I think it is more a reaction that Microsoft is suddenly "changing the deal" and forcing users to get something that was never part of the bargain. People are feeling cheated and tricked and lose all trust in Microsoft. Heck, people are getting interrupted with a forced upgrade when they livestream games or present the weather on TV. Who knows if there's more surprises in the windows 10 pipeline?

I hope there are many more "surprises" in store for the luddites who refuse to install a modern operating system on their computers.

This actively harmful view of how computer security works needs to be swiftly punished.

What's insecure about Windows 7? It still receives security updates?

This is a shortsighted way of thinking. The goal is to move beyond "releases", and to a continuously upgrading OS, like OS X.

Why is "I have a secure OS that still is supported and will be for quite a while, I'll upgrade when I replace this computer/have to reinstall the OS anyways" shortsighted?

Because the people providing support would rather not.

They're the ones telling you to upgrade.

They promised to provide support and got paid for it, so they should do their job, or clearly announce that they are unable to do so.

Their support is telling you to upgrade (for FREE) to Windows 10.

They never said how they would offer you support.

Edit: Also, I'm not entirely sure there are any support contracts for Windows by itself, I think you need to buy a contract from Microsoft for something like that.

> They never said how they would offer you support

Did they not say they'd offer "security fixes", and not "complete UI changes, deprecation of perfectly working runtimes, shoving of new runtimes". The former is support; the latter, is finalization of misleading marketing.

They did not do this, no.

So, you're saying, that when one installs Windows (not just 10, or 8, even 7) on their system, they give up full control of their system to Microsoft? To do as Microsoft pleases?

In effect, you're agreeing with RMS. (I'm thankful I don't use Windows, precisely for this reason that Microsoft may do whatever they want with my hardware and my data, and without even playing fair to get my consent.)

...or there's a rational middle ground that you're completely ignoring because this is the Internet and you're trying really hard to push my argument into a corner, where you can then disregard it and continue to be a selective extremist.

My MacBook Pro is still running 10.10. Although I occasionally get a notification that an upgrade to 10.11 is available, it's certainly not being forced on me.

And they can totally move to that scheme with windows 10. People (including me) paid for non-upgrading versions and the promise to get upgrades up to point X. I didn't pay for Microsoft to randomly break my workflow and push attention challenges on me before point X. Advertising for Windows 10 is fine, I didn't mind the initial "you can download windows 10 right now for free" reminders particularly much and did upgrade one of my systems quite quickly. I do not appreciate having to jump to hoops to keep other machines (running an OS that is still in support, and will be for quite some time) working as I need them right now.

I don't honestly care what you pictured in your head you were paying for, because it clearly was different from what you got.

Your unhappiness as a customer of Microsoft is completely worth it for me, as someone who would eventually otherwise get spammed by the botnet on your computer, not to mention the Iranian citizen who thanks you for not participating, unwittingly, in a TOR identification network.

I don't know how to put this in a way that will break through your selfishness, but being on the Internet is not just a "you" thing. You're participating in the worlds largest network of computers, and if you get to pick and choose, manually, when you update your computer, then you're going to be a bad actor.

Your "kid" and my "kid" are in the same "classroom", so I'd like for you to keep up with modern "medicine", even if it's temporarily inconvenient to you.

What essential security flaws do current Windows versions have that justify to force an upgrade right now, or what reasons do you have to believe they will have them soon? You are talking in a lot of hypotheticals.

Like I said elsewhere, this is a shortsighted view. Windows version fragmentation is a security problem, in general, just like any other software fragmentation.

There isn't a specific unsupported thing that's currently out there, but only because Microsoft has committed to supporting legacy versions of Windows. There is a fundamentally superior solution to fixing bugs in many places, and that solution is to only have one place to fix a bug.

This isn't hypothetical, look at OS X. There have already been a number of vulnerabilities they've simply refused to fix in relatively recent legacy versions of their OS, because of the cost in doing so.

From a "how does this personally help me?" standpoint, if Microsoft can cut legacy teams, the people on those teams get to work on new cool things that make your investment in their latest OS more valuable. By forcing them to support legacy versions, you're holding them back, and therefore holding yourself back (since you bought their product).

I understand that reasoning. I guess the difference is that while I think it is great that they are moving to such a model with windows 10, I don't agree that it justifies what they are doing right now.

They will have to provide security fixes anyways for the product lifetime of Windows 7 and 8.1 they promised, because I don't see large companies, governments etc upgrading now just because. They are not going to shorten the announced life-time, and they will keep providing updates during it.

So even if you don't believe they shouldn't interrupt their users like this, they won't save money by badgering people now about Windows 10 and they are generating a lot of bad press that possibly even actively stops people from upgrading (at least in the computer press I read, focus on windows 10 has shifted from "quite good, we recommend you upgrade" to "Microsoft is fucking their users even worse than last months, here is what you do to stop upgrades")

So from my perspective they are causing massive negative disruption for not much gain.

I think you're way over-tuned to the press's perception and it's relevance. 99.99% of people don't care, and Microsoft sells their products to them. The loudest among us do care, but that doesn't mean their voices are proportionate.

My grandfather doesn't care, he just wants to not have his credit card stolen, and upgrading to Windows 10 is Microsoft's recommendation to make sure that doesn't happen.

> The visceral reaction towards Microsoft for trying this is just a general "I want to be in control for the sake of being in control" reaction that carries no legitimate value.

Since Windows 10 brings built-in surveillance functions to the table and will be the first version to support the dubious Intel SGX (Software Guard Extensions), it is much better to be safe than sorry or in your words: better to be in control for the sake of being in control than in no control.

Windows 10 doesn't have built-in "surveillance functions". Your cell phone is much worse, from a "surveillance functions" point of view.

It's got GPS in it, they know where you are all the time!!!

Give me a break...

> Your cell phone is much worse, from a "surveillance functions" point of view. It's got GPS in it, they know where you are all the time!!!

That is one of the many reasons why I don't have a cell phone.

You don't have a cell phone but for you the Windows breaking point was when Win10 came out?

I think you're either not being very honest, or you don't know about the myriad of privacy issues Microsoft has had over its entire lifetime...

I know that I tolerated some things that Microsoft did for too long. I'm far from perfect here. What Microsoft did in Windows 10 was rather the final straw.

I nevertheless still stand by my thesis that the privacy issues that Windows introduced in the past have been far less severe than the privacy issues cell phones introduce (let alone for the fact that one can be geolocated for the whole time).

By the way: I know quite some people who don't have a cell phone for similar reasons.

> By the way: I know quite some people who don't have a cell phone for similar reasons.

Please, I beg of you -- don't even pretend like this view holds a significant percentage of the greater population's mind.

It's not the greater population but it is many of the key people in the business world and it is especially noticeable in Silicon Valley. Many geeks I know don't have social networking accounts or phones now.

> Your cell phone is much worse

1. You assume another person has a cell phone, a spying cell phone at that.

2. Even if your assumption is true, that makes Microsoft's actions okay because ... ?

Well, hopefully this becomes a nice driver for the homebrew computer scene. It's quite possible to assemble an internet capable (not web) computer from discrete chips on a breadboard now. Perhaps the users need some more choices.