It’s pretty easy–you tell the computer it’s part of a workgroup and if any other computer designated as also part of that workgroup is awake you’ll see it and can basically treat it like it was a file location on your own hard drive. Streaming music or other media over wifi is trivially simple and doing file maintenance on a computer that’s physically inconvenient to work on (my media computer does have a keyboard but it’s wired and to use it your nose is about two feet away from a 42" screen, or you can use an onscreen keyboard with a mouse but that’s sloooow) is super easy. If I download a movie onto my laptop I can move it with a single drag and drop to the media box. Windows 10 hates my VPN though and that makes my laptop often “forget” where the media computer is but if I drop the VPN for a second it remembers and I go on from there. When I was networking several Win7 boxes it was so easy I’d forget which file explorer window was which, Win10 is pissier but still easier than figuring out how to network a Linux box to a Windows one.
I know it’s a bit late, but: Can you be more specific, please ? Was this “load of unwanted crap” a Windows Update ? From Windows 10 to Windows 10 ? When you say the programs that you have installed no longer run, do you mean that that they’re now closed and you have to open them again, or that you can’t run them anymore ?
I am a strong supporter of installing updates, but Microsoft is their own worst enemy in training users to fear and avoid installing updates. Microsoft cannot keep security updates separate from feature updates or advertising updates. I mean, it’s not a technical limitation, it is a matter of self control.
Back in the XP and 7 days, this was very bad, with security updates being mixed in with changes in features. Do you want this update which only fixes problems, and doesn’t change anything? Yes, of course, then you also have to accept this update that changes how things work.
At some point in 10, Microsoft did try to get better, with monthly security rollups, and the occasional feature update. That made it much easier to do things like stick to Windows 10 version 1903, but still install necessary security updates. Then Microsoft goes and does stuff like this, where they force ads for their online Office 365 suite into the start menu.
This isn’t the first time they’ve done something like this. Great job teaching users that necessary security updates will also bring surprise ads, and other unwanted changes. What should happen for these monthly updates is users say, “I had to reboot, but when it came back I couldn’t tell any difference.”
Yes, this is what I’m talking about. Windows updates should be invisible. They can patch up legitimate security problems without selling Microsoft products, shutting down non-Microsoft products, or making any changes in how my computer is set up.
Windows 10 to Windows 10.
Once I was hit with this unrequested and unscheduled “upgrade” I started finding I have programs that can no longer be opened. I know from past experience, I will have to reinstall these programs.
People can say this isn’t malware but it sure seems to act like what I would call malware. It was downloaded into my computer and installed without my permission and it’s disrupted the performance of my computer. If some computer hacker did this everyone would call it malware; why should we have a different name for it because it was done by Microsoft?
Some updates are going to require rebooting, that’s unavoidable (we’re not talking about mainframes that can swap running kernels without shutting down). But yeah, it should be possible to keep up to date with security patches without making even minor changes in functionality (excluding the very rare case of security updates which do legitimately require big changes).
As for the rebooting, that I think is often a user problem. Just save your stuff, and reboot. Sure, it’s annoying, but it only needs to be done once or twice per month.
Thing is, Microsoft has you trapped. Do you want to install security updates or would you rather get some ransomware installed that steals all your data? Great, here are some ads to go with those updates!
No, Microsoft didn’t give us a choice. They decided that they will install security updates even if we’d rather take our chances with ransomware.
Maybe that’s the problem. If people could choose to turn off Windows updates, Microsoft would have some motivation to make them palatable. But when Microsoft can force us to take updates, they can load whatever they want into them without worrying people will say no.
As detailed up thread, there are many options to prevent updates, from Microsoft’s built in methods of putting it off, to external ones, such as blocking the Microsoft update servers on the network. Making the choice to block updates has consequences.
I think part of the problem is a mindset issue. Software is not a static thing, that works once, and works forever. Software is a thing that needs to change and adapt as bugs are found and fixed and as new threats are discovered.
This wrong mindset is the reason the security around internet-of-things devices is so bad. This electronic door lock works great. Two years later and somebody figures out how to open it from any phone in bluetooth range? Too bad, that’s an old product, no new security updates. Release once.
The choice of an operating system leads to an on going relationship with the producer, and how they treat their users and handle updates should be part of the decision. The main choices now are MacOS (Apple), Windows (Microsoft), ChromeOS (Google), and Linux (many different distributions to choose from). The for profit companies all will have different motivations driving their software updates. Apple wants to sell you new devices. Microsoft wants you to buy an Office 365 subscription. Google wants to convince other companies to pay for ads. Red Hat (IBM) wants to sell you a service contract, and Debian wants to spread free software.
Can you give an example of these programs? Are they older software that you brought over from a previous version of windows?
I’d say what you’re describing is a mindset issue. Microsoft developers have the mindset that they can skip beta testing and rush half-finished products on to the market; they’ll just patch up the problems later. Microsoft products wouldn’t have the bad reputation they have if the company set a goal of releasing products that didn’t need to be fixed later.
I realize there are some genuine security problems that arise after the product is released and these can’t all be anticipated. But that’s only a small fraction of what Windows updates address. Most updates are aimed at fixing mistakes that were the result of shoddy development at Microsoft, not attacks from outsiders.
All software has bugs. Nothing as complex as an OS is perfect on first release. Bugfixes are a normal part of the lifecycle of a software product.
I could but I don’t see much point in it. It seems clear from the responses that I’ve received in this thread that I can’t block Microsoft updates. At least not unless I stop using Windows altogether. So I have to decide which is a bigger pain in the ass; using Windows, accepting the unavoidable updates, and fixing the problems those updates cause or abandoning Windows and learn how to use Linux.
I just thought it might be useful. I have patched a lot of computers from all the way back to Windows 98 and I’ve never really seen the phenomenon you are describing.
I’ve seen patches permanently prevent a piece of legacy software from working; I’ve seen cases where a patch broke one thing and I’ve seen a small number of cases where patching completely bollixed a computer to the extent that it needed a bare metal reinstall of OS and everything.
But you’re saying you have software that breaks every time you run updates, and this is fixed by reinstalling? Is it legacy stuff that installs itself somewhere that (in up to date versions of Windows) it’s not supposed to go? (like in the root of the C drive, or in the c:\Windows folder?
You may not be able to block Microsoft updates, but I believe you can become a “late adopter”. A while back (last year?), there was a major Windows 10 update that “broke” a lot of functionality in many PCs. There were articles on line on how to set your updates so they don’t install when first release. Instead they download and install up to 90(?) days later, when Microsoft has had time to react to complaints.
This being GQ, I’m not interested in subjectively debating Microsoft’s motivations or the rightness or wrongness of their current approach in Windows 10. What you say here, and similar things that other posters have said, is essentially true in its broad outlines, but it does very much need some qualification. Some other poster (I think it was in a different thread but on a related topic) implied that no reasonable user would even permit a Windows 7 system to ever be connected to the internet today. That kind of statement is absurd, and your comments, while basically true, tend to strike a similar alarmist note.
It’s generally a good idea for a non-technical average user to upgrade to the latest version of Windows, especially when critical support has ended for their current version. For most such users, the automatic updates could probably be regarded as a feature, not a problem. But it’s simply wrong to state that this is always universally the case.
I have four computers in the house and have provided advice and support to people whose businesses depend on computers. None currently run Windows 10. None. In fact, until about a year ago, what I call my “main” computer, the one upstairs in my study that I use for almost all general-purpose stuff including web browsing and email, was running Windows XP, as were most of the others. Windows XP was beginning to become problematic only because of factors unrelated to security patches, in particular the fact that it didn’t support some of the more recent root certificates and some authentications were failing, and the fact that more and more applications (particularly those dependent on recent .NET framework releases) were no longer compatible.
The “main computer” was obsolete anyway and when it blew its power supply sometime last year, I specifically purchased a refurbished Dell Optiplex business desktop rather than a new one so I could get Windows 7 Pro instead of Windows 10. I’m reasonably knowledgeable about best practices, I very very rarely get suspect emails penetrating my filters and know how to handle them, I don’t visit skeevy websites, and I run a very capable antivirus program that updates virus signatures daily and some of its own software components as necessary. Needless to say, I’ve never had a virus problem on Windows 7, nor any that I can recall on XP either, which I was running since before its formal release (a friend at Microsoft gave me one of the later betas). Neither have any other users I know running Windows 7. It’s a superbly stable, highly functional OS that runs all my applications flawlessly and is never subject to disruption, and most particularly, never suffers failures of functionality because of flawed updates. The same applies to everyone else I know running Windows 7. I love the stability, the functionality, and the elegant aero UI.
I am by no means suggesting that everybody should roll back to Windows 7. For most people that would be a huge mistake, and staying with the latest OS and letting it update as necessary is the right thing to do. I have, in fact, recommended to users who were not computer savvy and looking for a new computer to do exactly that: get a new machine, it will come with Windows 10, and it will update automatically. I’m just saying that for some users, there IS a different perspective.
That particularly applies when the risk of disruption and update failures could be a serious problem. I can think of many instances where Microsoft’s OS updates were problematic. I don’t have to go back very far to think of an example. This very computer that I just got a little over a year ago would be an example. Win 7 was still being supported with security-only updates at the time, and I thought it would be wise to install them all en masse when I was first configuring the Windows setup. And lo and behold, on my nice new computer, Windows Media Player would crash as soon as I tried to play some (not all) media files. After doing a lot of searching, it turned out that this exact thing would happen on computers with certain video systems, and it was due to one particular Microsoft security patch. I was fortunately able to uninstall it and then all was well.
Again, I’m not suggesting that people become Luddites and refuse to upgrade, just that different approaches sometimes makes sense in different circumstances. A large bank I know of, with thousands of branches, is still running Windows 2000 on their front-line systems, with a multi-million-dollar extended support contract with Microsoft.
General advice and broad generalizations are fine, but not everyone has the same requirements, the same degree of knowledge, or the same tolerance to instability and disruption.
As mentioned up thread, the issues would be rendered almost completely irrelevant if security updates and fixes were not bundled with “feature updates” which notoriously break shit and add bloat.
This sentiment has been mentioned a few times in this thread, that staying on well known sites is safe. The problem is that many infections are spread through reputable ad networks, used by reputable websites. The criminals do things to deceive the ad network into carrying an ad that transfers a malicious payload. Here is an example from last year, and the general concept is called “malvertising.”
This is one of the reasons I will argue that adblockers are part of any secure system, which is unfortunate for websites that depend on advertising.
It’s the aphorism that the defenders have to be perfect all of the time, and the attackers only have to succeed once. Running an out of date system makes it much more difficult to be perfect.
I do have lots of sympathy, mostly from the hardware side. Why should somebody need to buy a new scanner (or mass spectrometer) just because there are no Windows 10 drivers? It works perfectly fine under Windows 7.
As a very general summary, I would say that managing and using a Linux system is not easier than using Windows. I don’t wish to put you off trying, but I wonder if you are aware, for example, that the Windows software you keep needing to reinstall on Windows, won’t work at all in Linux (there are ways to run Windows software on Linux, but they are neither very simple, nor especially reliable).
On the other hand, if (and it’s possible) you can find available Linux-compatible alternatives for all of the software you want to use, then it’s possible you might find Linux to be a breath of fresh air.
Perhaps you’ll forgive me. In the past 5 years* of my IT career, I have had to respond to some pretty serious malware intrusions - one of which - ransomware - shut an entire company down for several days (and we were lucky - some companies don’t come back from it). It happened because my predecessor in the role didn’t believe in upgrading or patching, or security in general (he was of the “It’s OK, we’ll all just be really careful” mindset), and left a huge technical debt for me to clean up, and this happened before I was halfway through it.
So yeah, my view is probably a little tinted by this experience and I probably have an ingrained view that more security is better than less - maybe in the same sort of way that emergency responders probably acquire an ingrained view that seatbelts are generally a good thing, after wiping people up off the road starts to get old.
*I mention the past 5 years, because the game has really escalated in this time. I’ve been in IT for longer than that.
I agree. What bugs me is when somebody posts a site, to prove a cite, and that site won’t let me in, because I’m using an adblocker. I usually just give up–I’m not going to subscribe just to see one item that’s been reported elsewhere, usually for free.