The tech industry is losing patience with Microsoft over Windows 10 updates / Re-release of Win 10 v1809 still plagued with issues

[samcool55]

I think they actually point to the exact problem of all this.

These days everything needs to be available "as a service", at least the companies think that, but we don't.

But it's trendy, it's modern, it's fancy, it's atm a massive hype that just does not work for everything.

But it's a new business model, a new way to earn money, blabla whatever. Marketing wise and business wise it sounds great, but for some things it's a bad idea.

 

The moment those big twats at MS realize "windows as a service" is actually a bad idea, it's probably too late.

They probably think they are too big to fail so they can do whatever they want, but that's not the case. They can fail, and at this rate it seems like they will eventually will.

 

People that hate something are prepared to do insane things just to get rid of something or have an alternative to do whatever they want. They will do insane things just to make a point so it's likely people right now are creating stuff for linux just because they no longer want to use microsoft stuff.

[Delicieuxz]

2 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

Wait so you moved this post from: 

 

 

To a new thread because people were disagreeing with you? Mods should merge this back to the OG thread.

 

Seriously? That's a bit immature. I posted the links in the other thread but I made a topic out of them here - which I planned to do while posting them in the other thread. I could have just not posted in the other thread. But, why not?

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, imreloadin said:

How does one go about getting the LTSB version? I thought that required an Enterprise key or something?

eBay, reddit, or Craigslist would be where I check.

 

1 hour ago, MimigaKing said:

As an individual, you legally can't. 

You can, because whoever holds a license for any edition of Windows is lawfully entitled to resell that license per the first-sale doctrine.

 

EU Court Says, Yes, You Can Resell Your Software, Even If The Software Company Says You Can't

US Supreme Court rules people may resell their copyrighted goods without the copyright-holder's permission - US software association throws a fit

 

You can even buy it as an individual from this certified Microsoft Solution Provider, though for a hefty price.

 

 

US copyright law - First-Sale Doctrine

Quote

The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner. The right to distribute ends, however, once the owner has sold that particular copy. See 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) & (c). Since the first sale doctrine never protects a defendant who makes unauthorized reproductions of a copyrighted work, the first sale doctrine cannot be a successful defense in cases that allege infringing reproduction.

 

[79wjd]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Since I started turning my PC off at night (usually a regular time) back in 2015, I have had one issue with updates annoying me with a restart.   That's one issue in 3 years for a regular user.

 

I get that restarts can be annoying, I get that the update system is broken to a degree for certain users, that is the nature of updates to products via the internet.  But It is that way and will be that way due to the nature of the beast.   This is not going to change anytime soon.  It's not something MS or Apple or canonical can just change by doing something different, and to be honest I find it a bit scary that a forum full of tech enthusiasts don't understand the bigger issues that dictate a lot of this.

I'm fine with updates being enabled by default, but I should still have the option to fully disable any automatic update system. I don't like restarting my computer as it's an inconvenience with no real benefit. 

[Delicieuxz]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Then as has been stated you are using the wrong OS.  Windows is never going to guarantee to run without interruption for weeks,  the nature of users clicking "remind me later" results in malware on the scale of wanna cry.  The average user cannot be trusted to install updates in a timely manner.  IF you need weeks of up time then you need an OS designed to do that. 

 

Do you also try to run deliveries in a mini and then blame the car manufacturer because they are not catering to your needs of a ute or truck?

 

It's right tools for the job, windows is not the right tool for you if you need your PC on that long.

 

I can't think of another OS that runs everything I use, so I don't think there's much alternative right now. Also, the suggestion that Windows 10 isn't a suitable OS for the situation I've described myself as having implies that the identity of Windows has changed since Windows 8.1 to Windows 10. Has Windows become less relevant to all uses than it was 3 years ago, and is now a different OS that is suitable only for people that have strictly-regimented and consistent workloads? I don't think it has. I think, like a lot of people do, that there are issues that need to be addressed on Microsoft's end of things.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

I'm fine with updates being enabled by default, but I should still have the option to fully disable any automatic update system. I don't like restarting my computer as it's an inconvenience with no real benefit. 

It is inconvenient, but forced updates is the result of millions of users turning updates off.  It results in reduced security which opens the door to malware. Not too mention the sheer number of helpline calls and posts MS must get everyday for things that wouldn't be an issue if the user had just run the latest updates. 

 

4 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

I can't think of another OS that runs everything I use, so I don't think there's much alternative right now. Also, the suggestion that Windows 10 isn't a suitable OS for the situation I've described myself as having implies that the identity of Windows has changed since Windows 8.1 to Windows 10. Has Windows become less relevant to all uses than it was 3 years ago, and is now a different OS that is suitable only for people that have strictly-regimented and consistent workloads? I don't think it has. I think, like a lot of people do, that there are issues that need to be addressed on Microsoft's end of things.

Yes, the update system has changed since earlier versions of windows, it was not an implication, it is a outright fact. It has changed becasue as I said before people just turned of the update system or kept delaying until there was wide spread issues.   When majority of end user can responsibly manage their own updates and security MS don't give you the option, until then the OS is designed for the real world, not specific users who don't know how to shut down their PC more than once every 3 weeks.

[Delicieuxz]

2 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Moving on to Pro, it should really offer the ability to disable updates entirely, just as the previous versions of Windows have.  It's not something I would recommend, or use often, but it should be possible.  After all, if you're going to put "pro" in the name, it had better be suitable for professionals, and that means giving them full control over their system.  It should also allow you to defer feature updates indefinitely.

 

Pro can also have Windows Update's automatic notifying, downloading, and installing deactivated through the Group Policy editor. Though, I feel sketched about trusting GP settings in Windows 10 Pro because Microsoft has played with the GP editor options since Windows 10 released and taken away some of the abilities in it that Windows 10 Pro edition previously had access to - notably the ability to remove Microsoft Store:

 

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/changes-to-start-policies-in-windows-10

https://www.ghacks.net/2016/07/28/microsoft-removes-policies-windows-10-pro/

 

 

Microsoft did say in a press statement that people needing the ability to remove Microsoft Store from their Windows 10 OSes should use Enterprise:

 

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/05/microsoft_windows_10_pro_store/

 

 

So, I guess that's the advice that people wanting full control over their OS should follow.

[Delicieuxz]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

When majority of end user can responsibly manage their own updates and security MS don't give you the option, until then the OS is designed for the real world, not specific users who don't know how to shut down their PC more than once every 3 weeks.

You are not the judge of what is responsible and appropriate for other people to do with their computers. And in the real world, people do and need to run their computers for longer than Microsoft-prescribed daily sessions.

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It is inconvenient, but forced updates is the result of millions of users turning updates off.  It results in reduced security which opens the door to malware. Not too mention the sheer number of helpline calls and posts MS must get everyday for things that wouldn't be an issue if the user had just run the latest updates. 

I don't think forcing updates, which have a tendency to break things, is going to help alleviate call volumes. 

[Arika]

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

You are not the judge of what is responsible and appropriate for other people to do with their computers.

but neither are you.

 

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

And in the real world, people do and need to run their computers for longer than Microsoft-prescribed daily sessions.

these people are not the majority of W10 users.

[Delicieuxz]

2 minutes ago, Arika S said:

but neither are you.

Of course not. And so it's good that I don't seek to impose my way of operating my system on other people.

 

You haven't seen me say 'Windows Update should be force-disabled for everybody', have you? It's people claiming the opposite, that it should be force-enabled and acting that are trying to impose their ideology onto others.

 

That's why OSes should be configurable for all people's needs, and not restricted to operating along the narrow ideology of a small group of people who purport to dictate what everybody should do.

 

[RyomaSJibenG]

i don't know man, i'm that one guy who update windows 10 last october without backup and i didn't lose anything. its business as usual everyday, the games i played still played normally and stuff. until now nothing is amiss as far as i can tell and i do get my sweet sweet dark theme windows

 

maybe i'm just a lucky one who didn't get shot by the bullet

[mynameisjuan]

36 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

Seriously? That's a bit immature. I posted the links in the other thread but I made a topic out of them here - which I planned to do while posting them in the other thread. I could have just not posted in the other thread. But, why not?

I was immature?

 

We were talking about this exact thing on the other thread and then two people disagreed and then you opened this thread which is not new news. Seriously, we get it, you fucking hate windows, but stop with the threads

2 minutes ago, RyomaSJibenG said:

maybe i'm just a lucky one who didn't get shot by the bullet

Not as many people have problems at the scale the news makes them out to be.

[Canada EH]

2 hours ago, yian88 said:

windows 10 is experience BSODs

makes me want to head on over to waltons and buy me w10 not. but tbh i refuse to walk in them megastores.

 

But ouch thats gotta sux! them bsod's I mean that is just painful

might as well go back a few versions and call it a day

[TetraSky]

Microsoft really need to let us choose to "hide/disable" specific updates or all updates on the long term until we so choose to update on Windows, like it was possible in previous version of Windows.

I've tried disabling Windows Update on my old laptop, in registry and even using ShutUp10 from O&O, but after a month or two, the damn thing reactivate itself like nothing and update to a bad graphic driver(which makes online videos into a black screen with only audio for no reason, on all browsers).
This requires me to go out of my way to disable updates again, uninstall their shitty drivers and reinstall the good driver.
I get that they don't want people stuck on "unsecured" versions of Windows, but ffs, if someone disables updates, they either know what they are doing or simply don't care.

So for enterprise customers, I imagine the headaches are 10 folds.

[Delicieuxz]

17 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

I was immature?

 

We were talking about this exact thing on the other thread and then two people disagreed and then you opened this thread which is not new news. Seriously, we get it, you fucking hate windows, but stop with the threads

If you don't like the topic, you don't have to post in it. Also, please don't falsely represent things: Me posting the article links in a different context and without elaboration, and you making a dismissive remark about one of the links before the next page and a half of comments having nothing to do with those links ensued doesn't constitute us talking about this.

 

As I already told you, I planned to make a thread from those news articles when I posted them in the other thread, and when I posted them in the other thread I gave no elaboration on them. But the topic they present is significant and they are fully worthy of their own discussion.

 

My choice was to just make this thread, or also post them in the other thread. I concluded no reason to not also post them in the other thread. So, I guess I get it, that you don't like the topic getting attention. But, protesting the thread creation and suggesting a conspiracy about it when there is nothing unreasonable about the thread is a bit immature.

 

17 hours ago, RyomaSJibenG said:

i don't know man, i'm that one guy who update windows 10 last october without backup and i didn't lose anything. its business as usual everyday, the games i played still played normally and stuff. until now nothing is amiss as far as i can tell and i do get my sweet sweet dark theme windows

 

maybe i'm just a lucky one who didn't get shot by the bullet

There are lots of "lucky" people. I'm sure that the majority of people don't have issues or don't have issues that are significant or that they notice. But, that's not the bar to be met when releasing new updates. One person losing critical data is a huge failure. A large number of people losing work, or having to spend time reconfiguring things, or any other inconvenience from an update is a big deal, even if those people amount to only 5% of the total install base.

 

If a father and/or mother of a family loses their life-savings due to a banking glitch, is it not important because they represented only 0.00001% of all that bank's customers? For that person and their family, it is a huge impact. 

[mynameisjuan]

14 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

You are not the judge of what is responsible and appropriate for other people to do with their computers. And in the real world, people do and need to run their computers for longer than Microsoft-prescribed daily sessions.

But you are the judge for what windows needs to change because you say so?

 

I reboot twice a month on my work PC and on my home PC I shut down every night. Saying people in the real world need 24/7 uptime is moronic. 

11 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

That's why OSes should be configurable for all people's needs, and not restricted to operating along the narrow ideology of a small group of people who purport to dictate what everybody should do.

People were given the option to turn off updates and guess what. Machines got infected, ransomware took over businesses, malware thrived and people began to bitch and whine all over the news about how windows Is not secure until Microsoft came out and was like, people @#$@#% update your shit. They then learned that people rather turn off updates than deal with monthly reboots. So updates are made mandatory and look at that, security is actually quite good.

 

So yeah. People were given a choice but people cant be trusted. This is not just about security for the user either. A few years ago ransomware was spread from other devices on the same network so one person could fuck every person over.

 

Auto updates are good. If you don't like it use Linux and wine and enjoy your security-less 365 day uptime. 

[mynameisjuan]

4 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

One person losing critical data is a huge failure. A large number of people losing work, or having to spend time reconfiguring things, or any other inconvenience from an update is a big deal, even if those people amount to only 5% of the total install base.

 

If a father and/or mother of a family loses their life-savings due to a banking glitch, is not not important because they represented only 0.0000001% of all that bank's customers? For that person and their family, it is a huge impact. 

I would love to see you be a developer so we can finally have a full proof OS that literally has zero issues. I mean you think its so easy to do. 

 

Also make up your mind about how wide spread these issues are. This is supposed to be wide spread but then have an example representing 1 person is just as bad. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

You are not the judge of what is responsible and appropriate for other people to do with their computers. And in the real world, people do and need to run their computers for longer than Microsoft-prescribed daily sessions.

I didn't judge that,  In fact I clearly said if you need 24/7 up time for 3 weeks then windows 10 home is not for you.  That's not judging that's just letting you know you're trying to use the wrong tool for the job.  People in the real world have a significantly different usage pattern to you.  Majority of users turn their PC off at night and like to delay updates until they get malware or something stops working. 

 

1 hour ago, 79wjd said:

I don't think forcing updates, which have a tendency to break things, is going to help alleviate call volumes. 

I don't think they break things as much as people make out.  Forcing is horrible, but the alternative is millions of outdated machines that are not as secure. 

 

As I said in the other thread. I'd like to see some actual numbers on this, what percentage of updates fail, what percentage of malware or failure was due to not updating.  etc.  That kind of information should stop majority of these discussion in their track.

[Canada EH]

On 11/18/2018 at 3:38 PM, mlitttler89 said:

I'm really looking forward to building my first PC in a few weeks and installing...

 

 

*checks notes*

 

 

Windows XP.

Because its real secure for your image library

[Delicieuxz]

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

But you are the judge for what windows needs to change because you say so?

Windows isn't a person, it's an OS for people, many of whom are not served by a forced-updates system. So, yes, if Windows is to be for all these people that are unsatisfied with its updates system (and Microsoft wants it to be), then it needs to accommodate the needs that those people have. Also, as software that runs on people's machines, Microsoft has no right to force-update those machines that don't belong to Microsoft. It is a property right of the people that own those machines and also their Windows software to choose when the installed software should change and also when or if their system should restart.

 

Let's look at our competing claims:

 

You argue Windows should be updated according to a strict regime because that's what works for you.

 

I argue that Windows should have the options available for a person to configure their Windows according to their personal needs, because having it update according to a set regime isn't appropriate for everybody, including myself.

 

Your position exists within mine, while mine further encompasses more possibilities for more situations. My position is therefore greater than yours, and yours is invalid when confronted with mine. You should get to run your computer however you decide is best

 

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

I reboot twice a month on my work PC and on my home PC I shut down every night. Saying people in the real world need 24/7 uptime is moronic. 

That argument isn't supported by the premise: You do something, therefore that is what everybody needs even when they state for themselves otherwise.

 

You need to trust that people generally know more about what they need for themselves than you do.

 

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

People were given the option to turn off updates and guess what. Machines got infected, ransomware took over businesses, malware thrived and people began to bitch and whine all over the news about how windows Is not secure until Microsoft came out and was like, people @#$@#% update your shit. They then learned that people rather turn off updates than deal with monthly reboots. So updates are made mandatory and look at that, security is actually quite good.

 

So yeah. People were given a choice but people cant be trusted. This is not just about security for the user either. A few years ago ransomware was spread from other devices on the same network so one person could fuck every person over.

Well, that's one propaganda narrative. But businesses running Pro and Enterprise editions of Windows 10 still have the option to not update through the Group Policy editor, so those things would still be happening if they were determined to not have updates install.

 

Maybe a survey of IT should be done to find whether they are more or less busy after Windows 10. I've read many say that Windows 10 has made their jobs more difficult.

[Delicieuxz]

7 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

I would love to see you be a developer so we can finally have a full proof OS that literally has zero issues. I mean you think its so easy to do. 

I haven't opined on how easy it is to make an OS. But I can tell you with a degree of certainty that when 20,000 testing engineers are fired, release quality suffers.

 

It's largely because releases aren't perfect that the system by which updates are engaged needs to be flexible enough to control the risk. That's why forced-updates don't work, and why there are three articles in the OP featuring tech industry criticisms of the forced-updates regime.

 

Quote

Also make up your mind about how wide spread these issues are. This is supposed to be wide spread but then have an example representing 1 person is just as bad. 

Issues have been widespread, and even one person losing critical data is a big deal. It's not me that's confused.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

Well, that's one propaganda narrative. But businesses running Pro and Enterprise editions of Windows 10 still have the option to not update through the Group Policy editor, so those things would still be happening if they were determined to not have updates install.

 

Maybe a survey of IT should be done to find whether they are more or less busy after Windows 10. I've read many say that Windows 10 has made their jobs more difficult.

That's not propaganda, that's reality.  And yes business running pro does have the option to turn of updates and manage their own updates.  For the most part they have competent admins that make sure their systems are updated.  But just so you know, wannacry infected an awful lot of business too.  So clearly leaving updates to the hand of supposed professionals isn't always the best option either.

[mynameisjuan]

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

It is a property right of the people that own those machines and also their Windows software to choose when the installed software should change and also when or if their system should restart.

You should brush up about licenses

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

You argue Windows should be updated according to a strict regime because that's what works for you.

Didnt say because it works for me. Because it works for the majority

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

I argue that Windows should have the options available for a person to configure their Windows according to their personal needs, because having it update according to a set regime isn't appropriate for everybody, including myself.

Microsoft tried that. People stopped updating, malware thrived, ransomware when viral then they complained about security. Security is a hell of a lot better now so yeah, much better shoving updates down our throats. Ill take the security. 

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Your position exists within mine, while mine further encompasses more possibilities for more situations. My position is therefore greater than yours, and yours is invalid when confronted with mine. You should get to run your computer however you decide is best

More configurations =/= better. 

 

 

Like look, we get it. You are mad because you dont save a darn thing, open a hundred tabs, dont fill out a thing and then get pissed that you lost a bunch of data and have to spend 10 mins or less running an update. Im sorry I dont know what to say. I have to deal with people like you all the time who call in and complain that they lost all their email, later to find out that they "save" their email by moving to trash.

 

-Save your stuff you cant afford to lose

-Spend the few mins updating to get coffee, walk for 5 mins, check facebook

-Stop clicking postpone update

-Dont start a project when windows says hey im going to reboot in 5 mins

 

Its really not hard nor this burden you make it out to be. I dont know what else to say, especially to someone who thinks companies should bow down to you and "respect your rights" 

[Delicieuxz]

10 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

You should brush up about licenses

I have.