Official: Microsoft's 'Get Windows 10' nagware to vanish from PCs in July Microsoft's "Get Windows 10" nagware will be killed off in July, the tech giant has told us. The software has been worming its way into Windows PCs via Windows Update since last year using aggressive malware-like techniques and frequent pop-up reminders. It quietly downloads and installs Windows 10 automatically for you, and …
This post has been deleted by its author
"All things considered, is Windows 10 worse than Vista?"
Worse? How would one quantify those disparate worsenesses?
That's rather like asking "Is having razorblades poked up your arse worse than discovering the 'steak' tartar you're eating is actually the former residents of the CJD hospice across the road?" - they're different sorts of bad - but you definitely don't want either.
Win 10 is much, much worse than Vista.
Vista had a rough start with DRM and hardware makers (looking at you, Intel) getting the okay to sell PCs as "Vista capable" when they really shouldn't have, but it's evolved into a stable, usable product. The very popular Windows 7 is more or less Vista SE.
Windows 10... it started as crap and it's still crap. There are no signs things are getting any better, or that they ever will with 10, since all of the things that are bad about it are designed-in "features". It still can't decide if it's going to have a phone UI or a desktop UI... the PC user gets a confused, senseless mish-mash that's half TIFKAM (in all of its flat, gray ugliness, with its massive controls and wasted screen space when used on a typical PC display) and half native Win32.
Windows 10 still doesn't allow the user any control over updates installed, and most of the updates are still big monolithic things more akin to service packs than anything else (so you can't skip the bits you don't want; take it all or take none of it). It still refuses to allow the user to remove Cortana, Edge, Xbox, MS store, etc., through normal means, and it's getting worse, as now it won't even let the user switch Cortana to search engines other than the useless abomination known as Bing.
Windows 10 still refuses to stop phoning home with its "telemetry," even if the user wants no part of it (you can't turn it all the way off). It still unceremoniously uninstalls programs it wants to with every update (it has a particular thing for Speccy, which works fine with 10 if you can get 10 to leave it alone), and it restores "apps" the user has removed at each update as well.
Most or all of the things that are wrong with 10 are non-negotiable from Microsoft's perspective. It doesn't matter what the desktop users want, because 10 was not ever meant to serve our needs. It was meant only to use us as building materials to realize their new "Mobile first, cloud first" delusions. It's like we're asking MS to make us a desktop OS worthy to succeed Windows 7 on desktop devices, but MS (if we anthropomorphize it for a moment) is looking quizzically at us while it asks, "But how will THAT sell Windows mobile devices?"
"far from it.
Windows 10 is an astonishingly good OS."
Very sloppy comment. There are very few improvements compared to Windows 7 and many unfriendly changes. Basically I can only tell its windows 7 with flat look.
For example, Windows 10 and Edge browser can still not do proper color management with the advent of Wide Color Gamut screens available for the past 15 years and popularized with ipad pro 9.7.
Removed Media Center, etc Removed customization options. The only improvement is that it easier to change lock screen background? Its a pretty dear price to pay for all the W10 problems.
far from it.
Windows 10 is an astonishingly good OS.
My son says as much and he is no slouch when it comes to OSs.
Having said that, there seems an irrational fear of Linux. Because it was "difficult" a decade or more ago, it must still be so.
A year ago when I made the decision to run Mint as much as possible, I didn't expect to be spending more than 95% of my time in Mint. On the few occasions I need to boot into W7, IMO MS's best OS to date, I no longer feel "at home".
Ten years ago, I was spending perhaps 10% of my time running Linux and much of that was problem solving. The few issues I have had with Mint were mostly solved with minimal effort and most without recourse to running a terminal.
On those few occasions that I used a terminal, I merely copied the requisite command line from a helpful web page or forum. No need to understand bash, or remember vi commands. Linux versions of most of my tools such as Beyond Compare and Password Safe exist. Others work well under WINE, or in a VM.
Try it; you might very well like it. Or perhaps liking it is what you are afraid of ;-)
I've actually gone the other way. I started with various flavors of Unix, System III and Ultrix (I said flavors) and then went via BSD and System V (hated it) through SunOs and too many Linux distro's to recall. Fluent with Vi and Bash also awk and sed plus yacc and lex too yet somewhere along the way I started using Windows because the Outlook client was better than raw mail and Word was so much quicker to use than LaTex. Rsh took me to a Unix box when I needed a shell but after a spell Cygwin gave me enough of a scripting environment and then PowerShell gave me something better as the pipes are object orientated so I could forget some of the more arcane awk tricks.
I haven't felt a need to try out a Linux distro for years. Last time I needed one (building some bootable USB image) I had to battle with a very clunky Unity desktop trying to get a test window. No doubt the distros have all come on in leaps and bounds since then and I would be fairly happy with them and I could use Wine or a VM to work around some issues. But why? My Windows box is stable the patching just happens and everything I want to use just runs. I look at which Linux distro would serve me better and just see people arguing about systemd cinamon gnome Kde and it doesn't look better.
So you're proposing a Linux distro, specifically Mint, as a Windows replacement OS but at the same time stating that you need to run some software in Wine or in a VM?
Doesn't sound much like a viable replacement to me I'm afraid; a "replacement" would be an OS where all software is available, installs as easily as it does in Windows, and command line "voodoo prayers" are not required for day to day operation.
If I carried out a brand new Mint installation on a new PC how long would it be after the OS has finished installing that I would need to be using a command line and using such nice commands as:-
"sudo add-apt-repository xxxx" instead of simply double left clicking on "setup" and clicking "next, next, next" etc?
By the way, I know the answer as I've done just this over the weekend.....
So you're proposing a Linux distro, specifically Mint, as a Windows replacement OS but at the same time stating that you need to run some software in Wine or in a VM?
Yes, not much different to W7 Pro which allowed me to run two legacy applications in Windows XP mode. This didn't require me to have a standalone WinXP licence. W10 OTOH requires the installation of a VM and a standalone WinXP.
I didn't get there however due to incompatibility with my video adapter, a fairly recent ATI based card made by ASUS. I attempted to discover if my spare was compatible, but MS appears to no longer make an HCL available. Apparently you are now expected to purchase and install video adapters in order to use a compatibility tool. It occurred to me that this might be a very expensive proposition.
You can add repositories other than the official ones with the Software Sources tool in Accessories. Running "sudo add-apt-repository xxxx" is quicker, but if the command'line upsets you, you generally have alternatives.
It may surprise you to know that Windows also has a very useful set of command-line tools, many of which have been there "for ever" and some more recent. Not "voodoo prayers" and much quicker than endless clicking.
"I would need to be using a command line and using such nice commands as:-
"sudo add-apt-repository xxxx" instead of simply double left clicking on "setup" and clicking "next, next, next" etc?"
Well I don't use Mint but I installed it to a VM to answer a query recently. It took ~20mins to install and then the GUI Synaptics could be used to install software and add repos. But as P.Git mentions it's not unusual and indeed encouraged to use the command-line in Windows anyway - so what exactly is your issue ?
Who cares, if you hate 'M$' (dumb arse haters still think that's funny!) just don't use Windows 10 (or Vista) . Buy an Apple Mac and tell everybody how OSx never has any problems (ever, honest!) or install a Linux distro and maintain that the commnd line is where it's at in terms of UX sophistication. Or even better, get a Chromebook and just let Google control your life and slurp your data. So you see there's no need for any existential angst, just don't use Windows, simples ;)
This post has been deleted by its author
>The spyware settings can be disabled with a bit of work.
So?
Can you provide proof that all the spyware always obeys those spyware settings? Proof that those settings won't be "accidentally" (honest!) re-set (again) when you're not looking? ...and explain why the MSFT exfiltration software is hard coded to ignore any entries for the MSFT exfiltration servers which "customers" might attempt to add to "their" HOSTS file?
"Can you provide proof that all the spyware always obeys those spyware settings? Proof that those settings won't be "accidentally" (honest!) re-set (again) when you're not looking? "
I never take anything for granted. There's software around which will automagically check and _ensure_ that the spyware stays disabled.
>>"Can you provide proof that all the spyware always obeys those spyware settings? Proof that those settings won't be "accidentally" (honest!) re-set (again) when you're not looking? "
>I never take anything for granted. There's software around which will automagically check and _ensure_ that the spyware stays disabled.
So you entrust a third party to control a system which you know is designed to operate against your interests? That's an... erm.. interesting(?) approach. A sort of dual tier faith?
How do you _ensure_ that third party never accidentally misses something, quietly keels over and allows your "protection" to lapse, or goes rogue itself? How do you _ensure_ MSFT will never work around that third party's product?
> There's software around which will automagically check and _ensure_ that the spyware stays disabled.
So, before, with WIndows 3.0+, I needed Antivirus, since 7, I need Antivirus, AND Anti-MS-Nag/Adware (GWX), and in 10 I need Antivirus AND "Anti-WX-Spyware".
Please note that I must download "Anti-MS-Nag/Adware (GWX)" and "Anti-WX-Spyware" from dodgy websites and pray there is no AskJeeves or other "friendly" toolbar injected into the installer.
As for GWX disappearing in July, it will be replaced by BWX, as in "Buy Windows 10, now!"
All things considered, is Windows 10 worse than Vista?
I'll bite. I still use Vista in a VM to run bookkeeping software, and my partner just upgraded from an ancient XP box to a shiny convertable HP laptop.
Windows 10 seems positively Apple-esque in its determination to make you do things in the way that it wants.
In particular the assumption that touchscreen is everything. Problem one is that UI design that works great for a phone or tablet is nearly useless for a laptop.
Don't get me wrong, love the touchscreen, but hate the UI.
Problem two is that it's damnably hard to disable the tablety default. Finding the setting to change took ages.
Our second big issue is with hardware support. Win 10 couldn't even find the networked HP printer, and didn't support it until a driver/software/crap ware pack was downloaded from HP.
A USB connected Samsung laser also was not detected or configured - something that earlier Windows, and lately even Linux, does with great ease.
Finally, the OS seems to crash about once a day. Googling the error messages suggests there are some widespread issues.
Still, once you beat it into submission, and kill the "improvements" to make it like "classic" Windows, it's really about the same.
Serious answer - it doesn't matter, the problem is that Microsoft has consistently used Windows as a revenue generator, putting out new versions whenever they needed a fresh dollop of unimaginable wealth, not when they thought they needed to upgrade the platform for technical reasons.
Their intentions for Win 10 are still purely financial, the technical aspects are, for them, irrelevant. For a user, on the other hand, it is only the technical (functional) characteristics of an OS that matter leading to a very uneasy relationship with the Vendor, which has now snapped in my (insignificantly small) case.
" it will take time to ramp it down."
So, will people be nagged to install a free upgrade to Windows 10 that doesn't exist anymore?
And NO ONE asked you to ramp it up in the first place, so no one wants to hear your excuses about taking time to ramp down.
All I know is that I'm still dismissing "Upgrade" pop-ups after numerous failed attempts to actually install Windows 10 on a tablet, so I really have no faith in anything Microsoft does anymore.
I really have no faith in anything Microsoft does anymore.
Some of us got there about a decade nor so earlier. On the plus side, imagine just how much money that has generated: those deficiencies have been feeding a whole ecosystem from anti-virus to clueless consulting. Especially the consulting one is fun: what do you think they will recommend for deployment: something that is capital efficient and safe, or something that needs constant help and tuning from, say, consultants?
Yup - got it in one. Personally, I think that's the real reason Windows survived in industry - too many people depending on it for their income to recommend anything else.
needs constant help and tuning
Windows was boosted not only from small hordes of people who earned a generally rich living from mending it but also by the hordes of teenage Mr Fixits who knew enough to help out users when they were baffled, thus boosting their egos and social status. Both groups had vested interests and neither would have much to say against it; and many users would accept what they said. Microsoft would have benefitted by maximising their gains as well as its own.
Compare this with the situation where the software is truly first-class. Users don't need much assistance and don't replace their software as frequently. It looks as though Microsoft and its acolytes would, in fact, have been making more money by putting out optimally bug-ridden software.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
