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

[pio]

13 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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. 

So you're not saying that Windows updates fixing botnet attacks is why this forcing updates is a good thing for average people?

 

Okay.....just because "updates (can) protect computers from becoming silently infected from a botnet", doesn't mean we should be forcing them when the average user isn't targeted by those type of attacks.

If that type of attack isn't a problem for average people, then why are we forcing updates again then?  You know, I "can" get hit by a bus tomorrow.  Does that mean we need to forcibly park all buses?  Or maybe we need to force people to look before they cross the road by removing their ability to go in the road unless they look?  Force and coercion is NEVER the answer.


 

  

6 minutes ago, Diffident said:

 

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. 

Only reason I still do is RDP and networking.  I grew up with networking in Windows 98 and newer.  Networking in Linux is different, and not something I'm aware of how to do.  I've tried connecting to my Windows NAS in Linux, and I always end up with permissions issues, or I can't find the share, something stupid.  Definitely PEBKAC error there, I'll admit it.  I also rely heavily on RDP built into Windows, because I refuse to install a third party software for stuff that's been built into the OS for years.  There's also a select few games that won't run (yet) on Linux.  My reasons why I'm stuck and complaining.  

I assure you, I've been contemplating Linux daily for a while now.  It's just not QUITE there yet.  Either that or I'm not quite there yet.  You go ahead and determine.

Edited February 10, 2022 by pioneerisloud

[pio]

EDIT:  DP, see edit above.

Edited February 10, 2022 by pioneerisloud

[UltraMega]

9 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

So you're not saying that Windows updates fixing botnet attacks is why this forcing updates is a good thing for average people?

 

Okay.....just because "updates (can) protect computers from becoming silently infected from a botnet", doesn't mean we should be forcing them when the average user isn't targeted by those type of attacks.

If that type of attack isn't a problem for average people, then why are we forcing updates again then?  You know, I "can" get hit by a bus tomorrow.  Does that mean we need to forcibly park all buses?  Or maybe we need to force people to look before they cross the road by removing their ability to go in the road unless they look?  Force and coercion is NEVER the answer.

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. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by UltraMega
typos typos typos

[pio]

1 minute ago, UltraMega said:

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. Those the article does say this also allies 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. 

I can agree with most of that sure.  There are benefits to staying up to date, yes.  As far as Windows 10 Home vs Pro, the "updates" have always been forced.  The "new versions", what used to be called "service packs" were not forced.  Now they are.  You say it yourself, you can see they've made changes to their update policy, this is why.  You can install Windows 10 version 1607 right now and STAY on 1607, as it will not FORCE you to update to 21H2 or whatever the newest SP is.  That's what they're changing.

 

Again, they already did this to regular security patches with the release of 10.  It's been a slow change.  Windows 8.1 and older did NOT have forced updates for security patches or service packs.  Windows 10 has forced security updates.  Looking like Windows 11 and later 10 will have forced service packs.  THAT is the issue, that they're forcing these things.  Again, its been complained about since 10 was released.  Not arguing whether or not using security patches is a good thing or not, obviously security patches in general are a good thing.  Feature updates are not worth forcing people onto though.  And I still don't think even security patches should be forced.

What would've happened if everyone was FORCED onto Windows Vista from XP?  Half the computers in the world would've ceased to function until driver fixes were implemented.  You don't see that as a problem?  Because that's where they're heading.  They started with security updates, now we're forcing service packs and "feature updates".  Next, mark my words it WILL be forced full OS updates.  If you can't follow what they've done, and be able to predict where this is heading, well then I dunno what to tell you.  It's pretty obvious where the next logical step would be.

[UltraMega]

2 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

I can agree with most of that sure.  There are benefits to staying up to date, yes.  As far as Windows 10 Home vs Pro, the "updates" have always been forced.  The "new versions", what used to be called "service packs" were not forced.  Now they are.  You say it yourself, you can see they've made changes to their update policy, this is why.  You can install Windows 10 version 1607 right now and STAY on 1607, as it will not FORCE you to update to 21H2 or whatever the newest SP is.  That's what they're changing.

 

Again, they already did this to regular security patches with the release of 10.  It's been a slow change.  Windows 8.1 and older did NOT have forced updates for security patches or service packs.  Windows 10 has forced security updates.  Looking like Windows 11 and later 10 will have forced service packs.  THAT is the issue, that they're forcing these things.  Again, its been complained about since 10 was released.  Not arguing whether or not using security patches is a good thing or not, obviously security patches in general are a good thing.  Feature updates are not worth forcing people onto though.  And I still don't think even security patches should be forced.

What would've happened if everyone was FORCED onto Windows Vista from XP?  Half the computers in the world would've ceased to function until driver fixes were implemented.  You don't see that as a problem?  Because that's where they're heading.  They started with security updates, now we're forcing service packs and "feature updates".  Next, mark my words it WILL be forced full OS updates.  If you can't follow what they've done, and be able to predict where this is heading, well then I dunno what to tell you.  It's pretty obvious where the next logical step would be.

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? 

[pio]

9 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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 never said they were 100% going to force people on 11.  The only post where I stated anything like that, I also stated, "I'm not sure as I have TPMS or whatever turned off, so I can't say for sure".  What I AM saying though, is that this has been a slow move to that exact point.  You start slow and work up to get mass adoption.  You start by forcing small things like security patches.  Next logical step in forcing updates would be service packs or "feature updates".  This is where we are today.  What's the next thing they can force update?  Whole OS's.  It's coming.  That's the direction this road Microsoft is on is heading.  Yes, I have a problem with totalitarian control over things that are supposed to be in my control.  I should be in control of the security updates applied to MY computer.  I should also be in control over what service packs I run, or what OS I run.  Period.

 

Do I have an issue with updates beyond a security risk?  Yes absolutely since driver updates are now a part of Windows update whether you like it or not.  Currently they're still "optional", but updates themselves used to be optional too.  Driver updates have flat out killed hardware of mine in the past.  Absolutely lit on fire kind of killed.  Yes, I have a problem with Microsoft thinking they have control over MY hardware.

Edited February 10, 2022 by pioneerisloud

[UltraMega]

2 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

I never said they were 100% going to force people on 11.  The only post where I stated anything like that, I also stated, "I'm not sure as I have TPMS or whatever turned off, so I can't say for sure".  What I AM saying though, is that this has been a slow move to that exact point.  You start slow and work up to get mass adoption.  You start by forcing small things like security patches.  Next logical step in forcing updates would be service packs or "feature updates".  This is where we are today.  What's the next thing they can force update?  Whole OS's.  It's coming.  That's the direction this road Microsoft is on is heading.

 

Do I have an issue with updates beyond a security risk?  Yes absolutely since driver updates are now a part of Windows update whether you like it or not.  Currently they're still "optional", but updates themselves used to be optional too.  Driver updates have flat out killed hardware of mine in the past.  Absolutely lit on fire kind of killed.  Yes, I have a problem with Microsoft thinking they have control over MY hardware.

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. 

[pio]

5 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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. 

Okay, I'll try to keep this organized with your points.....

 

1)  You might think I'm being "paranoid" here with my thoughts that this is leading to more force.  However, you also would have called me "paranoid" in 2015 when I was complaining about updates being forced to begin with when Windows 10 was released.  It's not paranoia when Microsoft is doing exactly what I'm complaining about.  Just because its not happening this year, doesn't mean its not coming.  I never said it was going to happen tomorrow.  I said, "that's where this road Microsoft is on is heading".

 

2)  As mentioned by myself and other people already, botnets aren't necessarily the point of security updates.  it's one of them, sure.  You're the only one that keeps bringing up botnets.

3)  Beyond the risk of a compatibility issue.  Yes, drivers WOULD have something to do with compatibility, sure.  Absolutely.  That's not the point I made though is it?  When the drivers are literally catching things on fire, or killing hardware in other ways, that's no longer a compatibility issue but a security issue since that "update" is now acting more like a "virus".  It's counter productive.  I'm not talking about killing functionality, I'm talking about updates to drivers that flat out KILL hardware.  That's not a compatibility problem, its a security problem since a piece of software is physically harming my equipment that I've paid money for.  It's a virus in that instance.  This has been a problem a few different times over the years, and I for one do NOT want those kind of problems forced upon me.

Interesting that you single out compatibility problems too though with updates though.  If you're willing to admit that compatibility problems are a thing with updates, again....why is it okay to force them?  As THAT is the whole point of the argument here, forcing updates vs not forcing them.  I should have the ability to choose if I want updates installed or not, and which updates I apply.  Same thing with service packs or feature updates.  Same thing with OS upgrades.  It's my hardware, not Microsoft's.

[UltraMega]

31 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

Okay, I'll try to keep this organized with your points.....

 

1)  You might think I'm being "paranoid" here with my thoughts that this is leading to more force.  However, you also would have called me "paranoid" in 2015 when I was complaining about updates being forced to begin with when Windows 10 was released.  It's not paranoia when Microsoft is doing exactly what I'm complaining about.  Just because its not happening this year, doesn't mean its not coming.  I never said it was going to happen tomorrow.  I said, "that's where this road Microsoft is on is heading".

 

2)  As mentioned by myself and other people already, botnets aren't necessarily the point of security updates.  it's one of them, sure.  You're the only one that keeps bringing up botnets.

3)  Beyond the risk of a compatibility issue.  Yes, drivers WOULD have something to do with compatibility, sure.  Absolutely.  That's not the point I made though is it?  When the drivers are literally catching things on fire, or killing hardware in other ways, that's no longer a compatibility issue but a security issue since that "update" is now acting more like a "virus".  It's counter productive.  I'm not talking about killing functionality, I'm talking about updates to drivers that flat out KILL hardware.  That's not a compatibility problem, its a security problem since a piece of software is physically harming my equipment that I've paid money for.  It's a virus in that instance.  This has been a problem a few different times over the years, and I for one do NOT want those kind of problems forced upon me.

Interesting that you single out compatibility problems too though with updates though.  If you're willing to admit that compatibility problems are a thing with updates, again....why is it okay to force them?  As THAT is the whole point of the argument here, forcing updates vs not forcing them.  I should have the ability to choose if I want updates installed or not, and which updates I apply.  Same thing with service packs or feature updates.  Same thing with OS upgrades.  It's my hardware, not Microsoft's.

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. 

[pio]

16 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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. 

Well I'm glad that Microsoft is worried about these things, they should be.  It's not like updates haven't broken systems in the past before or anything, so its not like I or others don't have valid concerns here.  And that is a VERY good question, "Will Microsoft be able to deliver an extremely issue free update if its not optional?".  Very VERY good question.  Time will tell.  I would like to make note though, that past experience with Microsoft says the answer is no.  However, the correct answer is absolutely, "time will tell".  We'll see.  I don't have faith in them though based on their past and present.

 

How am I arguing in bad faith regarding botnets?  We discussed it already.  I didn't avoid engaging in it, I directly responded previously.  I don't see the point in beating a dead cow when we've already discussed it and together determined that botnets are not the sole cause for forcing updates.

[UltraMega]

5 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

Well I'm glad that Microsoft is worried about these things, they should be.  It's not like updates haven't broken systems in the past before or anything, so its not like I or others don't have valid concerns here.  And that is a VERY good question, "Will Microsoft be able to deliver an extremely issue free update if its not optional?".  Very VERY good question.  Time will tell.  I would like to make note though, that past experience with Microsoft says the answer is no.  However, the correct answer is absolutely, "time will tell".  We'll see.  I don't have faith in them though based on their past and present.

 

How am I arguing in bad faith regarding botnets?  We discussed it already.  I didn't avoid engaging in it, I directly responded previously.  I don't see the point in beating a dead cow when we've already discussed it and together determined that botnets are not the sole cause for forcing updates.

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. 

[pio]

1 minute ago, UltraMega said:

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. 

Right, I understand your point there.  And I agree with it to an extent.  Yes, botnets are a PART of the security updates.  Sure.  The reasoning BEHIND it is where we differ on opinion.

 

I'm stating that botnets are a non issue for the vast majority of Windows users as they would not be targeted by such an attack.  Attacks and virus' are a result of people trying to get money or power from malicious means.  Why do we need botnet security updates, when the average user is not attacked by botnets?  Those are a concern moreso for web infrastructure and larger businesses, not your average home user.  So it begs the same question I've had this entire time, why are we forcing these updates if they don't actually help anything?  Of course system admins for larger businesses and web infrastructure would be on top of deploying security patches as quickly as they can, especially if they're targeted regularly by botnet type attacks.

One COULD make the argument that if it weren't for the security updates, botnet attacks would be more frequent.  Okay, let's go down that rabbit hole.  Why would botnets target regular everyday people?  It takes far too much effort to do a successful botnet attack, why would a scammer or malicious person use such a tactic on a regular everyday person when they can just phish their email or call them and claim to be from Microsoft, give them money or else?

So it doesn't make sense for doing these updates "automatically" (or forced) for a large business or infrastructure as the system admins would already be on top of security patches as is.  It doesn't make sense from a standard user point of view either since they typically wouldn't be attacked by a botnet type attack.  Sooooo why are we forcing them then?

[UltraMega]

18 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

I'm stating that botnets are a non issue for the vast majority of Windows users as they would not be targeted by such an attack.  Attacks and virus' are a result of people trying to get money or power from malicious means.  Why do we need botnet security updates, when the average user is not attacked by botnets?  

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

[pio]

2 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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

Exactly what I said a while ago that we're beating a dead cow here.

This is exactly why I used XP as an example earlier to prove that updates aren't necessarily needed for everyday browsing.  You countered that by stating that of course XP wouldn't be a target for malicious means since its not used by the masses anymore.  We agree.  We also agree on botnets seeing as how it really wouldn't be a target by everyday users.

Another point being here, that system admins for large businesses and web infrastructure is ALREADY on top of keeping things secure.  Security updates absolutely are one tool they use.

You have yet to prove a point defending Microsoft here though since your arguments CAN be countered with valid arguments.  There is absolutely no logical reason to force updates beyond a power flexing purpose.  Regular users aren't affected by them that much these days, and major sites that would be....already have security teams in place.  And this isn't even about security patches since that's already been forced since Windows 10 released.  Part of why large businesses don't use Windows 10, because they cannot afford the unplanned downtime.

[UltraMega]

21 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

Exactly what I said a while ago that we're beating a dead cow here.

This is exactly why I used XP as an example earlier to prove that updates aren't necessarily needed for everyday browsing.  You countered that by stating that of course XP wouldn't be a target for malicious means since its not used by the masses anymore.  We agree.  We also agree on botnets seeing as how it really wouldn't be a target by everyday users.

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. 

Edited February 11, 2022 by UltraMega

[UltraMega]

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.

 

Quote

Why Microsoft Is Forcing Users to Update:
Microsoft's actions may seem draconian, but the company wants its users to stay secure. As Microsoft ends its support for specific services and programs, it also wants to give users the ability to upgrade and avoid being left out of the cold—even if they don't ask for it.

 

This isn't the first time Microsoft has forced an update. Recently, the company forced the new Chromium Microsoft Edge onto everyone's PCs. This is because Microsoft wants to kill off both Internet Explorer and Edge's legacy version, as they were far less secure.

 

Of course, this stance does feel like Microsoft believes it knows your interests and needs better than you do. However, Microsoft may instead be aiming for the group of users who don't really understand what updates do for their computer and how running an outdated version can be dangerous.

 

Keeping Your Windows PC Updated

If you're running an older version of Windows, you may find that it'll update itself soon, whether you want it to or not. Windows users should get accustomed to updates like this, as Microsoft wants to ensure that every user is on the same page.

 

If you keep putting off Windows Update because it always pops up at the worst time, you should give managing your updates a shot. While the early versions of Windows 10 were very brash with their updates, recent versions give you some control over how your PC updates itself.

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. 

[pio]

12 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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. 

My gosh dude.  Do you REALLY believe that I'm arguing that viruses are harming the people themselves that use the computers?  OF COURSE ITS THE COMPUTER THAT'S THE TARGET. -_-  My point being, that botnets do not target regular everyday users.  They never have.  Why would they start now in 2022?  One or two fringe examples may be able to be found, but in my 20+ years of computer repair I've never once seen a regular user effected by a botnet attack.

 

Why is it out of touch to say that there's no logical reason to force updates?  Why is that so fringe to say, when just 5 years ago this exact argument was being had, and the users complained about forced updates?  Why is it changed now?  My opinion has never waivered on this subject, I have NEVER been for forced updates.  It was not fringe 5 years ago when Windows 10 came out and everybody else was worried about these exact problems.  Why now, that those problems are showing their ugly faces and I'm pointing back and saying, "see told you so", why now is my opinion so cringe?  5 years ago, forced updates would have been laughed at in these types of communities that we have here at EHW.

 

And no, its not in my mind that its all a game to get my to update to Windows 11.  I said with my VERY FIRST RESPONSE in this very thread, that I have the features disabled in my BIOS so that Windows 11 will NOT be offered.  I'm not worried about them forcing 11 on me.  Why would I be when my system is "incompatible"?  "The most logical reason is security updates, duh"?  What is that supposed to mean?  Did security updates never exist before Microsoft started forcing them?

[pio]

1 minute ago, UltraMega said:

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. 

Okay, so we're going to punish the minority of power users and majority of general users because of a few bad eggs that don't understand the update process?  Sounds familiar.......

[UltraMega]

Just now, pioneerisloud said:

My gosh dude.  Do you REALLY believe that I'm arguing that viruses are harming the people themselves that use the computers?  OF COURSE ITS THE COMPUTER THAT'S THE TARGET. -_-  My point being, that botnets do not target regular everyday users.  They never have.  Why would they start now in 2022?  One or two fringe examples may be able to be found, but in my 20+ years of computer repair I've never once seen a regular user effected by a botnet attack.

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. 

[UltraMega]

1 minute ago, pioneerisloud said:

Okay, so we're going to punish the minority of power users and majority of general users because of a few bad eggs that don't understand the update process?  Sounds familiar.......

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!

[pio]

3 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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. 

How does it not make sense?  No, I'm pretty sure I'm having the same conversation since I'm responding DIRECTLY to your points.  You probably will repeat the same thing over again for a third time.  Another thing we've already pointed out.

 

 

Just now, UltraMega said:

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!

A minimum standard that everyone has to adhere to?  Why do we HAVE TO?  Why is it the almighty Microsoft that has the final say on what MY HARDWARE does?  It's NEVER been a thing before Windows 10, and it SHOULD NOT be a thing now.  It's my hardware, not Microsoft's.  Why are you picking that ONE small word I said in all of those paragraphs and writing your response solely on that one word, "punish", and making it sound like that's solely what my concern was?  You haven't been reading any of my comments, or at least not comprehending them very well.  I mean I could take this very quoted response of yours and be like, "haha, gotcha, so you admit Microsoft wants to punish us??!!".  Except I didn't, because I can understand that your comment there was sarcasm.  You see, I am reading your points.  You just haven't provided a valid reason to defend Microsoft in their pursuit of forcing things down people's throats.  Botnets, security updates, virus', fringe users that just click next next next finish.....all things we've talked about already.  None of which are an acceptable reason as to WHY Microsoft thinks this is okay behavior.

[UltraMega]

10 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

A minimum standard that everyone has to adhere to?  Why do we HAVE TO?  Why is it the almighty Microsoft that has the final say on what MY HARDWARE does?  It's NEVER been a thing before Windows 10, and it SHOULD NOT be a thing now.  It's my hardware, not Microsoft's.  Why are you picking that ONE small word I said in all of those paragraphs and writing your response solely on that one word, "punish", and making it sound like that's solely what my concern was?  You haven't been reading any of my comments, or at least not comprehending them very well.  I mean I could take this very quoted response of yours and be like, "haha, gotcha, so you admit Microsoft wants to punish us??!!".  Except I didn't, because I can understand that your comment there was sarcasm.  You see, I am reading your points.  You just haven't provided a valid reason to defend Microsoft in their pursuit of forcing things down people's throats.  Botnets, security updates, virus', fringe users that just click next next next finish.....all things we've talked about already.  None of which are an acceptable reason as to WHY Microsoft thinks this is okay behavior.

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. 

Edited February 11, 2022 by UltraMega

[pio]

1 hour ago, UltraMega said:

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. 

That's fine and I respect your opinion on the subject, whole heartedly. I too like to think about "why are they doing this". Which is kind of why we're debating in so many words. 

 

You say forcing updates is microsofts choice in the matter since so many people lack updates, businesses, botnets etc reasons. Okay. I can understand that. My point being that those reasons are not justified for the force they're displaying by these moves. It's a power move. "You can't use older versions because we say so" , in so many words. The same exact reason why many a piece of old software is disgaurded. It's not because of a lack of functionality, it's because the company deems it so. 

 

If a new update, new service pack, or new os is actually worthwhile to use, it should be upon its own merit, not by force. 

 

EDIT:
It's like the arguments of software use and EULA's.  It's a very similar argument.  On one side of the argument, the EULA says so, the user is forced to agree with it, so it must be okay.  You either agree with the EULA or you don't use the software.  Doesn't matter what the point is in the EULA, that's why you have to agree with it.  Doesn't matter if the EULA changes after you've purchased said software, because you already agreed that any changes to the EULA you agree with before the changes were even made.  Basically, the software is the company's property so the company has every right to do whatever they want.

 

On the other side of that same argument, you have people that believe that the customers or people should be right and to do as they please with software they've paid their hard earned money for.  It's the same argument, we're just talking about Microsoft in this instance.

So we get it, you support Microsoft knowing that its their software to do with as they please.  I'm on the other side of that argument because I paid my hard earned money for a product, and I expect I should be able to do whatever I want with a product I paid for.

Edited February 11, 2022 by pioneerisloud

[schuck6566]

I just want to say,when I started using windows you had to search the internet for updates and apply them and hope they were legit.THEN this great thing called Windows Update web app was released and we had a source for trusted updates but we STILL had to select WHICH updates we wanted to install and had to hope the ones we chose actually applied to our system(or that we didn't skip 1 that did apply through ignorance). Eventually that evolved so that it offered all the updates that applied and we could un-select ones with issues. (my personal favorite) Now they keep everything up to the latest updates for home users,and if you want any control,you need a pro version. Maybe if more people had been a bit more careful and kept their systems up Microsoft wouldn't feel the need to play big brother and control the OS as much.

We have Govt. demanding that systems be kept updated and patched,then asking the vendors what THEY are doing to prevent further exploits so that also is probably a factor in forced updates along with the fact that it's easier to only have to patch systems that are all a certain version when a new exploit is found instead of the latest and the previous 3 versions of the OS also.(such as 21H2 and the earlier releases).

At the end of the day,it's going to be about cost effectiveness.

[ENTERPRISE]

I believe that as an operating system provider, there is a duty to provide a minimum level of security and to ensure this is kept up to date. So when I get the security updates rolled out to my system, for me it is a no brainer and I expect these to be mandatory and I think they should be. Microsoft provides a platform and for business reasons, ethical reasons and more, they have to maintain a minimum standard of security. I am glad they do as they are sometime more responsible than third parties in rolling out updates to prevent a users PC from being infected. 

 

I think the main issue between Microsoft and its users are the bigger "Service" updates. We all know that service updates come with both security and feature updates. I think the argument here is that it would be nice for these "Service" updates if you can choose to install only the security updates but not forced with the feature updates.  

 

In an ideal world, I think people should be able to choose what features they have, some people like the way their system operates and do not want/require the facelift improvements.  Features and security should be separate where possible. The only caveat to that is if you have a feature in windows that has a security flaw, sometimes the only way to properly roll out the security fix is for the feature to be fully updated. In these instances, it would be reasonable for Microsoft to force these types of feature updates when it is 100% required for security reasons.