Windows 10 installs hit 75 million after just four weeks

[Corky34]

Lets maintain some perspective here. There is a world of difference between murder and you clicking on a "I Accept" button at the bottom of a page which clearly outlines all the T and C's which you never read and just click on anyway. There are no secrets to what's going on and you're implying that it is all somehow underhand, when it's not.

Good job I didn't say they're the same then isn't it.
What you seem to be saying though is that because other companies are busy slurping up our personal data that it's OK for Microsoft to join them, that two wrongs make a right.

You have a choice to install, or not. So either put up or ... go back to reading the Daily Mail.

Heaven forbid that people should vocalise what they see as a wrong.
Not sure about going back to reading the Daily Mail as last time I checked they're proponents of taking away peoples privacy, and the erosion of civil liberties.

[Saracen]

The anti-snooping settings have been well documented on a few websites and are easily turned off if a little distributed between the OS, Edge browser, and a collection of other apps. If you don't want the auto updates then get the Pro version and you can then defer them.

It's really not hard to retain control of your own Windows 10 PC and it's data with minimal effort, but of course if you just want to faceroll your installation then you get just the same as any other "free" OS which spies on you just the same, if not moreso. If it bothers you that much then you could just get yourself a chromebook ... oh wait.

Given the choice between the evil of Microsoft slurping my data and the evil of Google slurping my data, I know which one I trust more. I'm happy to share my non-identifiable data in order for a company to monetise it through which funds free software, but Google crosses the line to the point that many business go out of their way to keep Google devices and services off of their networks. Microsoft, whilst they might eventually head that way, have yet to transgress that line in quite the same way. Google's reputation is already beyond repair.

Even with Pro you can defer auto-updates, but you cannot refuse them. So if, as you suggest, I don't want auto-updates, I cannot stop them installing, can I? I can just influence when they install.

I've seen the faitly lengthy list of stuff you have to turn off to protect your privacy, if you wish to do so, starting with not having an MS account in the first place. But while MS specify that you can, for instance, "disable Cortana" they don't specify what that means. Many people will take it to mean Cortana is entirely non-functioning, but does it? Or does it just mean it's not responding to user queries, but is still slurping up private data in the background. Similarly, when MS cloud storage is ever further integrated into the OS, can you be sure, and I mean absolutely certain, that nothing is cloud stored unless you explicitly want it? And in answering that, remember that we cannot turn auto-updates off.

It comes down to whether we trust what MS are doing in the background. I absolutely agree with you about Google. But given the way MS are behaving, and the direction they appear to be travelling, I don't trust them, and don't see them as much better.

Which brings me back to my initial statement. Older versions of Windows are safer than Win10, because you don't have Cortana, etc, and can't be forced to accept updates against your will, but that doesn't guarantee they're safe.

[Tabbykatze]

The core reason why you can only defer updates is because there are people out there in humanity who don't think they even need updates, even the security ones. This is because they think they're all spying updates and walk around with their Tin Hats on. Therefore leaving their computer open to infection, botnetting and other malicious attacks that then use your computer for nefarious purposes. I was reading from Sophos that the vast majority of infected computers who later become part of a botnet is because people have chosen to install some or none of the updates, this is also confirmed with Verizons breach report 2014. What Microsoft is trying to do is alleviate the stupidity of the human race with the "only deferral", though blanketing in updates which aren't security updates, well...dunno what to say about that really.

[jigger]

75 million machines infected.

[rainman]

Good job I didn't say they're the same then isn't it.

Well you made a comparison between the rights and wrongs of murdering 20 people and companies that mine our usage data ... taken at face value what are we to conclude that you meant unless it isn't a direct comparison, in which case just what exactly was your point? Why didn't you just go the whole hog and compare it to genocide? But of course that would take the ridiculous comparison a step too far, so lets just compare it to murder hey? Seriously!

What you seem to be saying though is that because other companies are busy slurping up our personal data that it's OK for Microsoft to join them, that two wrongs make a right.

Erm, no, I didn't say anything of the sort and would invite you to show me where I did. Given a personal choice I would rather that taking and monetising my usage data wasn't an option at all and I would have been more than happy to pay for the product in order to maintain my privacy, but that's just my opinion and that's not what is being debated here.

The issue isn't whether I'm happy with the situation or not ... I was stating a simple fact that YOU have a choice and no one is forcing you to upgrade or do anything ... the difference between that and murder is that people being murdered tend not to have a choice in the outcome.

Heaven forbid that people should vocalise what they see as a wrong.

Hey, vocalise all you want, I would just tend to pick a more relevant comparison to illustrate your argument.

Not sure about going back to reading the Daily Mail as last time I checked they're proponents of taking away peoples privacy, and the erosion of civil liberties.

I was referring to the DM's reputation and propensity to seek overly dramatic headlines and exaggerate claims where there are none - ie, comparing almost anything to be as severe as murder. I figured that you'd be part of their readership so I stand corrected.

[ZaO]

Even with Pro you can defer auto-updates, but you cannot refuse them. So if, as you suggest, I don't want auto-updates, I cannot stop them installing, can I? I can just influence when they install.

I've seen the faitly lengthy list of stuff you have to turn off to protect your privacy, if you wish to do so, starting with not having an MS account in the first place. But while MS specify that you can, for instance, "disable Cortana" they don't specify what that means. Many people will take it to mean Cortana is entirely non-functioning, but does it? Or does it just mean it's not responding to user queries, but is still slurping up private data in the background. Similarly, when MS cloud storage is ever further integrated into the OS, can you be sure, and I mean absolutely certain, that nothing is cloud stored unless you explicitly want it? And in answering that, remember that we cannot turn auto-updates off.

It comes down to whether we trust what MS are doing in the background. I absolutely agree with you about Google. But given the way MS are behaving, and the direction they appear to be travelling, I don't trust them, and don't see them as much better.

Which brings me back to my initial statement. Older versions of Windows are safer than Win10, because you don't have Cortana, etc, and can't be forced to accept updates against your will, but that doesn't guarantee they're safe.

That's what I'm saying. Some people feel like things are ok once they've adjusted a bunch of settings. I don't feel good enough about that. The fact that the operating system was built from the ground up to spy on you just doesn't give me any confidence, regardless of what settings I adjust. I want an operating system that works for me, not spies on me like some disgusting pervert.

[crossy]

The core reason why you can only defer updates is because there are people out there in humanity who don't think they even need updates, even the security ones. This is because they think they're all spying updates and walk around with their Tin Hats on. Therefore leaving their computer open to infection, botnetting and other malicious attacks that then use your computer for nefarious purposes. I was reading from Sophos that the vast majority of infected computers who later become part of a botnet is because people have chosen to install some or none of the updates, this is also confirmed with Verizons breach report 2014. What Microsoft is trying to do is alleviate the stupidity of the human race with the "only deferral", though blanketing in updates which aren't security updates, well...dunno what to say about that really.

I guess that's one of the things I don't like about the new system, basically Microsoft could (and arguably "should have") implemented a graded approach to updates.

So security updates can only be "deferred", OS/app patches can be opted out of (for manual selection later) and new features (like that ****ing Skype install it keeps trying to foist on my W7 machine) are opt-in

That said, I'm not running W10 on my gaming machine, my missus upgraded her laptop and she's had no complaints so far. Although I'm also not seeing any performance increase on her SSD-equipped laptop over W7, and I thought there were SSD optimisations in W10?

[DanceswithUnix]

I wonder how much of the Windows store activity is people downloading their free Minecraft beta?

Edit to add: Having never used 8.x, I installed 10 on my netbook and later managed to download the Minecraft app so I am helping their stats with a machine that hasn't even been switched on in 2 weeks

[Saracen]

The core reason why you can only defer updates is because there are people out there in humanity who don't think they even need updates, even the security ones. This is because they think they're all spying updates and walk around with their Tin Hats on. Therefore leaving their computer open to infection, botnetting and other malicious attacks that then use your computer for nefarious purposes. I was reading from Sophos that the vast majority of infected computers who later become part of a botnet is because people have chosen to install some or none of the updates, this is also confirmed with Verizons breach report 2014. What Microsoft is trying to do is alleviate the stupidity of the human race with the "only deferral", though blanketing in updates which aren't security updates, well...dunno what to say about that really.

And your evidence that that is the "core reason" is .... what, exactly?

It is undoubtedly true that not applying some updates is a security risk, and not a good idea. But to imply that not just being willing to appky all updates is tin hat paranoia is silly. For a start, a good proportion of updates I've seen, and declined, over the years have related to issues with software I don't have, and have utterly no use for. Others have been known to break things that were working perfectly well prior to "updates" being installed, but not working afterwards. I've made a good few quid over the years unbreaking customer's machines after an MS auto-update broke something.

Also, I would suspect that the "core reason", if such a thing exists, is that supporting a platform, especially in the release of new updates and features, as MS have made explicitly clear will be the case in the post-Win10 world (last ever "version", and all that) is far easier, and maybe even only really practical, if all or at least all non-enterprise users are on the same version of all components of the OS.

The question is, though, not what the "core reason" is, but what it'll be used for, in future. For instance, the government introduced "anti-terror" legislation designed to guard against terror attacks, and parts of it ended up being used by police to harrass tourists, and even a BBC staff photographer, taking photos when a poluce officer thought it was "suspicious". Note, not "reasonable grounds" to be suspicious, but just on a whim. And, RIPA is introduced to enable surveillance on the grounds of the fight against terrorism, serious and organised crime, etc, and councils end up using it to surveil people suspected of letting their dog foul the pavement, or to hire private investigators to watch parents who might not really live in the catchment area for the school they've applied to for their kids. It's nice to know councils are taking such pro-active measures to deal with the serious criminals and subversive threats these people represent, isn't it?

This is, of course, the principle known as "the thin end of the wedge".

Because MS have made auto-updates mandatory (with possible deferment, but without definiing how long for), AND decided to introduce all future OS changes, removals and new features, silently and slipstreamed, via auto-updates, AND made agreeing to such a licence prerequisite, IF you install Win10 you explicitly agree to them doing whatever they want to the OS on your PC, be it next month, next year or in five years time, whether you like what they want to do, or not.

Personally, I absolutely detested Win8 MUI. To the point where I would not run Win8 if it meant MUI. So my choice was simple - don't upgrade. Stay with Win7. Don't install Win8 (despite having bought it). But had this mandatory auto-update been I place then, that would not have been an option.

From Win10 onwards, MS gets to decide what features my PCs have, regardless of what I want, or like, and regardless of what hardware I use, or what software might be incompatible with their decision. They can change the UI, and users are stuck with it. They dsn change the security model and users are stuck with it. They can change the relationship between drivers and core OS and users are stuck with it, regardless of whether perfectly functional hardware that's necessary to their business will no longer work with it.

This is not just about idiot users blindling and idiotically refusing updates out of paranoia. I DO update for security reasons. I also subscribe to security bulletins. I do run a decent firewall, and have it configured how I want it. And have AV, anti-malware etc installed and up to date. What I don't, and won't have, is Win10 if it means ceding control over how my computers are configured to Big Brother Microsoft.

Oh, and I don't like the privacy implications either.

Remember .... thin end of the wedge.

I don't know what MS will do in the future. And unless you're a very senior MS executive, nor do you. But I do know, and I stress KNOW that this opens the door very wide indeed, for them to do whatever they wish, because users of Win10 ALREADY agreed to it, when it be good or bad, like it or not.

If you're okay with that, fair enough. Enjoy Win10. But I have not, and will not, go to Win10 under those conditions, even if that means shifting all my net-connected PCs to Linux, and shifting those running out of date Windows versions behind an airgap and just using them for hardware or software I still need. Shame, IMHO, but so be it. MS haven't left me any choice.

[kopite]

Is it wrong that I'm actually kind of liking windows 10?

[Spreadie]

I've installed it on my tablets, which are used for little more than coffee table internet browsers, or reading Hexus whilst sitting on the throne. It's alright, I suppose - seems a bit flaky and prone to the occasional lock-up but it looks ok on a tablet.

I currently have no plans to install it on my PCs or laptops.

[rainman]

That's what I'm saying. Some people feel like things are ok once they've adjusted a bunch of settings. I don't feel good enough about that. The fact that the operating system was built from the ground up to spy on you just doesn't give me any confidence, regardless of what settings I adjust. I want an operating system that works for me, not spies on me like some disgusting pervert.

I'm just really curious about how many share the same concerns as yourself about Windows 10 (and it's a valid concern) but also use an Android mobile phone or tablet. Since the Android market share is pretty significant I'm going to go out on a limb and say of the people that say they don't like being spied on, 40% of them probably own an Android device of some type of another.

If you're one of them then all I'd say is that Microsoft and Windows 10 is the least of your worries. Yes they might be forcing updates on you but it's a stark contrast to the absolute farce that Android updates. I would rather my usage data wasn't used at all but if I've got to choose then there is no question as to whom I would side with.

If you really want to talk about the thin end of the wedge, how do you feel about your car running Android? Personally, it makes my blood run cold.

[DanceswithUnix]

If you really want to talk about the thin end of the wedge, how do you feel about your car running Android? Personally, it makes my blood run cold.

I already depend on Android for navigation and bluetooth streamed music, so I think it is about half way through the wedge and the thin edge is long gone.

Rather that than Windows though. "The brake pedal has been pressed, please reboot for this to take effect." *Shudder*.

I see the tin foil brigade are having fun on torrents though: http://arstechnica.co.uk/information...rent-trackers/

[Corky34]

Well you made a comparison between the rights and wrongs of murdering 20 people and companies that mine our usage data ... taken at face value what are we to conclude that you meant unless it isn't a direct comparison, in which case just what exactly was your point? Why didn't you just go the whole hog and compare it to genocide? But of course that would take the ridiculous comparison a step too far, so lets just compare it to murder hey? Seriously!

No I didn't, I highlighted that just because one person/company does something wrong doesn't suddenly make it right for others to do a lesser wrong, or did you miss that I said "So because one company does it that makes it OK for others?". I used the murdering 20 people to highlight how just because one person or company does something wrong doesn't make a lesser wrong any less wrong.

Erm, no, I didn't say anything of the sort and would invite you to show me where I did. Given a personal choice I would rather that taking and monetising my usage data wasn't an option at all and I would have been more than happy to pay for the product in order to maintain my privacy, but that's just my opinion and that's not what is being debated here.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant when you said...

Given the choice between the evil of Microsoft slurping my data and the evil of Google slurping my data, I know which one I trust more. I'm happy to share my non-identifiable data in order for a company to monetise it through which funds free software, but Google crosses the line to the point that many business go out of their way to keep Google devices and services off of their networks. Microsoft, whilst they might eventually head that way, have yet to transgress that line in quite the same way. Google's reputation is already beyond repair.

Was I incorrect when I read that and it seemed like you were comparing a less evil Microsoft, with a more evil Google, and that as Google is more evil that it's OK for Microsoft to be less evil?

The issue isn't whether I'm happy with the situation or not ... I was stating a simple fact that YOU have a choice and no one is forcing you to upgrade or do anything ... the difference between that and murder is that people being murdered tend not to have a choice in the outcome.

Well seeing as Microsoft have been (disputably) forcing the Windows 10 upgrade on people, I would say some people haven't had a choice, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

Hey, vocalise all you want, I would just tend to pick a more relevant comparison to illustrate your argument.

It wasn't intended as a comparison to illustrate my argument, it was intended to illustrate that just because someone else has done more, or a worse bad thing, that's it's OK if you do a lesser bad thing, it's not, it's not OK to use the excuse that everyone is doing it, or there are worse offenders.

[ZaO]

I'm just really curious about how many share the same concerns as yourself about Windows 10 (and it's a valid concern) but also use an Android mobile phone or tablet. Since the Android market share is pretty significant I'm going to go out on a limb and say of the people that say they don't like being spied on, 40% of them probably own an Android device of some type of another.

If you're one of them then all I'd say is that Microsoft and Windows 10 is the least of your worries. Yes they might be forcing updates on you but it's a stark contrast to the absolute farce that Android updates. I would rather my usage data wasn't used at all but if I've got to choose then there is no question as to whom I would side with.

If you really want to talk about the thin end of the wedge, how do you feel about your car running Android? Personally, it makes my blood run cold.

I wouldn't know. But I don't think that because there is a problem with the way one thing works, it makes it ok for something else to do the same thing. Google and Android are bad news too, of course. We could sit here all day naming companies that are! Unfortunately it's becoming the norm. Scrap that - it's become the norm.

I don't know anything about that with cars. The only cars I like are old ones that don't have complex computers in them. Part of that reason is that I just prefer raw cars for the experience, less to go wrong with them too, but it's obviously also cool to have something that can't be messed with by some wireless connection

[Saracen]

Is it wrong that I'm actually kind of liking windows 10?

Nope. Not at all.

Personally, I'd like all users to be aware of the issues, good and bad, and I suspect that almost by definition, members here and similar sites/forums are going to be more aware than many, probably most, users. Presumably, you are aware. If it doesn't bother you, or doesn't bother you enough to not use it, fair enough. It's an informed choice.