UltraMega

It was obviously sarcasm so I'm not going to give a detailed reply to that. I'm just going to summarize my thoughts: I'm not defending Microsoft here, or at least that's definitely not my intention. When I hear about something like this, I wonder to myself why they would make a change like this and try to understand it. At this time it seems to me they simply see this as the better of two evils, one being letting users control all updates and letting many choose wrong; or taking away the option and inconveniencing those who have a better technical understanding. Like most things, it's a trade-off. Does it suck for people like you? Definitely, no doubt, you lose a little control over the update process. No argument that something is lost that can be beneficial to some users. And to circle back to my first comment that started this whole debate, because in my mind it's clear they do stuff like this with good intentions even if there is a trade-off with a negative aspect, people often don't even consider the trade off and jump to the conclusion that Microsoft is out to get them in some way or another and I still find that, well not surprising, but short-sided at the very least.

Yes, they are punishing you. It's not at all possibly because they need to ensure a minimum standard that everyone has to adhere to or anything, it's to punish you. They're not seeing a trade off at all, merely looking to inflict punishment. Microsoft is in the business of punishing everyday people, obviously. Not making security related decisions for a major industry, they just want to punish!

Your comments make no sense, it's like you're having a different conversation entirely. I don't think you're really following everything being discussed here, and I'll just be repeating myself for a third time if I respond to this.

Found this interesting: Microsoft Is Forcing Its Users to Update Windows WWW.MAKEUSEOF.COM If your PC is still running the May 2019 update, you may want to get it up to speed before Microsoft does. I think this article sums up my thoughts. If you could ask Microsoft if they think you personally can't be trusted to manage your own PC, they would probably tell you they're not worried about users like you, but if they give people the option to dodge updates, a lot of people will do it out of something that is essentially just a lack of understanding and not because they have a real compatibility issue. This creates a gap of people misusing the option. If there are more people misusing the option and suffering from some other preventable issue vs people that use it properly, they would see a net positive by disabling the option entirely. I tend to think Microsoft is pragmatic enough here to make decisions on a similar basis to what I've described above rather than seeking to force you to upgrade to Windows 11. Windows 10 also has a longer lifespan than previous OSes and I'm sure that factors into their thinking.

In using botnets as an example, I already stated that in that example your daily user isn't the target, but their computer is. Their computer can become infected and be used to target something else, let's say a bank, maybe even your bank. Again, it's just an example and you are just going over semantics instead of addressing the point. I'm just repeating myself. No logical reason to force update... that's such an out of touch thing to say. I'm not defending it in saying this, but the logical reason to do it is so obvious I feel like I don't even need to say it. I know in your mind it's all a game to get you to sign up for windows 11, but the most obvious reason they would do this is for security benefits. duh. You don't have to agree with those benefits from your small and isolated perspective compared to Microsoft's whole decision making process on this, but the logical reasons to do it are super obvious.

We are really just going in circles now. I already commented to this exact point.

Hopefully we can finally put the debate to rest then. To your question, I used botnets as an example of how Microsoft may be making this move to adapt to changing security threats. As the nature of security threats change, so to must security practices. Maybe Microsoft ultimately wants to whittle you down by slowly forcing you to accept more and more updates so that someday people will accept being forced to update to Windows 11, or maybe they just think they need to hone-in control over some aspect of security to be better able to respond to new threats. Clearly we differ on which scenario we think is most likely, but I say it's bad faith when you frame something I merely used as an example to my larger point as if it's the lynchpin of my whole argument instead of addressing the actual point. It's sidestepping the real debate and bombarding it with noise. The point isn't how big of a deal are botnets, the point is if Microsoft is doing this to improve security to some tangible benefit or so they can shove something nefarious down your throat.

I ask if you're solely worried about compatibility issues because it sounds like Microsoft is too, and if they are going to force updates they should have some major responsibility in making sure those updates don't cause issues, especially driver issues. It sounds like Microsoft is doing a lot more on that front so the question could be, will they be able to deliver on an extremely issue free update if it's not going to be optional? We'll have to wait and see. When you say things like "you're the only one that keeps bringing up botnets" just because I used it as an example in what's mostly a 2 person debate, it makes me see you as someone who only argues in bad faint. You avoid engaging in the points when you can sidestep it with semantics. You should try to avoid doing that IMO.

Two things; You may believe Microsoft is working to a place where they can update your OS to a whole new OS (not just a newer version of the same OS) without user consent. I think that's a bit paranoid, and IF it happened it wouldn't be until 2025 at the soonest so it's not really something we can debate. Suffice to say, I don't think they will do that in any foreseeable future. Android doesn't even do that. On that note the debate would be if Microsoft's changes to updates are justified/have any merit; and if this move makes botnets happen less, then arguable it is/does. Second thing, I didn't ask if you're worried about security risk with updates. I asked, "Do you have an issue with windows updates beyond the risk of a compatibility issue?" That would include things like drivers.

They're never going to force people to upgrade to 11 so when you say that its just noise. Again, yes it looks to be a slight change, and again I think their goal is to minimize botnet style attacks and without having numbers to reference, I'd guess it does a lot more good than harm. Do you have an issue with windows updates beyond the risk of a compatibility issue?

I am saying that keeping a computer up to date for the average users can prevent all kinds of infections, but if it's true Microsoft has ramped up efforts to get older devices up to date, it's probably with botnets in mind. That does not negate the other benefits from staying up to date. The articles do say that they have increased the update verification process as well so if the fear of being forced to update is compatibility issues, we'll have to wait and see if there are any. Still, as far as Windows 10 home, IIRC this has always been the case. Though the article does say this also applies to Pro in this case, so that to me seems to be the only real difference, that Pro will automatically get this update as well as home. I admit I may have missed some of the nuance at first and they do appear to have made a slight chance to their update policy for this update. If that's good or bad I will judge later on when it actually rolls out. For now I'll hope they really did ramp up their update QA process and update related issues will be exceptionally rare. Still, I maintain that the situation is not nearly as dire as some make it out to be.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Did you think I was saying windows updates protect everyday users from DDOS attacks? Because no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying updates (can) protect computers from becoming silently infected as part of a botnet that does things like send DDOS attacks to specific targets, not that the person infected is the target.

I added this to my last comment, you probably didn't see it: If there is a major difference to MS's update approach, it's that they may be less willing to leave devices out of date if they can avoid it, and on the flip side they have ramped up their QA process for updates in the process. If that is true, I think they are doing this to prevent botnet type attacks that happen on out of date PCs. That last part is simply my opinion, but I think it lines up more and more about those kinds of attacks that are common these days. So perhaps as the nature of attacks has evolved, so too has the nature of updates but it's still not far from where things already were.

OK, or that, where did I say that? Screw have no impact on an OS. What I argued is that it's clear to anyone who does repair that Apple intentionally makes repairs harder. I'm not going to start a whole different off topic debate with you here tho. Man, talk about moving the goal posts. Now this guy is claiming I made an argument I clearly never made, and if you follow the link you can see that easily... and has nothing to do with this at all... from a whole different website about a completely different topic. Freaking unbelievable man.

And where did I say proprietary screws are a good thing, as you claim?

Other articles just call it "automatic". Isn't that how updates work for windows already, for home at least? Perhaps it is a little different for a version of Windows to reach EOL and then just update itself rather than stop getting support entirely. On that note I would argue again that having a ton of devices connected to the internet without updates creates a lot of risk these days, maybe less so to the individual user and more so to those being targeted by botnets. If there is a major difference to MS's update approach, it's that they may be less willing to leave devices out of date if they can avoid it, and on the flip side they have ramped up their QA process for updates in the process. If that is true, I think they are doing this to prevent botnet type attacks that happen on out of date PCs. That last part is simply my opinion, but I think it lines up more and more about those kinds of attacks that are common these days. So perhaps as the nature of attacks has evolved, so too has the nature of updates but it's still not far from where things already were.

No idea what you're talking about.

How are people being forced to update? And how is that new? Define "forced" in this context and then we might have something to debate. Nothing about this rises to "forced" to me and so far you have used that word pretty loosely.

I did say most people get viruses from trying to do things they don't understand and trying to update flash player when it's not even used anymore would be one of those things. Nothing is perfect, and I also stated that browser security advancement is a big part of it. I agree that the hardest thing to prevent infections with is a person so bad at using computers that it's like they're looking for infections, as you describe. I also agree that there are fewer people today that bad at computers and that is a factor. My only real point is that this is nothing new, and it's nothing to be upset about. Users who are even aware enough to care about this should already know how to deal with it and for everyone else, updates are a good thing. We could try to debate how responsible each aspect of security updates is for the improved landscape, but that would be hard to verify and wouldn't really change my point anyway. I have issue with piling on extraneous Microsoft complains just to vent hate about Microsoft and there's often a ton of that in these kinds of threads.

Actually, that's not really what moving the goal posts means, and I didn't change the topic, you did. I'm not going to debate this with you anymore. Moving the Goalposts WWW.LOGICALLYFALLACIOUS.COM Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to conceded or accept the opponent’s argument.

I don't think you understand what that means if you think I'm doing it. I'm not moving any goal posts, I responded to a few of the ones you moved and really, I shouldn't have even bothered.

Just moving the goal posts again, talking about XP, now windows 7. Obviously the two OSes are in very different places in terms of users today. You can keep arguing with yourself on this one. Every point you make seems honestly just more and more illogical and uninformed, substituting personal experience for real truths (typical for any conspiracy-oriented person). It's not fun to watch this dunning'kruger pattern over and over again. I'll ask that you stop quoting me so we can both end this "debate". You don't make any effort to be knowledgeable about this stuff. You just take your personal experience using computers and think you have an informed opinion on how Microsoft should issue security updates. I think that's pretty foolish unless you're like a Microsoft security expert or something.

Bro we are the same age. You are the same guy who asked me on Steam for that fake space weather site was fake or not and then proceeded to tell me about your other conspiracy beliefs. Absolutely no, your personal experience using retro PC's has no relevance here and I'm not going to waste time listing the reasons why. Everyone in this space should be fully aware that viruses are designed to attack whatever people are actually using today, which in this case, is windows 10. It's not at all surprising to hear that you can use the internet on a super old OS without getting infected right away because it wouldn't even make sense to have viruses actively targeting XP in 2022. Such a bad argument, predicated on bad knowledge and misunderstanding. I guarantee you if people started using XP today in high volume again for some reason, many viruses would follow.

Talking to you about anything is pointless because all you do is raise really bad points that have no relevance (also called moving the goal post) while making wildly false assertions over and over with no real evidence at all. It's tiresome. I wish you had better points so reading your comments didn't feel like a chore. Having to hear someone claim windows is "forcing" them to upgrade on an PC that doesn't even have TMP enabled is so cringey. Limewire ended in 2011. There were ways to keep using older versions, but really, why bother with torrents being so much easier? And either way, it's completely beside the point unless you are arguing that Limewire is the reason people used to get so many viruses which would be an idiotic thing to argue. Yes, people have gotten a bit better at avoiding viruses, but that is just another small factor. The vastly larger reason is better security practices across the board. I do not accept you as a valid source of info on this and I find your argument completely meaningless. Some people are so skeptical of everything they can hardly ever see the Forrest through the trees. I'm sure you could find a reason to be fearful of just about anything. I'm sure there are a few people who would read my comments and think I am a big Microsoft fan. Beyond hoping their stock does well for me, I don't really care about Microsoft other than simple being interested in tech in general. More than anything else I am just really annoyed by bad faith arguments, especially when they're over such trivial things and whenever Microsoft is the topic it becomes a lightning rod for people to regurgitate the same mindless complaints about Windows over and over.

That may be a small factor, but no, that's not how most people get viruses. Feel free to include a source that says otherwise if you have one. And no, ten years ago in 2012 people were not still using limewire. Pirating music is the same now that it was then for the most part. People get viruses most often because they try to do something with their computer that they don't understand; or even just something basic that leads them to the wrong place. It could be anything, one could search for baking recipes and end up on a site that tries to trick them into entering personal data for bad actors to use against them without going part the first page on Google. Get an e-mail that tricks the recipient into something bad. Sure, it's not 100% Microsoft that has bolstered security but it's a huge factor, likely the largest factor. Browser security is a big factor too, but I wouldn't try to argue against Windows having some limits on dodging updates by listing a bunch of browsers the update automatically. If anything, you have pointed out another positive aspect of maintaining as strong update schedule across the board. All that said, this isn't even really about updates. It's about people not understanding that Microsoft doesn't do service packs anymore and instead they make new version of the same OS and put EOL dates on older non-updated versions. It's the same thing as Microsoft dropping support for Win XP while still supporting XP Service Pack 1,2,3 and so on. It doesn't even make sense to argue that you should get continued support while avoiding updates. Updates are the ongoing support. If you don't want that, you are essentially choosing to be unsupported so it's a non-issue. We all know already this isn't an issue for pro versions of Windows anyway, so businesses are not affected by this, unless they're using home or not paying any attention and in both cases it's probably best for them to just get updates so getting mad about it just makes zero sense at all.