What exactly is wrong with Windows 10 though? In my opinion, it has been a huge improvement over Windows 8/8.1. Also, the Linux subsystem feature seems pretty usable to me.
- start menu completely random. Like typing "upd" doesn't display anything but typing "update" shows windows update. And the behaviour doesn't seem to be stable. Sometimes old control panels show, sometimes not. Seems to be erratic through time and across different machines.
- microsoft dropping unwanted apps regularly in the start menu. Candy crunch, all sort of ads for sponsored software
- Frequent forced reboots
- Microsoft trying to force my hand on everything. Like default apps, making it difficult to change the default or for videos and images requiring me to confirm on every single different file extension one by one, or not allowing to select an app by its file path for all images or videos (only allowing me to pick from a shortlist of useless apps), making it difficult to create local accounts, all these multiple opt out confirmations are annoying. No means no.
- telemetry
- two control panels and making things worse, settings progressively moving between the two such that the location of a setting is unpredictable. The new control panel often gives the feeling of having been simplified (which in itself is fine) but also to hide the access to more advanced options (not fine).
- generally speaking the big buttons, all grey UI is not particularly pleasant
- many small usability features. Like when prompting for credentials, the RDP client doesn't allow you to access the username and password boxes with the keyboard, you have to select them with your mouse. It feels unfinished.
- I haven't had blue screen for a long time on windows 7, while it has become quite common on windows 10
- repeated interruptions. The OS should be discreet and not be interrupting your workflow unnecessarily. They since removed the full screen notifications in windows 10, but didn't for Windows Server 2016.
There are notable improvements too. Like finally being able to copy-paste in command lines was long overdue. The server features are also much better (hyper-v, powershell functionalities, IIS, etc). But on balance I think it provides a poor experience. I am not saying Windows 7 is perfect either, it comes with its own annoyances but I think it's not as bad.
At least on this point I'll have to anecdotally disagree. I've been on 10 for more than a year now and I haven't suffered even a single forced reboot. Sometimes the OS notifies me of impending restarts, but they're always hours away so I have time to finish my work. It is, IME at least, more stable than all previous versions of Windows.
If Microsoft were to "delete and start again" on two areas, for me it would have to be Windows' Search and the Printer stack. They're almost impressive in their terribleness. I literally use Notepad++'s file search for file content and FileLocator Pro for filenames instead of Windows search because it is more consistent, reliable, and faster.
I actually had a conversation with a Microsoft employee at a conference who then worked on search in Windows 7. And after that conversation I absolutely understood why it was in the state that it was in. He believed it was bad because it wasn't complex enough, wanting to pile in even more supported file type filters and expanding language services. Both of which they wound up doing in Windows 8, making it even more complicated and unreliable.
I've given up using it. A work colleague recommended Agent Ransack and I've been happily using that ever since.
But people have trapped themselves in a corner. They refused to do the free upgrade, now the opportunity has passed, and they are left stuck on an older inferior version which is near EoL for no great reason.
So they just keep parroting poorly reasoned arguments, repeating conspiracies, or acting smug & superior for simply being contrarian.
I take issue with this. There are several problems with Windows 10:
- silent updates, that you cannot control them or disable them,
- these updates reset your setting, enable things you explicitly disabled, behind your back,
- Microsoft still didn't document what data they are exfiltrating, and doesn't allow to disable call-to-home functionality.
BTW, that free upgrade still works, it just isn't advertised. For above mentioned reasons, many consider Windows 10 to be the inferior version, not the previous ones.
Reset settings: there was something like that, that's true, but the last time it happened, it was like a year ago, and I do think this is a case of "don't attribute malice to something that can by caused by a mistake".
Didn't still document: Half a month ago they put the windows diagnostic data viewer into windows, you can look up all telemetry that's getting sent back home.
Reset settings: still happens. The worse thing is, that firewall rules for application packages have version numbers in them, so when you change the rule, and the package updates... you rule is ineffective. And no, Bing doesn't to know, what I'm searching local start menu for.
Didn't still document: so you know what "cV" or "iKey" values mean? Still, where's the "off" option? Mozilla doesn't get the telemetry from me, and there is an universe of difference, how trustworthy Mozilla is compared to Microsoft.
1. Those people then are saying how bad and full of viruses Windows it's, even if it's only their fault. It's good for technically not-inclined users. And MS is only loosing here, as well as those users.
2. This is how you get botnets, which then take your worldwide DNS down. But yeah, it's only up to these people. Why would I care about botnets DDoS'ing half the net? And why would I care that companies are handling my sensitive personal data on insecure computers? Yeah, no worries. It should only be up to them...
That's a good argument for making security updates on-by-default. It's not a good argument for making all updates on-whether-you-like-it-or-not.
This is how you get botnets, which then take your worldwide DNS down.
The solution to botnets is to cut offending devices off the Internet at the ISP level. You can't trust local security measures in this context anyway.
And why would I care that companies are handling my sensitive personal data on insecure computers?
You're complaining about the security of sensitive personal data, in a discussion about an OS that can literally deploy arbitrary updates and upload arbitrary information to a third party for use in unknown ways? Your concerns about your privacy are fair, but I think you're on the wrong side of the debate here.
Have you heard of Group Policy and WSUS? I guess its Enterprise versions only, but anyone who cares deeply about their IT Infrastructure should be running Windows Server and all those services.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/update/w...
That's not a popular opinion among the subset of users who refuse to apply patches, but it's the correct one from the perspective of security and public policy.
There are plenty of ways around it: maintain your own patching infrastructure and you can do whatever you want. Use Linux and you can do whatever you want. But it's an absolutely correct decision to push patches onto the unwashed masses even if it upsets them.
We would be better off as a society if vaccinations were mandatory too, but we also have some vocal idiots there too.
And does that include all the non-security patches that change things around in ways maybe I don't want?
Or immediately installing security patches even if they're broken and compromise normal functioning of the system?
I don't see even a moral/ethical argument for mandating those kinds of updates.
Now, is anybody actually going to enforce that? No, of course not. But on the principle of the thing, you are being negligent, and justifying it to yourself on the basis that you're too smart to get a virus. The anti-vaxxer parallel is extremely relevant here, if everybody thinks like that then we have a problem.
Speaking in generals, it's absolutely a correct decision to have automatic/mandatory patching, whichever way you want to look at it. As for specific patches: sure, on a case-by-case basis there may be bad patches that need to be rolled back. You can do that on Windows, and again, you always retain the option to simply not connect your PC to the internet and it makes both of us happy - I don't have to deal with another zombie box on the internet and you don't have to deal with a patch you don't like.
At the end of the day you're just going to have to trust Microsoft to put out good patches. But if you don't trust them, why are you running their operating system? Do you have similar concerns about upstreams in the Linux community? You know patches can break things there too, right?
I don't see any evidence that giving someone who knows what they're doing the ability to control which updates they deploy and when will cause them to become part of a botnet. Are you suggesting that Windows 10 Enterprise should be similarly constrained for the same reason?
And even if systems do become part of a botnet, the correct solution to that problem is to cut off the offending systems at ISP level anyway, not to rely on their own local security in any particular respect.
But on the principle of the thing, you are being negligent
Objecting to a system that requires automated deployment of arbitrary updates, including updates that may upload arbitrary data, is not only not negligent, it may be positively required for regulatory compliance depending on your circumstances.
The anti-vaxxer parallel is extremely relevant here, if everybody thinks like that then we have a problem.
No it isn't, and this naive and superficial analogy really needs to die.
At the end of the day you're just going to have to trust Microsoft to put out good patches.
Microsoft have proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, that such trust is unjustified. Try again.
But if you don't trust them, why are you running their operating system?
Because the Microsoft of a few years ago that produced Windows 7 is a very different Microsoft to today's that produced Windows 10.
Do you have similar concerns about upstreams in the Linux community? You know patches can break things there too, right?
And yet in many years of running many systems for multiple organisations, the total downtime I have experienced due to Debian unattended security updates is 0, and the number of reports I have ever read of others suffering a bad update through that channel is also 0.
Its not like the "Enterprise" version of Win10 is much more expensive. It gets way more expensive if you want to run a Windows Domain server, but that starts to leave the realm of SOHO users.
And by settings you mean undocumented registry entries that people found and altered to break core services on purpose? If you start altering undocumented things there's no real assurances that it will work the same way (or state maintained) during an update.
> Microsoft still didn't document what data they are exfiltrating
Basic diagnostic data: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/basic...
Full diagnostic data: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/windo...
> silent updates, that you cannot control them or disable them
You get plenty of control over updates including how "silent" they are, you just cannot disable them entirely.
But is limiting the ability to disable them for the greater good? We still have huge Windows XP botnets running rampant on the internet because people would completely disable updates, get infected, and then start causing harm to their neighbors.
I've read quite a few people that want to disable Windows Update, but they never provide a plan or route for receiving security updates. They just simply opt to run an insecure machine because an update annoyed them one time, and that would be fine if it didn't impact others.
Windows 10 doesn't seem to respect the user as much as previous releases.
* People who would seek to disable updates on their computer.
* People who would take negative views on those who refuse to vaccinate their children.
I'm in both camps, at least where Windows is involved. I'm much more willing to update the average Linux or BSD (including macOS) because I still actually trust those updates.
This is interesting! Can you expand? Where or how can one still upgrade to 10 now? AFAIK even the free upgrade extension for those using assistive technologies has been withdrawn.
Windows 10 added some additional telemetry for Windows Store Apps and a few built in services to see if anyone is utilizing them, but overall if you set Diagnostic Data to "Basic" your privacy is in a similar state to previous versions of Windows.
Here's documentation on it:
- Basic diagnostic data: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/basic...
- Full diagnostic data: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/windo...
- How Microsoft handles the data, common questions, more info on what is collected, etc: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/confi...
Please tell me what built-in telemetry you think we have on our Windows 7 machines (where we typically don't deploy any non-security updates without a good reason).
Even worse for people that are forever locked to Windows because of their line of work, clients or something else. They have no option, they can't even pay more to stop the data collection. Not to mention HIPAA and other problems that may affect small business owners.
In regards to trust, you can actually view the diagnostic data since the insider build half a month ago using windows diagnostic data viewer.
Regarding businesses: I do think you can disable all of that using group policy in Windows Enterprise
Once again a matter of trust (or not wanting ANY data to be sent, a radio silent OS aside from updates and features that actually require internet access and you opt-in on using them). Would be trivial to lie about the data in the UI. I don't know if it's possible to intercept the data for analysis, so people can verify that it matches the UI.
> Regarding businesses: I do think you can disable all of that using group policy in Windows Enterprise
Nope, even the Security setting still collects data.
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/itpro/windows/manage/con...
Since everybody else does it now MS, from a competitive standpoint, also has to be a creep with your data. But they own the OS and I don't want that bullshit there.
You can go with the "it was a bug" narrative about all the privacy settings getting reset, saying that the tool showing what they collect is enough, that not being able to pay to stop the data collection is ok (if they "really" have to collect data to be competitive), well for me it's shady business and I don't want my OS doing that. Just tired of this subject to be honest, here's more info if you want to dig deeper https://google.com/#q=Windows+Restricted+Traffic+Limited+Fun...
You can disable it in 7 by memorizing the KB #'s of the updates that install them and refusing them, but it's just as much work as installing Spybot Anti-beacon on 10.
If you adopted the policy of only installing security updates, which plenty of people did after GWX if not before, you didn't get that other junk anyway.
The way Microsoft have actively made it more difficult to install only security updates on older versions of Windows recently is yet another reason not to trust them with updates you can't control at all on newer versions. They brought this mistrust upon themselves by abusing their position deliberately and repeatedly, so I don't think anyone can blame the sceptics.
The really sad thing is the number of people, even here on HN where you'd expect to find relatively well-informed discussion, who completely miss the distinction between security updates and updates more generally when debating this issue. I mean, we are literally talking about an organisation that pushed out an entire new operating system via the update process, and they deliberately did so in such a way that many people now have that new OS and didn't necessarily want it or actively did not want it.
>it's just as much work as installing Spybot Anti-beacon on 10
Most apps automate the process. In 7 you have to memorize the 8-digit code associated with the updates you don't want.