[Leon]

> forced upgrades

I think the forced upgrades were a good thing. The security model on Windows 10 and continued support of updates to 10 is overall a Good Thing for the average Windows User. The majority of users on Windows run their systems in extremely non-secure ways and skip updates and upgrades completely. This is a danger to the internet as a whole.

To me it ultimately comes down to this: I can't force my older relatives to update their machines or even stop them from running ancient versions of Windows. On that front, Windows 10 made things better.

[Piskvorrr]

Better? Better!?! Don't even get me started on how much support time the constant stream of automated reinstalls causes, even when it works. (Last iteration, about a week ago: Win10 decided it dislikes Avast, reminding me very much of Windows' ancient brouhaha with DR-DOS) "Yeah, yeah, you wanted to get things done, where do you want to go today and stuff, whatever. Nope, you're gonna look at this pretty percentage for an hour and hope it doesn't end in Rolling back."

I agree that keeping on ancient Windows is a chore now, and keeping systems up to date is good for the users and the Net in general; but thanks to the WinX forced-upgrade and the unreliable updates, I've deployed some more Ubuntu clients. For some mysterious reason, those don't need to jump into your face with YOU WILL REBOOT NOW PUNY HUMAN.

(And really, I would love to have a system that has a good security model, even if that means Windows...but this is far outweighed by the abovementioned trampling of the user: whoops you turned your back for a few minutes, oh well, you didn't need to save or close that properly anyway)

[iajrz]

That's a nice take - it's still understandable that many of us would rather be in control of the software we're using, though, isn't it? It's - irksome.

If one of my prod servers were forcefully updated - with no warning, therefore no chance to make backups - I'd be furious. If my main dev machine was bricked as a result of forceful updates, as I seem to recall it happened to some folk...

It feels like they disregard users in that sense, and it's sad.

[the_hoser]

I think this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation. On the one hand, the user definitely thinks it's in their best interest to be in control of their software. On the other hand, history has shown that the average user doesn't make good decisions when it comes to said software. Microsoft will catch the blame for the insecure operating system, or they'll catch the blame for forcing users to update their software.

I'm no Microsoft fan, but I really do believe they did the less-wrong thing in this case.

[gnud]

The forced upgrade would be less of a problem if Win10 didn't spy so much, or show ads in the start menu.

It would still be a problem, but less so.

[the_hoser]

All of their competitors are doing it, and offering arguably compelling experiences based on that data.

That said, they should probably treat personal information sharing like they treat the modification of system settings. Notify the user that an app or service wants to share info, and get their permission to proceed.

With the GDPR stuff happening recently, I wouldn't be surprised if a future version of Windows 10 had a feature like this.

[snerbles]

While not specifically caused by Microsoft, here's one of my prior horror stories on forced updates: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11985904

The replies are even better.

TL;DR - "Who cares if we rebooted the emergency phone system, who calls 911 at 3 AM anyway?"

[Piskvorrr]

While I have my share of horror stories with WinX malware (if it installs even despite an explicit refusal, it doesn't deserve a more charitable title), running critical systems (literal life support?!) on a desktop OS is irresponsible bordering on criminal, IMNSHO. Even MSFT has embedded and server OS lines for that.

[snerbles]

If you knew the sheer scope and extent of what the US DoD runs on desktop Windows, you'd have a heart attack.

[Piskvorrr]

"They too" doesn't make it any more responsible ;o)

[rwallace]

So security is the highest priority, the overriding concern that justifies taking away your right to control the equipment you bought?

Okay. Then stop messing with the operating system. Stop changing anything except as needed for security patches. If nothing changes except security improvements, the rate of updates and the probability of update breaking something will both dramatically decrease - which would be good not only for usability and reliability, but also security, because it would tilt the incentive much more in the direction of immediately accepting all updates.

No?

Okay. Now we've established that security is not in fact the highest priority after all. That, in short, the argument based on security being the highest priority was bullshit. So let's stop repeating it. If Microsoft behaves as though the highest priority were job security for individual Microsoft employees, then let's acknowledge that.

[sangnoir]

> I can't force my older relatives to update their machines or even stop them from running ancient versions of Windows. On that front, Windows 10 made things better.

Unless your older relative is on a metered internet connection that charges downloads by the MB, costing them hundreds of dollars[1] on a speculative download that the user did not ask for.

[1] http://stopthecap.com/2015/08/18/microsofts-windows-10-updat...

[briandear]

Maybe the real outrage should be directed at ISPs charging by the megabyte.

[xioxox]

Windows 10 updates are not purely well-tested security updates, however. They include feature changes and cause compatibility problems. Some computers are even stuck at on older Windows 10 versions and can't be updated. If Windows 10 was Windows 10 LTSB, people would be much keener on automatic updates.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

The "average user" strawman is always trotted out to excuse awful tools for being awful.