Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

wastingtimewithforums wastingtime​withforums
  • the next 5 years is crucial to MS.

    , bondsbw wrote

    It doesn't help that many people seem to want Microsoft to be IBM.  They loathe any attempt by Microsoft to build consumer-oriented products, or to move out of last decade's consumer direction and into the very different arena of mobile personal computing.  They yell and scream (over the internet) until Microsoft finally caves in the spirit of "compromise".

    Your reasonings are invalid, here's why:

    1. Kicking your former customers in the * is no requirement to corner new markets.

    The way they have tried to shove metro down the throats is as if they would have tried to make IE an success by not just bundling it, but by booting into fullscreen IE in Windows 98 with no obvious way to get out of it (except keyboard shortcuts), and if you wanted to launch programs you had to type them into the adress bar of Internet Explorer.

    Such senseless brute-force tactics will only generate resentment! People who bought Windows PCs expect Windows, W8 just wasn't it (if you want to argue me with on that, you know I can type out a 10 pages post with ease on this issue...)

    It's like buying the steak you always are buying and finding out it's made of soya and tastes like coffee, just because the vendor tries to make it big in vegan drinks. Not acceptable. Even if the customer wanted to buy vegan coffee later, he most likely won't chose THAT vendor again after that experience.

    And what's with the all the other dick moves, like the completely non-controllable Windows Update in 10, hiding local accounts to ridiculous extends through deceptive tactics.. how does that help to bring in mobile customers? They will chose the automatic options freely anyway, but all this force brings nothing except grievances for the customers who are already on Windows.

    Pretty much EVERYTHING they did in the past three-four years was antagonistic against their existing customers, this in turn generates negativity which affects all their line-up.

    2. Their vision of "universality" is misguided AND WILL NOT WORK.

    The start menu in Windows 10 sucks. Why does it suck? There's absolutely no reason for it to. Why can't they reconstruct the Windows 7 start menu? You get the old start menu, and if you press the maximize-button (tablet-mode) you land on the W8 screen. Problem solved for both user groups.

    Freeeware authors do this in their spare time. Yet MS doesn't seem to be able to pull this off. All their "universal" approaches are hillariously bad and terrible, even though the fixes would be laughably simple in most cases. There's no excuse to produce something like Windows 8 or the botched start menu in 10 when hobbyists (classic shell) do better. Seriously, what's up? It seems to be driven by the desire to create an uniform look, but this could be achieved by colors and theming. Killing usability will always backfire.

    Their "Universal Apps" will fail, that's my seer-prediction. And why will it fail? Because Microsoft themselves cannot create applications worth a damn with this approach. Take the calculator or the PDF reader in W10 with their huge buttons and out-of-place appearance. They look that way because these apps need to be run on tablets and desktops at the same time, and these form factors are just NOT the same, one will always get the shaft.

    If they can't even tame a simple calculator, then every other app will be botched as well.

    This problem happens because there are only two classes of devices in an "universal app": Phones and "PCs". PCs are lumped together with tablets. It would have been simple for the OS to detect tablets (touchscreen + no mouse attached = tablet) but instead of doing the clean separation, they lumped together two entirely different cases into one category (recipe for disaster). By going this way, "apps" will always be full of compromise and look bad on one of the form factors.

    3. Shoving metro onto PCs will never work.

    You just don't need "apps" on a PC, period. If you look at the apps on Android and iPhone, there are mostly three categories of apps: Website-gateways, mobile-only gimmicks and games.

    Mobile-only gimmicks is stuff like barcode scanners, flashlights, augmented reality.. some of these don't even work on tablets that well, on a desktop  or laptop they are completely useless.

    Website-gateways: The full site on a full-featured browser on a large screen usually works better than these web-slices they put onto smartphones. There were born out of a neccessity due the screen size, not because they are that great.

    So, on a PC you just need a browser for the mundane tasks smartphones need apps for (online-banking, buying tickets, light word processing), and for the heavy-duty tasks you have the vast library of powerful Windows applications. Metro/modern/Windows 8 style apps/Windows store apps/universal apps/Windows apps or whatever they are called now will probably never reach the functionality of these applications, given their full-compromise nature by design and their restrictions.

    The other category is games, but PC users have Steam for that already. The library is vast, the brand well known and the games and their engines just too entrenched on win32. Especially the AAA engines.

    Metro is just useless on the PC. Trying to brute-force their tablets by brute-forcing metro on the desktop was thus a plan just doomed to failure. It could never have worked.

  • These Windows 10 ​adware/prel​oader patches are packaged with important security updates. JUST WTF?!

    , DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

    Not true. There have been SPs that cannot be uninstalled.

    Which ones?

    https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/948537 [How to uninstall Windows Vista service packs]
    http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/uninstall-sp1
    https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/875350 [How to remove Windows XP Service Pack 2 from your computer]

    http://windowsitpro.com/windows/how-can-i-uninstall-windows-2000-service-pack

    http://www-pc.uni-regensburg.de/systemsw/nt40/UPDATES/sp6a/us/readme.htm#2.5 [NT 4 Service Packs uninstall]

    , DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

    I seem to recall with XP there was an SP (SP2?) that changed some of the behavior of Windows and people were pissed.

    You got the history wrong. People were pissed because of the summer of worms and other daily attacks. XP SP2 was the most eagerly awaited SP and demanded like nothing before.

    It didn't change the GUI however (except for one entry in the control panel) nor removed something.

    Could they have made the W8.1 update more "optional"? Sure but I think you're forgetting the huge outcry from users for Microsoft to fix W8. If they had made it a non-important update that users had to go into Windows update and select to install people would claim that Microsoft is begrudgingly providing the fixes and it really wants people to stick with W8. You know the idea that "people just need to spend time getting used to it".

    Ah, that's really such a lousy excuse for this behavior.

    I agree that Windows 8 was in a sorry state at release (it's still isn't exactly stellear with 8.1) so a notification screen was justified for it. But, that screen should have had a checkbox to make it disappear given the substantial changes between the systems (the update to 8.1 tile could still be in the start screen).

    There's absolutely no justification on a productive Windows system (where there's always the possibility for compatibility problems, problematic programs, user training etc.) for a non-declinable nag-screen which forces a new version on you with no ability to cancel. None.

    By the way: Once you get the updates which cause the 8.1 update screen, it appears even when you deactivate Windows Update! I just tried it out in that VM: I deactivated WU (never check for updates) and then triggered the nag-screen by setting the clock into the future. It appeared... (it does, because it's independent from WU, its exe is system32\autoupdate.exe).

    So even if you consciously deactivate the official update function because you really don't want to upgrade for some reason or because you have an critical over-night task running, Microsoft doesn't care in the slightest anymore. That's beyond just wrong. That's the Double Whopper of wrong.

    Behavior like this just leads to questions over the W7 nagscreens.

  • These Windows 10 ​adware/prel​oader patches are packaged with important security updates. JUST WTF?!

    , vesuvius wrote

    @wastingtimewithforums:

    Microsoft forced the world to move from 8 to 8.1, and the world did not complain (neither did you at the time)

    The force appeared quite recently. Also, W8 had the slowest growing marketshare of any Windows version so far, the installation base was not that great (8 and 8.1 are STILL below XP).

    , vesuvius wrote

    In life you have to accept that some people will never come round to progress

    Just upgrading a version number is not "progress" when so many things got downgraded in return.

    , vesuvius wrote

    If they decide to force everyone to move to Windows 10, 99.99% of people won't complain.

    That's the mindset I am talking about. Let's hope there are enough sane people left at MS and they won't press that nuke-button.

  • These Windows 10 ​adware/prel​oader patches are packaged with important security updates. JUST WTF?!

    , bondsbw wrote

    Just because it happened in Windows 8 -> 8.1 doesn't mean it will happen for Windows 10.  The two situations are very different.

    8.1 was a service pack for 8, essentially.  Service packs were previously considered "important updates" that were automatically installed via WU, so 8.1 is no different. Microsoft retired the use of the term "service pack" in favor of point releases.

    Microsoft called it a "substantial update" and indeed it contains far more changes than what service packs do (95 to 98 had less changes).

    Also, service packs can be uninstalled, this cannot. SPs don't change UIs (except for very slight changes), 8.1 did.

    ALSO, 8.1 removed some key features:

    http://www.howtogeek.com/167610/8-features-microsoft-removed-in-windows-8.1/

    The Windows backup system is gone for example.

    Now imagine MS would offer up SP2 for Windows 7 which would remove backup and some other stuff (experience index) and add other features in return while adding/removing GUI elements all over the place and sprinkle the system with MS-account sign-up dialogs.

    Then a window will appear that will force you to this without the ability to decline. Cool?! Why is that so different with what they did with Windows 8? Because it's a lesser Windows than 7? (well, I've been saying that all the time, but..)

    What they did with the forced 8.1 upgrade was quite the precedent. Again, I don't think they will force 7 to 10 in the same way, but given their post 2012 modus operandi, the forced 8.1 screen and how deceptively the 7 to 10 updates are labeled, I have my doubts that the W7 nag-screen will be that easily dealt with (checkbox).

    Here's the full config.xml file for it:

    http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-security/suspicious-new-folder-windirsystem32gwx/e3661a2f-93f5-4d7c-a83f-2fcc25ed7ac2

    Apparently ít's strictly aimed at home users ("DomainJoined:false, EnterpriseSKU": false"). Home users are the group which can protest the least..

    But yeah, this topic is done for good. We have to wait and see. There's nothing to discuss anymore until Windows 10 appears.

  • These Windows 10 ​adware/prel​oader patches are packaged with important security updates. JUST WTF?!

    , kettch wrote

    *snip*

    I guess the reason why EvilD didn't get this screen is due a problem on his computer (the updates that cause this screen didn't get installed correctly or something).

    That's total nonsense. If you don't know the answer, don't make something up.

    Sheesh, read the posts (and people call me troll)

    asked if he still used the Windows 8 box, he said "yep". So the pretty obvious conclusion why he still doesn't get the screen but all the other people do (including me on a brand-new fresh W8) is because some problem on his PC.

  • These Windows 10 ​adware/prel​oader patches are packaged with important security updates. JUST WTF?!

    I've just tested it on a VM (brand new W8 installation). The forced update screen does happen.

    I used a Windows 8 ISO (en_windows_8_x86_dvd_915417.iso) and a "generic demo key" (you can install but it won't activate).

    After the installation was done I ran Windows Update to install all the default updates (haven't installed any optionals, nor tweaked any WU settings).

    After the restart I visited WU again, there were other important updates available which I installed. After the second restart there were no more updates available.

    I waited for the Windows 8.1 screen but nothing happened, then I inspected the Task Scheduler, and indeed I have found the entry for the 8.1 update there. Screenshot:

    http://s17.postimg.org/z9cgsc4xb/image.png

    I set the system time forward (2 days) to trigger this.

    Nothing visible happened, but lots of data got downloaded (the 8.1 setup)

    http://s17.postimg.org/6kzip42r3/image.png

    After a while the system started to rattle and 8.1 setup tasks appeared:

    http://s17.postimg.org/bh35gt2wf/image.png

    A few minutes later I got indeed the 8.1 screen:

    http://s17.postimg.org/lnbqzsnan/image.png

    I have chosen "remind me later" (there is no "never" or cancel-option) then I set the clock forward again for two days, and after a bit of waiting I get this:

    http://s22.postimg.org/6pt99uag1/image.png

    As you can see, no more "remind me later". Point of no return. No options to abort this.

    I HAVEN'T CLICKED ON ANY "GET Windows 8.1" BUTTONS TO CAUSE THIS.

    See also this:

    http://windowssecrets.com/patch-watch/moving-to-windows-8-1-ready-or-not/

    So yes, Windows 8.1 was indeed forced. I guess the reason why EvilD didn't get this screen is due a problem on his computer (the updates that cause this screen didn't get installed correctly or something).

  • These Windows 10 ​adware/prel​oader patches are packaged with important security updates. JUST WTF?!

    What SKU exactly? (home, pro, enterprise..)

  • These Windows 10 ​adware/prel​oader patches are packaged with important security updates. JUST WTF?!

    It happened to lots of people.

    http://community.acer.com/t5/Notebooks-Netbooks/Windows-forced-update-to-8-1-now-I-can-t-update-drivers-or-run/td-p/349454

    http://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Operating-Systems-and-Software/Forced-Windows-8-1-upgrade/td-p/4855398

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOIbtR3PSNg

    Are you still using that Windows 8 box? The force appeared somewhat recently (end of 2014/beginning of 2015).

    What edition of W8 were you running?

  • These Windows 10 ​adware/prel​oader patches are packaged with important security updates. JUST WTF?!

    , Craig_​Matthews wrote

    What's the deal with that Aero-translucent title bar in Chrome and the Windows Vista taskbar in that screenshot of Windows 8?

    I guess it's a mix of glass 8 and a Vista theme.

    The forced screen on that picture is definitely legit.

  • Would you like fries with that?

    The reason for WPs low marketshare is because it's a me-too product without identity. Or at least was for a too long time.

    It's GUI stood out, but that's about it. Windows Mobile had more killer-features and at least filled out niches better than WP did.

    Adding a hamburger won't change anything, that ship pretty much sailed. WP was conceptualized all wrong.

    WP is just as closed as iOS, pricer than Android and had for a long time none of the features Windows Mobile had. WP didn't fit in anywhere. For a too long time, iOS and Android even had better compatibility with the traditional MS stack (Exchange, Outlook) than WP did. Ridiculous.

    What was there that iOS and Android didn't have, except metro? It didn't offer anything particular for the main user groups: The "just works" and high-end markets are sworn into Apple, the mainstreamers got Android, the traditional Windows folks and enthusiasts got shafted royally by WP in the first years and shifted mostly to Android.

    It was the first major "non-Microsofty" Microsoft product, because they threw overboard all the traditional strenghts of the platform (backwards compatibility, integration, closed source but with as much freedom as possible for devs and users) and went straight the Apple-envy route and thought this would work. Just why would it though? Given the original feature set and restrictions, it was designed for the Appe-crowd ("life maximizers"), but why would they get WP instead of the original? Metro? Severly over-estimated by MS.

    Cargo-cult strategy deluxe. They panicked because of the iPhone instead of assessing the situation. The mistakes and mentality which started with WP haunt MS to this day.

    It should have been a modernized Windows Mobile instead. New GUI (maybe not metro though - it doesn't seem to click with the public)  but tight integration with the MS world from the get-go (not years later!), the most important core features from WM backed in from the start (VPN, outlook sync), easy sideloading abilities.