Microsoft nicks one more Apple idea: An ad-supported OS Microsoft's Department of Annoying The Users has been quiet since the end of the GWX scheme. The Department's Greatest Hit so far has been the "Get Windows 10" promotion, which involved a pervasive popup reminding Windows 8 and 7 users to upgrade. This co-opted a number of sophisticated malware techniques to get the message …
My solution is that I don't use OneDrive so disabling notifications from it is not a problem for me. I never registered an account so it can't even guess where to upload stuff. Not that I wouldn't put it past them to sync stuff to the cloud with a unique ID that can later be assigned if I ever did register.
I just handed back another laptop, unwanted Win10 from Win7.
I fixed it by putting on Linux Mint + Mate with customised "Redmond Theme", Noscript + Classic Theme restorer in Firefox (disabled PDF view in browser), and I took pity and changed most of the sillier defaults in Libre Office (though they arn't as silly as Windows defaults for last 25 years).
Added Skype and Wine and Mono.
The PDF viewer works better than Foxit or Adobe (the save page as image is nice).
How many ordinary folk use more than browser, email, basic "office" features, PDF viewer, image viewer etc?
(I also made Caps Lock be both shift keys and Caps Lock Key be "compose").
"More or less did the EXACT same about 6 months ago. No regrets so far."
No indeed.
But what about in 2 years, when Chrome stops supporting Windows 7 and you can no longer visit certain websites? Sounds far-fetched but I've seen it happen with XP and then Vista. Some work in Firefox but others just don't.
You have a choice now, but some day down the track you won't and it's not going to be any better then. And yes, you can use another OS, but what if you actually can't? (For whatever reason?)
Technically-savvy people can almost always get around things like this and set up virtualisation and dual booting to compartmentalise their tasks but the vast, vast majority don't have the knowledge and/or resources to do so.
Like it or not, this is the road down which post of the population is being directed.
Sorry - I am not feeling well today and the trajectory I see the IT industry taking fills me with depression and cynicism.
@dan1980
"But what about in 2 years, when Chrome stops supporting Windows 7 and you can no longer visit certain websites? Sounds far-fetched but I've seen it happen with XP and then Vista. Some work in Firefox but others just don't."
The only websites I've ever seen that didn't work in Firefox used ActiveX or Javascript, hence I didn't want to use them anyway.
Would be happy to be proved wrong on that.
Often, they are sites offering SaaS - 'cloud' applications. It's not always that they won't work in Firefox so much as the vendor insisting that they only support usage via Chrome and any bug that occurs will not be investigated unless it occurs using Chrome as they develop and test for Chrome.
I have clients that use Chrome, IE and Firefox all together, depending on the site. IE for a SaaS platform using Silverlight, Chrome for another SaaS platform (because that is what is supported) and Firefox for some government sites which require plugins that aren't usable on Chrome.
The fact that you, as an IT-savvy person doesn't want to use that site is irrelevant (no offence) to the rank-and-file employees who have to.
Sure, in a sysadmin's perfect world, we could dictact which browsers and add-ins can be used and everyone else in the company would seek our nod of consent if they wanted to use a site. But that's just not reality for the overwhelming majority of companies.
If you work somewhere where you can overrule a SaaS purchasing decision because you don't approve of the browser requirement then congratulations. But I have never worked anywhere like that.
The point is that browser compatibility is an annoyingly shifting landscape of vendors and versions and add-ins and compatibility and support can be fickle and equally annoying. If you've never been in the situation I described then, again, congratulations, but I have and I am sure I am not alone.
I expect the Cupertino spaceship is not amused at MS implementing something they clearly invented (not).
Either way, Ads like this are the lowest of the low.
As has been said in BetaNews, Windows 10 is just an ad carrying vehicle and spyware combined.
https://betanews.com/2017/03/12/disgustingly-sneaky-windows-10-ads/
The sooner it is consigned to history the better.
Apple has NEVER sued anyone for violating a patent that they don't use themselves. If you disbelieve that, instead of voting me down, how about providing proof? I've been asking for an example of this here for years and no one has come up with any, because they don't do it. They will sue the hell out of you if you violate a patent they are using, but they could care less about stuff they don't use in their own products.
But it may be irrelevant, as their implementation would probably be different than what is covered in the patent, and Apple and Microsoft have patent cross licensing agreements which might cover this.
Careful. Windows 10 may be consigned but MS is on a roll (downhill very fast) so windows 11 will only have more.
You meant to say hope MS is consigned to history so lessons learned will include no spying and no ads.
Then again we live in a post truth trump, snoopers charter era. So spying, malware pumping ads and you renting your OS are here to stay.
From that article: "Does Microsoft think we're stupid?"
No. It doesn't think we're stupid. It *knows* enough of us are stupid enough to put up with this. The others, who aren't stupid enough, can get lost for all it cares. We're not the target audience anymore. We never were. They don't care if we rant and rave and switch to Linux. We were never profitable. We expected improvements, stability, security. None of those things make Microsoft money.
The sheep, those are where the money is. They put up with ads, shovelware, and blatant scams. They're the ones who "upgrade" to a "pro" version when faced with a nag screen. The ones who accept all the optional programs with an install. The ones who never check the privacy settings.
*sigh* I so wish it were true, but I fear the alternative [that "ads in the OS" become "the new normal"]
/me thinks of the TV screen from 'Idiocracy' that has 3/4 of its area COVERED in moving advertisements, while the middle 25% of the screen has the actual content in it...
OW MY BALLS!
Seems so; it was the GWX fiasco that prompted me to push W10 into a dual-boot option that's only (rarely) used if there's no other way of doing something. Which means that "Unfortunately the only way to disable the promo blaster is as follows:" isn't really the case for me any more. :-)
I came across this today...
https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2014/03/salt-found-to-improve-red-wine-flavour/ about Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft’s former chief technology officer.
So they have a history of "improving the consumer experience" through radical departures from received wisdom, it seems.
This post has been deleted by its author
"https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2014/03/salt-found-to-improve-red-wine-flavour/ about Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft’s former chief technology officer.
So they have a history of "improving the consumer experience" through radical departures from received wisdom, it seems."
So he's addicted to Cooking Sherry then?
If Microsoft really wants to give this idea a try, they should start with Windows Mobile and Lumia phones. It would be an Extinction Level Event for Windows Mobile.
Oh, absolutely, and Microsoft are super keen to ensure that you get value in return for all the ads.
Windows 10 Pro, for example, is a $2700 value - but because of the ads, and the telemetry, and the fact that you have so generously agreed to volunteer for the mandatory beta testing, they can bring it to you for the low, low price of only $100.
Over a $2600 saving! Just for watching a few¹ adverts!
¹ -dozen²
² - well, hundred³
³ plus a few zeroes, ish
> I thought that in fact most of the running copies of Win10 where given away free.
No. Not even close.
About 250million PCs and laptops are sold every year with the majority being forced by Microsoft to have Windows 10 on them. These are not free, the price of W10 is part of the computer price and this is passed to MS. These new PCs and laptops are the bulk of the 'running copies of Win10'.
Not only that, there's also a concerted effort to impose planned obsolescence onto earlier versions of Windows.
It's one thing if Microsoft stops supporting and stops updating those older versions of Windows. It's another thing if third-party software vendors stop providing updates on older versions of Windows... and it has nothing to do with technological reasons. I'm convinced that Microsoft had somehow bribed, pressured or 'nudged' them to do so.
It's basically a mass genocide of Windows versions before Win10. Either Microsoft wants to force most users onto Win10 and achieve a critical mass of users so as to brag to shareholders, or Win10 'software as a service' (and the very interesting EULA changes) pave the way for a future subscription-based revenue stream.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
