The big issue with Win10/11 is that it contains malware marketed as features
People have been saying this about Windows since Vista or earlier. If you really want to communicate with someone and not just score points for your team, you should say what the malware is, and why you're calling it that.
Some highlights:
"Windows 10 nagging users with Bing advertisements (push alerts)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27337382
"Why can an ad break the Windows 11 desktop and taskbar?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28404332
"Microsoft accidentally reveals that it is testing ads in Windows Explorer" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30711277
EDIT: And to finish the throughline back to XP, every version of Windows since then has included more "telemetry", which a perfectly reasonable person could describe as "spyware".
(This is my experience in the EU, so presumably the relatively polite version.)
It seems reasonable to call this malware. It's what software like browser toolbars did 20 years ago, and they were widely criticised for it.
You have to look at microsoft and windows from the perspective of an actual software product. Who in their right mind would find it acceptable if their program/operating system decided to automatically download candy crush. Let that sink in. Either you accept that candy crush itself is malware preying on an innocent microsoft or there is a significant and hostile attempt by microsoft to push unwanted and distracting software onto consumers. Which is practically the definition of malware. You could add the countless other examples of advertisement and other unwanted behaviour that is not fit for an operating system and you'll find they fit the description of malware. If you happen to disagree then I would like to ask you what fits the description of the candy crush saga on windows really is.
Your argument wasn't really based in reality. Windows didn't have Candy Crush actually installed; it was a shortcut to get it from the store.
And even then, we could rephrase that. Change "candy crush" to "mahjong titans" or "3D pinball" or "minesweeper" or "hover" or "hearts" or "solitaire" or "reversi", all games that were actually installed on a fresh install of Windows instead of just being a link to install it separately. Why aren't you then complaining about Reversi or Hover? Where was the outrage in the 1980s over this? Why is it such a big deal that its "candy crush"?
Microsoft has been bundling in games to its operating systems since 1985. I don't get why people suddenly made a big deal about it when it became a shortcut to Candy Crush.
There was another huge legal issue when microsoft decided to push their own web browser over crome and firefox. The EU decided to rule against microsoft for doing so despite edge and windows both being from the same company. Why? Because windows is an operating system.
>Your argument wasn't really based in reality.
>Why aren't you then complaining about Reversi or Hover?
You're out of your mind. Are you suggesting that my absence of disagreement with every unknown transgression proves that I'm hypocritical? Just because not every infraction gets punished does not mean that no infraction should get punished to remain 'fair'
>Where was the outrage in the 1980s
My age lacked positive digits back then. I guess that's when any criticism failed to achieve merit in your eyes.
Sure, but did you check the "installed size" of the app? 1KB? Really think that game shipped as 1KB? You didn't even bother understanding what happened before you got enraged about it. Nice.
> my absence of disagreement with every unknown transgression proves that I'm hypocritical?
No, just that every version of Windows included games but somehow everyone makes a big deal over Candy Crush as if including a game in Windows is somehow a new thing.
> My age lacked positive digits back then.
Ok then, so you were outraged about Hearts? Space Cadet Pinball? Internet Checkers, pushing MSN accounts on people? Who in their right mind would find it acceptable if their program/operating system decided to automatically download Purble Place. Or were you negative digits old when Windows Vista and 7 shipped?
> Are you suggesting that my absence of disagreement with every unknown transgression proves that I'm hypocritical?
I'm arguing your extreme selection of what to be upset about makes you seem either pretty ignorant or hypocritical.
> hostile attempt by microsoft to push unwanted and distracting software onto consumers.
One could argue Solitare was one of the most distracting pieces of software in the 90s. Imagine how many hours people spent playing that and Hearts. People didn't choose to install that, it was "pushed" upon them. Acting like its a new thing with Candy Crush is once again ignoring history.
Replace every instance in your argument of "candy crush" with "solitare" and see what that sounds like. "Who in their right mind would find it acceptable if their program/operating system decided to automatically download solitare. Let that sink in. Either you accept that solitare itself is malware preying on an innocent microsoft or there is a significant and hostile attempt by microsoft to push unwanted and distracting software onto consumers." Someone so angry that Microsoft bothered bundling in a card game in their OS, oh my! A distraction application came bundled into an operating system, dear lord what ever is this world coming to.
>People didn't choose to install that, it was "pushed" upon them
So we're on the same page? Or are you being sarcastic? I'm not sure what your stance is at this point.
Did you also find Windows XP to be malware? Windows 95? Windows 7?
Is Chrome malware because it's got a hidden game Easter egg in it as well?
Is some Linux distro that defaults to having cowsay malware?
There's lots of things Microsoft has started doing in the past few years which can be considered user hostile in certain lights. Having a pack-in game isn't something they only recently started doing though, so yeah I'll continue to consider people making a massive deal about a Candy Crush shortcut as being hyperbolic and ignorant. Acting like distractionware being bundled into Windows as a new thing (or even advertisements for their services or even third party services) is an ignorant position to take.
Now I understand where our miscommunication is coming from. I just want to say that I never held that belief, I never stated that. The various games, third parties, ads and various other tactics fall in line with what's been said to be microsofts overarching theme of extend, embrace, extinguish. You are far more knowledgeable about the history and slippery slope windows is going down. So in that respect, I would agree that I am ignorant. I take no issue to that. Though in my ignorance, I reserve my right to let, an evidently minor issue, be the last drop in the bucket to call windows not just an operating system but also a tool for malicious intent towards the user to extract monetary gain beyond the provision of an abstraction layer for developing the programs we use today.
The only bright side to windows is that we're finally getting a truly dystopian cyberpunk machine that will stop at nothing to control their users while the the common folk are left with no options and no awareness of what those Ghz processors are actually used for. That is true ignorance and I'd hope you can see we're on the same team.
>It's not entirely out of characte
check my username
> a tool for malicious intent
> truly dystopian cyberpunk machine
> claims to not be hyperbolic
Yeah sure friendo.
Lots of these pack-in games were developed by outside studios and were sometimes published by different companies as well, so that it's a King game instead of something developed in-house by Microsoft also doesn't seem different from the past. Microsoft had already included games with social networks and online aspects such as Internet Hearts and Internet Backgammon. Those bundled Internet suite of games even pushed people to make an MSN account.
It's whatever Dell and HP preloading McAfee is; which they've been doing in one way or another for decades.
The existence of the adverts is very widely reported in the technical press.
And they've been 100% correct in doing so since Vista or earlier.
But sure, a loss of support for 7 and 8 indeed doesn't mean much for those of us who've already migrated away from Windows.
- displaying a full screen dialog on login asking me to enable OneDrive with options being: yes/remind me in 3 days/remind me in a week;
- ads in start menu;
- using MS Edge + bing for searches from the start menu, disregarding the default browser;
- ditto but for Outlook links (at least this one can be disabled)!
- different pop up/dialogs that prompt you to switch to Edge/Edge+copilot every few weeks
And yes, some aspects were better in older windows versions. MS itself decided they won't remove the control panel as advertised, because the settings app is just shitty or dysfunctional.
This is beyond the level of shittyness that was Vista or Windows 8.
Among other things, I'm meaning updates to Win 7 like this one:
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/213183-once-more-with-...
Besides being extremely opinionated, remember the time Linux users were trying to say this about systemd? Now systemd is widely accepted except for the luddites at Devuan.
> Devuan GNU+Linux is a fork of Debian without systemd that allows users to reclaim control over their system by avoiding unnecessary entanglements and ensuring Init Freedom.
which, okay, points towards that direction but I can't find what they exactly consider "unnecessary entanglements" nor what exactly means "Init Freedom".
I'm genuinely curious, what exactly are people saying about systemd being "malware"?
Some vocal users claimed Systemd was being forced upon them, or was taking over too much of the systems functions, or represented a loss of flexibility or choice, etc. (My opinion isn't relevant to your point.)
No one was claiming it would maliciously interfere with the computer's security or the user's privacy.