The "ads" are an opt-in recommendation feature of the Store and/or Cortana. They don't directly make money for Microsoft. (Microsoft still gets its Store cut if you actually buy one of the suggested apps, but it wants Suggested Apps to be a useful, personalized recommender, not a paid featured spot...)
If the forced Windows 10 upgrades were not an accident, it wasn't to make money. If anything it would be an attempt to save money and have fewer people on older operating systems that they need to support.
If there's a "grand conspiracy" afoot, it should be pretty transparent and obvious by now: Microsoft doesn't want people stuck on the same version of Windows for a decade again (XP).
Debian LTS, as one example, is Five Years. It's hard not to sympathize with Microsoft that historically maybe their support contracts have been too friendly, compared with the competition. :)
I think most of us wish we can keep our tech debt/maintenance relationships below a decade. (At least, those of us that are not yet dinosaurs like IBM.)
> Yes. You can downgrade Windows 10 to whatever you installed it on top of. I think this has been possible since the Vista -> 7 upgrade.
It's been possible with every version of Windows, I believe. Windows 95 would rename your old Windows directory. And earlier versions didn't try to control the hard drive, as they weren't your OS - though 95 didn't try to own it fully, it lacked a My Documents directory and expected you to make your own root directory folders to store file!
I agree. This is the fourth major issue. Firstly they told everyone that they're not going to fully describe updates any more. Then there was the whole telemetry thing. This was closely followed by a test update was pushed out recently as well which caused major administrative panic. Now this.
I'm not sure that firing people is the right approach but this is not acceptable.
Right, because pushing major updates to hundreds of millions of users, each using different hardware, with different OS versions, different level of customization on that OS and different software installed is SUCH a trivial thing to do. No room for small (repairable) errors that might affect a handful of people under certain circumstances.
It's not trivial, you're right -- which is why you put your A-level people on it. Windows Update is Windows now... yet every week it seems they push another broken, malformed, or generally customer-unfriendly update. Their new policy of suppressing release notes is just (brown) icing on the cake.
The end result of all this stupidity is to incentivize users to turn off automatic updates. Everybody with an Internet connection will suffer for that.
For the past 2.5 years, I've been working as sysadmin / helpdesk monkey at a mostly-Windows shop.
On Debian or CentOS, updates are simple - if any updates are available, you install them. End of story.
On Windows, as I have learnt the hard way, simply installing all available updates is pretty much begging for trouble. During my training at Deutsche Telekom, when I heard that they had a whole team whose only task was testing Windows updates, I thought they were being wussies. Now, I envy them. The reality for me is more like checking online discussion boards to see if anyone was dumb enough to just install all the updates, yet smart enough to figure out which ones caused them trouble, then only approving those updates nobody has complained about. It is kind of like playing Russian roulette.
As as Unix-person looking at the Windows world from an outsider's perspective (kind of), I am kind of shocked that this is the OS powering approximately 90% of corporate desktops. Imagine if, following the end of the Cold War, Western car companies had been driven out of business by the Trabbi. That is pretty much what has happened in the PC world.
And, yes, I get that Windows is tortured by more combinations of hardware and software than anyone wants to imagine, and QA for their updates must be a living hell. But IIRC, Microsoft also made something like 20 billion dollars in profit last year, so they could easily spend one billion on making Windows update not suck - or at least suck slightly less - and still be disgustingly profitable.
The worst thing is that people who have known no other OS but Windows all their lives fail to see how utterly wrong this is. Either they just don't know any better, or it's a massive case of Stockholm syndrome...
(Sorry, but I've had that on my mind for a while, and since it was patchday this week, I hope you can understand my need to vent a little...)
> simply installing all available updates is pretty much begging for trouble
I've done this since Windows 95. It hasn't caused me a problem since Windows XP SP2. I actually love Windows update and missed it when I was on Linux. Ubuntu's kernel upgrades would randomly break sleep, audio, special keys on my keyboard, or other weird stuff.
Mmmh, point taken. I only had problem with updates on Linux when I was using Gentoo and lived on the unstable branch (and unstable, of course, implies that such problems are to be expected).
There is a difference between administrating a single machine at home, or maybe a handful, or taking care of a company network of (in my case) about 80 machines (and that is still a tiny network, I suppose). Problems that a typical user only sees once in a couple of years become disturbingly common as the number of machines grows, and I guess that is true regardless of the operating system being used.
Having said that, I have encountered some rather strange and frustrating problems with Windows updates. One time, a Windows update would somehow not successfully register itself as being installed, but it did require a reboot. So after installing the update, the user rebooted her system, finding yet another update (the very same, in fact) available, install it, reboot, find another update... For some reason, only two machines in our network were affected by this problem, and I have no clue why it was these specific machines. One time, an update to Office 2013 overwrote some VB script that Autodesk Inventor happened to depend on, causing it to crash while displaying the splash screen; reinstalling Inventor hepled with that, but now Outlook would crash when trying to write an email. Another time, an update caused a few machines to hang while booting. There was an update to Windows 8.1 that was not called a Service Pack, but for all intents and purposes, it was, and Microsoft said that without this update installed, 8.1 machines would no longer receive updates; however, this update caused 8.1 in combination with a specific version of WSUS to no longer talk to the WSUS server - I think this is what people call a Catch 22.
And the list goes on and on. I have only a few years of experience taking care of a relatively tiny number of systems. Like I said, I understand now why large companies run labs where they test Windows updates - and updates by other software vendors, too, I suppose - against each and every combination of hardware and software being used on the corporate network.
Just because you did not run into problems does not mean there are none, just as my experience with updates on Linux and FreeBSD is not representative of what it is like to run dozens or hundreds of machines with these operating systems. However, currently the operating being used on the majority of company networks is Windows, and the company making billions of that is Microsoft.
Although, to be fair, in many cases where an update to Windows breaks a third party application, I suspect the third party is at least as much to blame. In my case, I have grown very weary of Siemens automation software (Simatic, WinCC, TIA), which is very sensitive with regards to updates, to say the least. So, to a degree, Microsoft has merely become a victim of its own success.
> This doesn't work in a huge number of situations. It just reports failure.
What's a "huge number"? I'd say only a tiny minority of Windows users even try to downgrade. I tried to Google this ("windows downgrade failed") and couldn't find many examples.
Unless you work at Microsoft and have real data from users, I don't think you (or I) have the data to claim that few or many of these downgrades fail. There's just no way to really know.
Well, considering that the Windows 10 upgrade is only offered free for the first year, I'd think that it'd make more sense not to automatically upgrade people's licenses for free if it could be charged later down the road. So yeah, I could see how this would actually be a mistake.
That's a very noble position, but I'm not sure it's a very realistic one.
Some mistakes should surely be forgiven in the interests of learning and doing better next time. We might call them "honest mistakes", perhaps actions taken with the best of intentions but which proved to have unexpected and undesirable side effects that could not reasonably have been anticipated.
Other mistakes are either not really mistakes at all or are actions taken by someone who might not have intended the final outcome but should clearly have known better. Consider installing a defeat device in a car to actively circumvent regulations, or a government agent or corporate officer abusing their authority for personal gain, or a police officer who has a track record of being more violent than was necessary when dealing with suspects. At some point, the mistake is no longer relatively harmless or something to be tolerated in the interests of overall progress, it's a demonstration of bad judgement that isn't acceptable for someone in that position.
But this isn't a minor glitch. Even if it is possible to reliably reverse the effects of unintentionally installing Windows 10, it is going to waste considerable time and resources for everyone who has to do it. In this case, it also seems generous to assume 100% reliable reversal will be possible without knowing the details of the mechanism used, given the subject we're discussing in the first place.
Cries for blood and similar hyperbole are unlikely to be helpful in any case, but questioning the position of anyone who thought this was acceptable behaviour or who was responsible and signed off on the update seems fair, and so does expecting Microsoft to provide fair compensation if anyone really does get significantly messed around because of this action.
Do you have any evidence to contradict the article's claim that the installer requires human intervention and doesn't work unattended? Because nothing that you're saying is relevant, given that point.
Because nothing that you're saying is relevant, given that point.
I disagree. Would an average user, the kind of person who is going to trust updates from Microsoft and leave them on by default and therefore wind up installing in this case in the first place, necessarily realise the significance of one extra confirmation dialog? People are notoriously blind to such messages, so I'd want to see exactly what that extra human intervention involved before making any judgement here.
> Cries for blood and similar hyperbole are unlikely to be helpful in any case, but questioning the position of anyone who thought this was acceptable behaviour or who was responsible and signed off on the update seems fair, and so does expecting Microsoft to provide fair compensation if anyone really does get significantly messed around because of this action.
Both true, and yet still it doesn't mean you have to fire the poor guy if the mistake was honest, regardless of damage done. Hell, he'll probably be beating himself over it harder than you imagine if the consequences were big.
There's a point in time where you're crossing the boundary from mistakes into the realm of unlawful activities. I think it's very difficult to argue such actions are a mistake (e.g. "I had no idea insider trading was wrong, your honor, it was a mistake!"), because such things are an entirely different class of behaviors. They're intentional, and if such intent can be proven in a court of law, they are usually tried as such. Proving intent is exceedingly important in criminal law.
If you're looking for mistakes that can bring material harm to others, it might be easier to examine industries where errors in judgment lead to physical and/or financial harm. Transportation industries (aviation, trucking, etc), construction, and a whole slew of others offer a variety of examples to choose from that don't necessarily require intentional misuse of resources to cause harm.
Think of how many aircraft accidents have occurred over the decades as a direct consequence of mistakes made by the air crews--or controllers, or maintenance staff--and were, frankly, errors in judgment. Sure, there have been cases where maintenance shortcuts were taken to either save money or time, lead to the deaths of passengers and flight crews, and have been successfully tried in a court of law as negligence (or worse). But that clearly crosses what should hopefully be a distinctive line into unlawful actions, and even still, there have been circumstances where the maintenance staff wasn't held accountable. Again, it's a matter of intent.
So I think context is important. In the case of Microsoft, I don't think that the mistake in question should result in wanton firing. Perhaps if someone could prove that they were materially harmed by the upgrade, then it might be pertinent to seek damages from the company. But oftentimes the developers on staff either did something wrong (and fixed it) or were specifically told to implement that feature by management.
I agree that intent is very important, but other things matter too, both legally and ethically. If you take on certain responsibilities then, well, you're responsible for them. In law that manifests as things like duties of care, as well as variations on a theme of ignorance of the law not being a defence. In real world terms, a supervisor who failed to spot a serious error that resulted in harm might not be criminally liable because of lack of intent, nor deserving of punishment for an innocent mistake, but their demonstrable lack of competence might still make it inappropriate for them to retain their position.
True, but there are other forms of punishment than firing. You can cut the pay or demote a person, thus penalizing them for their carelessness while still letting them learn from it and keeping the experience in house.
From my observations, people get fired over mistakes for two reasons - because somebody is stupid/overreactive/wants blood, or because the company wants to signal strong action taken (firing someone whose actions resulted in PR problems).
There's also a class of mistake, which I suppose the one discussed here belonged to, that's a combination of 'honest mistake' of a person along with a failure of the system to capture it in time. If it is known that a mistake in e.g. an update process can affect millions of users, a system should be set up to capture those before they have a chance to do real-world damage. Maybe a second person in another team should sign off update changes, etc. Lack of such a system may be considered not-so-honest mistake of senior management. Sadly, some companies design systems preventing (knowledge of) mistakes from getting out instead.
Agreed (assuming it was a mistake). If (not that it is a simple flag) a testing flag was left on or something that caused this and went out - sure, mistake. If a decision was made for this purpose and it was like "Oh...I guess they caught us" - that's something different.
Given that a bad Windows update now has the potential to literally render millions of systems inoperable without their users being able to do much about it, one would hope there are processes in place so no such trivial mistake by a single person could actually get as far as the production systems.
True, but if there was no such process, then you shouldn't fire the engineer who made the mistake, but instead consider punishing the person responsible for not setting up said process.
We set up processes not so that we can have an excuse for firing people who made errors, but so that those errors have limited consequences and could be safely used as learning opportunities.
Hanlon's Razor. Which do you consider more likely: someone screwed up (as Microsoft's updates often do) or that Microsoft deliberately started upgrading Windows machines in secret hoping that either nobody would care or that they would be okay with just upgrading a few then stopping and having to make up an excuse to cover it up? It's just absurd.
This is a really big mistake to make with your flagship product.
True enough. In this case, it looks like it might be particularly bad if it affects systems where someone has actively chosen not to move to Windows 10 for their own reasons. That seems to be the case for a lot of "power users". Also, while enterprise-scale businesses with full-time professional admins may well be using WSUS and Enterprise versions of Windows, smaller businesses will often be running Pro versions and handling upgrades in other ways, and could be affected too.
Even if the arguments about forced updates and privacy don't seem to concern a lot of typical home users, whether through apathy or ignorance, Windows seems to be losing the trust of the tech community who often do care about such things. That tech community both runs business IT and advises non-technical friends and family, and as a rule it does not take kindly to being bullied. Microsoft have now screwed this same issue up several times over within just a few weeks, and it's starting to look like they've lost control of both their product and their PR.
I had not switched to win10, but was told by others who did saying that win7 > win10 > win8, i.e. win7 is the best, is it true? I have a dual-boot win7 for tax-filing that I had not booted into since April, using linux daily. This news made me feel relieved a bit that it's good I did not have win7 running and got automatically "upgraded".
8 was really, really similar to 7, except for the start menu. The start menu made little difference to me because I just create taskbar/desktop shortcuts or press the Windows key and type what I want. People bitched about the new start menu because they weren't willing to see that there were better ways to find their programs.
10 is really, really similar to 8 as well. The only noticeable difference is, again, the start menu. There are small things here and there (and a much nicer graphical design), but otherwise it's pretty much the same.
If you have enough storage, I'd suggest just trying Windows out as a dual-boot option. If you don't like it, you can always remove the Windows partition, no harm done.
YMMV if you're on a laptop, though. Some models lose control over screen brightness with the 7 -> 10 upgrade, locking it to 100% all the time. Microsoft doesn't have an explanation or fix.
> People bitched about the new start menu because they weren't willing to see that there were better ways to find their programs.
What exactly was the better way though? I'm still on Win7 in my primary computer, having Win10 (and previously Win8) installed on my secondary.
On Win7 I press the start button and type the name of what I want to run (or find) - this lets me do what I want very quickly with a minimum of interruption.
Win8 was similar, but it threw a jarring fullscreen slab of apps in my face. I say it was similar because it still let me start typing right away and get to the stuff I wanted with minimal hassle.
Win10 is a whole different beast, I feel. The search was decoupled from the start menu; but the start menu itself returned to most of its former glory (unintrusive, no jarring screen transition). The key factor here is that I can no longer just start typing to get to an app, and I have yet to invest the necessary time into seeing if it is at all possible since it's still my secondary machine.
Right now, amidst all of the anti-Microsoft scaremongering, I'm also finding it less likely that I'll keep going down the Microsoft path. Linux is starting to look more and more attractive, with OS X a strong second place contender. And not just for the start menu.
> The key factor here is that I can no longer just start typing to get to an app,
Not sure what you mean; Windows 10 is exactly like Windows 7 and Windows 8 here. You hit the start button / start key, you start typing, and the things you want start popping up.
> Not sure what you mean; Windows 10 is exactly like Windows 7 and Windows 8 here. You hit the start button / start key, you start typing, and the things you want start popping up.
I can assure you, that is not the way it currently functions on my Win10 machine. For me the search bar is a magnifying glass next to the start menu, at a minimum, or a full-blown text field. Regardless of which state, I have to click it before being able to type and search.
People bitched about the new start menu because they weren't willing to see that there were better ways to find their programs.
I really hate seeing this "blame the victim" mentality.
People here on Hackers News might be prepared to seek and deploy alternative start menus, but for many, perhaps most, non-technical users, it's a difficult and scary prospect.
So what are you saying? No company should improve its UI?
To be clear, Microsoft thought they were improving the start menu (the point-and-click, non-search usage of it) as well. It may be better, for all I know. But starting with Windows 8, I just totally stopped using it, so I can't weigh in on that.
Windows also comes with a tutorial at the beginning that explains the new UI.
No. If you're really nervous about telemetry, etc. then maybe. Otherwise, Win7 looks ancient if you get used to 10 -- it's faster, it has better display scaling, better multi-monitor support and window management.
My main Win7 workstation doesn't have a lot of noticeable lag anyway. In what ways is Win10 significantly faster, in your experience?
Likewise, my Win7 workstation has a couple of large monitors attached, but five minutes setting up WinSplit Revolution gave me a more convenient way of organising all that space and the windows within it than any version of Windows I've ever used (and most window managers on other platforms, for that matter). There are a couple of annoyances, but those seem to be more to do with the graphics drivers and use of DisplayPort than anything else; is Win10 noticeably better at handling such things for you?
Windows 8.1 with Classic Shell's start menu is the sweet spot at the moment if you ask me. It has the explorer and task manager additions that windows 8 brought in, boots faster than 7 and doesn't have as much of the UI replaced. I'm going to be honest and say that if there was a way to get rid of the charms bar and network panel, it'd be perfect.
TBH I'm going to use it until EOL in 2023 and then do something else.
Got to be honest, I'm pretty terrified at what Win10 lets them collect. They are pushing really hard to get people to install Win10 and the fact that they backported all the data collection stuff and crammed it into updates all the way back to Win7 is very telling.
The Windows 10 upgrade process is what finally pushed me to Linux on the desktop. As with any upgrade, I figured I'd wait a while for the dust to settle (Ars' articles on the privacy-invasive nature of Windows 10 made me a little nervous, but I figured that'd get fixed with time).
Unfortunately, Microsoft have been extremely aggressive about getting users to move. The 8.1 update that encourages you to upgrade also downloads a copy of Windows 10 -- which, on a small SSD, was frustrating. So, I removed and blocked the KB-x update that added the upgrader.
Which, for me, was all a bit too much. Originally I figured I'd come back after some time, but the massively expanded Steam catalogue on Linux is making me question that too.
I'm not really willing to ascribe motive; I'm sure there are plenty of technical reasons to push people to an upgrade too (like reducing support burden).
But -- there's nothing like an unwanted OS upgrade (repeatedly) burning through your data cap and spare disk space to suggest that maybe you're not in control of your computer anymore.
On a side note the 'get windows 10' update even if hid from the available 'important' updates will come back again to install. Disabled updates altogether, still not sure if that does the job!
The fact that the possibility to make that "mistake" exists makes it a non-mistake. And rather something that was due to happen but maybe someone pressed the button too early.
70 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 66.3 ms ] threadI think Microsoft is trying to earn more money by forcing upgrades to Windows 10 and then displaying ads on the start menu and other places.
It is the pot of frogs in water, they slowly turn up the heat so the frogs won't notice until it is too late.
If the forced Windows 10 upgrades were not an accident, it wasn't to make money. If anything it would be an attempt to save money and have fewer people on older operating systems that they need to support.
If there's a "grand conspiracy" afoot, it should be pretty transparent and obvious by now: Microsoft doesn't want people stuck on the same version of Windows for a decade again (XP).
And a more evil conspiracy, I cannot imagine.
:)
I think most of us wish we can keep our tech debt/maintenance relationships below a decade. (At least, those of us that are not yet dinosaurs like IBM.)
On my Windows 10 machine, the "recommendations" were enabled by default. And they sure look/behave like advertisements to me.
TLDR: It was a mistake and Microsoft stopped it.
As a tech worker, I don't want to live in a world where tech workers are fired because they make a small, fixable mistake.
> Did Microsoft offer a way to undo an unwanted install of Windows 10?
Yes. You can downgrade Windows 10 to whatever you installed it on top of. I think this has been possible since the Vista -> 7 upgrade.
It's been possible with every version of Windows, I believe. Windows 95 would rename your old Windows directory. And earlier versions didn't try to control the hard drive, as they weren't your OS - though 95 didn't try to own it fully, it lacked a My Documents directory and expected you to make your own root directory folders to store file!
Wasn't it possible to store user files in C:/Windows/Profiles/{username}/ , too ?
OSR2 did indeed do that, but it was a later addition. And Windows NT 4 never got My Documents.
> Wasn't it possible to store user files in C:/Windows/Profiles/{username}/ , too ?
I think so, but I don't know if the OS really especially encouraged you to store things there.
The quality of work coming out of the Windows Update group has been seriously problematic lately. It's well past time to fire some people.
I'm not sure that firing people is the right approach but this is not acceptable.
The end result of all this stupidity is to incentivize users to turn off automatic updates. Everybody with an Internet connection will suffer for that.
On Debian or CentOS, updates are simple - if any updates are available, you install them. End of story.
On Windows, as I have learnt the hard way, simply installing all available updates is pretty much begging for trouble. During my training at Deutsche Telekom, when I heard that they had a whole team whose only task was testing Windows updates, I thought they were being wussies. Now, I envy them. The reality for me is more like checking online discussion boards to see if anyone was dumb enough to just install all the updates, yet smart enough to figure out which ones caused them trouble, then only approving those updates nobody has complained about. It is kind of like playing Russian roulette.
As as Unix-person looking at the Windows world from an outsider's perspective (kind of), I am kind of shocked that this is the OS powering approximately 90% of corporate desktops. Imagine if, following the end of the Cold War, Western car companies had been driven out of business by the Trabbi. That is pretty much what has happened in the PC world.
And, yes, I get that Windows is tortured by more combinations of hardware and software than anyone wants to imagine, and QA for their updates must be a living hell. But IIRC, Microsoft also made something like 20 billion dollars in profit last year, so they could easily spend one billion on making Windows update not suck - or at least suck slightly less - and still be disgustingly profitable.
The worst thing is that people who have known no other OS but Windows all their lives fail to see how utterly wrong this is. Either they just don't know any better, or it's a massive case of Stockholm syndrome...
(Sorry, but I've had that on my mind for a while, and since it was patchday this week, I hope you can understand my need to vent a little...)
I've done this since Windows 95. It hasn't caused me a problem since Windows XP SP2. I actually love Windows update and missed it when I was on Linux. Ubuntu's kernel upgrades would randomly break sleep, audio, special keys on my keyboard, or other weird stuff.
There is a difference between administrating a single machine at home, or maybe a handful, or taking care of a company network of (in my case) about 80 machines (and that is still a tiny network, I suppose). Problems that a typical user only sees once in a couple of years become disturbingly common as the number of machines grows, and I guess that is true regardless of the operating system being used.
Having said that, I have encountered some rather strange and frustrating problems with Windows updates. One time, a Windows update would somehow not successfully register itself as being installed, but it did require a reboot. So after installing the update, the user rebooted her system, finding yet another update (the very same, in fact) available, install it, reboot, find another update... For some reason, only two machines in our network were affected by this problem, and I have no clue why it was these specific machines. One time, an update to Office 2013 overwrote some VB script that Autodesk Inventor happened to depend on, causing it to crash while displaying the splash screen; reinstalling Inventor hepled with that, but now Outlook would crash when trying to write an email. Another time, an update caused a few machines to hang while booting. There was an update to Windows 8.1 that was not called a Service Pack, but for all intents and purposes, it was, and Microsoft said that without this update installed, 8.1 machines would no longer receive updates; however, this update caused 8.1 in combination with a specific version of WSUS to no longer talk to the WSUS server - I think this is what people call a Catch 22.
And the list goes on and on. I have only a few years of experience taking care of a relatively tiny number of systems. Like I said, I understand now why large companies run labs where they test Windows updates - and updates by other software vendors, too, I suppose - against each and every combination of hardware and software being used on the corporate network.
Just because you did not run into problems does not mean there are none, just as my experience with updates on Linux and FreeBSD is not representative of what it is like to run dozens or hundreds of machines with these operating systems. However, currently the operating being used on the majority of company networks is Windows, and the company making billions of that is Microsoft.
Although, to be fair, in many cases where an update to Windows breaks a third party application, I suspect the third party is at least as much to blame. In my case, I have grown very weary of Siemens automation software (Simatic, WinCC, TIA), which is very sensitive with regards to updates, to say the least. So, to a degree, Microsoft has merely become a victim of its own success.
This doesn't work in a huge number of situations. It just reports failure.
What's a "huge number"? I'd say only a tiny minority of Windows users even try to downgrade. I tried to Google this ("windows downgrade failed") and couldn't find many examples.
Unless you work at Microsoft and have real data from users, I don't think you (or I) have the data to claim that few or many of these downgrades fail. There's just no way to really know.
Some mistakes should surely be forgiven in the interests of learning and doing better next time. We might call them "honest mistakes", perhaps actions taken with the best of intentions but which proved to have unexpected and undesirable side effects that could not reasonably have been anticipated.
Other mistakes are either not really mistakes at all or are actions taken by someone who might not have intended the final outcome but should clearly have known better. Consider installing a defeat device in a car to actively circumvent regulations, or a government agent or corporate officer abusing their authority for personal gain, or a police officer who has a track record of being more violent than was necessary when dealing with suspects. At some point, the mistake is no longer relatively harmless or something to be tolerated in the interests of overall progress, it's a demonstration of bad judgement that isn't acceptable for someone in that position.
Cries for blood and similar hyperbole are unlikely to be helpful in any case, but questioning the position of anyone who thought this was acceptable behaviour or who was responsible and signed off on the update seems fair, and so does expecting Microsoft to provide fair compensation if anyone really does get significantly messed around because of this action.
I disagree. Would an average user, the kind of person who is going to trust updates from Microsoft and leave them on by default and therefore wind up installing in this case in the first place, necessarily realise the significance of one extra confirmation dialog? People are notoriously blind to such messages, so I'd want to see exactly what that extra human intervention involved before making any judgement here.
Both true, and yet still it doesn't mean you have to fire the poor guy if the mistake was honest, regardless of damage done. Hell, he'll probably be beating himself over it harder than you imagine if the consequences were big.
Also, this: http://i.stack.imgur.com/eJy3b.jpg.
If you're looking for mistakes that can bring material harm to others, it might be easier to examine industries where errors in judgment lead to physical and/or financial harm. Transportation industries (aviation, trucking, etc), construction, and a whole slew of others offer a variety of examples to choose from that don't necessarily require intentional misuse of resources to cause harm.
Think of how many aircraft accidents have occurred over the decades as a direct consequence of mistakes made by the air crews--or controllers, or maintenance staff--and were, frankly, errors in judgment. Sure, there have been cases where maintenance shortcuts were taken to either save money or time, lead to the deaths of passengers and flight crews, and have been successfully tried in a court of law as negligence (or worse). But that clearly crosses what should hopefully be a distinctive line into unlawful actions, and even still, there have been circumstances where the maintenance staff wasn't held accountable. Again, it's a matter of intent.
So I think context is important. In the case of Microsoft, I don't think that the mistake in question should result in wanton firing. Perhaps if someone could prove that they were materially harmed by the upgrade, then it might be pertinent to seek damages from the company. But oftentimes the developers on staff either did something wrong (and fixed it) or were specifically told to implement that feature by management.
Everything else just seems like splitting hairs.
From my observations, people get fired over mistakes for two reasons - because somebody is stupid/overreactive/wants blood, or because the company wants to signal strong action taken (firing someone whose actions resulted in PR problems).
There's also a class of mistake, which I suppose the one discussed here belonged to, that's a combination of 'honest mistake' of a person along with a failure of the system to capture it in time. If it is known that a mistake in e.g. an update process can affect millions of users, a system should be set up to capture those before they have a chance to do real-world damage. Maybe a second person in another team should sign off update changes, etc. Lack of such a system may be considered not-so-honest mistake of senior management. Sadly, some companies design systems preventing (knowledge of) mistakes from getting out instead.
We set up processes not so that we can have an excuse for firing people who made errors, but so that those errors have limited consequences and could be safely used as learning opportunities.
I hope not.
Hanlon's Razor. Which do you consider more likely: someone screwed up (as Microsoft's updates often do) or that Microsoft deliberately started upgrading Windows machines in secret hoping that either nobody would care or that they would be okay with just upgrading a few then stopping and having to make up an excuse to cover it up? It's just absurd.
This is a really big mistake to make with your flagship product.
True enough. In this case, it looks like it might be particularly bad if it affects systems where someone has actively chosen not to move to Windows 10 for their own reasons. That seems to be the case for a lot of "power users". Also, while enterprise-scale businesses with full-time professional admins may well be using WSUS and Enterprise versions of Windows, smaller businesses will often be running Pro versions and handling upgrades in other ways, and could be affected too.
Even if the arguments about forced updates and privacy don't seem to concern a lot of typical home users, whether through apathy or ignorance, Windows seems to be losing the trust of the tech community who often do care about such things. That tech community both runs business IT and advises non-technical friends and family, and as a rule it does not take kindly to being bullied. Microsoft have now screwed this same issue up several times over within just a few weeks, and it's starting to look like they've lost control of both their product and their PR.
10 is really, really similar to 8 as well. The only noticeable difference is, again, the start menu. There are small things here and there (and a much nicer graphical design), but otherwise it's pretty much the same.
If you have enough storage, I'd suggest just trying Windows out as a dual-boot option. If you don't like it, you can always remove the Windows partition, no harm done.
What exactly was the better way though? I'm still on Win7 in my primary computer, having Win10 (and previously Win8) installed on my secondary.
On Win7 I press the start button and type the name of what I want to run (or find) - this lets me do what I want very quickly with a minimum of interruption.
Win8 was similar, but it threw a jarring fullscreen slab of apps in my face. I say it was similar because it still let me start typing right away and get to the stuff I wanted with minimal hassle.
Win10 is a whole different beast, I feel. The search was decoupled from the start menu; but the start menu itself returned to most of its former glory (unintrusive, no jarring screen transition). The key factor here is that I can no longer just start typing to get to an app, and I have yet to invest the necessary time into seeing if it is at all possible since it's still my secondary machine.
Right now, amidst all of the anti-Microsoft scaremongering, I'm also finding it less likely that I'll keep going down the Microsoft path. Linux is starting to look more and more attractive, with OS X a strong second place contender. And not just for the start menu.
Not sure what you mean; Windows 10 is exactly like Windows 7 and Windows 8 here. You hit the start button / start key, you start typing, and the things you want start popping up.
I can assure you, that is not the way it currently functions on my Win10 machine. For me the search bar is a magnifying glass next to the start menu, at a minimum, or a full-blown text field. Regardless of which state, I have to click it before being able to type and search.
I really hate seeing this "blame the victim" mentality.
People here on Hackers News might be prepared to seek and deploy alternative start menus, but for many, perhaps most, non-technical users, it's a difficult and scary prospect.
To be clear, Microsoft thought they were improving the start menu (the point-and-click, non-search usage of it) as well. It may be better, for all I know. But starting with Windows 8, I just totally stopped using it, so I can't weigh in on that.
Windows also comes with a tutorial at the beginning that explains the new UI.
No. If you're really nervous about telemetry, etc. then maybe. Otherwise, Win7 looks ancient if you get used to 10 -- it's faster, it has better display scaling, better multi-monitor support and window management.
Likewise, my Win7 workstation has a couple of large monitors attached, but five minutes setting up WinSplit Revolution gave me a more convenient way of organising all that space and the windows within it than any version of Windows I've ever used (and most window managers on other platforms, for that matter). There are a couple of annoyances, but those seem to be more to do with the graphics drivers and use of DisplayPort than anything else; is Win10 noticeably better at handling such things for you?
Windows 8.1 with Classic Shell's start menu is the sweet spot at the moment if you ask me. It has the explorer and task manager additions that windows 8 brought in, boots faster than 7 and doesn't have as much of the UI replaced. I'm going to be honest and say that if there was a way to get rid of the charms bar and network panel, it'd be perfect.
TBH I'm going to use it until EOL in 2023 and then do something else.
http://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10
Got to be honest, I'm pretty terrified at what Win10 lets them collect. They are pushing really hard to get people to install Win10 and the fact that they backported all the data collection stuff and crammed it into updates all the way back to Win7 is very telling.
I thought I had followed most of the best practices soon after release but this tool identified a whole bunch more.
I would still recommend usage of a multi-prong approach: firewall rules, hosts file, registry fix.
Unfortunately, Microsoft have been extremely aggressive about getting users to move. The 8.1 update that encourages you to upgrade also downloads a copy of Windows 10 -- which, on a small SSD, was frustrating. So, I removed and blocked the KB-x update that added the upgrader.
Microsoft then added another, differently named KB-x update which preloaded Windows 10 -- even if you'd blocked the other one (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/09/micros...).
Which, for me, was all a bit too much. Originally I figured I'd come back after some time, but the massively expanded Steam catalogue on Linux is making me question that too.
But -- there's nothing like an unwanted OS upgrade (repeatedly) burning through your data cap and spare disk space to suggest that maybe you're not in control of your computer anymore.