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

[Delicieuxz]

25 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

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

No, it quite literally doesn't. See here:

2 hours 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.

 

Quote

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.

How would it be unclear whether a person is right to update their Windows installation or not? It's their property, and they legally possess full decision-making authority over it. Whatever decision they make in regards to updating or not updating their Windows OS is the "right" decision, because there is not competing authority on the matter. If a person uses to leave automatic updates enabled on their Windows 10 OS, then Microsoft wishes the section of the EULA that you've brought up to mean that Microsoft is not liable for any damage caused to any system receiving those automatic updates.

 

 

It would be impossible for Microsoft to get a lawsuit accepted against people for not updating their Windows OSes, just like a car salesperson couldn't sue you for not changing the oil on a car they sold you 5 years ago.

 

However, Microsoft, themselves, are not impervious to consumer-filed lawsuits against them, over damages their updates cause, despite Microsoft claiming, in that part of the EULA you've brought up, that users unconditionally accept the results of any automatic updates that are installed. This is because, as I've said:

 

Quote

but [Microsoft] can actually still be sued, themselves, for forcing updates upon people, as certain regions in the world (and even some states in the USA) do not allow for companies to claim the blanket-protections against lawsuits due to damages caused by their products that Microsoft is trying to claim in their EULA (again, EULAs are not laws, but are subject to law).

 

EULAs are largely about producing the consumer behaviour that a company wishes there to be, including pre-emptively heading-off troubles for the company, regardless of what is legally permissible. If Microsoft can discourage people from even thinking that they can sue them, then that's what Microsoft will do. That doesn't mean that people cannot actually sue Microsoft - people can sue Microsoft, over the very things Microsoft tries to claim that people can't, and people can do so through a variety of means.

[Sakkura]

22 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

No, it quite literally doesn't. See here:

 

It literally does, as I just proved.

[Delicieuxz]

19 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

It literally does, as I just proved.

... If saying that you proved something ever counted as actually proving something.

 

But what I find strange about your insistence is that, not only is what you claim to think not actually the way any of these things work, but it also would be completely against your personal interests and benefit if things actually were the way you suggest.

 

Laws do not stand arbitrarily, but exist in a context with each other, and saying that something is one way about one subject is also a statement on the validity and meaning of other things, throughout a wide range of subjects. What you're suggesting about Microsoft's EULA is not only not what the literal presentation of the EULAs writing states, but is also comprehensively invalidated by all of the actual laws that govern what passes as valid in an EULA, or a consumer contract, transfer of property, etc. Also, what you claim would require that corporations possess law-making powers, to overrule or re-define all the actual laws that govern software licenses, EULA, property, contracts, exchange of goods, etc, and that scenario would be a nightmare for everyone, if that were the case - thankfully, it isn't.

[Doobeedoo]

I don't get people that are not happy with very little fragmentation as this Anniversary Update it's like they like fragmentation. 

 

[Noctus]

8 hours ago, GlassBomb said:

The problem as I see it isn't that you're getting updates. It is that there is no way to cancel/halt these updates.

 

Sure, this isn't a problem for the majority of the users. But the users who rely on a computer not shutting off randomly to finish updates can cause A LOT of problems.

 

Edit: Examples are if you are actually using the computer for work. I know of several who were working when their windows wanted to update stuff. They took a short break for lunch or similar, and came back to a rebooted computer. Losing some of their previous work.

 

8 hours ago, GlassBomb said:

But it is still forcing you to update. That is my issue. And once it has done the initial download and installation of that update, then it wants to reboot.

 

And you can't stop that.

 

8 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

i dont know how i feel about this. on the one hand it is making windows more secure and giveing devs an even platform to work on, but its annoying as hell when your forced onto a update that has a known issue. 

you can set your computer to update at night and tbf you can hold the update off for a while you should be able to avoid this.

 

6 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

That option doesn't allow a person to not install an update, or delay it for more than something like 8 hours.

Just set windows to metered mode and you stop getting updates....

[AlTech]

6 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

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.

 

how about you keep your fucking mouth shut. I tell you what I want and not.

 

you are misinformed and are spreading misinformation.

[Technous285]

13 minutes ago, Noctus said:

 

 

 

Just set windows to metered mode and you stop getting updates....

That only works on Wi-Fi networks (maybe Mobile/Cellular broadband too). it doesn't stop downloads from running in the background on Ethernet networks, nor on data capped landline internet connections (Hello~ Australian Telecommunications Infrastructure!).

[Mira Yurizaki]

9 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

What is wrong with updating Windows?

Sometimes Windows updates causes issues to someone's PC. Then they blame it on Microsoft for coding a crappy OS even though a vast majority of those who have it seem to be fine.

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Sometimes Windows updates causes issues to someone's PC. Then they blame it on Microsoft for coding a crappy OS even though a vast majority of those who have it seem to be fine.

I forgot where the thread is located but it seems that many "insiders" place their PC's away from being able to update. Which is baffling considering that they signed up to test the OS as it goes.

[Technous285]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

I forgot where I the thread is located but it seems that many "insiders" place their PC's away from being able to update. Which is baffling considering that they signed up to test the OS as it goes.

Test it, but do updates when they KNOW it's safe to do so without screwing over their work on a system (eg: updates as part of weekly or monthly reboots, when everything is saved and closed down ready for the reboot).

[Noctus]

2 minutes ago, Technous285 said:

That only works on Wi-Fi networks (maybe Mobile/Cellular broadband too). it doesn't stop downloads from running in the background on Ethernet networks, nor on data capped landline internet connections (Hello~ Australian Telecommunications Infrastructure!).

Why would it not work on landlines? unless (for some wacky reason) you have a connection straight out the ground directly to your PC akin to ethernet. And i take fault on the wifi, though i just assume everyone has wifi since there's usually more than one pc in a house (and that my wifi is stupidly sufficient..40-50meg) 

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

... If saying that you proved something ever counted as actually proving something.

I linked to the proof. You just made unsubstantiated claims.

[Technous285]

7 minutes ago, Noctus said:

Why would it not work on landlines? unless (for some wacky reason) you have a connection straight out the ground directly to your PC akin to ethernet. And i take fault on the wifi, though i just assume everyone has wifi since there's usually more than one pc in a house (and that my wifi is stupidly sufficient..40-50meg) 

As someone on 8mbps down/384kbps up ADSL 1 (Westnet/iiNet is my ISP, Telstra owns the local phone exchange hardware) who runs Ethernet to their PC (Monsuta rig, specs in sig), the only way I've found to stop Win10 Updates from burning my data is basically nuke the whole service from ever starting, as the Metered Connection option is ignored if you're connected to Ethernet to the modem/router.

 

Technically there's 2 main systems in the house (mine and my dad's), but we have 2 separate connections (so our usage doesn't conflict, and if one of us has problems they can link into the other one) and he runs Linux so he doesn't deal with Win10's crap.

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

how about you keep your fucking mouth shut. I tell you what I want and not.

 

you are misinformed and are spreading misinformation.

Dude, I am not spreading false information. But you're a shill, who tells people non-beneficial information, such as that people should use Windows Store, when buying a UWP program is basically equivalent to renting a game or program, because, due to UWP restrictions, any program with UWP will eventually become non-accessible. So, in the long-term view, buying a UWP program from Windows Store is kind of like throwing money and property away. Who would advise anyone to do such, other than a shill? I think that such a recommendation is not in the best interests of people, and is not respecting their money and where they invest it. To be honest, I see such advice as preying on people seeking help, and taking them for suckers to be exploited, and I wonder what motivation someone has to do that?

 

Anyway, it's a matter of clumsy hypocrisy that you didn't catch the point of the post you responded to, and the . The point that post was making is that the arguments which you, and the other people referenced in the post that upset you, have said in this thread (about people not knowing what they want, or what's best for their PC), are equivalent to me, or anyone else, saying the things in the post you reacted to, and attributing them to you people - and that it's not acceptable.

 

That post was meant to be obvious sarcasm to make the point that you people don't have a right to make similar personal-choice-overriding calls for other people, the way some of you are trying to in this thread. And by your upset reaction, you have proven your own conduct to be very unacceptable to your own self, when directed at you, against your wishes, rather than when it's from coming from Microsoft and forced upon other people, or coming from yourself and imposed upon some general concept of people.

 

You can answer all of these:

10 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

If they didn't then people wouldn't update for whatever reason. And so they are forcing it.....

10 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

But nobody would update if it didn't force you. And unless somebody comes up with an idea which fixes that, you'll get used to this.

8 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

can we stop with these little tantrums where you guys show how butt hurt you are?

 

Nothing you say will change any of the facts. Most people aren't good at using computers. Most people would update their PC if they TRULY understood the benefits of it. If people needed to do a test (like you need for driving a car), most people would hopelessly fail.....

8 hours ago, Sakkura said:

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

9 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Forcing updates is better for the average derpy user. It's worse for the tech-savvy user who knows to keep the OS up to date, but wants to control when and how.

 

... with this:

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

how about you keep your fucking mouth shut. I tell you what I want and not.

BTW:

8 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

can we stop with these little tantrums where you guys show how butt hurt you are?

[Noctus]

11 minutes ago, Technous285 said:

As someone on 8mbps down/384kbps up ADSL 1 (Westnet/iiNet is my ISP, Telstra owns the local phone exchange hardware) who runs Ethernet to their PC (Monsuta rig, specs in sig), the only way I've found to stop Win10 Updates from burning my data is basically nuke the whole service from ever starting, as the Metered Connection option is ignored if you're connected to Ethernet to the modem/router.

 

Technically there's 2 main systems in the house (mine and my dad's), but we have 2 separate connections (so our usage doesn't conflict, and if one of us has problems they can link into the other one) and he runs Linux so he doesn't deal with Win10's crap.

Why not just connect wirelessly to your router? Surely the wifi reception isnt so shit you drop so much speed you'd be faster with dialup ? Only reason i'm not connected via ethernet to my pc (and feeling your pain with stopping the updates) is my step dad is a cunt and doesn't want "all these wires" (that i can hide) running from the living room below to my room directly above...

[bobhays]

9 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

But nobody would update if it didn't force you. And unless somebody comes up with an idea which fixes that, you'll get used to this.

I have an idea. How bout add features that make me want to update. If things are working fine why would I want to update otherwise. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

[Zodiark1593]

9 hours ago, GlassBomb said:

But it is still forcing you to update. That is my issue. And once it has done the initial download and installation of that update, then it wants to reboot.

 

And you can't stop that.

The ninja disable updates is actually in the networking options. If you set your connection to metered, Windows will not download updates. It would be quite a rotten move on Microsoft's part to force updates on a mobile connection. (example, mine is 3 GB/month). 

 

For those on Ethernet, you can disable the wuaserv service. 

 

[ARikozuM]

We're eventually going to end up with another XP situation where developers will create programs for the lowest OS with minimal improvements for the later versions if we continue like this. Also, no one has said anything about UWP. Don't fill our mouths with idiotic statements about things we haven't said. Personally, I don't use the Windows Store on 8.1 or 10, since the games I want can be found on Steam or Xbox (though some of these are playable on PC thanks to it). 

[Technous285]

3 minutes ago, Noctus said:

Why not just connect wirelessly to your router? Surely the wifi reception isnt so shit you drop so much speed you'd be faster with dialup ? Only reason i'm not connected via ethernet to my pc (and feeling your pain with stopping the updates) is my step dad is a cunt and doesn't want "all these wires" (that i can hide) running from the living room below to my room directly above...

1: I don't have a wireless NIC in the rig (and rather not have it). ~IF~ I ever need to use my dad's network on my rig (say my modem is suffering from overheating issues and needs to be let to rest for a few hours) then I'll plug in one of the USB dongles we have but otherwise our networks and systems never interact.

2: I'd rather not have to deal with Windows rebooting whenever the fuck it feels like "just because" and screwing over my day-to-day use along with reinstalling spyware such as Cortana (it was enough of a bitch to remove that bitch the first time!) or screwing over hardware such as my C930e webcam until I dive into the registries and fix what M$ broke on me...

 

Just now, Zodiark1593 said:

The ninja disable updates is actually in the networking options. If you set your connection to metered, Windows will not download updates. It would be quite a rotten move on Microsoft's part to force updates on a mobile connection. (example, mine is 3 GB/month). 

 

The Metered Connection option is ignored if you "dare" use Ethernet (which is faster than the bulk of the Wi-Fi standards, and inherently more secure since you'd need PHYSICAL ACCESS to the hardware to jack into the network), as then Windows will download what it ever fucking wants when it ever fucking wants and barely gives you the option of WHEN to finish the updates unless you murder the service and prevent it from ever running again.

[Delicieuxz]

21 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Also, no one has said anything about UWP. Don't fill our mouths with idiotic statements about things we haven't said. Personally, I don't use the Windows Store on 8.1 or 10, since the games I want can be found on Steam or Xbox (though some of these are playable on PC thanks to it). 

The comment about UWP was referencing only AT's general conduct and opinion expressed elsewhere. And I wasn't putting words in your mouth, other than as an overtly-sarcastic reflective impression, for the sake of making the point that it shouldn't be done to other people, such as by saying that people don't know what's good for their own PC and that forced updates are best for people.

 

Looking back in the thread, I see that you didn't really make such a comment, though the others I referenced did, and I've now quoted those comments in my above post. Apologies to you.

 

However, your reaction also helps in emphasizing that having your personal say be disregarded and over-ridden is a universal offence, and doesn't reflect your actual interest, no matter who might make the claim that it's in your interest. Taking away your control over things that pertain specifically to you is never done to be in your interest.

[bobhays]

3 hours 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.

Those are 2 different things. 1 is saying microsoft has the right to deliver the updates automatically without asking for extra permission, which is true. The 2nd part is whether the user has the right to deny the updates which is also true because they own the license and can do as they please with the license. So Microsoft can give you the update, but then you can say I don't want it and stop it. Or at least that's how it should work but they don't have an easy off switch for their updates.

[Noctus]

10 minutes ago, Technous285 said:

1: I don't have a wireless NIC in the rig (and rather not have it). ~IF~ I ever need to use my dad's network on my rig (say my modem is suffering from overheating issues and needs to be let to rest for a few hours) then I'll plug in one of the USB dongles we have but otherwise our networks and systems never interact.

2: I'd rather not have to deal with Windows rebooting whenever the fuck it feels like "just because" and screwing over my day-to-day use along with reinstalling spyware such as Cortana (it was enough of a bitch to remove that bitch the first time!) or screwing over hardware such as my C930e webcam until I dive into the registries and fix what M$ broke on me...

 

Ah well just figured i'd suggest it since it's a rather easy workaround, but some people are REALL pernickety...... Though if it work's for you to do it that way... who am i to say

[Sakkura]

11 minutes ago, bobhays said:

Those are 2 different things. 1 is saying microsoft has the right to deliver the updates automatically without asking for extra permission, which is true. The 2nd part is whether the user has the right to deny the updates which is also true because they own the license and can do as they please with the license. So Microsoft can give you the update, but then you can say I don't want it and stop it. Or at least that's how it should work but they don't have an easy off switch for their updates.

That just means it's legal for you to block the updates. It doesn't mean Microsoft is obligated to give you a way to block the updates.

[bobhays]

Just now, Sakkura said:

That just means it's legal for you to block the updates. It doesn't mean Microsoft is obligated to give you a way to block the updates.

I know... one can only wish.

[bobhays]

2 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

I don't get people that are not happy with very little fragmentation as this Anniversary Update it's like they like fragmentation. 

 

People aren't "not happy" with the little fragmentation. We are not happy with the reason behind it (forced updates).