Windows 10 - Day 1

In article , PeterN
wrote:

There is no reason for anyone other than me to make those decisions,
absent appropriate legal regulations.

only if your system is completely detached from the public internet,
which is not the case (if only that were true).

the *moment* you have it connected to the internet is the moment it
becomes a public security issue.


You said that before and I already responded. Unless there is some
binding regulation, there is no entity in existence who has the right to
enforce your theory. If I commit a traffic violation, you have no
authority to enforce that regulation.

more diversions.

Nope. More deliberately missing my point just to argue.

nope.

what you're basically saying is that you don't give a **** about
anything other than yourself.

Nope, you are trying to defend entities that seek the ability to invade
my privacy.

nope on that too.

security updates have nothing to do with invading your privacy or
invading anyone else's privacy.

in fact, it's the opposite. security updates *protects* your privacy.

why am i not surprised.

Because you have a weak argument and your diversion failed.
Your derogatory statement shows that once more you will not admit being
wrong.

nope on that too.

three strikes and you're *out*.

On 5/30/2016 12:23 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

There is no reason for anyone other than me to make those decisions,
absent appropriate legal regulations.

only if your system is completely detached from the public internet,
which is not the case (if only that were true).

the *moment* you have it connected to the internet is the moment it
becomes a public security issue.


You said that before and I already responded. Unless there is some
binding regulation, there is no entity in existence who has the right to
enforce your theory. If I commit a traffic violation, you have no
authority to enforce that regulation.

more diversions.

Nope. More deliberately missing my point just to argue.

nope.

what you're basically saying is that you don't give a **** about
anything other than yourself.

Nope, you are trying to defend entities that seek the ability to invade
my privacy.

nope on that too.

security updates have nothing to do with invading your privacy or
invading anyone else's privacy.

in fact, it's the opposite. security updates *protects* your privacy.

why am i not surprised.

Because you have a weak argument and your diversion failed.
Your derogatory statement shows that once more you will not admit being
wrong.

nope on that too.

three strikes and you're *out*.


Your so clever. You are saying that a security update cannot contain an
app that copies my personal information, & phones home.
You are right, I'm out. Don't bother with your usual "smartest thing you
said," or "you're way over your head," etc.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

There is no reason for anyone other than me to make those decisions,
absent appropriate legal regulations.

only if your system is completely detached from the public internet,
which is not the case (if only that were true).

the *moment* you have it connected to the internet is the moment it
becomes a public security issue.


You said that before and I already responded. Unless there is some
binding regulation, there is no entity in existence who has the right to
enforce your theory. If I commit a traffic violation, you have no
authority to enforce that regulation.

more diversions.

Nope. More deliberately missing my point just to argue.

nope.

what you're basically saying is that you don't give a **** about
anything other than yourself.

Nope, you are trying to defend entities that seek the ability to invade
my privacy.

nope on that too.

security updates have nothing to do with invading your privacy or
invading anyone else's privacy.

in fact, it's the opposite. security updates *protects* your privacy.

why am i not surprised.

Because you have a weak argument and your diversion failed.
Your derogatory statement shows that once more you will not admit being
wrong.

nope on that too.

three strikes and you're *out*.

Your so clever. You are saying that a security update cannot contain an
app that copies my personal information, & phones home.

pretty much.

a security update patches exploits so that the bad guys can't gain
access and possibly steal your private info. it doesn't add new apps
(although it might patch existing ones).

while it's technically possible that a security update is actually a
trojan that sends your personal information to nigeria, the chances of
that are zero for all sorts of reasons.

if that actually did happen, the outgoing traffic would be noticed and
you'd be reading about 'that dangerous update' within *hours* of its
release.

You are right, I'm out. Don't bother with your usual "smartest thing you
said," or "you're way over your head," etc.

you're in so deep you don't even realize it.

On Mon, 30 May 2016 10:05:43 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Every time I use my iPad a pop-up appears
telling me there's a new IOS available. The pop-up appears more
frequently than the W-10 pop-up did on my desktop.

that popup is for an incremental update, not a major upgrade (yet
another thing you do not understand), and unlike win10, if you say no,
apple won't install anything against your wishes.

Well, maybe not. We have just been through this in our household. My
wife has an iPad Air 2 and she kept getting popups telling her to
update to 9.3.2. She had the option of selecting 'later' (or similar)
and she did that a couple of times. Then, as well as receiving Pop
ups, without any warning, her iPad lost the ability to send mail.
Eventually she weakened and installed 9.3.2 and all is sweetness and
light again.

losing the ability to send mail is completely unrelated.

It came back immediately after the update. It may have been
coincidence.

Now I have an iPad 3. I got one pop up and selected 'later'. I haven't
set up an email account on the device so that service was not
interrupted. I didn't notice any other problem either. Eventually I
installed 9.3.2 and so far have experienced no problems. But I notice
that Apple has started to use two-factor identification and it may be
that I cannot now use the iPad without a functioning cell phone.

two-factor is optional, but it's *highly* recommended, and not just for
apple either. activate it wherever it's offered and insist that it be
offered if it isn't.

you also don't need a functioning cellphone just to use the ipad with
2fa.

I do if they are going to send me a text message.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204915
Once signed in, you won¹t be asked for a verification code on that
device again unless you sign out*completely, erase the device, or
need to change your*password for security reasons. When you sign in
on*the web, you can choose to trust your browser, so you won¹t be
asked for a verification code the next*time*you sign in from that
computer.

installing an incremental update doesn't change anything that the user
would notice, as it's just numerous bug fixes and security fixes, which
is why it's a *very* good idea to update.

installing a major upgrade *does* change stuff, sometimes significantly
so, which is why for a major upgrade (e.g., ios 8-9), you will at most
get *one* popup (sometimes not even that), with a badge icon staying on
the settings app. that's *it*.

that's *very* different than what's going on with win10. very, very
different.

worse, if the user says no to the win10 upgrade, it upgrades *anyway*.

consider a non-geek user who turns on their computer one morning to
find that the system is different from what they had the night before
and a bunch of stuff no longer works. they're not a geek so they don't
even know why it suddenly changed. not cool at all.

If they have to turn their computer on then it was previously turned
off. In which case it won't have suffered an automatic update. If
instead they had left the computer running they will find that it has
logged them off and shut down, and they will have to start up again.
In these circumstances there is usually a notice "Do not shut off your
computer ..." followed by some kind of explanation of what has
happened.

you're taking things way too literally. turning on a computer = wake
from sleep. there's no reason to power off a computer in normal use.

For many people 'turn off' = 'power off'.

it also misses the point, which is that if someone clicks the close box
on the win10 popup window thinking that they've dismissed it and no
further changes will occur (a reasonable expectation, especially since
that's how it worked until two weeks ago), they will soon find out that
they've been upgraded to windows 10, whether or not they wanted it.

that's *not* how it should work.

Doesn't bother me. I'm there already.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Well, maybe not. We have just been through this in our household. My
wife has an iPad Air 2 and she kept getting popups telling her to
update to 9.3.2. She had the option of selecting 'later' (or similar)
and she did that a couple of times. Then, as well as receiving Pop
ups, without any warning, her iPad lost the ability to send mail.
Eventually she weakened and installed 9.3.2 and all is sweetness and
light again.

losing the ability to send mail is completely unrelated.

It came back immediately after the update. It may have been
coincidence.

quite likely.

Now I have an iPad 3. I got one pop up and selected 'later'. I haven't
set up an email account on the device so that service was not
interrupted. I didn't notice any other problem either. Eventually I
installed 9.3.2 and so far have experienced no problems. But I notice
that Apple has started to use two-factor identification and it may be
that I cannot now use the iPad without a functioning cell phone.

two-factor is optional, but it's *highly* recommended, and not just for
apple either. activate it wherever it's offered and insist that it be
offered if it isn't.

you also don't need a functioning cellphone just to use the ipad with
2fa.

I do if they are going to send me a text message.

no you don't.

if the trusted device is another ios device or mac, it's sent over the
internet. if it's a non-textable phone, it's a voice call.

it's also sent once per device (unless you keep erasing it or other
major action that would warrant re-authenticating).

you do need a phone number when setting it up (voice or text), but
after that, you don't need to use the phone at all.

it's also optional. if you don't want 2fa, don't activate it (but
that's not recommended).

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204915
Once signed in, you won¹t be asked for a verification code on that
device again unless you sign out*completely, erase the device, or
need to change your*password for security reasons. When you sign in
on*the web, you can choose to trust your browser, so you won¹t be
asked for a verification code the next*time*you sign in from that
computer.

On Mon, 30 May 2016 15:51:23 +0100, David Taylor
wrote:

On 30/05/2016 14:47, Mayayana wrote:
| Windows-10 upgrade is optional, and Microsoft have or are altering their
| software to be less misleading about that,

That's simply not true. You like Win10. That's
fine. But as with Tony, you're projecting your
preference on others and deciding they have no
excuse not to like it. A lot of people are being
duped and a lot of people are not happy:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/30757...-own-risk.html

"It’s nasty business, and it’s tricking legions of happy Windows 7 and 8
users into Windows 10. Over the past week, I’ve received more contact from
readers about this issue than I have about everything else I’ve written over
the rest of my career combined."

(PC World is the epitome of mainstream media. It's
not a fringe publication. They have tech business
advertisers to placate, so it takes a lot for them
to say anything that might be, in any way,
controversial.)


| although why "most" people
| would wish to remain on the older 7 or 8/8.1 OS when there are shell
| emulators to make the new have a fair resemblance to the old isn't
| clear.

Spyware and no choice about getting updates
are two reasons. Another might be simply that
they don't need the change and thus have no
reason to deal with the effort to acclimate and
the risks of problems. More to the point, it's none
of your business. People don't have to justify why
they don't want to use a commercial product. That's
the whole point here. Microsoft have no right to
force, by hook or by crook, a new or changed
product on people using Windows.

Yes, it was a badly designed dialog.

Given the effort that Microsoft had taken to defend it I would say the
dialogue was doing exactly what Microsoft designed it to do.

The BBC reports that Microsoft is
making the upgrade or not choice clearer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36376962


And only after a massive outcry from consumers and the industry - but
at least they have (were forced) to listen

For the majority of folk the upgrade isn't an issue, they just get on
with it, and benefit as a result (e.g. from longer patch support).

I want the option to make the transition at a time of my choosing and
that is when I have time, am not doing anything else, and have backed
up all that is critical to me.

Of
course, there will be those who have problems,

I still recall Microsoft's SQL server being brought down by a
Microsoft security upgrade.

I don't get why Microsoft are pushing so hard - after if loads of
people miss the free deadline then Microsoft will earn millions from
paid updates won't they?

--
AnthonyL

On Tue, 31 May 2016 01:06:41 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Well, maybe not. We have just been through this in our household. My
wife has an iPad Air 2 and she kept getting popups telling her to
update to 9.3.2. She had the option of selecting 'later' (or similar)
and she did that a couple of times. Then, as well as receiving Pop
ups, without any warning, her iPad lost the ability to send mail.
Eventually she weakened and installed 9.3.2 and all is sweetness and
light again.

losing the ability to send mail is completely unrelated.

It came back immediately after the update. It may have been
coincidence.

quite likely.

Now I have an iPad 3. I got one pop up and selected 'later'. I haven't
set up an email account on the device so that service was not
interrupted. I didn't notice any other problem either. Eventually I
installed 9.3.2 and so far have experienced no problems. But I notice
that Apple has started to use two-factor identification and it may be
that I cannot now use the iPad without a functioning cell phone.

two-factor is optional, but it's *highly* recommended, and not just for
apple either. activate it wherever it's offered and insist that it be
offered if it isn't.

you also don't need a functioning cellphone just to use the ipad with
2fa.

I do if they are going to send me a text message.

no you don't.

if the trusted device is another ios device or mac, it's sent over the
internet. if it's a non-textable phone, it's a voice call.

I use a PC, remember? Texting is easier and cheaper. It will be
automatic and not involve person.

it's also sent once per device (unless you keep erasing it or other
major action that would warrant re-authenticating).

you do need a phone number when setting it up (voice or text), but
after that, you don't need to use the phone at all.

That's good. I haven't found how often they do that yet.

it's also optional. if you don't want 2fa, don't activate it (but
that's not recommended).

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204915
Once signed in, you won¹t be asked for a verification code on that
device again unless you sign out*completely, erase the device, or
need to change your*password for security reasons. When you sign in
on*the web, you can choose to trust your browser, so you won¹t be
asked for a verification code the next*time*you sign in from that
computer.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 31/05/2016 12:19, AnthonyL wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 15:51:23 +0100, David Taylor
[]
Yes, it was a badly designed dialog.

Given the effort that Microsoft had taken to defend it I would say the
dialogue was doing exactly what Microsoft designed it to do.

The BBC reports that Microsoft is
making the upgrade or not choice clearer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36376962


And only after a massive outcry from consumers and the industry - but
at least they have (were forced) to listen

For the majority of folk the upgrade isn't an issue, they just get on
with it, and benefit as a result (e.g. from longer patch support).

I want the option to make the transition at a time of my choosing and
that is when I have time, am not doing anything else, and have backed
up all that is critical to me.

Of
course, there will be those who have problems,

I still recall Microsoft's SQL server being brought down by a
Microsoft security upgrade.

I don't get why Microsoft are pushing so hard - after if loads of
people miss the free deadline then Microsoft will earn millions from
paid updates won't they?

"Badly designed" from the customers' viewpoint, I hope you would agree.

There are plenty of ways published on the Web you can choose your own
transition time.

Well, that's one way of looking at it! Doubtless there would be
complaints whether they charge or not. Maybe having a smaller number of
operating systems to support will bring reduced support costs in the
longer term.

Good luck with your eventual upgrade.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

| Given the effort that Microsoft had taken to defend it I would say the
| dialogue was doing exactly what Microsoft designed it to do.
|
| The BBC reports that Microsoft is
| making the upgrade or not choice clearer.
|
| http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36376962
|
|
| And only after a massive outcry from consumers and the industry - but
| at least they have (were forced) to listen
|

Not really. The new window is just an extra copy
of the old window. Closing it still causes Win10 to
install, which is contrary to normal behavior and
of course, as you said, doing exactly what MS wants
it to do. They don't necessarily have to trick everyone.
It can also work if they harass people so much that
those people decide they simply "can't win".

| I don't get why Microsoft are pushing so hard - after if loads of
| people miss the free deadline then Microsoft will earn millions from
| paid updates won't they?
|

Maybe, but not likely. If they don't get the
converts they'll probably extend the timeframe
with some kind of "special offer" out of the
goodness of their hearts.

The basic deal is that they make no money from
Win7/8 once they've sold the license. It costs them
money to keep up with patching. Every person they
can switch over to Win10 is another person who
may provide ongoing income through several means:

1) Data collection allows them to sell info about you
to marketers.

2) That same data collection lays the groundwork
for targetted ads. So far they're only putting low
key "suggestions" ads in the Start Menu, but that
will surely change once they reach Max Infection
Level for Win10. (They've probably learned a lesson
in patience from Zuck: Get 'em hooked before you
start downgrading the service with intrusive ads.)

3) Win10 pushes people to get MS IDs and visit the
Microsoft Store online. IDs provide for more personal
data collection, this time online. MS takes a 30% cut
of Metro apps sold in their store. There's also the
possibility that exposure to the store might lead you
to sign up for services of all kinds. Those are all profit
opportunities for MS.

4) Win10 is whatever MS want it to be. It's in the
legal mumbo jumbo that you have no choice in
accepting updates. If MS decides to put ad videos
in folder windows then that's what you'll get.

This is not a new Windows operating system. It's
far more radical than that. This is Windows as a
service. It's not a matter of argument or point of
view. People may love or hate Win10, but what Win10
is has been clearly stated, unequivocally. People just
haven't yet grasped the implications:

http://www.computerdealernews.com/ne...-service/41709

Search for something like: satya nadella windows as service
and you'll find lots of similar links.

David Taylor is part of the large majority who
still don't get what's happening. They think it's
another round of arguing about the old Start Menu
vs the new Start Menu, or the old GUI techno-kitsch
as compared to the new GUI techno-kitsch. They
assume the issue is about Windows design
preferences. That's not what's going on. Several
companies are trying to privatize a vertical retail
channel, using devices and services. Amazon, Apple,
Google and MS are the main players. In some ways
Facebook, too. iPhone, iMac, iTunes, apps, Siri,
Apple stores... That's a massive system where people
are invited to live and thus pay Apple a cut of
everything they do. Amazon shopping, Kindle, Echo
and the failed Fire phone are another inclusive
channel. MS are doing something similar. The Internet
is being reverted to several supercharged versions of
the AOL walled garden. The vast majority, diddling
their Facebook or celebrating the convenience of
AirBnB and Uber, haven't noticed that their entire
life is being converted into retail product.

MS hope to never actually sell Windows again.
Windows is the TV channel where you'll buy stuff.
They've seen Apple pull it off and they want in
on that action. If it flies there's no reason for them
to continue charging. Or maybe they'd charge a small
fee, just to make it seem valuable. They'll charge a
high price only if the overall scam fails. But that
could very well happen. They're planning for services
across devices, but their phone is now kaput,
probably for good. That leaves them with only tablets
and PCs. Their store has been a failure. No one is
buying, or even writing, Metro apps. They can't get
their 30% cut if they don't sucker developers into
writing trinket apps and selling them.

Apple is a
consumer product company. They're well adapted to
this kind of scam. Microsoft is a business software
company trying to railraod hundreds of millions of
Windows customers (their bread and butter) into a
half-baked and notably uncompelling Metro app
system. It's not their forte. No one goes to MS for
entertainment and shopping. They go for business
software functionality.

Interestingly, last night I was looking for a copy of
VC++ 2013 Express for free so that I could compile
something I'm curious about. What I found was the
whole shebang for free. Microsoft are giving away
all Windows tools and documentation in one gigantic,
7 GB package, for free, which includes the entire Visual
Studio suite. I have VS6, from 1998, which was selling
in the $1,000-$2,000+ range at that time, depending
on what version one bought. VB6 alone was $500. Why
the shift? In 1998 developers were making money by
using VS to write Windows software. In 2016 no one
wants to write Metro apps because there's no money
in it. ... So now I have the entire VS 2013 and I can
compile the program I'm curious about. Will I try my
hand at Metro apps, given that MS has provided a
free workshop? Not on your life. They're little more than
overblown webpages, targeting a doomed market.

.... All of which is to say that if MS don't figure out
something better than trojan horse shopping trinket
malware then you *might* have to pay for Win10 after
July. It's my guess that Nadella and the top brass at
MS don't dare even consider any option other than pushing
services. They think that's the future of computing and
all they care about is profits. They don't seem to have
the vision or character to turn around, focus on making
a really good, honest product, and settling for a fair
profit as an established, stable company. And in a way
it's hard to blame them. The tech world has become
almost indistinguishable from a planned obsolescence
factory. People buy new stuff only to throw it away.
Anyone who doesn't keep running ever faster toward the
future and toward new iterations of their product risks
falling behind.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Now I have an iPad 3. I got one pop up and selected 'later'. I haven't
set up an email account on the device so that service was not
interrupted. I didn't notice any other problem either. Eventually I
installed 9.3.2 and so far have experienced no problems. But I notice
that Apple has started to use two-factor identification and it may be
that I cannot now use the iPad without a functioning cell phone.

two-factor is optional, but it's *highly* recommended, and not just for
apple either. activate it wherever it's offered and insist that it be
offered if it isn't.

you also don't need a functioning cellphone just to use the ipad with
2fa.

I do if they are going to send me a text message.

no you don't.

if the trusted device is another ios device or mac, it's sent over the
internet. if it's a non-textable phone, it's a voice call.

I use a PC, remember?

i didn't say anything about what you use. i just listed the ways the
code can be sent.

Texting is easier and cheaper.

then why are you complaining?

It will be
automatic and not involve person.

it's not automatic. you have to enter the code sent.

the sending of the code is automatic, no person involved, if that's
what you mean, including a voice phone call.

it's also sent once per device (unless you keep erasing it or other
major action that would warrant re-authenticating).

you do need a phone number when setting it up (voice or text), but
after that, you don't need to use the phone at all.

That's good. I haven't found how often they do that yet.

read the link i gave, especially the part quoted below. it explains how
often.

it's also optional. if you don't want 2fa, don't activate it (but
that's not recommended).

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204915
Once signed in, you won¹t be asked for a verification code on that
device again unless you sign out*completely, erase the device, or
need to change your*password for security reasons. When you sign in
on*the web, you can choose to trust your browser, so you won¹t be
asked for a verification code the next*time*you sign in from that
computer.