Looking around me, people are fine to run 2007/2010/2013, it seems I'm the only one running 2016.
What I see to be a worse thing than supporting Windows 10 only, is that for the retail/non-o365 version there is no install media. It is click-to-run only.
Why is that? Because of the necessity to download a multi-GB install file after purchasing the key?
- start menu completely random. Like typing "upd" doesn't display anything but typing "update" shows windows update. And the behaviour doesn't seem to be stable. Sometimes old control panels show, sometimes not. Seems to be erratic through time and across different machines.
- microsoft dropping unwanted apps regularly in the start menu. Candy crunch, all sort of ads for sponsored software
- Frequent forced reboots
- Microsoft trying to force my hand on everything. Like default apps, making it difficult to change the default or for videos and images requiring me to confirm on every single different file extension one by one, or not allowing to select an app by its file path for all images or videos (only allowing me to pick from a shortlist of useless apps), making it difficult to create local accounts, all these multiple opt out confirmations are annoying. No means no.
- telemetry
- two control panels and making things worse, settings progressively moving between the two such that the location of a setting is unpredictable. The new control panel often gives the feeling of having been simplified (which in itself is fine) but also to hide the access to more advanced options (not fine).
- generally speaking the big buttons, all grey UI is not particularly pleasant
- many small usability features. Like when prompting for credentials, the RDP client doesn't allow you to access the username and password boxes with the keyboard, you have to select them with your mouse. It feels unfinished.
- I haven't had blue screen for a long time on windows 7, while it has become quite common on windows 10
- repeated interruptions. The OS should be discreet and not be interrupting your workflow unnecessarily. They since removed the full screen notifications in windows 10, but didn't for Windows Server 2016.
There are notable improvements too. Like finally being able to copy-paste in command lines was long overdue. The server features are also much better (hyper-v, powershell functionalities, IIS, etc). But on balance I think it provides a poor experience. I am not saying Windows 7 is perfect either, it comes with its own annoyances but I think it's not as bad.
If Microsoft were to "delete and start again" on two areas, for me it would have to be Windows' Search and the Printer stack. They're almost impressive in their terribleness. I literally use Notepad++'s file search for file content and FileLocator Pro for filenames instead of Windows search because it is more consistent, reliable, and faster.
I actually had a conversation with a Microsoft employee at a conference who then worked on search in Windows 7. And after that conversation I absolutely understood why it was in the state that it was in. He believed it was bad because it wasn't complex enough, wanting to pile in even more supported file type filters and expanding language services. Both of which they wound up doing in Windows 8, making it even more complicated and unreliable.
I've given up using it. A work colleague recommended Agent Ransack and I've been happily using that ever since.
At least on this point I'll have to anecdotally disagree. I've been on 10 for more than a year now and I haven't suffered even a single forced reboot. Sometimes the OS notifies me of impending restarts, but they're always hours away so I have time to finish my work. It is, IME at least, more stable than all previous versions of Windows.
But people have trapped themselves in a corner. They refused to do the free upgrade, now the opportunity has passed, and they are left stuck on an older inferior version which is near EoL for no great reason.
So they just keep parroting poorly reasoned arguments, repeating conspiracies, or acting smug & superior for simply being contrarian.
I take issue with this. There are several problems with Windows 10:
- silent updates, that you cannot control them or disable them,
- these updates reset your setting, enable things you explicitly disabled, behind your back,
- Microsoft still didn't document what data they are exfiltrating, and doesn't allow to disable call-to-home functionality.
BTW, that free upgrade still works, it just isn't advertised. For above mentioned reasons, many consider Windows 10 to be the inferior version, not the previous ones.
And by settings you mean undocumented registry entries that people found and altered to break core services on purpose? If you start altering undocumented things there's no real assurances that it will work the same way (or state maintained) during an update.
> Microsoft still didn't document what data they are exfiltrating
Basic diagnostic data: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/basic...
Full diagnostic data: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/windo...
> silent updates, that you cannot control them or disable them
You get plenty of control over updates including how "silent" they are, you just cannot disable them entirely.
But is limiting the ability to disable them for the greater good? We still have huge Windows XP botnets running rampant on the internet because people would completely disable updates, get infected, and then start causing harm to their neighbors.
I've read quite a few people that want to disable Windows Update, but they never provide a plan or route for receiving security updates. They just simply opt to run an insecure machine because an update annoyed them one time, and that would be fine if it didn't impact others.
Windows 10 doesn't seem to respect the user as much as previous releases.
* People who would seek to disable updates on their computer.
* People who would take negative views on those who refuse to vaccinate their children.
I'm in both camps, at least where Windows is involved. I'm much more willing to update the average Linux or BSD (including macOS) because I still actually trust those updates.
Reset settings: there was something like that, that's true, but the last time it happened, it was like a year ago, and I do think this is a case of "don't attribute malice to something that can by caused by a mistake".
Didn't still document: Half a month ago they put the windows diagnostic data viewer into windows, you can look up all telemetry that's getting sent back home.
Reset settings: still happens. The worse thing is, that firewall rules for application packages have version numbers in them, so when you change the rule, and the package updates... you rule is ineffective. And no, Bing doesn't to know, what I'm searching local start menu for.
Didn't still document: so you know what "cV" or "iKey" values mean? Still, where's the "off" option? Mozilla doesn't get the telemetry from me, and there is an universe of difference, how trustworthy Mozilla is compared to Microsoft.
1. Those people then are saying how bad and full of viruses Windows it's, even if it's only their fault. It's good for technically not-inclined users. And MS is only loosing here, as well as those users.
2. This is how you get botnets, which then take your worldwide DNS down. But yeah, it's only up to these people. Why would I care about botnets DDoS'ing half the net? And why would I care that companies are handling my sensitive personal data on insecure computers? Yeah, no worries. It should only be up to them...
That's a good argument for making security updates on-by-default. It's not a good argument for making all updates on-whether-you-like-it-or-not.
This is how you get botnets, which then take your worldwide DNS down.
The solution to botnets is to cut offending devices off the Internet at the ISP level. You can't trust local security measures in this context anyway.
And why would I care that companies are handling my sensitive personal data on insecure computers?
You're complaining about the security of sensitive personal data, in a discussion about an OS that can literally deploy arbitrary updates and upload arbitrary information to a third party for use in unknown ways? Your concerns about your privacy are fair, but I think you're on the wrong side of the debate here.
Have you heard of Group Policy and WSUS? I guess its Enterprise versions only, but anyone who cares deeply about their IT Infrastructure should be running Windows Server and all those services.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/update/w...
That's not a popular opinion among the subset of users who refuse to apply patches, but it's the correct one from the perspective of security and public policy.
There are plenty of ways around it: maintain your own patching infrastructure and you can do whatever you want. Use Linux and you can do whatever you want. But it's an absolutely correct decision to push patches onto the unwashed masses even if it upsets them.
We would be better off as a society if vaccinations were mandatory too, but we also have some vocal idiots there too.
And does that include all the non-security patches that change things around in ways maybe I don't want?
Or immediately installing security patches even if they're broken and compromise normal functioning of the system?
I don't see even a moral/ethical argument for mandating those kinds of updates.
Now, is anybody actually going to enforce that? No, of course not. But on the principle of the thing, you are being negligent, and justifying it to yourself on the basis that you're too smart to get a virus. The anti-vaxxer parallel is extremely relevant here, if everybody thinks like that then we have a problem.
Speaking in generals, it's absolutely a correct decision to have automatic/mandatory patching, whichever way you want to look at it. As for specific patches: sure, on a case-by-case basis there may be bad patches that need to be rolled back. You can do that on Windows, and again, you always retain the option to simply not connect your PC to the internet and it makes both of us happy - I don't have to deal with another zombie box on the internet and you don't have to deal with a patch you don't like.
At the end of the day you're just going to have to trust Microsoft to put out good patches. But if you don't trust them, why are you running their operating system? Do you have similar concerns about upstreams in the Linux community? You know patches can break things there too, right?
I don't see any evidence that giving someone who knows what they're doing the ability to control which updates they deploy and when will cause them to become part of a botnet. Are you suggesting that Windows 10 Enterprise should be similarly constrained for the same reason?
And even if systems do become part of a botnet, the correct solution to that problem is to cut off the offending systems at ISP level anyway, not to rely on their own local security in any particular respect.
But on the principle of the thing, you are being negligent
Objecting to a system that requires automated deployment of arbitrary updates, including updates that may upload arbitrary data, is not only not negligent, it may be positively required for regulatory compliance depending on your circumstances.
The anti-vaxxer parallel is extremely relevant here, if everybody thinks like that then we have a problem.
No it isn't, and this naive and superficial analogy really needs to die.
At the end of the day you're just going to have to trust Microsoft to put out good patches.
Microsoft have proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, that such trust is unjustified. Try again.
But if you don't trust them, why are you running their operating system?
Because the Microsoft of a few years ago that produced Windows 7 is a very different Microsoft to today's that produced Windows 10.
Do you have similar concerns about upstreams in the Linux community? You know patches can break things there too, right?
And yet in many years of running many systems for multiple organisations, the total downtime I have experienced due to Debian unattended security updates is 0, and the number of reports I have ever read of others suffering a bad update through that channel is also 0.
Its not like the "Enterprise" version of Win10 is much more expensive. It gets way more expensive if you want to run a Windows Domain server, but that starts to leave the realm of SOHO users.
This is interesting! Can you expand? Where or how can one still upgrade to 10 now? AFAIK even the free upgrade extension for those using assistive technologies has been withdrawn.
Windows 10 added some additional telemetry for Windows Store Apps and a few built in services to see if anyone is utilizing them, but overall if you set Diagnostic Data to "Basic" your privacy is in a similar state to previous versions of Windows.
Here's documentation on it:
- Basic diagnostic data: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/basic...
- Full diagnostic data: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/windo...
- How Microsoft handles the data, common questions, more info on what is collected, etc: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/confi...
Please tell me what built-in telemetry you think we have on our Windows 7 machines (where we typically don't deploy any non-security updates without a good reason).
Even worse for people that are forever locked to Windows because of their line of work, clients or something else. They have no option, they can't even pay more to stop the data collection. Not to mention HIPAA and other problems that may affect small business owners.
In regards to trust, you can actually view the diagnostic data since the insider build half a month ago using windows diagnostic data viewer.
Regarding businesses: I do think you can disable all of that using group policy in Windows Enterprise
Once again a matter of trust (or not wanting ANY data to be sent, a radio silent OS aside from updates and features that actually require internet access and you opt-in on using them). Would be trivial to lie about the data in the UI. I don't know if it's possible to intercept the data for analysis, so people can verify that it matches the UI.
> Regarding businesses: I do think you can disable all of that using group policy in Windows Enterprise
Nope, even the Security setting still collects data.
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/itpro/windows/manage/con...
Since everybody else does it now MS, from a competitive standpoint, also has to be a creep with your data. But they own the OS and I don't want that bullshit there.
You can go with the "it was a bug" narrative about all the privacy settings getting reset, saying that the tool showing what they collect is enough, that not being able to pay to stop the data collection is ok (if they "really" have to collect data to be competitive), well for me it's shady business and I don't want my OS doing that. Just tired of this subject to be honest, here's more info if you want to dig deeper https://google.com/#q=Windows+Restricted+Traffic+Limited+Fun...
You can disable it in 7 by memorizing the KB #'s of the updates that install them and refusing them, but it's just as much work as installing Spybot Anti-beacon on 10.
If you adopted the policy of only installing security updates, which plenty of people did after GWX if not before, you didn't get that other junk anyway.
The way Microsoft have actively made it more difficult to install only security updates on older versions of Windows recently is yet another reason not to trust them with updates you can't control at all on newer versions. They brought this mistrust upon themselves by abusing their position deliberately and repeatedly, so I don't think anyone can blame the sceptics.
The really sad thing is the number of people, even here on HN where you'd expect to find relatively well-informed discussion, who completely miss the distinction between security updates and updates more generally when debating this issue. I mean, we are literally talking about an organisation that pushed out an entire new operating system via the update process, and they deliberately did so in such a way that many people now have that new OS and didn't necessarily want it or actively did not want it.
>it's just as much work as installing Spybot Anti-beacon on 10
Most apps automate the process. In 7 you have to memorize the 8-digit code associated with the updates you don't want.
It boils down to a pretty simple inequality: Supporting older versions of Windows in the new Office is only worthwhile if the expected additional profits from sales to people who have decided not to upgrade to Windows 10 are greater than the expected additional development cost of supporting older versions of Windows.
Probably there's a fudge factor in there, too. Probably, that fudge factor nudges things away from supporting Windows 7, because Windows XP. I'm guessing it also nudges things away from supporting Windows 8, because I don't know of many people who were willing to upgrade to Windows 8 but no further.
And given that Windows 10 only just overtook Windows 7 in popularity according to reports this week, the idea that Windows 7 is some sort of legacy system just doesn't fly, no matter how much Microsoft might wish it so. They made a turkey with Windows 8. They made a turkey with most editions of Windows 10. There is a reason so many of us have been holding out on 7 and/or switching platforms over the past few years, and the reason is simply that more recent Windows releases haven't been attractive enough to use them instead.
We already did, for multiple businesses. We bought a few last Windows 7 machines while you could, and since then we're on other OSes as needs dictate. Contrary to popular opinion, the sky has not fallen, and it turns out that which OS you run your browser and web apps on doesn't really matter, and that there are some areas where the software you can use on other platforms is already better than what you get on a typical Windows deployment.
Windows 7 only has a couple years left.
Until what? Until it stops getting security updates from Microsoft, maybe. It will carry on running just fine beyond that point, though.
We are not in a place in the world security-wise where your attitude is workable in a modern business environment.
That's a matter of judgement. Is the risk of downtime, data loss, or other damage from not having a patch on Windows 7 for a security flaw greater than or less than the risk of similarly bad things happening because Microsoft messed up another security update (or a non-security update that they forced on you)?
As a matter of objective fact, my businesses have lost far more time -- orders of magnitude more -- due to botched Microsoft updates, including bad security updates on multiple occasions, then due to any sort of malware or other attacks.
Of course, we're not crazy. We have a variety of other countermeasures layered around our systems that would deal with most threats long before they could reach a PC even if there were some vulnerability there that could theoretically be exploited.
We are not in a place in the world security-wise where your attitude is workable in a modern business environment.
IMNSHO, we are not in a place where PCs that can update their operating system arbitrarily, restart arbitrarily, and upload data arbitrarily is workable either. If we ran Windows 10, we would be in instant violation of just about every NDA or confidentiality agreement we've ever entered into, not to mention violating assorted legal and industry regulations.
What has unpleasantly surprised me about Windows 10 is that more people don't have a problem with this gaping hole in their security and compliance infrastructure. Obviously the big players can't and won't accept those risks, and presumably that's why Windows 10 Enterprise doesn't have the same problems that we refuse to accept in a smaller environment. But the number of places dealing with sensitive data or critical systems who are apparently happy to be wide open to problems here is genuinely shocking to me, particularly after so many have had actual rather than hypothetical problems.
- Windows 10 PCs don't update or restart arbitrarily if they're managed with Group Policy. In some cases, you might even want them to, and have a hard time convincing them to reboot themselves when they say they are going to! They've added a massive set of new options for configuring this in the current ADMX templates.
- Having all of your data leaked online by a malicious actor or losing it all to ransomware are both far worse than the worst thing a botched patch has ever done. Losing some productivity sucks; getting pwned can end your business.
- The actual contents of the basic level telemetry aren't that bad. I'm personally irritated that they collect the amount of time each application on a computer is in use, but as long as you have the nightmare that is "inking and typing" disabled, there shouldn't be significant leakage of private information.
- Those same countermeasures you speak of can help with Windows 10's telemetry problem too. You can block said telemetry from ever leaving your network.
- The next major release of Windows 10 is going to include a diagnostics viewer so you can check this content out yourself.
I certainly wouldn't blame someone for having held off so far while Microsoft shuffles through the rocky early issues they have with every OS (they had them with Windows 7 as well). But that's because we still have two years of security updates left. ...If you're still planning on being there in two years, then I'd have serious questions.
Which is fine for enterprise-sized organisations. As I've acknowledged elsewhere, Windows 10 Enterprise is basically a different product. However, your average office with half a dozen staff isn't using those kinds of tools, and very possibly doesn't want that level of extra hassle to run a handful of machines they use. Lots of SMEs even at somewhat larger sizes don't have full-time sysadmins.
The bottom line is that this is a problem we simply didn't have before. With 7, we could just have someone check out the information on new security updates and push round the list of what to do this month for everyone else to use. These days it's even easier, because you just look at the monthly security-only roll-up, and usually everyone will then just deploy it immediately (or not, if they've screwed something up; we're actually looking into the current situation regarding Spectre/Meltdown mitigation right now).
Given that Microsoft themselves apparently feel that it's OK to wait up to a month before rolling out most security updates, it's certainly reasonable for users to hold off deploying them for long enough to do their homework if anything looks questionable.
Having all of your data leaked online by a malicious actor or losing it all to ransomware are both far worse than the worst thing a botched patch has ever done. Losing some productivity sucks; getting pwned can end your business.
Again, that's a judgement call.
We've never been compromised or leaked personal data, and more importantly, we have other security measures apart from Windows updates to help ensure that that remains the case. Real world security is still about risk management and layered defences, just as it always has been.
Ransomware is countered by any competent backup strategy. On the other hand, for a small business, the downtime from even a small number of PCs becoming unusable can be crippling.
People keep telling me about these bogeymen that will kill my businesses if we don't have security updates installed immediately, but as I mentioned before, it is a matter of objective fact that Microsoft's botched updates have caused us far more harm over the years than external attackers have ever managed. The risk analysis comparing installing all updates whether we want them or not vs. installing no updates at all is very clear, so if those are the options and we're not willing to risk having no updates, evidently Win10 is not a viable platform for us right now.
The actual contents of the basic level telemetry aren't that bad.
Being punched in the face isn't that bad, compared to being shot through the heart. It's still not desirable.
In any case, it doesn't matter. Any mechanism for exfiltrating data that we can't control in advance is a concern for confidentiality agreements and/or regulatory compliance. We have faced the same concern with other software that presumes to update itself: Browsers have always been a bit of a pain in that respect, since obviously they do need Internet connections to unknown servers to do their job, but at least there are clear privacy statements from the main browser developers about what they upload and how to turn off anything potentially dangerous, and the development is relatively "in the open" in terms of what will be in future versions so the risk of anything shady sneaking in is low. None of this is true of Windows 10.
This is also why firewalling the Win10 telemetry isn't an acceptable solution, even with the forthcoming diagnostics viewer. If you know in advance everything that could be uploaded automatically then you can firewall it, but since Windows 10 can update itself as well, you can't reliably know what's going to happen in advance because Microsoft can move the goalposts any time they want. And again, given their recent track record with pushing updates that are user-hostile and in their own interests, it's not credible to argue that they would never abuse that access. The risk assessment just doesn't add up.
I certainly wouldn't blame someone for having held off so far while Microsoft shuffles through the rocky early issues they have with every OS (they had them with Windows 7 as well). But that's because we still have two years of security updates left. ...If you're still planning on being there in two years, then I'd have serious questions.
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Our working assumption is that Microsoft will probably give ground by that point. Windows 10 adoption levels are terrible for a platform they have pushed as hard as they have. Enterprise users are probably OK and many home users will put up with almost incredible amounts of abuse before they actually do anything (see also: smartphones, social networks, etc.) so Microsoft can probably just wait it out on those fronts. However, we expect that they simply can't afford another Vista/XP situation with 10/7 and the SME and power user markets who can and will make other choices.
Of course, if MS don't change course on issues like telemetry and forced updates, we're already moving to other platforms for new systems anyway since you can't buy pre-10 Windows boxes any more, and we'll take a view on what to do with any Win7 systems still in service if and when the axe falls. But as you say, that's a couple of years away yet.
Of course they're at a disadvantage as a desktop OS because their app store is competing with being able to download and install programs from the web.
But I still wonder, if they're focussing on home users, don't they need to offer a bit friendlier to developers if they want people to write apps that they can charge the home users for?
I’m sure a multi-billion dollar corporation with some very smart people thought of that. They probably even consider it a benefit.
Sure.
I’d love to see the crew you run with that would have managed to keep MS relevant for this long.
I should add, if you really think MS is building products no one wants, you really should put your money where your mouth is and short them. (but please, no cliched response about how the market is just irrational about them)
I didn't say I thought MS was building products no-one wants. My original suggestion was that their current strategy seems to be pushing towards big, enterprise-scale customers and the low-end home user market, at the expense of the middle ground, and that time would tell whether this was working out well for them.
Clearly they have had some missteps with their OS strategy before -- there's plenty of evidence around about the poor reception and low adoption rates -- so I still don't understand what point you're trying to make here or how anything I've written is at all controversial. Your original reply suggested that they might consider driving a large group of customers away to be beneficial, but it's hard to see how that would be the case here, and you don't seem to have offered any further argument to support your position.