Windows 10: I know what I'm doing

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Windows 10: I know what I'm doing

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

wormil posted:

Boomers have latched onto W10 as the new evil they must warn us about. I'm not interested in trying to convince them but I'd like good information for myself. Trouble is, the internet is full of W10 fear mongering and typically the articles don't support the headlines. Other articles are overboard in their support for MS. So what is the real scoop and what source is trustworthy?

Windows 10 is Microsoft's fix-attempt at making a unikernel operating system. With this unikernel effort comes a boatload of platform-specific catering and under-the-hood changes.

Are all of these changes rock awesome? No. My desktop system going into "tablet mode" because it thinks my 24" touchscreen monitor is highly portable is annoying as hell. They are also coupling these with things it wants to get in on, like mobile advertising, which means they want to watch you put apps on your system and where you go and what websites you visit. There are also some very severe issues with networking, network bridge support, and external wireless adapter support. It also likes to explore your local network and add programs and devices for things it finds there, which is sometimes nice and sometimes makes you want to take a field trip to shank an entire staff of developers.

On the other side of the fence, it brings a lot of nice updates, better device management support, more stability, a faster core system, and an overall decent experience that needs to be configured to not be so drat annoying.

Thus, the reality: It's a Windows operating system. If you run it like from an OEM with 2/3rds of the SSD filled with trash ware, it's going to crash, burn, and set you and your family on fire. If you run it plain and configure around the annoying parts, it's the same thing we've had since Windows XP.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2016 17:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:42

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

endlessmonotony posted:

That post reads so much better condensed.

Windows 10 has some really loving dumb design decisions. This is consistent with Microsoft's track record. Overall, it's a somewhat-improved Windows 7.

I just wish they'd pick Metro or Classic for their configuration UIs. Several times I've had to jump back and forth (And sometimes they don't even tell you the same thing between both UIs!)

# ¿ Mar 24, 2016 19:17

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Zack Ater posted:

I'm on 7 Pro and figure it's about time I make use of my free upgrade. I'd like to do a clean install on a new SSD I have; can I just run the installer and direct it to the new drive, or do I need to mirror my current drive onto the new one and then do a clean install over that?

Go to the annoying app in your system tray (Assuming you haven't uninstalled it) and tell it to upgrade.

After the upgrade is complete, go to Start -> Settings -> Recovery and click "Reset this PC" and choose the level of system wipe you want to do. You can go all the way down to system only using this method.

Unfortunately, your free upgrade doesn't give you a key and when I've installed that it's very hit or miss as to the 7 and 8 keys working when you plug them in. I've heard others say this same thing.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2016 20:10

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Ghostlight posted:

My favourite one is like display or personalisation under Settings where it has a link called "Advanced Settings" and all it does is boot up the Control Panel interface.

Try to setup file history. The Metro interface will tell you it's backing up one set of folders and the Classic interface giving you a completely different list of locations. :downs:

# ¿ Mar 25, 2016 01:16

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Edmond Dantes posted:

If I'm upgrading from 7 to 10, is bulldoze/install from scratch the recommended method, or would this accomplish the same thing? Don't really have anything against the old format/reinstall if it'll avoid issues or prevent carry-over bloat.

Doing the Upgrade -> Reset My PC way is functionally the same as an old Nuke and Pave, depending on which Reset option you choose. I've been recommending it while you can get Windows 10 for free via the upgrade because, as I noted, the license to use isn't a CD Key for the free upgrades - which has caused me and others some problems in the nuke and pave process.

If you have a Win10 CD Key and are more comfortable with it, by all means - Nuke and Pave.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2016 17:20

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

plushpuffin posted:

That's actually a really great analogy, because both conspiracy theories spread and gained traction due to arrogance, authoritarian attitudes, incompetent PR, and lack of transparency by those in charge.

I personally don't like Windows 10, but I'm not going to get into why. What bothers me more are the aggressive methods Microsoft is using, their neglectful and secretive stance regarding privacy and assuring those with reservations concerning data collection, and their heavy-handed attempts to override user preference and choice with regard to upgrading and using the new OS.

They have seriously bungled their response to user concerns and destroyed a lot of good will in the past year. It's going to take them a long time to earn back my trust.

You thought they had user concern? I mean....Microsoft has never had any user concern, not even the fake "We are building Windows 10 for youuuuu!" thing they did after ousting Homer Simpson and installing Nadella. They've been building terrible operating systems for at least 20 years, now.The cycle is always the same: Put out a terribly buggy new version and then attempt to maintain market share by fixing all of the terrible, terrible problems they've come across since releasing it to the public. The only difference with 10 was that they hosed up twice in a row with 8 and then 8.1 and they were pouring on the honey extra thick to push 10 out the door and save their asses from getting devoured by shareholders. I never interpreted that as any sort of concern, just their usual drive to keep Windows installed on things.

Then again, Windows 10 doesn't annoy me nearly as much as the patently ridiculous way they are trying to enter into 'the cloud.' Their messed up featuring online is what's going to end up killing them. Want Office for 5 people as a household? $10/month total. Want to go one step up and include one other feature, let's say...a bunch of email space? Great, the next feature bundle to include a bunch of email space is $10/month per user - but you lose local applications and have to do everything through a web browser! To get them back locally, it's $15/month per user....Because the office product they are willing to sell for $24 per person per year is totally worth jumping up to $60 per person per year just because it now comes with email space and they call it "business"! :v:

And on the business side, managing the portals to configure different products is like being sprayed in the eyes with lemon juice.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2016 20:41

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

plushpuffin posted:

I think you meant misunderstood what I meant when I said "user concerns", in that I was saying they bungled their response and handling of users' concerns, not that they themselves were concerned with what users thought. I could have been more clear and made the word "user" both plural and possessive, sorry!

That is, indeed, how I took your comment. But at the same time, if they don't care about those users they certainly aren't going to be great in resolving their concerns. :v:

plushpuffin posted:

I never said what you thought I said. I don't believe they were ever really doing anything for the users. They've always been a fairly lovely company making lovely products, and their business tactics have been decidedly anti-consumer from the very start. The difference is that they used to sell products to home users, either directly, or indirectly through OEM licenses, and their services were reserved for businesses.

I really think of that as a marketing shift and not a service provision shift. They have been doing a lot of service provision to users for years, with the difference now being that those services are a monthly cost where before they were buy once and get free forever. After all, automatically updating Windows for the business world came after Windows Update arrived for consumers. The race to the internet for the consumer side is what drove this as there needed to be a way to deploy security updates for the new IE4 for the average idiot.

plushpuffin posted:

It's only recently that they've decided to sell services to end users and treat the users themselves as products. This necessitates a level of trust in their intentions and the uses to which they put their collected data that wasn't really relevant before. It has required me to evaluate them as a company the same way I look at Google, and I've decided that I simply can't trust them, especially given their awful (basically non-existent) handling of the concerns over some of the more controversial features of Windows 10.

Who would you trust? I don't mean that to confront, I'm genuinely curious because I don't trust any of the big three because their agenda is easy: Shareholder Value. Google started out by building an advertising service that is designed to know more about you than you know about yourself. Microsoft, while a late bloomer, is all about this. And while Apple offers security theater, I haven't been convinced that it isn't part of a master plan to install A9s in everyone fillings.

plushpuffin posted:

I'm not sure I ever really trusted them, but I put up with some things, like Windows genuine advantage, because I at least understood the motivation for it and knew that the information they gathered really only served one purpose.

Most of Microsoft's previous detail collection was centered around the operating system and not the user. It was verification and not marketing. That's changed as they want in on the amount of advertising dollars that Google gets. I think Nadella sees it as the only way to keep making lots of money like they did in their Windows and Office heyday.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2016 22:31

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Tab8715 posted:

Have you used other competing products? You can't judge Microsoft in a vacuum.

I feel as if Windows 10 is two steps forward and one step back. It's faster, better and the Windows everyone loves. Personally, I can't stand the lack UI Consistency with Desktop vs Touch applications. For example, OneNote is well polished to be entirely used with touch but Windows Explorer isn't? Outlook has a touch mode but it's clearly incomplete.

The privacy issues are concerning and there ought to be a way to opt-out but that's now the cost of Windows 10.

You can opt-out. Go to Settings -> Privacy. Just start turning off everything you don't want. As you go through the list, just start deselecting everything that lets any apps see your account data (except for any apps you might want to).

Advertising ones would be "Let apps use my advertising ID" in the General section. Also be sure to click the "Managed my Microsoft advertising and other personalization info" link to login with your Microsoft Account on the web and disable the option that says "Personalized ads wherever I use my microsoft account"

Edit:

Tab8715 posted:

Correct, Microsoft has always been sending telemetry data back home for various analysis but now they're re-selling behavioral user data. The biggest cash cows for Microsoft as of now are Office 365 / Azure and this is just extra icing on the cake.

You can send telemetry only, too. In the Settings -> Privacy -> Feedback & diagnostics, change "Ask for my feed back" to "Never" and "Diagnostic and Usage Data" to "Basic"

Arsten fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Mar 25, 2016

# ¿ Mar 25, 2016 22:41

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Tab8715 posted:

I'm strongly confident this doesn't disable everything but it's something at least.

According to Microsoft, setting that to "Basic" sends only telemetry. At "Enhanced" it starts including behavioral data. (Under "What do the different diagnostic and data usage options mean?" question.)

Not a guarantee, of course, but we can only hope they follow their own descriptions.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2016 23:32

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

plushpuffin posted:

That is a good point. It's just seems so stupid to me that they can't be bothered to put forth the bare minimum effort needed to engage with users, and instead they let them stew and bounce crazy ideas off of each other and generate bad press for MS. With all this personal data being collected and stored on their servers, you would think they would understand the importance of establishing trust with their users.

They get nothing from good feelings, though - especially when they are so far behind in drat near every game mainly due to the fact that they previously cared about (or ignored wholesale) that sort of thing.

At the same time:

plushpuffin posted:

I'm not going to call you a hypocrite simply because you use Android while not like the direction that Windows is going. If I wanted to argue Strawberry vs Grape KoolAid, I'd be in GBS. My question, regarding who you care for, isn't pointing at your motivations or to win a point, it's seeing what your thought process on the whole privacy deal is.

I get you, I really do. I, personally, avoid Google because of their tactics - especially in how they handle opt-outs. So far Microsoft seems to be honoring their opt-outs and I'll drop them to minimal use when I find out that they aren't, as well as telling everyone that they aren't trustworthy enough to handle anyone's data. But I value privacy - and I'm probably a little nuttier about it than you.

That being said, my concerns aren't others' concerns. I'll bet that they, like Google before them, make just a metric poo poo load of money from it. As a result, especially given my working field, I need to understand and embrace it (and, of course, learn how to turn it off) and not avoid it.

ilkhan posted:

True.

And anybody else think if you bother to click the x on a notification pop-up it should actually acknowledge that by dismissing the notification completely instead of making you clear it a second time from the action center?

Holy poo poo, this. None of my platforms do this in a way that's useful. Not OS X, iOS, Android, or now Windows will clear the notification area without telling it to go away manually - even if you interact with those programs after the notification. The only platform that does a piece of it right is iOS, which clears the notifications on the lock screen when you unlock so that you can ignore the notification tray almost 100% of the time.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2016 05:21

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

tater_salad posted:

nope it does not I've tried several times and have never gotten a successful backup, desiginated folder is empty, designated folder on other PC is blank.

Edit:
Veem is refusing to install, AV turned off, run as admin.

Any other solutions, I didn't think doing a backup of my local docs would be such a pita.

I haven't been able to get any of the Windows 10 backup options working properly. Not File History. Not Windows Backup. I just ended up running robocopy to a dated-based folder once a day on a NAS that automatically hardlinks twice per day to make it a "differential backup". I should probably get a proper backup solution going, but...eh.

# ¿ Apr 14, 2016 15:10

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Node posted:

Would you mind elaborating on that process?

If I go to the drive's properties, go to the security tab, click advanced, it displays Owner: (Node\Administrators) at the top. In the permission entries, Node\Administrators has full control of the drive.

Here is the complete process, visually. Note that depending on how many files (not the SIZES of the files, but the actual file count) this can take some time. It will also error 100% of the time on System Volume Information and about 50% of the time on $Recycler. Ignore these errors to keep it moving.

The name check step is also slightly wrong, put in the full username of your current account (note that Microsoft accounts don't use the username of email@domain.com they use five or six letters from the start of your email. To see what this is, go to C:\Users\ and see what first several letters match your microsoft account email).

# ¿ Apr 15, 2016 13:40

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

fishmech posted:

Backing it up does nothing to prevent malware, and I doubt your adherence to timely updates considering how upset you are about Windows 10, which forces timely updates. There are so many people who insist on procrastinating on that stuff, and that's how malware is able to spread much faster than it otherwise would.

"hurf blurf windows XP" is a bad reason to support this. Just you wait until they take what they have called the "last version of Windows" into the pay-by-month/pay-by-year realm like they did with Office. Now everyone will be running Windows 10 systems unpatched while the Windows 7 system they upgraded from would have received free patches until, what, 2020? And windows 8.1 ends in 2023. Welcome back to the days of Windows XP.

And even if you don't want to buy that that will happen (just wait, their cash cow needs income to make the shareholders happy), the sheer number of issues with Windows 10 is staggering. File History doesn't even work properly. Plus, the forced updates (that it keeps resetting to with random update installations, by the way, and away from "Ask me to schedule a time" setting) appear to have about six minutes of QA as two separate updates from Windows 10 have forced me to actually restore from backups (once it was nice enough to interrupt my backup to force a restart).

Windows 10 has a lot of teething left to do. People staying on Windows 7 or 8.1 is perfectly fine at this stage and Microsoft forcing an upgrade which is obviously designed to line their pockets (UWP commonality and possible data mining) and do little useful for the users.

I can't want until Windows 10 2017 turns out to be Vista Reborn, driver model and/or performance wise, and see what you think of that forced upgrade. :v:

# ¿ Apr 15, 2016 18:18

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

fishmech posted:

You can still buy the one time payment and updates for about 5 years Office just as you've been able to since 1990. Office 365 is strictly an option.

Right now. But they've already stated that this option was going to come to an end. Whether 2016 is the last version isn't my point.

fishmech posted:

Because not having forced upgrades has been horrible for the internet.

According to comcast, Netflix has been horrible for the internet.

Oh wait, both declarations are statements of self-interest by parties like Microsoft and Comcast who have completely different motives for saying these things in an official capacity. :v:

# ¿ Apr 15, 2016 19:39

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

fishmech posted:

No version is going to be the last version.

Netflix was in fact horrible for the internet because they chose a really stupid way to attempt to deliver their content, which no one else did because they knew it was a terrible idea.

Similarly, people refusing to update their computers or taking forever to do it are provably responsible for massive amounts of malware and other internet crap. This wasn't some idea invented by Microsoft last week.

Funny how Comcast didn't recognize this "horrible distribution method" until after Netflix stopped paying them for data hosting. And how they stopped crying wolf after Netflix started paying them, again, with absolutely no change in their distribution method.

And Satela came out and said that they were going to eventually do away with the stand alone version of Office in one of his early speeches. Since he sets the course of the company, should I listen to him or to you regarding their plans? Or did I miss him or another Microsoft rep buying back that statement?

Eletriarnation posted:

I agree that Microsoft has self-interested reasons to do this, but they also have somewhat legitimate security reasons to do it too so I'm not sure what that changes.

Except that the systems they are force upgrading are just as secure as Windows 10. They aren't giving free upgrades to Windows XP and Vista users. No, the actual systems with security problems are the ones that have EOLed and are no longer the ones getting security updates, and they are the ones they specifically didn't give a free upgrade option to. If they were doing this to Windows 7 systems in 2020, you might be able to make a point, but not in 2016, FOUR YEARS BEFORE Windows 7 might stop being as secure as Windows 10.

There is a term applied to the TSA that I believe is applicable here: Security Theater. It makes some people feel safe but does nothing but waste most peoples' time without an actual benefit to them.

Sir Unimaginative posted:

What conditions would qualify, to your satisfaction, as "time to do it properly" and "a desire to make the change"?

I can't speak for him, but there are a lot of teething issues with Windows 10 that Microsoft straight up doesn't acknowledge as issues. They obviously don't give any thought or care about the user, they care about the developer reach of UWP.

# ¿ Apr 15, 2016 20:48

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

fishmech posted:

Uh, because the thing they were doing before was the industry standard, and then they tried to save a few million a year by switching to an alternate method that's a major issue at their traffic load. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc - all the huge bandwidth companies have stuck to in-network CDNs long ago because it's more reliable as compared to doing poo poo outside the networks and hoping other networks can negotiate link upgrades on your behalf.

There were radical changes in the Netflix distribution method when they went to having normal CDNs and private links to trying to use interconnect networks as a CDN provider.

And yet, that's still what they do - they just cut a check to Comcast, now. Different =/= Worse. If it did, Windows 10 wouldn't be worth forcing onto others in your mind.

fishmech posted:

They've wanted to "eventually" do that for over a decade, but it's unlikely to ever actually happen because a lot of their business really prefers the normal system.

You obviously don't know how the Office volume licenses have moved in the last decade. Here's a hint: It's per user for applications that upgrade automatically (first step was updating office via Windows update). Sure, you can stay on 2010/2013 this time around with your licensing, but the "stand-alone" version of 2016 functions identically to the 365 version. How long until the licensing follows the code base? Not long based on Microsoft's burning desire to be a grown up cloud provider.

Eletriarnation posted:

7 and 8 can be secure but don't force security updates in the same way that 10 does, which is a problem when you're talking about people that don't know or don't care to update like I said before. Microsoft has decided that it makes sense to force people to install updates on 10 so it kind of makes sense that they are going to force people to upgrade to 10 too.

It would be really weird for them to offer free upgrades from XP to 10 in part because XP has already been EoL for a while and in part because all the machines running XP are old as hell, most incapable of running Windows 10 well. The same applies to Vista, just not as strongly.

How many people are still running Vista, even? I figured everyone would have long since upgraded to 7 or retired those machines, since it's not like Vista offers lighter hardware requirements than 7 as a reason to not upgrade.

But, if they cared about user security, they would have simply released a patch that automatically installs security updates to 7 and 8 users (it's already the default option). Unobtrusive. Doesn't move people to an environment they are unfamiliar with. Doesn't harass them constantly to upgrade. Is not security theater.

Now, it's true that XP and Vista (i only brought that up because it has been EOLed already, not because of a huge user base) are dead, but those are the systems that are still the internet problem. Offer free upgrades to Chinese and Russian users of Windows XP and most of that problem goes away. But Microsoft isn't interested in security. They care about UWP. So they release a harassment to upgrade and pay lip service to security amongst other things to convince and cajole people into adopting what will make them feel relevant, again.

# ¿ Apr 15, 2016 21:44

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

SIR FAT JONY IVES posted:

So the Windows 10 update nagging has got me finally ready to upgrade my HTPC. It's the only Windows PC I have. I'm a little concerned about my way out, I know you can roll back from Win10 to Win8 internally, but I'm wondering about a full reinstall, should it come to that.

The issue is my HTPC was first running Windows Vista, then updated to Win7, and then Win8, now Win8.1. I'm not sure what media to use to reinstall the OS, and what CD Key to use. I really have no idea. I have an OEM Windows Vista code, but I'm not sure where it ended up. If I did install Win10 and had to flatten and reinstall, I have no idea what to do.

If you run the update from the little window, you don't need to supply a key.

And, after the install, if you want a factory-reset, there is a place to do that within Win 10 itself. It's really easy that way. You can then roll back to 8 if something goes completely wrong by installing 7 without a key and then upgrading to Windows 8 with your 8. Key.

# ¿ Apr 15, 2016 21:59

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

fishmech posted:

No, dude, they're doing something different - the thing they had been doing before they switched to Level 3 for CDN service, the thing every other big time bandwidth users does. There are huge differences in structure of your data delivery when you have CDNs hosted inside ISP networks versus relying on CDNs being hosted outside all of them.

No, Netflix is still hosting with L3 and, I believe, Cogent. Comcast throttled Netflix content through all access lanes Netflix could buy (which was from fix or six interconnect networks, iirc) until it was sub-SD quality and Netflix now pays them to not congest their connections. They are still pushing and developing Open Connect and working to setup a distribution system outside of terminating internet providers. You can find this all in Netflix's filing with the FCC.

fishmech posted:

And you obviously don't know that none of that means that Office standalones are going to go away.

They have been working for a decade specifically to make this happen. And the new CEO has accelerated this model's licensing penetration and tied it into their other major initiative, which is the cloud push where this licensing model is king. Why on earth do you think that means that stand alone versions will just magically stay forever?

Eletriarnation posted:

If they put out a patch that looked like any other and caused all updates to become automatic, you would have people complaining about how Microsoft slipped them this update and now they can't control their Windows 7 anymore and have to reinstall everything instead of how Microsoft slipped them this upgrade and now they are running Windows 10 and have to rollback. Not only that, but they'd still be on 7 and 8 and Microsoft would still be pushing out all these updates to 7 and 8 until EoL and then these people would be insecure unless they one day decided to upgrade. The entire point is to get as many people as possible off of 7 and 8.

And people can not install that update (or uninstall that one update, because you can still do that even on Win10). But that's aside from the point: This is an easy thing to do that shows a commitment to security.

Heck, let's just concentrate on Windows 10 security: Why haven't they enforced UAC at the level it was turned on by default in Vista? That would stop a whole slew of issues from arising. Especially if they lock it to the top tier of UAC. That would put them in line, system security wise, with both OS X and Linux. Similar question: Why haven't they enforced development on system vs user app installations? Not that this is done en masse on either Linux or OS X, but both have the ability to install and run applications from the User environment.

Both of these, on Windows 10 and without even invoking 7/8, would demonstrate that this is more than security theater. But it's not. 10 isn't fundamentally more secure because of automatic updates (which you can disable entirely) and a great many 7 and 8 systems get automatic updates out of the box, as that is how it's configured.

Eletriarnation posted:

A lot of the XP copies out there in China and Russia are not activated with legit licenses and wouldn't get free upgrades to 10 even if that were offered to XP and Vista. Also, I suspect that Microsoft really doesn't want to waste development time on an upgrade process for XP and Vista too, considering how few people would benefit and how it would probably be an awful mess for XP at least.

True, but a lot of copies are legit. And that issue dwarfs by several orders of magnitude any issue we may see today in the first world relating to security and Windows 7/8 - and they aren't going away anytime soon as no real efforts have been made to get these issues resolved outside of an occasional idea to make stock holders happy (like Windows XP's activation, which was targeting how much Win2k was pirated, but was cracked pre-release).

Eletriarnation posted:

You can say it's all about UWP, but what you are suggesting would be at least as much of a pain in the rear end for them as what they are doing and would be a lot less effective at accomplishing other legitimate goals.

What I am saying is that this has nothing to do with a goal of "Security" and everything to do with all of their other goals for where they want both Windows (in all three flavors) and their developer support to be.

I simply think it should be an optional upgrade, not a "We are going to install in 15 minutes unless you click here to stop me!" style thing where getting a cup of coffee and talking to a spouse can potentially ruin your morning and/or the several following days. As I noted before, Windows 10 is still teething. I love it and use it as my main Windows system, but I have see quite a few catastrophes arise from the automatic installation and the excuse that "it's for security!!!" just doesn't fly when it is obviously to pursue their own ends. Someone wanting to play it safe and not upgrade for a year after release is not some crazy guy avoiding all security updates while he touches himself with rats in a box in an alley off of Times Square. In reality, it's probably a person who has been burned by Microsoft products, before.

# ¿ Apr 15, 2016 23:40

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

fishmech posted:

Incorrect. Netflix has returned to inside-major-ISP hosting, although they still use L3 and Cogent services for minor ISPs. There was absolutely no throttling of Netflix, the links overloaded and they still have never been upgraded - they returned to in-network hosting and private links so the interconnect network overloading stopped. You're also submitting a filing from freaking 2014, of course it's not going to tell you what they're doing now!

Yes, which included the time after their agreement with Comcast and after the congestion cleared up. Also, it wasn't those links specifically (because they bought access to links from carriers that had good peering links with Comcast, they didn't only use L3) it was Netflix traffic specifically. Netflix traffic was specifically lovely for Comcast subscribers and other external traffic was fine.

If this were a hardware congestion issue all external traffic would have been affected, not just between Comcast and Netflix. That means everyone trying to do stupid poo poo like play games on Euro servers from Illinois wouldn't have been able to because the external congestion would have created latency that was unplayable. But, of course, that didn't actually happen, which means it was throttled.

fishmech posted:

It doesn't matter, because it's not going to actually happen.

Sure it won't.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2016 00:01

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

fishmech posted:

This is incorrect. Other services that could only be delivered over those links suffered at the same time Netflix streaming had issues. The only ISP that was actually suspected of throttling was Verizon, and that was only for customers on Verizon Wireless. Of course, most other websites out there either used in-network CDNs like a sane company, or were using low amounts of bandwidth relatively, and could be accessed through multiple interconnect networks. But Netflix traffic was solely coming though certain sets of links.

No, not all external traffic, because again there were and are multiple different interconnect providers and most services could fail over to a different link. Netflix was not throttled except by Verizon for Verizon Wireless customers. Very few other services on the net were exclusively available through the links that Netflix became exclusively available for. And notably, Level 3 and Cogent did not notice throttling occurring, which they would have been in a position to see. What they were reporting was completely oversaturated links to tons of major ISPs at peak Netflix times, not links with plenty of bandwidth to spare and only Netflix connections slowed! That's why what they were after was to strike deals to upgrade links to support the services they were trying to sell to networks.

I also want to note that Netflix had been using the stupid system of refusing to internally host under standard terms for several years before they started having problems, because Netflix streaming traffic was simply not a big enough load to cause issues. If there was going to be throttling to spite Netflix, that would have started within months of the first changeover, not years later when traffic had grown significantly.

Wow, you have that wrong. It started with Netflix jumping over to L3. Comcast refused to upgrade the L3 links because Netflix was an L3 customer. This was how it started out, right after Netflix abandoned ship. Then Netflix signed a deal with Cogent, which was near capacity on its links to Comcast and when it maxed those links, Cogent asked Comcast to do what they had a long history of doing: Upgrading those links. Comcast refused. Cogent's CEO even noted that this was completely different than each and every time the data congestion hit max in the past. Note that after Netflix signed the deal, Comcast upgraded with Cogent. Then Netflix got with Tata, Telia, XO, and NTT and, suddenly, all of those links simply couldn't handle the load, even when spread across all six interconnects. And, yet, other ISPs weren't having these issue with those same six interconnects. The other major American ground ISPs weren't having anywhere near the same amount of issues with Netflix quality.

On top of that, you have this same strategy being used by Comcast before with Voxel (On Talia, I think) in 2010, which didn't use anywhere near the amount of data that Netflix did.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2016 00:41

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

fishmech posted:

Uh according to Netflix themselves and Level 3 and Cogent it wasn't just Comcast they had issues with, it was also Verizon, AT&T and several other cable companies. The main reason it was different from every time there had been congestion in the past was that never before was it just one company trying to push so much data on its own. And in fact, according to Netflix's reports, Verizon had the most problems with them. The only major cable companies that didn't have issues with Netflix were ones that had signed on to Netflix's special program for bringing in in-network CDN stuff again, but this time the cable company paying Netflix instead of Netflix paying standard rates for hosting.

You're basically using peak congestion that other networks experiencing to say that Comcast doing what it had to do, when, if you had even looked at the information provided by Netflix you could see that the other providers averaged around 720p (the OCA using ISPs averaged closer to 1080). Comcast, alone, averaged sub SD quality and specifically took steps to ensure it stayed that way until they got their money.

fishmech posted:

You're basically talking about bullshit that marginally competent internet nerds came up with to excuse netflix.

Hilarious, coming from the person who outright dismisses information and thinks that an Open Connect appliance costs money. If you are an ISP, they give you them for free. You pay money if you want to distribute content on Open Connect, which is a completely different matter.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2016 01:37

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

An Angry Bug posted:

Netfix revealed the woeful state of the infrastructure that those companies caused by embezzling funds they were given to upgrade it. All of them doing it at once isn't an excuse.

I thought the government money was paid to telephone companies. While Comcast was once AT&T@Home, how much of that did really went to the non-telephone companies? I'm under the impression that not much did.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2016 01:38

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

fishmech posted:

Comcast was never ATT@Home, though they did buy out ATT's cable business.

When the government gave a bunch of money to telcoms and cable companies int he 90s for 90s standard broadband (definition: about 512 kilobits) they instead primarily invested that money into building out the cellular network, fiber backbones, and preparing the way for serious backhaul from cell towers.

I wish my cell towers had serious backhaul.

fishmech posted:

I get that you really love Netflix but you're repeating things that simply aren't true.

I have no specific love for Netflix and, having worked with them deploying an OCA to a small time ISP (which paid nothing for said OCA, by the way), I wish they would accidentally burn. But this situation was clearly manipulated by Comcast for their own gain.

But I think we've derailed this enough. :hfive:

# ¿ Apr 16, 2016 02:25

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Eletriarnation posted:

OK, so if people can just choose not to do it then you're back at the place where you have to rely on user choice to make the user secure for the most part. The point for Microsoft is taking that choice away because many people make the wrong decision. This is putting you directly at odds with them because you have confidence in your own ability to make the choice, which is understandable, but this is what you get when you share an OS with a lot of people who don't know what they are doing and it has a developer that caters to those users.

Some people are always going to make the wrong decision. Always. Even with Windows 10, you are going to find people in your travels that haven't updated since it went Gold, automatic updates not withstanding. Why? Because you can disable windows update in easy ways that are all over Google. Plus, Updates aren't Security. They are Updates. You can find multiple instances of Microsoft either having to patch the same vulnerability multiple times or patching a vulnerability and immediately introducing another without going too far back and on systems they update right here right now.

And, note, that now they aren't just rolling out security updates - they are rolling out software and feature updates. When in the history of Microsoft has this ever been without a host of new bugs?

So, saying "well, it's automatically updated! You'll not find unupdated Windows boxes anymore!" is ridiculously hopeful and bordering on naive. The first page of Google hits shows at least four different methods (one of them is even on the Microsoft Answers community site!), two of which are five steps, to completely disable updates. And those will be searched and followed the first time you inconvenience someone with an update reboot.

Eletriarnation posted:

How would you fix security for Windows XP and Vista? Are you really saying that they should offer Windows 10 upgrades to everyone who has XP and Vista (and what about people who don't meet min spec) to remain ideologically consistent? What about if the XP users decide not to upgrade too, should Microsoft put out security updates for XP forever to demonstrate that they're really serious about security?

You're taking that to an extreme. I offered those as a real "problem area" elder systems and security, which isn't a significant problem in the western world. I also offered fixes to Windows 10, without bringing up 7/8 (or XP) that would show actual security changes that would lend truth to the statement that Windows 10 was more secure. But they aren't doing anything to make it more secure - not even the simple things that other OSs have had for decades.

Eletriarnation posted:

Are you sure you're not making the perfect the enemy of the good here?

If that was the case, I'd be complaining that the upgrades that have happened haven't stopped people from disabling 10's windows update. I am specifically saying that "updates" do not equal "security". This idea is further confounded by the fact that all three OSs - 7, 8, and 10 - currently supported by Microsoft will get those same updates.

Eletriarnation posted:

Fundamentally I agree with you that Microsoft shouldn't be force-upgrading people's machines, but I agree from a standpoint of being nice to people. I don't think that being nice to people here really serves their interests, even the security ones - they are a for profit company and I expect them to be evil if it is profitable. If you don't want to deal with that, the only way to be sure is to flatten and install Linux.

And I don't think you're crazy to not upgrade for a while but you need to understand that you are actively resisting Microsoft's declared will so you really ought to not be surprised when they pull a fast one on you.

And Microsoft (and you) ought not be surprised when people get upset by it, either. Bringing up platitudes about how it's "ultra secure because updates!" is not only false, but it's not a fix to the problem(s) that were caused for them. Someone getting tossed out a 10th floor window onto the street below and having bystanders go "Hey, at least you got fresh air, now" aren't having their problems fixed. They need the paramedics (or coroner).

And people won't install Linux, they'll just find some way to take back their feeling of control, like disabling WU so it never happens again if they stay with 10 or by using the uninstall feature (and then using the restore option from their shitbox Dell when that fails).

We obviously aren't going to agree. We should cut this and get some beers.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2016 06:54

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Khablam posted:

Windows 10 is more secure by design even ignoring the updates issue and this is particularly true in the enterprise version with Device Guard and Credential Guard / EDP.

Except the few additional security features are only great for enterprise. Enterprise IT is not where the security problems are. And the upgrades aren't free for Enterprise, either.

Khablam posted:

UAC is enabled out of the box for home, just not on maximum as people like you whine and go "my computer i am smart enough why ask" and react by turning it completely off.

You obviously aren't paying attention to what I've said.

Khablam posted:

They've also improved Defender, smartscreen, EUFI secureboot is new, and a host of other security features.

Defender is a stand alone program that shares a code base with both MSE and Endpoint. The fact that these improvements are only in Windows 10 is a testament to why this upgrade push isn't about security. Smart screen's improvements are shared back to Windows 8.1. UEFI Secure boot is also available in 8.

Khablam posted:

Also you're missing the point. It's not "for security" as much as "making several older versions of Windows secure is more costly than one".

... Which they will be doing regardless of Windows 10 adoption because they have a support end date of 2020 for the oldest currently supported version.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2016 19:20

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Khablam posted:

Locking it to the top is a complete non-starter given the pushback on Vista trying to do that. The settings at the moment are perfectly logical and a good match of security without annoyance.
e: your argument "it's not about security or MS would be motivated to do X" is a non-starter when they have done X in the past and gotten a bad rap for it. Why would they be motivated to do the same thing, again?

They wouldn't have any where near the issues from UAC because the timing is very different. UAC was implemented after 25 years of applications being written to run as administrators 100% of the time (because it made their lives easy). It caused no end of problems because absolutely no developer seemed to even bother to update their applications after VIsta's release. The options their support presented for several years was "Turn off UAC" or "Go back to XP." This is no longer the case with most developers (though I have run into a few of them on the Enterprise side). Moving it up to max wouldn't significantly affect any general user in their day-to-day.

Khablam posted:

Do you not understand the concept of 'going forward...' or do you think to solve the issue further MS should have reneged on the support of existing OSes? You can fix the problem going forward whilst still supporting existing OSes in the manner you said you would.
I don't know why you're painting this as either/or.

"Solve this issue going forward"? What issue are you trying to solve, hm? Are you basically saying that Windows 10 is a security-oriented upgrade because at some point in the future, Microsoft might release a new feature that's enough of a security road block to cause a shift in security management that will leave 7 and 8 in the dust? Microsoft has done that sort of thing all of four times in 20 years. It may happen, but I'm skeptical - and I'm certainly skeptical it'll be any time soon should it even be on the books.

But, there are 100s of ways, if Microsoft was actually interested in security, there are dozens of things they could do to make life more secure without causing an uproar or forcing their new system on people. But, if they force their new system on people, they get what they need: A relevant platform for developers to target and that will enhance their phone offerings to Enterprise.

Khablam posted:

The "waaa my computer" crew would throw a bitch-fit that they couldn't turn it off, and you know it.

Yes, they would. But it's not like they couldn't disable it - they always do. Take automatic updates: it can be disabled in five steps and multiple methods are all over a quick Google search, so yeah, they would whine. But they whine about every feature change across every operating system, find a way to disable it, and move on.

It is odd, to me, that you are saying that doing any changes to make Windows 10 more secure than 8 or 7 in most cases is bad because people will complain....but somehow doing something far more intrusive that people are already complaining about is okay. Why can't you see to it to let people decide to stay with 7 and pay for 10 on their own next year, or when they buy their next Dell?

This Windows 10 upgrade does not offer more security to those that upgrade. It offers new features (Edge, Hello, App Store, Cortana, Continuum, etc) and is free at the moment (and gets you out of tiles, if that was your rage-against-the-man thing in 8.1) and those are fantastic reasons to upgrade.

You may also note that Microsoft itself isn't saying Windows 10 is more secure than 7 or 8. If you check their feature comparison between the versions. "Powerful security" is checked on 7, 8 and 10 with no caveats or fine print delineating the security provided amongst the three. They are rightfully advertising the myriad features of Windows 10. The closest features to have a security bent are Device Guard (which is really just an extension of the File Download Security Warning) and Hello.

Arsten fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Apr 16, 2016

# ¿ Apr 16, 2016 22:06

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Khablam posted:

Also Arsten guy, citing a features checklist isn't really indicative of anything.

It means Microsoft, themselves, aren't saying what you are: that this is an upgrade centered around security. If it was, their feature list would go "Powerful Security, yes. But Windows 10 has Nuclear Power Security" or whatever descriptor they love.

Khablam posted:

Also you're missing the point. It's not "for security" as much as "making several older versions of Windows secure is more costly than one".

Yes, of course, you've said this twice. And both times i've responded, you've refused to understand why it's a pointless statement to make.

Khablam posted:

You seem set on the here and now, and seem incapable of looking forward.

It's not about solving issues today, it's about (and I don't specifically know how many times I need to say it...) going forward.

When you talk about going forward you don't take the wild-assed guess approach, you look at where we are in the present day, how we got to where we are, and then extrapolate towards the future. You seem incapable of doing this and are assuming that it is already 2021 with all users of Windows 7 reliving the Windows XP Mad Max Thunderdome where they don't get security updates any more.

Khablam posted:

Imagine if you will the year is 2021.
You have two scenarios:
1) They just stuck Win10 out there and it gets Win8 like adoption rates
2) They do what they're doing now.

So the two options are "Wait for Win7 security updates to stop and then release Windows 10" vs "Force Windows 10 upgrades on people who are reluctant to upgrade right this second in 2016"? That's patently ridiculous. What they should do is what they have started doing again: Drop new versions of Windows every 2 years (Even if it's in the form of Windows 10-2017/etc) and let the people come over naturally in the remaining four to seven year window that exists for 7 and 8, which was already happening from 7 to 8.1 before 10 dropped.

Now that 10 dropped, businesses are vetting for upgrade. The 50 or 60% of the remaining users of Windows 7 which are businesses will be moving in the next two years or so making sure that they don't hit the 2020 update deadline. But, then, this free upgrade doesn't affect them, even if they were to abandon all common sense and upgrade right now. The remaining consumers after that point that are still on 7 will migrate slowly over, with very few percentage points remaining by 2020.

This would have happened without the free consumer upgrade - but Microsoft needs you on 10 as quickly as possible for completely different reasons.

Khablam posted:

Arguing lowering your attack surface / duration is pointless because "if they wanted that they would force UAC" is just silly.

For the third time, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that the point of this forced upgrade to get people to Windows 10 has nothing to do with Microsoft wanting security enhancements, now or in 2021, or some sort of fear about a new Windows XP. It is all about where they want to position their company in the next 2-4 years. I say this for many reasons, among them is the note that there are at least a dozen low-hanging security fruits they could actually change to make security better (among them UAC, not concentrating on UAC) as well as marketing about security, which they also aren't doing.

If you aren't going to add anything to your argument, we might as well stop our circular thread making GBS threads. Have a beer, goon.

Arsten fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Apr 17, 2016

# ¿ Apr 17, 2016 05:51

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Node posted:

This long derail kinda got my previous question lost in the middle of it. How can I import Outlook's email history from Windows 7 (on another drive) to Windows 10's default email program?

I can, and probably will, change to a different email program but for now I'm just going to stick with this fancy thing that is stock Windows 10 software.

Unfortunately, you can't via Windows/Microsoft tools. Mail doesn't support things like PSTs, so if you can connect to an IMAP server where you email is hosted you can access it that way, but downloaded messages won't be able to go from Outlook to Mail.

Can you transfer the Outlook license to the new PC or is it stuck with the old PC?

If it's stuck with the old PC, there is the option of MailStore Home, which you can use to import all of the old PC's Outlook mails to a portable archive that you can then move to the New PC and export to Mail.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2016 06:54

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Node posted:

I have the old drive in the new PC. I just read about transferring licenses, and it kinda went over my head. But I suppose it is possible. Since it is, what do I do from there?

Thank you both for your replies.

If the license is transferrable, toss the CD into the drive and use the CD Key and install Office to use Outlook directly (or, if it's a 365 install, login to your account and install from the stub file they provide on there), then copy over your data files, usually located in "My Documents\Outlook Files" for files you made yourself. You can then add them to your new Outlook via File -> Options -> Account Setings -> Data Files -> Add button.

In general, Office is not transferrable if you bought it from an OEM (e.g. you bought it preinstalled with your Dell). Office is transferrable if you purchased it as a software box/download from a box store or a web dealer, or via Office 365 .

# ¿ Apr 17, 2016 07:10

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Node posted:

I just had it installed with Windows. I guess it isn't worth the trouble. Thanks anyways.

I'm surprised, I didn't know importing email would require so many hoops to jump through.

It's sad, but a lot of mail clients don't want you to be able to jump ship easily.

I do still recommend MailStore Home. As long as you still have the Outlook data file (PST) around, it should be able to extract the emails for you and then turn around and push them into Mail or other formats, should you wish to change to another program in the future.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2016 07:17

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Khablam posted:

No, the opposite. I'm imagining it's 2016 and MS are trying to ensure 2021 looks how they want it to for their company. Since you have to make changes now, to see them in the future. You can't keep doing the same thing (releasing every 2 years and adding to the problem) and then wishing you had started solving the problem in 2016, when you have more people dribbling into new versions based on new hardware purchases, with no significant bulk uptake of any version.
It's literally a 5 year plan.

I guess we just won't agree on seeing that the same way.

Honestly, i think it's because you don't see XP as the aberration it was. The reason it stuck around for so long is because Microsoft fumbled the ball repeatedly (an entire OS dev cycle dropped, a second dev cycle resulting in a vastly different OS model in Vista). The reason that Windows 7 was adopted like a flood gate was because of pent up demand by business. After spending two to three years vetting and upgrading, they were not going to do the same for 8/8.1 (especially after all of the troubles that 8 had out of the gate) and were planning on moving to the next OS.

Businesses are already vetting 10 and most of them will transition to 10 long before 2020. The consumers that are still on 7 will upgrade when their 4-6 year window hits (mainly when the dust builds up and their old PC catches on fire) will have used 10 at work and be comfortable enough that their next shitbox will come with it installed without them attempting a downgrade. The shift from 7 was going to happen organically, just like it did before XP.

And all of this is because of the historical 2-year revision cycle - a cycle that isn't going away with 10, it's just changing shape. Heck, by the time that 10-2017's feature release rolls around, I expect businesses to make full use of the slow ring to slow down updates enough to review them (and, if the 6 months isn't enough time, I expect them to demand a "business" ring).

The giant push by Microsoft is about Platform. They got badly beaten by mobile and their own efforts to combat the problem have failed repeatedly. Their current effort demands as many windows 10 devices capable of UWP as possible. As I noted, this is about where they want their company to be before even the Windows 7 update deadline comes in.

Sir Unimaginative posted:

I don't think even Microsoft believes the Windows Store is nearly a profit center right now.

... Then again they're still under the delusion that "a million apps" matters, especially when 99.someodd% of apps are somewhere between worthless and malicious, when they should know that competing on quantity is dumb as hell.

Imagine an app store that actually curated their apps, and not in the 'a person looked at (rubber-stamped) it what more do you want' sense. Maybe MS should try that. Really they have to already because Xbox, so it's more an expansion of existing protocols than an invention of new ones.

That's a labor intensive process. You can do that for something like games because you can drop 4-8 hours into one and get a good feel for it and only have 200 more in the queue to get through. Imagine dropping even 2 hours into each and every app that's posted. I think you run out of man hours available very quickly, which is why Apple basically checks for exploits and that it's not something that will get them bad press like a pornhub streaming app and then moves on.

The "number of apps" thing seems to be because it's an internal metric that each company uses to gauge initial penetration of their store. Both iOS and Android touted those numbers at one point. iOS switched over to "downloads" for awhile and then both dropped the subject as a talking point.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2016 14:32

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

surf rock posted:

Something I haven't been able to figure out yet with the Windows 10 upgrade for existing Windows 7/8 users: if you click that pop-up and download Windows 10 or whatever, do you have to install it and actually run the upgrade before the end of July to get it free? Or do you just have to download it for it to be free, then you can install it whenever you want? I kind of want to wait until mid-2017 to reduce the odds of missing drivers and other gently caress-ups, but I don't know if I'll lose the free upgrade if I don't install it by July 29.

Or, alternatively, will clicking the notification box and downloading it auto-install it? Am I incorrectly assuming that this is a two-step process instead of a one-step process?[/quote[
You must do an actual upgrade installation before their "Free Upgrade" window expires. They have stated that this will be 1 year from release (e.g. July 2016) but they may extend it - there is no word on if this is happening.

If you want the free upgrade, but you want to wait for whatever reason, use something to make a disk image of your system as it is on 7. Then upgrade. If you really, really hate 10, you can downgrade within the first 30 days (and if the downgrade fails, you can restore from the disk image you made). Your current hardware configuration will be able to run 10 in the future.

[quote="surf rock" post="458838743"]- Am I understanding the conversation correctly on this page that I'll lose my Office 2013 through the upgrade, because it was installed by Lenovo at the factory or whatever and not by me?

No. An OEM license means it needs to be used on the same hardware. Thus, if you are going to buy a new computer and you have an OEM version of the software, you cannot legally install it on the new laptop. Look at the key sticker that came with Office for your Dell. If the sticker says "Bundled" or "OEM" on it, it is restricted to your system. If it doesn't, you should be able to install it on your new system. This is how an OEM license works.

Just upgrading yourself to a new windows version does not invalidate your license to use it on the hardware it was purchased on. You can move from 7 to 10 (or to Linux) and still run that software on that hardware.

surf rock posted:

- I currently use Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer for various things. Chrome is my main work browser, IE is my back-up work browser for when Chrome doesn't work, and Firefox is my non-work browser. My understanding is that a new browser, Edge, is replacing IE. Will my bookmarks/history auto-transfer with Chrome/Firefox? And, will my IE stuff get auto-imported into Edge?

IE will not be updated, outside of security patches, from here on out. Edge is the replacement (it's not yet much of one, though it's been getting better with the last few updates) to IE. If you upgrade your system as it stands, all of your applications will come along for the ride, including any profiles and bookmarks you created within Chrome and Firefox (and IE). When you run Edge for the first time, it will offer to import all of your IE stuff.

Are you backing up your Chrome/Firefox bookmarks and configurations through their sync features? You should sign up for and utilize those just in case.

Khablam posted:

I'm going to agree to disagree on this. Windows 7 has all the same hallmarks as XP as an OS that will go completely EOL with people still clammering to stay on it. Just look at the complete outrage here, and elsewhere, about MS offering them a free upgrade.
Couple the usual inertia to self-proclaimed experts and bloggers writing their 'why 7 is my OS forever <3' pieces and you have the complete recipe for it. You even have the same usual suspects of scaremongers with an audience warning their audience against it and writing lovely tools to prevent updates (comically doesn't disable backported telemetry it claims is the reason to stop the update).

People clamor to stay on every other system, though. A politician lies and luddites love the past. These people will always be there no matter what. Catering to them is a waste of resources because they will never be happy until you recreate the perfect Windows 98 FE environment for them to exist in. (Also, Gibson research. Really? Really?)

And 7 really doesn't have any of those. Remember that the anchor that kept XP around so long was two-fold: multiple fuckups that culminated in 7 (which is mirrored in multiple fuckups that culminated in 10 - Microsoft is really good at screwing themselves via development) and businesses (who are already planning to upgrade). Once people use 10 at work and learn its quircks, they aren't going to care about the static people give it. This has always been the case. Just look at XP and all of the people swearing to use Windows 2000 until the end of time. Most of those people went over to XP because business adoption allowed them to use it and go "Meh. It's not really a big deal."

Khablam posted:

Do you think 10 would have better adoption than 8/8.1 if it wasn't being pushed this hard?

Right now? No. By 2020? Yes.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2016 15:38

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

An Angry Bug posted:

So even after I fully canceled the upgrade, Windows is pretending nothing happened and is giving the same pop-ups asking "when do you want to upgrade?". What gives?

It will nag you forever and it will download the installation files in the background. According to many, it will randomly startup a countdown you have to stop or it will begin installation.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2016 15:41

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

fishmech posted:

The primary reason XP was an aberration is that the original plan was to have its successor, which became Vista, in 2004, 3 years after launch, the normal Windows cycle. Instead Microsoft dedicated a ton of effort to XP SP2, which while patching up a bunch of problems, delayed Vista work heavily, which is why it only came out in 2006.

True, but that came about because they had to restart Vista development in the middle of the normal cycle, which is the whole reason they slowed Vista development for XP SP2. XP pre-SP2 was really a Windows 98-style "Securi-wha?" type of system. SP2 was supposed to cork some holes in a sinking ship.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2016 16:00

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Khablam posted:

But they don't. People have upgraded from 8 PDQ but haven't from 7, in much the same way people upgraded from Vista to 7 but not as rapidly from XP.
I see all the same hallmarks of 7 being an OS people want to ride to EOL in the same way they did 7; to these people 7 is their new XP.
No need to take my word for this either, tracking adoption rates pretty much shows this - 8 lost a huge chunk of it's userbase immediately on 10's release, whilst 7 shed some but kept the largest install-base still.

If people are more willing to drop the newer OS, than the older one, that's highly indicative of the attachment people have for their system.

My error, "Every other" was referring to "Every other version of windows" e.g. XP -> 7 ->10. The only reason XP shifted to 7 so quick was a huge pent-up demand after having no "good" new system to update to in nine years - both consumer and business. This is not the normal pattern for new Windows OSs. About a year to a year and a half in on 2000, businesses shifted from NT4. Those that were on 9x shifted to Windows XP about six months after release, followed about one to two years later by the businesses that were on 2000. Had the dev cycle not been screwed, it would have gone like this: 2000 -> Vista -> 8 with the other 9x -> XP -> 7 -> 10 (assuming all of the releases were the normal 2-2.5 year release cycles that Windows followed until XP and has resumed Vista+)

Had those two business cycles not converged on XP, the update of 7 would not have been like it was. Like I've noted repeatedly: Business is on 7. It will shift en masse and deflate that 7 number significantly. Business is also who this free upgrade doesn't touch, which means, if this is about an outlook on security, they are ignoring the biggest group of users that will stay the longest on 7.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2016 19:55

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Khablam posted:

This still isn't true, though. Adoption of 10 enterprise has been very strong so far and lots are gearing to switch this year. MS have been touting the business user migration in particular in their stats (something like 20-25% of business users in large companies began migration in the first 10 weeks).

I think it's very clear MS want people onto their one-OS-forever track ASAP, and I assume you agree with that. I definitely think the motivation is to stop there being more "Vistas, MEs and 8s" in the future; OSes with fringe userbases that MS have to back-port all their fixes to because of their extreme support lengths.

I guess that's where you disagree.

Except that they aren't back porting all that much. Many to most of the security patches that are released are extremely similar between 7, 8, and 10. Core system components are fairly harmonious. Additionally, they are on the hook for "back ports" until 2020 for 7 and 2023 for 8 no matter what. After those points, they offer no more support.

What's more, they have a system split into 3 update rings: Insider, Fast, and Slow. Critical updates hit all three at the same time. So they obviously have a version control method, like every good dev shop ever, that can merge changes across branches.

So what, exactly, are they saving themselves from in the security regard by switching people today? All-but nothing. Now, what are they gaining? UWP leverage to increase their penetration into mobile, especially Enterprise mobile. Leverage into the x86 tablet space. Leverage from people and especially business jumping ship to Mac or Linux. Positioning for greater adoption of their cloud services, consumer and business.

if this upgrade push was happening in 2019, I'd agree it was a frantic dash to get people off of a system that was about to expire. But the efforts, today, are for money. That there may be some effect on security in four years may be icing, but it's certainly not the point of the effort.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2016 22:42

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Space Cadet posted:

My experience was that even closing the countdown timer window didn't stop it as I am not posting from Windows 10, once you see that countdown timer you can defer it until a time they make you set or your 15 minutes but either way once that ball gets rolling you get upgraded.

I've gotten multiple conflicting reports about that window. it almost makes me want to experience it for myself......almost.

My fringe situation makes me lucky that I didn't have to deal with it.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2016 03:47

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

dpbjinc posted:

Don't forget that Microsoft still has to support XP until 2019 due to POSready.

Well, yes - but that was also released in 2009. That's pretty much their own fault that they re-released an XP product at the same time as Windows 7. The original XP embedded products expired before the rest of XP somewhere in 2010 or 2011.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2016 12:00

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

THE DOG HOUSE posted:

I feel like I already know the answer to this but is there a way to upgrade a Windows 7 license to Windows 10 without assigning it to hardware? I have an unused Windows 7 pro key but I am not going to conceivably use it before the deadline

No, the upgrades all create a hardware ID and it will automatically authenticate if installed on that hardware in the future.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2016 22:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:42

Arsten: Feb 18, 2003

Are there any known issues between Windows 10's VHDX mount and the rest of the system?

I create and then attach a VHDX and format it, the place it on a drive letter, and everything works without a hitch. Then I throw a bunch of files on it and the files are "slow" to show up. They don't show up immediately after the copy, they just pop up after awhile. I tested a few configurations and found that It seems to be GPT with a simple volume on a VHDX that does it. A GPT with simple volume works just fine, as do my other hard drives that are GPT. (Format of all of my tests has been NTFS, quick format, 4096k block size).

# ¿ Apr 30, 2016 23:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Windows 10: I know what I'm doing

«‹›5 »