[added analysis] October Steam survey: Windows 10 loses 17.3% market share, Windows 7 gains 23.7% market share

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Long story most countries only have the budgetary amounts to either a) build nuclear weapons or b) build anti nuclear defenses. They rarely focus on both.

So which one makes more sense, absolute defense or absolute arsenal? 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Ehm... Again, do you even read my posts? The system I am suggesting is not at all like the health system. You're comparing apples and oranges.

 

So you won't think up reasons why I am wrong, but you will still argue against me?

I don't even know what your argument is because you seem to just want to argue without actually making a point or refuting one. What is your point and what evidence have you already provided to prove that you're right?

 

Their solution isn't a solution, and my suggestion is better for the users. The reason why Microsoft don't want that is because it means they have less control over their consumers. Their current implementation is good for them, but not consumers. What I am suggesting would be good for consumers.

 

Your stubbornness to address anything I say is starting to piss me off. If you're not interested in acknowledging the points and suggestions I am making then could you at the very least stop telling me I am wrong and Microsoft's solution is the best? You're right that there is a reason why Microsoft are forcing updates, but it certainly isn't to keep their users safe. At best that's the second biggest reason.

Righto. 

[Dabombinable]

Just now, mr moose said:

So which one makes more sense, absolute defense or absolute arsenal? 

Depends on the situation-priorities change.

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Depends on the situation-priorities change.

In that case in this situation we should just turn the internet off, clearly that would prevent viruses spreading better than updates would, forced or otherwise. 

[Dabombinable]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

In that case in this situation we should just turn the internet off, clearly that would prevent viruses spreading better than updates would, forced or otherwise. 

You do realise that before the internet, viruses spread uite successfully on networks via infected media or hardware? BTW, the thing with Microsoft Windows is that it is riddled with security flaws despite the steps taken, and the main reason people end up with an infection is due to not having any anti virus/malware protection at all (Windows Defender doesn't count-its hopeless). Still don't understand why you are arguing against users who know what they are doing being able to control their computer and the software running on it.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Dabombinable said:

Still don't understand why you are arguing against users who know what they are doing being able to control their computer and the software running on it.

As I said before I am not arguing against choice, I am merely pointing out that from MS's perspective and from the perspective of a few others, forced updates is an answer to the problem of people not doing it. Even users who do know what they are doing have proven to not be able to maintain updates.  Hence why wanna cry was such a big thing (MS released a win7 patch months before the attack), but how many where actually updated? how many were part of large organisations with "knowing" admins in control? 

 

Regardless of whether you like it or not and regardless of whether it is the best approach to the problem, in anyone's opinion, or not,  it is still what they did.  People can argue ulterior motives and try to perplex the issue with tangent issues as much as they want, The only two facts we really have on the subject right now is that people weren't updating (professionals included) and this is MS's response. 

 

 

[BrandonA84]

I switched over to win10 as soon as the upgrade came out and it essentially bricked our system for months. We had to wait for 2 major updates and a lot of luck before we could finally use our laptop without complications.

 

My wife had already started backing up photos and files onto in and with in a week or 2 we no longer had admin permission to do almost anything, and we share the only profile on the system.

 

I enjoyed Win 7, Win 8 I wasn’t impressed with. But now that Win 10 had updated and fixed our problems we have had no issues with the software.

[openthatchest]

On 11/5/2017 at 4:32 PM, themctipers said:

my macbook (2006) also is totally legit

 

with a windows xp sticker

mine can't even run minecraft at anything over 30fps. 

 

cinebench on it was 1.3 some points.

 

Graphics, you ask?

 

GeForce 8400GS i Sh*t you not

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

The only two facts we really have on the subject right now is that people weren't updating (professionals included) and this is MS's response. 

I would like to add 2 more facts we got:

1) People who don't want updates are resorting to more extreme measurements in order to avoid it. Those determined to not get updates still don't get updates.

2) Microsoft never tried having sane defaults and giving advanced users an option to take manual control.

[Delicieuxz]

Comparing all of September's Steam hardware survey specs to October's specs, it appears that the average Chinese gamer's system is better than the average North American gamer's system, as October's influx of (apparently) Chinese gamer systems has significantly raised the lowest common denominator across the board - especially concerning the OS.

 

Last month's specs:

 

Processor speed: 2.3 - 2.69 Ghz (~16.5%)
Processor speed: 2.7 - 2.99 Ghz (11.02%)
Processor speed: 3.0 - 3.29 Ghz (~19.4%)
Processor speed: 3.3 - 3.69 Ghz (~21%)

 

Processor cores: 2 (~36.5%)
Processor cores: 4 (57%)

 

Most common OS: Windows 10

 

1920x1080 resolution (~66.80%)
2560x1440 resolution (2.68%)

 

This month's most common specs:

 

Processor speed: 2.3 - 2.69 Ghz (10.31%)
Processor speed: 2.7 - 2.99 Ghz (15.96%)
Processor speed: 3.0 - 3.29 Ghz (30.93%)
Processor speed: 3.3 - 3.69 Ghz (22.04%)

 

Processor cores: 2 (27.07%)
Processor cores: 4 (69.55%)

 

Most common OS: Windows 7

 

1920x1080 resolution (71.38%)
2560x1440 resolution (3.40%)

 

1 GB VRAM  -9.29%
2 GB VRAM  +8.63%
3 GB VRAM  +3.73%
4 GB VRAM  +3.38%

 

 

This could be good news for gamers seeking to have graphical standards move ahead quicker, as game developers might increase the target hardware for their in-development games as a result of the lowest common denominator in recorded hardware stats increasing.

 

 

I'll add this info to the OP.

 

On 13/11/2017 at 2:55 AM, leadeater said:

I will say though the resetting of settings to defaults is actually an error in the update processes, it's not supposed to happen but it does. Seems Microsoft isn't making proper use of their update streams and early adopters programs, those issues should be sorted out and is one reason why they exist.

 

I personally think that if it was, then Microsoft would surely have fixed such an obvious, large, and interfering oversight by now, rather than keep on releasing updates with the same issue. I'm not sure that the Dutch DPA take it to be an accident, as they bring up the issue in their report.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

Processor speed: 2.3 - 2.69 Ghz (~16.5%)
Processor speed: 2.7 - 2.99 Ghz (11.02%)
Processor speed: 3.0 - 3.29 Ghz (~19.4%)
Processor speed: 3.3 - 3.69 Ghz (~21%)

 

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

Processor speed: 2.3 - 2.69 Ghz (10.31%)
Processor speed: 2.7 - 2.99 Ghz (15.96%)
Processor speed: 3.0 - 3.29 Ghz (30.93%)
Processor speed: 3.3 - 3.69 Ghz (22.04%)

Well that's a very significant increase in CPU clock speeds, wonder where the missing ~20% is though. Likely above 3.69Ghz considering the last few generations of CPUs.