had problems, well, that's nice, but a great many people do. If I need to do something important, I'd prefer to do it in Windows 7 because Windows 7 is reliably stable, while Windows 10 is not.

 

As for advertisements in Windows 7 - there are only the new ones prompting people to upgrade to Windows 10, where Microsoft's advertising is more constant. But I don't see Windows 10 notifications in Windows 7, because I ran the script in my signature.

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, byalexandr said:

There's a lot of stuff that's different from 10074. It's pretty much a different OS from that featureless early build.

From what I can tell though is that the basic look is still there but I'm sure it's been greatly polished since then.

[byalexandr]

Just now, wcreek said:

From what I can tell though is that the basic look is still there but I'm sure it's been greatly polished since then.

Well 10074 was a polished turd in a sense, the current build (whatever it is, I'm not on the Insider program anymore) is a polished something-that's-not-a-turd (so it's a lot better ).

[byalexandr]

3 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I have Windows 10 installed. It is de-facto buggier, and Windows 7 was solid from its initial release, and still is solid. Can't get any smoother than completely smooth. Windows 10 loves to hang the start menu, likes its system crashes, and many other issues. If you haven't had problems, well, that's nice, but a great many people do. If I need to do something important, I'd prefer to do it in Windows 7 because Windows 7 is reliably stable, while Windows 10 is not.

 

As for advertisements in Windows 7 - there are only the new ones prompting people to upgrade to Windows 10, where Microsoft really goes hardcore with advertising. But I don't see Windows 10 notifications in Windows 7, because I ran the script in my signature.

I suppose I must know some crazy technical stuff about Windows or something then, because I seem to be the only one not having problems. I prefer to do my work in Windows 10, I see it as a much more powerful tool than Windows 7. It's much more expansive in features but still keeps it simple, and looks very pretty which is a plus.

 

Dunno though, I seem to be the only one that likes Windows 10.

[Ex14]

5 hours ago, PatrikStar24 said:

Or even worse, their computer doesn't support it.

Thats highly unlikely. Even potatoes can run Windows 10 ;;;

[Delicieuxz]

7 minutes ago, byalexandr said:

I suppose I must know some crazy technical stuff about Windows or something then, because I seem to be the only one not having problems. I prefer to do my work in Windows 10, I see it as a much more powerful tool than Windows 7. It's much more expansive in features but still keeps it simple, and looks very pretty which is a plus.

 

Dunno though, I seem to be the only one that likes Windows 10.

How is Windows 10 more expansive in features  - what are these features? It's too simple, if you ask me - simple to the point that important features are absent. I don't want Windows downloading and installing updates apart from my approval. I also don't want one hard-set option to defer updates by some months. I personally also think Windows 10's visual design is ugly through and through.

 

Windows 10 is still a good OS - at its foundation, it's basically still the same OS as Windows 7 and 8.1, with mostly minor changes, and different visual design. But where the biggest differences are, which are in areas of control, visuals, and privacy, I find the greater value to be in Windows 7. I don't need reduced options to steamline my OS configuration. Where I set my OS for optimal comfort rests in a configuration that isn't made available in Windows 10's settings.

[Ex14]

25 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

When I use Windows 10, I find it's missing too many features that Windows 7 has, including important time-saving ones like pinning items to the start menu (as opposed to live tiles).

Isn;t it essentially the same thing tho

17 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I have Windows 10 installed. It is de-facto buggier, and Windows 7 was solid from its initial release, and still is solid.

I beg to differ. I've had Windows 7 from Beta to RC then to release and.... It has gotten slower from Beta to release. Also I rmb having bugs with updating from windows update (SP and what nots) that still exsist even till today.

All in all tho I think its a matter of luck when it comes to stability and bugs. 

Back to topic tho, I'm mpore curious as to why MS is strongarming Windows 10 to users of late? Like whats teh REAL reason/ing for it and what their leadership is thinking.

[byalexandr]

4 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

How is Windows 10 more expansive in features  - what are these features? It's too simple, if you ask me - simple to the point that important features are absent. I don't want Windows downloading and installing updates apart from my approval. I also don't want one hard-set option to defer updates by some months. I personally also think Windows 10's visual design is ugly through and through.

 

Windows 10 is still a good OS - at its foundation, it's basically still the same OS as Windows 7 and 8.1, with mostly minor changes, and different visual design. But where the biggest differences are, which are in areas of control and privacy, I find the greater value to be in Windows 7. I don't need reduced options to steamline my OS configuration. Where I set my OS for optimal comfort rests in a configuration that isn't made available in Windows 10's settings.

Default save locations to OneDrive (useful for me, maybe for others not so much)

Task View, multiple desktops (I don't use it often but it does help since I have a single monitor, great for CAD work and Office stuff as well as photo and video editing)

I like the search function built into the taskbar, works well for me although the indexing does need to be a bit better (which is why they collect data to improve stuff like this)

Pinned apps in the Start Menu look pretty and serve a function, Netflix and stuff is right there and I don't have to have it on my taskbar.

Overall UI is very simple but can get detailed, take the Settings app for instance.

 

Just a few, it's all the little things that make it what it is. I don't see the privacy as a big issue (even though I have sensitive stuff too) but that's just me it seems.

[Delicieuxz]

13 minutes ago, Ex14 said:

Isn;t it essentially the same thing tho

It isn't. Live tiles are bloated and take more time to access. They inflate the chore of accessing an application, multiplied by dozens of thousands of times over longer use. It's a move towards reduced efficiency and user accommodation (if the user is someone like me, who uses pinned apps).

13 minutes ago, Ex14 said:

Back to topic tho, I'm mpore curious as to why MS is strongarming Windows 10 to users of late? Like whats teh REAL reason/ing for it and what their leadership is thinking.

It's because Microsoft has monetizes Windows 10 to the point that the majority of their profit over time will come from people simply using the OS, rather than people buying a copy of it. Every day a person uses Windows 10, without making efforts to disable all advertising, data collection, MS services, Microsoft is making money from that person. Windows 10 is a re-release of Windows 7 and 8.1 that has been fitted to be a money-making machine, even when a person who uses it doesn't spent a cent. So when Microsoft sees a person using a Windows other than Windows 10, they now view that as lost revenue for them, viewing the users as MS property, and behaving as if the non Windows-10 user owes it to Microsoft to be using their latest OS full of bloat and invasive-ware.

 

There's:

Windows store

Groove music

Cortana online results and ads

Other in-OS ads

in-app purchases

data collection which is shared with advertising partners for a fee

(and there are non Windows 10-specific monetizations, such as email and document scanning, when using MS servers)

 

And probably some more I'm not thinking of at this moment. If a person has Windows 7, they basically already have the OS that Windows 10 is a repackaging of - but without all the invasive and liberty-taking data collection, advertising, and pre-installed services of Windows 10. There are some feature differences, but as I've said, I think that the bigger difference, apart from DirectX 12, favour Windows 7 over 10.

[Ex14]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

It isn't. Live tiles are bloated and take more time to access. They inflate the chore of accessing an application, multiplied by thousands of times over.

... er no? When I click on the tile it opens up all the same as if i'm clicking a shortcut? Also when you pin programs to the start menu they don;t become live tiles... Tehy're just shortcuts on that page.. Live tiles typically only affects Windows UWP apps...Which i doubt you'll use or is part of your W7 work flow.

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

-snip-

...This is why i said REAL reason. I'm sorry dude but You;re firmly entrenched in your beliefs about windows 10 as evidenced here and previous other related thread. And I've heard enough from your camp. One needs to hear from both sides after all.

And I Still don;t get the hoohah over MS monetising their OS. It's a weak defence but Google is doing it with andriod/Chrome and you can be sure as hell apple does it with ios/macosx. Or are we just blind/used to it that we don;t really care anymore?

[Delicieuxz]

11 minutes ago, Ex14 said:

... er no? When I click on the tile it opens up all the same as if i'm clicking a shortcut? Also when you pin programs to the start menu they don;t become live tiles... Tehy're just shortcuts on that page.. Live tiles typically only affects Windows UWP apps...Which i doubt you'll use or is part of your W7 work flow.

The act of navigating tiles is slower than navigating pinned start menu links. The "live" part isn't relevant. It's the relative offset to where the start menu is opened up from, and the bulkier presentation of links on the screen.

 

11 minutes ago, Ex14 said:

...This is why i said REAL reason. I'm sorry dude but You;re firmly entrenched in your beliefs about windows 10 as evidenced here and previous other related thread. And I've heard enough from your camp. One needs to hear from both sides after all.

That is the #1 real reason. Seriously. With bi-annual OS releases not working out for Microsoft, and people being reluctant to move to a new OS when their existing one is working for them, Windows 10 has been designed to generate revenue daily for Microsoft without requiring people to make new OS purchases, by implementing a variety of monetization capabilities.

 

There are other additional reasons, such as Microsoft's promotional goal of having Windows 10 installed on a billion devices within one year of its release (which hasn't been going so well for MS), and also the savings Microsoft can achieve if not having to support older OSes as much if people stop using them. But the #1 real reason why Microsoft is desperate to move people to Windows 10 is the reason I explained to you in my previous post. Windows 10 is a heavily monetized OS, and MS don't reap on that monetization if people are using a different Windows.

[Ex14]

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

The act of navigating tiles is slower than navigating pinned start menu links. The "live" part isn't relevant, it's the offset and bulkier presentation on the screen.

you can really solve this by un pinning all the tiles included by default and having the pinned items resized to be the smallest. I don;t see any addtional time taken really.It takes up more space horizontally i give you that but its going to go away anyway when you lanuch the program ;;;

 

 

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

That is the #1 real reason. Seriously. With bi-annual OS releases not working out for Microsoft, Windows 10 has been designed to generate revenue daily for Microsoft by implementing a variety of monetization capabilities.

 

There are other additional reasons, such as Microsoft's promotional goal of having Windows 10 installed on a billion devices within one year of its release (which hasn't been going so well for MS), and also the savings Microsoft can achieve if not having to support older OSes as much if people stop using them. But the #1 real reason why Microsoft is desperate to move people to Windows 10 is the reason I explained to you in my previous post. Windows 10 is a heavily monetized OS.

You do realise that OS while is what MS is known for their main profits are not really from windows licenses right? Their main stay is still office and the cloud. Windows PC marketshare is mostly just a huge publicity thing they can toot their horns about. In all honestly, MS could be like IBM and just concentrate on their business/backend solutions and They'll be good. For some reason tho They want to be visible in the consumer market, which i see as probably trying to get as much money from a market that realistically speaking is not really worth it (just ask the android manufacturers)

Npot only tht but with apple giving out "free" updates to their Macs. It might not be for the reasons you listed there at all

TL;DR If you;re reasoning is JUIST because of monetisation, Then yea thats a pretty closed minded view of their situation

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, Ex14 said:

You do realise that OS while is what MS is known for their main profits are not really from windows licenses right? Their main stay is still office and the cloud. Windows PC marketshare is mostly just a huge publicity thing they can toot their horns about. In all honestly, MS could be like IBM and just concentrate on their business/backend solutions and They'll be good. For some reason tho They want to be visible in the consumer market, which i see as probably trying to get as much money from a market that realistically speaking is not really worth it (just ask the android manufacturers)

Npot only tht but with apple giving out "free" updates to their Macs. It might not be for the reasons you listed there at all

TL;DR If you;re reasoning is JUIST because of monetisation, Then yea thats a pretty closed minded view of their situation

 

Windows 10 is their platform, on which they feature all their sub-platforms.

 

Your comments regarding other sources of MS revenue are not relevant to the answer of why Microsoft is so desperate to push Windows users from older Windows' to Windows 10. The #1 answer for why Microsoft wants to do this is because Windows 10 is heavily monetized, and having people use it earns Microsoft money daily. Microsoft having other revenue streams, such as MS Office, does not argue that the reason why Microsoft wants to move people from older Windows to Windows 10 is mainly for a reason other than because having people use Windows 10 earns Microsoft money, whereas people using an earlier Windows does not.

 

I didn't say this was the only reason, but that amongst reasons, this is going to be the biggest. Your suggestion that because MS makes money from other sources, therefore they are not concerned about making money from Windows, is nonsense.

[Ex14]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

-snip-

you're once again missing the point. My argument isn't that Microsoft doesn't want money (which business doesn't) but rather monetization form Windows 10 is insignificant enough, that really it isn't worth alienating even MORE people through these strongarms. It doesn't take a smart person to figure it out, I'm sure theres some people there that understands their current situation even more than us with even more intimate knowledge than us. hence my rpevious post about wanting to hear the "real" reasons. I've heard enough from the tinfoil hat/privacy concerned /people who just generally dislike windows 10 for some reason. now I'm interested in hearing (tho unlikely) a more valid view who still is in MS as unlikely as that is.
 

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, HPWebcamAble said:

What do you expect them to do? Not advertise?

 

I completely agree with MS here. They are promoting their own product. On their own (older) product.

Maybe, just maybe, you should let security patches actually be security patches, and ads be ads? The two should never mix because security patches are extremely important, and a user should never have to doubt a security patch. The last thing we need is more people running unsecure software, and this will only contribute to that number in a negative way. They could and should have just made that one update into two. One with the actual security updates, and one with the ads. Personally I don't think they should have added ads at all but obviously Microsoft and you do so let's go with that.

I think it's a terrible move to push out ads in patches to begin with but even if you are okay with that, doing it in security patches is an extremely underhanded move.

 

1 hour ago, Ex14 said:

you're once again missing the point. My argument isn't that Microsoft doesn't want money (which business doesn't) but rather monetization form Windows 10 is insignificant enough, that really it isn't worth alienating even MORE people through these strongarms. It doesn't take a smart person to figure it out, I'm sure theres some people there that understands their current situation even more than us with even more intimate knowledge than us. hence my rpevious post about wanting to hear the "real" reasons. I've heard enough from the tinfoil hat/privacy concerned /people who just generally dislike windows 10 for some reason. now I'm interested in hearing (tho unlikely) a more valid view who still is in MS as unlikely as that is.

It might be right now, but not if they get a billion people on the platform.

Apple made over 6 billion dollars in revenue during Q1 2016 from software sales (mainly apps). Microsoft's entire revenue, from all their businesses, were 21.7 billions. You can bet your ass that Microsoft want a piece of the app store model, and if they can double dip their users like Google does with ads and such, then they would love to do it.

 

But seriously, if you don't buy that argument, what do you think is the reason for pushing it so hard is? Even @GoodBytes, our residential Microsoft Defense Force captain believes the shift in monetization strategy is the reason why they are pushing it so hard (if I recall correctly). I can't think of any other reason for it.

[Ex14]

9 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

But seriously, if you don't buy that argument, what do you think is the reason for pushing it so hard is? Even @GoodBytes, our residential Microsoft Defense Force captain believes the shift in monetization strategy is the reason why they are pushing it so hard (if I recall correctly). I can't think of any other reason for it.

it might also be due to future support reasons. Isn;t windows 10 "supposedly"  the last version of windows going forward? It would be faster to implement better feature, security patches and so on. With windows 10, with updates being they way they are, It would be safe to assume most people would not be thst far off from the most updated version. want to start removing legacy code want to reduce the amount of security holes across differnt windows versions? and of course, support cost as well. Also i guess with more windows 10 pc, windows 10 mobile might get a boost with the recent updates bringing up sms  sync and what not. They can use windows 10 like how apple used iphones back when, as a gateway to their own services/hardware.

[AlTech]

5 hours ago, Nexxus said:

but but but my privacy D: 

Grow some balls then move along and install Windows 10.

[Nexxus]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

Grow some balls then move along and install Windows 10.

---

 

Quote

 

Issues with a PC game? Visit PCGamingWiki

 

System Specs

CPU: Core i7 4770k @4.2ghz | Mobo: Gigabyte Z87X-UDH5 | RAM: Corsair Vengeance 1333 16gb | GPU: SLI EVGA 680 GTX Signature+ | Storage: Samsung 840 Evo, WD Blk 1TB/Blk 500gb /Grn 2tb | PSU:Corsair ax860 | Cooling: Corsair H100i w/NF-F12 LTT Edition Displays: 55" Samsung TV, 24" BenQ XL2420TE/XL2411Z & Asus VG248QE | Kb: K70 RGB Blue |Mouse: Logitech G700s | Case: NZXT H440 Matte Black | Extra: NZXT Hue+ Fanatec CSR/Shifters/CSR Elite Pedals w/ Rennsport stand, Thustmaster Warthog HOTAS, Track IR5, Nvidia 3d Vision 2, ARCTIC Z3 Pro Triple Monitor Arm | OS: Win 10 Pro 64 bit

 

 

[Neroglance]

I think most people get a feel for there OS and just love it.  I loved windows 7 and it took awhile but I really like Windows 10 now after I used it for awhile.  Is it perfect no but I guess if I want perfect I need to start building my own OS.  

 

I know people are concerned with privacy and data collection but really at this point most company's do it although I am not saying it's right but if I am really concerned about my privacy I need to be disconnected from the Internet totally 24/7.  

 

I think most may upgrade when directx 12 really starts coming out and I do see windows 10 as a good thing and I hate some things but love some aspects also.  

 

So my final thought is if you like win 7, 8, 8.1, or 10 heck if you love win 95 then use it that's your right and your view.  As for mine I like 10 and I haven't had any huge issues.

[SpaceNugget]

6 hours ago, derick90 said:

Linux, while opensource is nice, the game/software support is awful, If every MS compatible app/program becomes available for linux, only then would i consider switching.

 

And it would be a cold day in hell before i ever go to MacOS 

Not true, game support is pretty damned impressive compared to just a couple years ago. Steam passed 1,500 games available for linux in 2015.

[deviant88]

They are going to hide get windows 10 updates unremovable in everything, store games, IE updates they still update that crap, Edge updates, phones updates that will propagate to your main windows machine when you use the phone connect app or something like that

No i have no proof, its just Murphy's Law when its microshaft involved 

[GoodBytes]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Maybe, just maybe, you should let security patches actually be security patches, and ads be ads? The two should never mix because security patches are extremely important, and a user should never have to doubt a security patch. The last thing we need is more people running unsecure software, and this will only contribute to that number in a negative way. They could and should have just made that one update into two. One with the actual security updates, and one with the ads. Personally I don't think they should have added ads at all but obviously Microsoft and you do so let's go with that.

I think it's a terrible move to push out ads in patches to begin with but even if you are okay with that, doing it in security patches is an extremely underhanded move.

 

It might be right now, but not if they get a billion people on the platform.

Apple made over 6 billion dollars in revenue during Q1 2016 from software sales (mainly apps). Microsoft's entire revenue, from all their businesses, were 21.7 billions. You can bet your ass that Microsoft want a piece of the app store model, and if they can double dip their users like Google does with ads and such, then they would love to do it.

 

But seriously, if you don't buy that argument, what do you think is the reason for pushing it so hard is? Even @GoodBytes, our residential Microsoft Defense Force captain believes the shift in monetization strategy is the reason why they are pushing it so hard (if I recall correctly). I can't think of any other reason for it.

I have to agree with you, except the " Microsoft Defense Force" part.

I'll see at work on one of our Windows 7 system, if the update is true, I'll take a screen shot if anything pops up.