last night's win10 unexpected upgrade by MS.

[BlueRay2]

i have a windows laptop that was upgraded to win10 from win8.1 during free upgrade offer by M$. i noticed a huge upgrade by windows 10 last night as i was ready to go to sleep, which i didn't understand why. it took an hour or so for the upgrade and my laptop went off and on many times during the upgrade process. i was hoping someone knows and explains what it is for and why it was necessary. appreciate it.

 

[kelpdiver]

The other issue is people holding onto 8-10 year old hardware / software that had long seen it's support stopped, but yet expect Microsoft to somehow keep it working. Particularly items they (MS) don't own.

-

So you're saying automated updates without the user's involvement for such HW is a really dumb idea? Or maybe not trying to trick/force them to update from 7?

MS won't update old computers automaticly unless they know it's compatible.

Thats why there are still computers running older Windows 10 releases.

Obviously not the case, given his remarks. But in his mind, it's the users' fault for insisting on using their old hardware instead of buying a new one.

It's really simple, Admint - MS shouldn't be forcing the upgrades for Home users. If it's too hard for them (and I think it's reasonable for a company to set EOL dates when done openly), then leave them alone.

 

[Archer66]

The other issue is people holding onto 8-10 year old hardware / software that had long seen it's support stopped, but yet expect Microsoft to somehow keep it working. Particularly items they (MS) don't own.

-

So you're saying automated updates without the user's involvement for such HW is a really dumb idea? Or maybe not trying to trick/force them to update from 7?

MS won't update old computers automaticly unless they know it's compatible.

Thats why there are still computers running older Windows 10 releases.

Obviously not the case, given his remarks. But in his mind, it's the users' fault for insisting on using their old hardware instead of buying a new one.

It's really simple, Admint - MS shouldn't be forcing the upgrades for Home users.

Quite the opposite, if users can't be arsed to keep their computers up-to-date MS has to do it bc otherwise lots of those computers could be compromised.

 

[BlueRay2]

The other issue is people holding onto 8-10 year old hardware / software that had long seen it's support stopped, but yet expect Microsoft to somehow keep it working. Particularly items they (MS) don't own.

-

So you're saying automated updates without the user's involvement for such HW is a really dumb idea? Or maybe not trying to trick/force them to update from 7?

MS won't update old computers automaticly unless they know it's compatible.

Thats why there are still computers running older Windows 10 releases.

funny, my desktop and laptop were upgraded from windows 8.1 when M$ was offering free windows 10 upgrade, so that is pretty old, right? and yet, my upgrades are pretty automatic and in a normal way, i like that very much ;-) although, i had to force download the very latest upgrade on my desktop!

 

[Archer66]

The other issue is people holding onto 8-10 year old hardware / software that had long seen it's support stopped, but yet expect Microsoft to somehow keep it working. Particularly items they (MS) don't own.

-

So you're saying automated updates without the user's involvement for such HW is a really dumb idea? Or maybe not trying to trick/force them to update from 7?

MS won't update old computers automaticly unless they know it's compatible.

Thats why there are still computers running older Windows 10 releases.

although, i had to force download the very latest upgrade on my desktop!

As I said.

 

[ADMint]

The other issue is people holding onto 8-10 year old hardware / software that had long seen it's support stopped, but yet expect Microsoft to somehow keep it working. Particularly items they (MS) don't own.

-

So you're saying automated updates without the user's involvement for such HW is a really dumb idea? Or maybe not trying to trick/force them to update from 7?

MS won't update old computers automaticly unless they know it's compatible.

Thats why there are still computers running older Windows 10 releases.

Obviously not the case, given his remarks. But in his mind, it's the users' fault for insisting on using their old hardware instead of buying a new one.

It's really simple, Admint - MS shouldn't be forcing the upgrades for Home users. If it's too hard for them (and I think it's reasonable for a company to set EOL dates when done openly), then leave them alone.

OK, let's address this this ill-conceived notion here....

How is it Microsoft's fault that a user wants to hold onto a 10-year old piece of hardware or software that the vendor themselves no longer support? Is Microsoft supposed to suddenly make a dead product by a third-party vendor come alive again because "hey, it's on our OS so we need to make it work"? C'mon man.

As I said before, owning a PC is an active endeavor, not a passive one. If you own a PC, it's your responsibility to learn and maintain it. Not the vendor, not the OS provider. You!

Microsoft cannot be responsible for up-keeping old outdated legacy items of yesteryear. Especially items they don't even make! Be real here.

I know there's a lot of Microsoft hatred out there but don't let it turn into silly blind rage.

Oh, and for the record updates can be delayed if one takes the time to learn how. That would be an example of an "active" endeavor. The passive one just let's things go by as is and then complains.

Sorry.

 

[kelpdiver]

OK, let's address this this ill-conceived notion here....

the ill conceived notion is that the desktop in question is the property of MS.

How is it Microsoft's fault that a user wants to hold onto a 10-year old piece of hardware or software that the vendor themselves no longer support? Is Microsoft supposed to suddenly make a dead product by a third-party vendor come alive again because "hey, it's on our OS so we need to make it work"? C'mon man.

If MS is going to impose a forced patching policy, and a rather obnoxious trick you into upgrading to 10 program, then yes, they assumed the responsibility for supporting the hardware, no matter how old.

I know there's a lot of Microsoft hatred out there but don't let it turn into silly blind rage.

Rage? Let's not be drama queens about it.

Oh, and for the record updates can be delayed if one takes the time to learn how. That would be an example of an "active" endeavor. The passive one just let's things go by as is and then complains.

MS changed the status quo. The prior methods were the proper ones.

'We had to kill the desktop in order to save it' didn't work in Vietnam, why should it here?
When you take power and control from the user, you take ownership and responsibility. Don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

'Sorry'

 

[Archer66]

OK, let's address this this ill-conceived notion here....

the ill conceived notion is that the desktop in question is the property of MS.

Linux systems won't apply security updates automaticly ?

 

[ADMint]

OK, let's address this this ill-conceived notion here....

the ill conceived notion is that the desktop in question is the property of MS.

How is it Microsoft's fault that a user wants to hold onto a 10-year old piece of hardware or software that the vendor themselves no longer support? Is Microsoft supposed to suddenly make a dead product by a third-party vendor come alive again because "hey, it's on our OS so we need to make it work"? C'mon man.

If MS is going to impose a forced patching policy, and a rather obnoxious trick you into upgrading to 10 program, then yes, they assumed the responsibility for supporting the hardware, no matter how old.

I know there's a lot of Microsoft hatred out there but don't let it turn into silly blind rage.

Rage? Let's not be drama queens about it.

Oh, and for the record updates can be delayed if one takes the time to learn how. That would be an example of an "active" endeavor. The passive one just let's things go by as is and then complains.

MS changed the status quo. The prior methods were the proper ones.

'We had to kill the desktop in order to save it' didn't work in Vietnam, why should it here?

When you take power and control from the user, you take ownership and responsibility. Don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

'Sorry'

As I said... I know there's a lot of Microsoft hatred out there but don't let it turn into silly blind rage. This is precisely what you're doing

​

Bye.

 

[kelpdiver]

As I said... I know there's a lot of Microsoft hatred out there but don't let it turn into silly blind rage. This is precisely what you're doing

You are still confused by the idea of what rage is. It's not the opposite of Win 10 apologist.

Nor is it blind - I'm responsible for the continual patching of 100k nodes used by millions of users. Not quite google scale, but still a 99.9%er.

 

[CAcreeks]

OK, let's address this this ill-conceived notion here....

the ill conceived notion is that the desktop in question is the property of MS.

Linux systems won't apply security updates automatically ?

Is that a rhetorical question, or do you really want to know?

It varies by Linux type, but on Ubuntu and Mint, a little icon in the taskbar (panel) changes color and you can select the updates you want. You can also set security updates to install automatically (unattended). That is how updates should work.

 

[kelpdiver]

OK, let's address this this ill-conceived notion here....

the ill conceived notion is that the desktop in question is the property of MS.

Linux systems won't apply security updates automaticly ?

it will if you like. But that's not a strategy I would suggest, nor is it the one I employ for my work. Security must be balanced against reliability considerations. New patches are tested on canary for functional and performance regressions before being deployed to the remained. Services are suspended for the update and reboot operation.

The OS vendor doesn't know how to address these requirements.

 

[Archer66]

OK, let's address this this ill-conceived notion here....

the ill conceived notion is that the desktop in question is the property of MS.

Linux systems won't apply security updates automaticly ?

it will if you like. But that's not a strategy I would suggest, nor is it the one I employ for my work. Security must be balanced against reliability considerations. New patches are tested on canary for functional and performance regressions before being deployed to the remained. Services are suspended for the update and reboot operation.

The OS vendor doesn't know how to address these requirements.

Thats true for a Enterprise but typical home user do not have skills to do it.

But of course Microsoft can't win.

Ddamned If they do, damned If they don't .

 

[BlueRay2]

OK, let's address this this ill-conceived notion here....

the ill conceived notion is that the desktop in question is the property of MS.

Linux systems won't apply security updates automaticly ?

it will if you like. But that's not a strategy I would suggest, nor is it the one I employ for my work. Security must be balanced against reliability considerations. New patches are tested on canary for functional and performance regressions before being deployed to the remained. Services are suspended for the update and reboot operation.

The OS vendor doesn't know how to address these requirements.

Thats true for a Enterprise but typical home user do not have skills to do it.

But of course Microsoft can't win.

Ddamned If they do, damned If they don't .

i don't think if anyone is putting down M$ but whatever it is, i think windows 10 will turn into a solid OS (if it is not already) with all these upgrades.

 

[Archer66]

But of course Microsoft can't win.

Ddamned If they do, damned If they don't .

i don't think if anyone is putting down M$

You must be new here

Btw using M$ is just that.

 

[BlueRay2]

But of course Microsoft can't win.

Ddamned If they do, damned If they don't .

i don't think if anyone is putting down M$

You must be new here

Btw using M$ is just that.

look, apple, intel, M$, etc, etc....they are all the epitome of capitalism and i like it, so i don't see anything wrong if i ornate MS with M$, is there? i don't see where "putting down" comes from, here ;-)

 

[kelpdiver]

Thats true for a Enterprise but typical home user do not have skills to do it.

Doesn't take much skill to let other suckers be the trial run.

But of course Microsoft can't win.

They had won before.

 

[Archer66]

i

Btw using M$ is just that.

look, apple, intel, M$, etc, etc....they are all the epitome of capitalism and i like it, so i don't see anything wrong if i ornate MS with M$, is there? i don't see where "putting down" comes from, here ;-)

It's trolling but each to their own.

 

[Archer66]

But of course Microsoft can't win.

They had won before.

And that makes Linux users bitter.