techradar Microsoft could be on the verge of forcibly upgrading Windows 10 on your computer

[UltraMega]

7 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

Age is just a number, it has nothing to do with your real life experience.

I asked your opinion on Steam about a youtube channel, yes.  I received your opinion, and made my own decision on it after hearing your opinion, and doing research on my own about it later.  That's how a regular person makes up their mind when taking in new information.  Those other "conspiracy beliefs" were political, and I'm not bringing them to a tech forum, and guess what?  They're more of a real problem than what Microsoft and their stupid forced updates is.  I can choose a different OS and avoid forced updates.  I can't choose the laws and if they're being followed or not.  Big difference there talking about things within my control, and things outside of my control.

And what are you smoking and can I get some?  My experience using retro PC's on old OS's without security patches has nothing to do with forcing updates on people?  Really??? You do realize that a very large percentage of people STILL use Windows 7 right?  Fine, go use Windows 7.  I don't care.  Point was, just turn updates off and see how far you can get browsing the internet.  I'll bet you $100, right here, right now, that you can browse the internet JUST FINE on an outdated / not updated OS.  It'd be an easy $100, so long as you don't click on things that you already know not to click on.  The browser, anti-virus, and the lack of opportunity are more of a reason behind less viruses than forced updates is.

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. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by UltraMega

[pio]

Just now, UltraMega said:

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 with you. I'll ask that you stop quoting me. 

You're the one that moved the damn goal posts mate!  I made a point, you countered it by saying that (paraphrasing here) "oh, nobody uses Windows XP anymore so of course there's no virus' for XP".....so I countered with, "fine, use 7 then".

Are we even in the same conversation here?  I made a point, and you're dancing around it.  Who's really moving the goal posts here?  Because my point hasn't changed any in the slightest.

[UltraMega]

2 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

You're the one that moved the damn goal posts mate! 

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. 

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by UltraMega

[pio]

6 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

I don't think you understand what that means if you think I'm doing it. 

Must be some new term or something that recently had its definition changed then.  Because I understood it to mean changing your opinion or changing the topic.  Which that's what you're doing by saying I'm changing from XP to 7 in my arguments.  Another example of your behavior being "moving the goalposts" is by calling my stance "conspiracy theory", again changing the subject from forcing updates.  I never argued that XP alone was the topic, the topic here is forcing updates.  You can choose any old OS without updates anymore.  I don't care.  XP was just one example.  But by you dancing around the metaphorical goal posts, they might appear to be moving.  Since you've yet to answer my challenge.

 

Show me one good example of updates ACTUALLY preventing a randomized average user from infection.  Because I can show many MANY examples of other things causing that prevention long before forced updates.

Edited February 10, 2022 by pioneerisloud

[UltraMega]

3 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

Must be some new term or something that recently had its definition changed then.  Because I understood it to mean changing your opinion or changing the topic.  Which that's what you're doing by saying I'm changing from XP to 7 in my arguments.  I never argued that XP alone was the topic, the topic here is forcing updates.  You can choose any old OS without updates anymore.  I don't care.  XP was just one example.  But by you dancing around the metaphorical goal posts, they might appear to be moving.  Since you've yet to answer my challenge.

 

Show me one good example of updates ACTUALLY preventing a randomized average user from infection.  Because I can show many MANY examples of other things causing that prevention long before forced updates.

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.

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by UltraMega

[pio]

3 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

Actually, that's not really what moving the goal posts means. 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 thought the topic was forced updates?  By your definition, making me address more and more points about moving the goal posts.....aren't YOU.....moving the goal posts?  

Also, isn't that EXACTLY what I said just in different words?  Didn't I say, "changing your opinion or topic"?

Edited February 10, 2022 by pioneerisloud

[schuck6566]

@UltraMega, @pioneerisloud,

Just to put MY 2 cents in, I had a woman who I finally refused to clean her pc for her anymore because it was the same items I was removing everytime. once there were 37 instances of the same malware. She was getting them from videos that people linked or she searched and clicked on and everytime she clicked on the vid it told her adobe flash was out of date and to click 'here" to update it so she did.THIRTY SEVEN TIMES,in just 1 week.That was After I'd told her about adobe never notifying her like that and if she was in doubt go to their site and showing her how to check. Flash installed more malware in my opinion than was installed from downloading because people could at least ck the files we downloaded. P.S. the refusal to clean again was given after the final cleaning so she at least had a running pc the last time I spoke with her.

[pio]

1 minute ago, schuck6566 said:

@UltraMega, @pioneerisloud,

Just to put MY 2 cents in, I had a woman who I finally refused to clean her pc for her anymore because it was the same items I was removing everytime. once there were 37 instances of the same malware. She was getting them from videos that people linked or she searched and clicked on and everytime she clicked on the vid it told her adobe flash was out of date and to click 'here" to update it so she did.THIRTY SEVEN TIMES,in just 1 week.That was After I'd told her about adobe never notifying her like that and if she was in doubt go to their site and showing her how to check. Flash installed more malware in my opinion than was installed from downloading because people could at least ck the files we downloaded. P.S. the refusal to clean again was given after the final cleaning so she at least had a running pc the last time I spoke with her.

Agreed, that's been another pain as a repair guy.  Those stupid flash installers.  Also, not fixed by updates, but rather a change in user behavior since we don't use flash anymore.  Some people still somehow get those though.   I swear some people, you could put them in a round room and they'd still find a corner.

[schuck6566]

7 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

Agreed, that's been another pain as a repair guy.  Those stupid flash installers.  Also, not fixed by updates, but rather a change in user behavior since we don't use flash anymore.  Some people still somehow get those though.   I swear some people, you could put them in a round room and they'd still find a corner.

actually it was partially corrected through updates. "Because Flash will no longer be supported after 2020, it is turned off by default in the new Microsoft Edge. Other browsers like Google Chrome, Mozilla, and Safari are also planning on removing Adobe Flash in the same timeframe."<--- from microsoft's support page for edge, also they had the update that removed support for adobe flash from windows. "The Windows 10 “Update for Removal of Adobe Flash Player,” which permanently removes Flash as a component of the operating system, will become mandatory starting in July. Updating to Windows 10 version 21H1, expected to start rolling out this month, will also remove the software.May 4, 2021"

Actually,chrome had done it long ago on android.

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by schuck6566

[UltraMega]

18 minutes ago, schuck6566 said:

@UltraMega, @pioneerisloud,

Just to put MY 2 cents in, I had a woman who I finally refused to clean her pc for her anymore because it was the same items I was removing everytime. once there were 37 instances of the same malware. She was getting them from videos that people linked or she searched and clicked on and everytime she clicked on the vid it told her adobe flash was out of date and to click 'here" to update it so she did.THIRTY SEVEN TIMES,in just 1 week.That was After I'd told her about adobe never notifying her like that and if she was in doubt go to their site and showing her how to check. Flash installed more malware in my opinion than was installed from downloading because people could at least ck the files we downloaded. P.S. the refusal to clean again was given after the final cleaning so she at least had a running pc the last time I spoke with her.

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. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by UltraMega

[pio]

5 minutes ago, schuck6566 said:

actually it was partially corrected through updates. "Because Flash will no longer be supported after 2020, it is turned off by default in the new Microsoft Edge. Other browsers like Google Chrome, Mozilla, and Safari are also planning on removing Adobe Flash in the same timeframe."<--- from microsoft's support page for edge, also they had the update that removed support for adobe flash from windows. "The Windows 10 “Update for Removal of Adobe Flash Player,” which permanently removes Flash as a component of the operating system, will become mandatory starting in July. Updating to Windows 10 version 21H1, expected to start rolling out this month, will also remove the software.May 4, 2021"

Actually,chrome had done it long ago on android.

 

Fair enough.  Learn something new everyday.  I still don't think that forcing people to do the update is the answer though.  If we're to move onto HTML 5, wouldn't just the mass adoption of HTML 5 over Flash be enough?  Adobe already quit supporting Flash a while ago, it would die on its own peacefully without forcing it off through updates.

 

3 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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 update is responsible, 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. 

Hey, something we can agree on!  I do have one nitpick though, the center paragraph.  You say its "nothing new", but it is new.  Otherwise this wouldn't be a news article.  Forcing updates IS a new thing with Windows 10 and Microsoft.  Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Go run even Windows 8.1.  Guess what, updates aren't forced there.  Forced updates have been a complaint with Windows 10 since it was released.

[UltraMega]

Just now, pioneerisloud said:

Fair enough.  Learn something new everyday.  I still don't think that forcing people to do the update is the answer though.  If we're to move onto HTML 5, wouldn't just the mass adoption of HTML 5 over Flash be enough?  Adobe already quit supporting Flash a while ago, it would die on its own peacefully without forcing it off through updates.

 

Hey, something we can agree on!  I do have one nitpick though, the center paragraph.  You say its "nothing new", but it is new.  Otherwise this wouldn't be a news article.  Forcing updates IS a new thing with Windows 10 and Microsoft.  Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Go run even Windows 8.1.  Guess what, updates aren't forced there.  Forced updates have been a complaint with Windows 10 since it was released.

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. 

[cscoder4ever]

 

User Choice should always be honored, coercion is never the answer, even if it is for their own good... though even that is suspect.

 

49 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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.

 

No no, please, list the reasons, I think many of us would like to know these reasons.

and while you're at it, explain how proprietary screws make an operating system bad, I've been waiting for your explanation on that.

[pio]

4 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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. 

Let's see....having my computer turned on and connected to the internet, it automatically downloads and installs updates all on its own.  Without my input.  I cannot turn that "feature" off either, the only thing I can do is "delay" the updates.  They still get applied whether I want them to be or not.  That is force.  The only choice I have is to disable the internet entirely on the machine if I do NOT want updates.  That's not free choice, that's coercion, or in other words, force.

 

This was NOT a "feature" of Windows 8.1 or older.  Only 10 and newer.

Edited February 10, 2022 by pioneerisloud

[UltraMega]

1 minute ago, cscoder4ever said:

explain how proprietary screws make an operating system bad, I've been waiting for your explanation on that.

No idea what you're talking about. 

[cscoder4ever]

1 minute ago, UltraMega said:

No idea what you're talking about. 

I hope this rings a bell, and go on, we're still waiting on your other reasons.

[UltraMega]

21 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

Let's see....having my computer turned on and connected to the internet, it automatically downloads and installs updates all on its own.  Without my input.  I cannot turn that "feature" off either, the only thing I can do is "delay" the updates.  They still get applied whether I want them to be or not.  That is force.  The only choice I have is to disable the internet entirely on the machine if I do NOT want updates.  That's not free choice, that's coercion, or in other words, force.

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. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by UltraMega

[UltraMega]

4 minutes ago, cscoder4ever said:

I hope this rings a bell, and go on, we're still waiting on your other reasons.

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

[cscoder4ever]

We're still waiting for your other reasons

 

5 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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

14 minutes ago, cscoder4ever said:

explain how proprietary screws make an operating system bad, I've been waiting for your explanation on that.

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by UltraMega
whoops meant to quote not edit.

[pio]

7 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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 you're the same age as me, and you've been involved with computers as long as me....you'd already know that automatic updates USED to be able to be disabled.  You'd also know that automatic updates originally started by just automatically downloading the update and waiting for the user to choose when to install it.

 

Yes, its how updates have been working on Windows 10 this entire time.  That's been a complaint of mine and many others for the lifetime of Windows 10 so far.  We've been screaming at Microsoft to stop forcing them.  Complete version updates however, have still been user choose able, up until this article.  Keep up.

And why is a specific version of Windows 10 reaching EOL when they already have a new OS?  But yet other versions of Windows 10 are not?  They're service packs, just like they've always had.  Service packs have NEVER been forced in the past, ever.  Fact.  This is why this is a news article.  Another fact, is that "automatic updates" themselves have never been forced up until Windows 10.

Edited February 10, 2022 by pioneerisloud

[UltraMega]

17 minutes ago, cscoder4ever said:

We're still waiting for your other reasons

 

 

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. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by UltraMega

[UltraMega]

5 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

If you're the same age as me, and you've been involved with computers as long as me....you'd already know that automatic updates USED to be able to be disabled.  You'd also know that automatic updates originally started by just automatically downloading the update and waiting for the user to choose when to install it.

 

Yes, its how updates have been working on Windows 10 this entire time.  That's been a complaint of mine and many others for the lifetime of Windows 10 so far.  We've been screaming at Microsoft to stop forcing them.  Complete version updates however, have still been user choose able, up until this article.  Keep up.

And why is a specific version of Windows 10 reaching EOL when they already have a new OS?  But yet other versions of Windows 10 are not?  They're service packs, just like they've always had.  Service packs have NEVER been forced in the past, ever.  Fact.  This is why this is a news article.  Another fact, is that "automatic updates" themselves have never been forced up until Windows 10.

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. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by UltraMega

[pio]

1 minute ago, UltraMega said:

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 with hear more and more about those kinds of attacks 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. 

Dude, everyday users are not being targeted.  At least not on that kind of a scale.  The new scam is now telephone calls and facebook messages.  It's always been about money, that's how virus' went from harmless to harmful, when they started demanding money to "fix" the virus.  Back in 1999, virus' were just simply an executable that'd open your CD drive up at random, or change your screensaver.  Another popular virus back in the day was shutting down a machine remotely.  No harm, just funny.  Virus' started "for the lolz" back when the internet got traction.  They changed to a money making scheme when other people started using them and re-writing them for harm.  There's no money on internet virus' anymore since everyone is now aware to keep their browsers and anti-virus up to date, and (for the most part) be careful what you click on.  However....that's exactly why the new type of attacks work since they're coming from "trusted" contacts on Facebook or your telephone.

Updates don't fix that.

 

Now....YES updates DO fix things that you're talking about such as botnet attacks.  But how many average people do you know that have been DDOS'ed or attacked by any other type of botnet?  Updates aren't fixing anything for the average user.  And big companies probably don't even use Windows 10.  My local bank's ATM is still on 7 for example.

[UltraMega]

1 minute ago, pioneerisloud said:

Dude, everyday users are not being targeted.  At least not on that kind of a scale.  The new scam is now telephone calls and facebook messages.  It's always been about money, that's how virus' went from harmless to harmful, when they started demanding money to "fix" the virus.  Back in 1999, virus' were just simply an executable that'd open your CD drive up at random, or change your screensaver.  Another popular virus back in the day was shutting down a machine remotely.  No harm, just funny.  Virus' started "for the lolz" back when the internet got traction.  They changed to a money making scheme when other people started using them and re-writing them for harm.  There's no money on internet virus' anymore since everyone is now aware to keep their browsers and anti-virus up to date, and (for the most part) be careful what you click on.  However....that's exactly why the new type of attacks work since they're coming from "trusted" contacts on Facebook or your telephone.

Updates don't fix that.

 

Now....YES updates DO fix things that you're talking about such as botnet attacks.  But how many average people do you know that have been DDOS'ed or attacked by any other type of botnet?  Updates aren't fixing anything for the average user.  And big companies probably don't even use Windows 10.  My local bank's ATM is still on 7 for example.

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. 

[Diffident]

4 hours ago, UltraMega said:

If you're the type of user who feels the need to sift through updates, you probably shouldn't be on the home version anyway. It makes perfect sense that the version designed for least capable users would have the fewest optional updates. 

 

The straws some of you guys grasp at to find reasons to hate windows is... well highly illogical to put it nicely. In this thread: windows 11 prompt notifications = forced updates, Microsoft does the exact same thing they have always done but suddenly it's a problem, complaing that windows 10 isn't the last windows OS. 

 

The only legitimate complaint about windows updates is when they mess things up for businesses, but business shouldn't be using windows home anyway, and they should have the ability to pick and choose updates. For those of you complaining about it here, why are you using windows home if you care so much about this? 

 

Not much logic to any of these complaints, though by pointing that out I fear I may be inviting even more illogical complaints. 

 

In a time of so much unjustified and false skepticism, I think it's a good thing that Microsoft is proactive about updates. Infected PCs can infect other PCs, it can be hyjacked to send DDOS attacked out, or for somethingas simple as mining. I'd rather they piss off the crowd that can't handle change than leave millions upon millions of devices connected to the internet without updates.

 

As someone who has been doing PC repair for a long time, I can tell you with certainly that whatever Microsoft is doing is working. It's extremely rare for me to see a PC with a virus on windows 10 now. Ten years ago it's was probably most repairs were virus related. 

 

 

I don't see why Microsoft can't include the "check box" for receiving only security updates on the Home edition.

 

I don't use Windows...I just don't understand why everyone else that complains about Windows still does.