As the apparent Luddite in this thread I have a few points to state.

I never called you a Luddite. But once again, words get tossed around and people take them as they wish.

All I use a PC for is e-mail, web surfing, a word processor and a few very simple spreadsheets. I gave up on digital photography along time ago, it was not as much fun as 35mm film. Hence no need to purchase software in the last decade.
The only other thing I use them for is crunching Seti and Einstein. My wants are simple.
I am a 70 yr old retiree on a fixed income with no need for a cell phone so why spend the money?

So then don't spend the money and don't upgrade or buy things you don't need.

Yes I have done something about it as he suggests but my major bitch is the fact that those people came into my PC and altered it

No one went into your PC. It's not like Microsoft hired people to go into every person's machine and put stuff there. This was always a part of the Windows Update mechanism. You allowed it. Microsoft is offering a free OS upgrade and is providing it as an update to your existing OS. If you don't want it, you don't have to install it. Simple as that.

to except up dates when I specifically had it set for me to choose.
It seems that I have undone the damage that they did but I will never trust those bastards again. I see a pretty strong similarity to rape!

You don't find that comparison a bit over-dramatic? They're just software updates.

my question has probably been answered in this thread, but I can't find it .. that question would be how can update KB2952664 be uninstalled .. control panel/programs and features/installed updates and then uninstall will uninstall it but when the system reboots its back .. update selection on this machine is set "check for updates but let me install"

I was cleaning all of the Win10 crap out of a friends laptop and I had trouble with that update also. I would uninstall it, but it seemed like something was not allowing it to uninstall. After trying several things I booted into Safe Mode, then it would uninstall properly and stay uninstalled.

This worked for me, hope that it works for you.

Don't forget to hide it afterwards.

---

Bruce

To help those who are struggling with uninstalling the Windoze10 up/down grades her's the batch file I run:

wusa /uninstall /kb:2952664 /quiet /norestart
wusa /uninstall /kb:2957026 /quiet /norestart
wusa /uninstall /kb:2976978 /quiet /norestart
wusa /uninstall /kb:2977759 /quiet /norestart
wusa /uninstall /kb:2990214 /quiet /norestart
wusa /uninstall /kb:3021917 /quiet /norestart
wusa /uninstall /kb:3022345 /quiet /norestart
wusa /uninstall /kb:3035583 /quiet /norestart
wusa /uninstall /kb:3044374 /quiet /norestart
wusa /uninstall /kb:3065987 /quiet /norestart
wusa /uninstall /kb:3068708 /quiet /norestart
wusa /uninstall /kb:3075851 /quiet /norestart
wusa /uninstall /kb:3075249 /quiet /norestart
wusa /uninstall /kb:3075851 /quiet /norestart
wusa /uninstall /kb:3080149 /quiet /norestart
wusa /uninstall /kb:3083324 /quiet /norestart
wusa /uninstall /kb:3083710 /quiet /norestart
wusa /uninstall /kb:3083711 /quiet /norestart

Copy the above, save it as a .bat file, and run after every windows up/down grade.

If Cosmic, or anyone else, adds to the list edit then the file, adding the new kb numbers at the end and run it - I'm pretty certain that despite hiding these updates some are creeping through by being rolled into others.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

I think it's farther from the truth than you care to realize. There is absolutely no reason for Microsoft to risk a class-action lawsuit with giving away Windows 10 for free, then forcing people to pay for it later. It just isn't going to happen.

LoL. Pink glasses are good ones... sometimes :)

Indeed. Your post proves just that.

There is the reason. Simple reason, self-enough reason. It's called MONEY.
If their market department decides it's good for increase revenue - they will do it. Period. There were such guesses in press already. And M$ did not reject them directly AFAIK. They said there will be "Windows" at some point in the future. Not "Windows 10", but "Windows". At moment of transition from "Windows 10" to "Windows" "as a service" annual payment can be introduced.

Agreed, but that will be a separate product. They are not going to force existing Windows users into such a payment plan.

Either provide direct links to official M$ statement that this will definitely not happen or "please stop the stupidity".

What? So I have to prove a negative before it can be true? I would think it would be on the person making the claim to provide the proof. Or they're just wild allegations on Microsoft's future products. I'm merely saying I think the wild allegations are off base.

Ozz,

And this is where you are wrong about my original post. I was hypothesizing, speculating, whatever you want to call it. I was NOT stating facts.

Keep on BOINCing...! :)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

In a capitalist society, if you no longer want to purchase a product, quit purchasing it.

There are such things as "natural monopolies". M$ can be viewed as one of such. Cause Windows OS per se is only small part of Windows ecosystem that includes not only software but hardware also. "Quit purchasing" in such case would mean to throw away much more than single product. And treated as natural monopoly M$ should be regulated outside of it in things what they can and what they can not do.

The words you're looking for is de facto monopoly. Yes, Microsoft could be considered a de facto monopoly, but I highly disagree that they should be regulated. There are choices, and while making that choice might be hard, they are still options. Let the market take care of itself. If you don't vote with your wallet, then you're contributing to the problem.

Ozz,

Being retired, I have a lot of time on my hands. If I have nothing 'constructive' to do like fixing something in/on the house or mowing and trimming the lawns, I play 2 online games to pass the time, World of Warcraft and Star Trek Online. Those games do not have a Mac version let alone a Linux version. So you're telling those of us that do not like Window$ and/or Micro$oft to quit paying them and dump the OS? Well, there goes my games then.

Oh sure, I can try to get the games to work in Wine on Linux (which I plan to attempt anyway), but I believe, from some googling I have done, that there will be some major work involved in it. But, I do like a challenge no and again... :)

Keep on BOINCing...! :)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

Agreed, but that will be a separate product. They are not going to force existing Windows users into such a payment plan.

Either provide direct links to official M$ statement that this will definitely not happen or "please stop the stupidity".

What? So I have to prove a negative before it can be true? I would think it would be on the person making the claim to provide the proof. Or they're just wild allegations on Microsoft's future products. I'm merely saying I think the wild allegations are off base.

It could be considered as separate product if Win10 users would allowed to stay with Win10. But all current M$ behavior clearly implies that Win10->Win transition will be w/o any opt out.

Well, your thoughts already known on these forums. Good that you formulate it now as only your thoughts. Cause reality can be just opposite. All are only guessing currently, but some guesses follow from observed M$ behavior and some just... let say wishful thinking.

As Jord said already your views (and you again rejected to provide any factological base to them) should not be ground for blackening others views. You trust to M$. Others not. And I would say they have good reasons to do so, really good ones.

P.S. And regarding claims: my claim M$ will at some point force us to do annual payment for PC Windows OS. If public reaction will be not fierce enough it will happen.
Supporting facts: Office 365, "windows as service", M$ officials talks of attractivity of annual payment and rental software.

Your claim as I understand it - it will not happen. Supporting ?

As far as getting rid of the update.. I like the command-line option from an administrative command prompt.

wusa /uninstall /kb:2952664 /quiet /norestart

Give it a few minutes and then restart, after doing those registry entries, and it should show back up as an available update and ask to be installed, at which point.. right-click > hide.

Thank you Cosmic, Bruce and Rob for your suggestions
that worked :)
Kevin

---

Greetings,

Someone wants facts, well here are some. First a question:

What percentage of the market does a company need before they are considered a monopoly?

In just 2 months of life, Window$ 10 has garnered 6.63% of the market for Operating Systems surpassing Mac OS X 10.10 at 4.91%, Linux at 1.74% and Others at 4.66%. Micro$oft holds, by my calculations as of this moment, 88.69% of the market for Operating Systems.

Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself.

Keep on BOINCing...! :)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

And this is where you are wrong about my original post. I was hypothesizing, speculating, whatever you want to call it. I was NOT stating facts.

And how would anybody reading, trying to make up their minds about upgrading to Windows 10 or not, tell the difference?

Being retired, I have a lot of time on my hands. If I have nothing 'constructive' to do like fixing something in/on the house or mowing and trimming the lawns, I play 2 online games to pass the time, World of Warcraft and Star Trek Online. Those games do not have a Mac version let alone a Linux version. So you're telling those of us that do not like Window$ and/or Micro$oft to quit paying them and dump the OS? Well, there goes my games then.

Oh sure, I can try to get the games to work in Wine on Linux (which I plan to attempt anyway), but I believe, from some googling I have done, that there will be some major work involved in it. But, I do like a challenge no and again... :)

Giving up games, yes, is a choice. You could also try to find equivalents or replacement games. With Steam OS making some great headway on Linux, I imagine the Linux-gaming landscape to change considerably. We'll see. And yes, you could get them to play under WINE. I know a handful of gamers that do exactly that.

It could be considered as separate product if Win10 users would allowed to stay with Win10. But all current M$ behavior clearly implies that Win10->Win transition will be w/o any opt out.

All signs point to this Windows 10 upgrade as being the traditional OS. If there's ever a subscription based version of Windows, it will be a separate product.

Well, your thoughts already known on these forums. Good that you formulate it now as only your thoughts. Cause reality can be just opposite. All are only guessing currently, but some guesses follow from observed M$ behavior and some just... let say wishful thinking.

I think you misunderstand me. My thoughts are that the claims that this Windows 10 upgrade will require users to buy a subscription in the future is unfounded.

I was also attacked for believing in astrology, yet here you are, saying that you guys are trying to predict Microsoft's future behavior based upon what you see as past behavior... but *I* was accused of believing in astrology.

As Jord said already your views (and you again rejected to provide any factological base to them) should not be ground for blackening others views. You trust to M$. Others not. And I would say they have good reasons to do so, really good ones.

I am not "blackening" others views. I am attempting to keep the thread with factual information. It is several here that are trying to make assumptions about Microsoft's future behavior, and you make these assumptions on sometimes bad information. I have merely tried to correct any bad information when I see it.

I have no problems with people who don't trust Microsoft. I don't trust Apple, but I don't go around making wild claims about the company and their future products, or spread outright lies knowingly.

The problem I have with this thread is that I am the one being labeled as some sort of defender, champion, or somehow bullying other people into upgrading simply because I am trying to correct bad information. Somehow, everyone here seems to translate my attempts at correcting information as me telling others they must upgrade. Does everyone think that my goal is to take away everyone's complaints about upgrading so they will indeed upgrade? Because it's not. As I said before, a few times, in this thread. I don't care if people upgrade. Just please don't use bad information to make your choice. That's my only stance.

P.S. And regarding claims: my claim M$ will at some point force us to do annual payment for PC Windows OS. If public reaction will be not fierce enough it will happen.

And this is what I have a problem with. You're manufacturing a fear campaign based upon an assumption that Microsoft will force people to pay for this version of Windows 10. You fear that if the reaction isn't "fierce" enough, your campaign will lose, so you and others stoke the flames of retaliation, while further offering only speculation. How is that not a witch hunt? A little knowledge goes a long way.

And I think this is the crux of the reaction against me. I am trying to counter bad information which could ruin this campaign against Microsoft. So what better way to silence someone like me than to constantly put pejorative labels on me and force me to defend positions I don't have?

Supporting facts: Office 365, "windows as service", M$ officials talks of attractivity of annual payment and rental software.

Your claim as I understand it - it will not happen. Supporting ?

No. I am not saying that a subscription based version of Windows won't happen. I *KNOW* I've said that before in this thread several times. I don't understand why I have to keep repeating my position and re-clarifying it. (Yes, I am getting very frustrated.)

Your supporting fact for a subscription based Windows is Office 365, which is a separate office product, and that Microsoft keeps talking about Windows as a Service (which has actually been explained already as to what that means, yet it seems many continue to translate that into a subscription-based model). Microsoft still releases Office as a stand-alone product.

If Microsoft releases a subscription-based version of Windows, it will be a separate product, just like Office and Office 365 are separate products. This free upgrade that Microsoft has released will not be the version that becomes subscription based. Microsoft has already said this publicly. If they go back on their word, they risk a class-action lawsuit and possibly another DoJ investigation. The only way to get around their statements would be to release the subscription based Windows as a different product.

What percentage of the market does a company need before they are considered a monopoly?

Legally: 100%. 99% is still not a monopoly. This is why the DoJ couldn't break Microsoft up back in the 90's when it was under investigation.

In just 2 months of life, Window$ 10 has garnered 6.63% of the market for Operating Systems surpassing Mac OS X 10.10 at 4.91%, Linux at 1.74% and Others at 4.66%. Micro$oft holds, by my calculations as of this moment, 88.69% of the market for Operating Systems.

Even at ~89% of the market, they are legally not a monopoly. This is why they are referred to as a de facto monopoly. They effectively own most the market, but they do not own all of it.

And this is where you are wrong about my original post. I was hypothesizing, speculating, whatever you want to call it. I was NOT stating facts.

And how would anybody reading, trying to make up their minds about upgrading to Windows 10 or not, tell the difference?

Are you saying that every post on this forum needs a disclaimer now?

DISCLAIMER: Asking a stupid question.

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

What percentage of the market does a company need before they are considered a monopoly?

Legally: 100%. 99% is still not a monopoly. This is why the DoJ couldn't break Microsoft up back in the 90's when it was under investigation.

In just 2 months of life, Window$ 10 has garnered 6.63% of the market for Operating Systems surpassing Mac OS X 10.10 at 4.91%, Linux at 1.74% and Others at 4.66%. Micro$oft holds, by my calculations as of this moment, 88.69% of the market for Operating Systems.

Even at ~89% of the market, they are legally not a monopoly. This is why they are referred to as a de facto monopoly. They effectively own most the market, but they do not own all of it.

They don't 'own', they CONTROL!

Keep on BOINCing...! :)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

All signs point to this Windows 10 upgrade as being the traditional OS. If there's ever a subscription based version of Windows, it will be a separate product.

So, one more not based on fact unjustified claim against which you warning?
Proves?

I think you misunderstand me. My thoughts are that the claims that this Windows 10 upgrade will require users to buy a subscription in the future is unfounded.

Less unfounded then opposite. Any reasoning from you besides simple statements "it will not be" ?

I was also attacked for believing in astrology, yet here you are, saying that you guys are trying to predict Microsoft's future behavior based upon what you see as past behavior... but *I* was accused of believing in astrology.

Irrelevant.

I am not "blackening" others views. I am attempting to keep the thread with factual information.

I would interested to read your facts.
Not as "you see it". But facts, any reasoning...

I have no problems with people who don't trust Microsoft. I don't trust Apple, but I don't go around making wild claims about the company and their future products, or spread outright lies knowingly.

Irrelevant + accusation in lies w/o any proves again.

The problem I have with this thread is that I am the one being labeled as some sort of defender, champion, or somehow bullying other people into upgrading simply because I am trying to correct bad information.

Maybe cause you don't correct info, just saying you do. You repeat only own unjustified opinion again and again. No surprise then.

Just please don't use bad information to make your choice. That's my only stance.

All who advise against Win10 upgrade because of privacy issues use well-proven by many info. There are privacy breach and this fact proven already. I would reconsider your definition of "bad information".

And this is what I have a problem with. You're manufacturing a fear campaign based upon an assumption that Microsoft will force people to pay for this version of Windows 10.

Exactly. Cause in Win10 they already done nasty things that lead to such fear arise. You deny this, but opinion that denies facts hardly can pretend to be shared.

And I think this is the crux of the reaction against me. I am trying to counter bad information which could ruin this campaign against Microsoft.

I can spell only on my own reaction on your posts. And I see only unjustified PR of M$ that definitely antagonize.

So what better way to silence someone like me than to constantly put pejorative labels on me and force me to defend positions I don't have?

You position is to call proven info as "bad info".
And to deny logical consequences from last M$ actions, not providing reasoning. What should come from it?

I *KNOW* I've said that before in this thread several times. I don't understand why I have to keep repeating my position and re-clarifying it. (Yes, I am getting very frustrated.)

Perhaps because little but you himself know what you said in your own view.
As I said before Windows can be unavoidable upgrade from Windows 10. You rejected this. But w/o any reasoning. So?

Your supporting fact for a subscription based Windows is Office 365, which is a separate office product, and that Microsoft keeps talking about Windows as a Service (which has actually been explained already as to what that means, yet it seems many continue to translate that into a subscription-based model). Microsoft still releases Office as a stand-alone product.

If Microsoft releases a subscription-based version of Windows, it will be a separate product, just like Office and Office 365 are separate products. This free upgrade that Microsoft has released will not be the version that becomes subscription based. Microsoft has already said this publicly. If they go back on their word, they risk a class-action lawsuit and possibly another DoJ investigation. The only way to get around their statements would be to release the subscription based Windows as a different product.

Yes. And here all depends of will this separate product really separate and if it will have alternative. You claim "yes". I hope so, but far not sure. And frustrated from current Win10 privacy settings enough to warn others about such possibility.

EDIT: In last 2 paragraphs of that long post you did some reasoning based on Office vs Office 365.
Yep. Indeed Office 2016 available: http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msru/ru_RU/cat/Office/categoryID.67033100?gclid=CKG8idv8usgCFQkXcgod0T0GXg&gclsrc=ds&tduid=(a357bbcb9f2c70a211df14b6c6dc40f2)(230077)(2504127)(jkp_CKG8idv8usgCFQkXcgod0T0GXg)(G003) version with Access at cost of mid-PC.
If Windows "stand alone" would cost as Ferrary I would refrain to consider it as real alternative.

EDIT2:
If one read carefully page with Office 2016 one will read: "upgrading to Office 365". What it means: Office 2016 positioned as restricted version. So could be with Windows "stand alone". Limited set of features (critical element for me is RDP availability for example) that could be enabled by "upgrading" to Windows with annual fee.

And this is where you are wrong about my original post. I was hypothesizing, speculating, whatever you want to call it. I was NOT stating facts.

And how would anybody reading, trying to make up their minds about upgrading to Windows 10 or not, tell the difference?

Are you saying that every post on this forum needs a disclaimer now?

DISCLAIMER: Asking a stupid question.

Of course not. But the topic is Windows 10 - Yea or Nay? It would be nice if people who are on the fence could come here to read facts and not be fed FUD.

What percentage of the market does a company need before they are considered a monopoly?

Legally: 100%. 99% is still not a monopoly. This is why the DoJ couldn't break Microsoft up back in the 90's when it was under investigation.

In just 2 months of life, Window$ 10 has garnered 6.63% of the market for Operating Systems surpassing Mac OS X 10.10 at 4.91%, Linux at 1.74% and Others at 4.66%. Micro$oft holds, by my calculations as of this moment, 88.69% of the market for Operating Systems.

Even at ~89% of the market, they are legally not a monopoly. This is why they are referred to as a de facto monopoly. They effectively own most the market, but they do not own all of it.

They don't 'own', they CONTROL!

Of course they don't control the market. They have a massive influence within the market, but they don't control it.

All signs point to this Windows 10 upgrade as being the traditional OS. If there's ever a subscription based version of Windows, it will be a separate product.

So, one more not based on fact unjustified claim against which you warning?
Proves?

I simply can't understand what you're saying here. Too many double negatives.

...

Less unfounded then opposite. Any reasoning from you besides simple statements "it will not be"

Irrelevant.

I would interested to read your facts.
Not as "you see it". But facts, any reasoning...

Irrelevant + accusation in lies w/o any proves again.

Maybe cause you don't correct info, just saying you do. You repeat only own unjustified opinion again and again. No surprise then.

Oh no, I've correct the bad info. Sorry if you think my claims are unjustified. I can only lead a horse to water. I can't make them drink. Indeed, no surprise there when people already have their minds made up and continuously spout bad information.

I've already provided my proofs much earlier in this thread. I'm not going to re-hash those same proofs every single time someone like you asks me to. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you go read my other posts. I'm far too busy to be bothered doing it for you.

Just please don't use bad information to make your choice. That's my only stance.

All who advise against Win10 upgrade because of privacy issues use well-proven by many info. There are privacy breach and this fact proven already. I would reconsider your definition of "bad information".

Again, you seem to keep moving the goal posts and changing what you think my position is. One more time: the issues of privacy concerns are understandable, and I have not once argued against the privacy claims. What I have argued against are the claims that Microsoft is going to force users to pay for Windows 10 later. I've also argued that Microsoft has not "reached" into anyone's PC. I have also argued that pushing Windows 10 is not bandwidth theft.

My definition of bad information remains solid. It is the constant moving of the topic and what you think my position is that needs reconsidering.

And this is what I have a problem with. You're manufacturing a fear campaign based upon an assumption that Microsoft will force people to pay for this version of Windows 10.

Exactly. Cause in Win10 they already done nasty things that lead to such fear arise. You deny this, but opinion that denies facts hardly can pretend to be shared.

Where have I denied that Windows 10 has done "nasty" things? I should hope you can elaborate much more eloquently than this. <sigh> One more time: yes, Microsoft has made some very questionable choices about data collecting and sharing. I've never denied that. But yet again, I find myself having to re-clarify this point, and yet again having to fend off this allegation against me. This is getting tiresome.

And I think this is the crux of the reaction against me. I am trying to counter bad information which could ruin this campaign against Microsoft.

I can spell only on my own reaction on your posts. And I see only unjustified PR of M$ that definitely antagonize.

Do you see what you did here? Now I'm being accused of spreading PR and antagonizing people. Why is it not that you guys are being incredibly unfair in some of your complaints, and why is it not that you've antagonized me?

So what better way to silence someone like me than to constantly put pejorative labels on me and force me to defend positions I don't have?

You position is to call proven info as "bad info".

No. Once again. Your info on Microsoft forcing people to pay for the upgrade later is not based upon proven info. Neither is the allegation of bandwidth theft.

And to deny logical consequences from last M$ actions, not providing reasoning. What should come from it?

Your conclusions are not logical and I've pointed that out to you, and now we're going in circles. I've provided my reasoning. What should come of it is that you investigate my claims and give them the benefit of the doubt rather than attacking me every chance you get, or constantly making me defend positions I don't hold, or consistently mis-representing my positions as you've done throughout your post.

I *KNOW* I've said that before in this thread several times. I don't understand why I have to keep repeating my position and re-clarifying it. (Yes, I am getting very frustrated.)

Perhaps because little but you himself know what you said in your own view.
As I said before Windows can be unavoidable upgrade from Windows 10. You rejected this. But w/o any reasoning. So?

I had to read this no less than a dozen times trying to figure out what it is you're trying to say here, and what it is you're accusing me of.

What I think you said was that the subscription version of Windows will be the upgrade from Windows 10. If that's correct, no, you never said this specifically. You only said that Windows 10 will require people to pay for it later.

And again, if my interpretation of what you said is correct, I provided reasoning. This is almost getting laughable how many times you tell me I haven't provided reasoning when I have. I told you that Office and Office 365 are separate products, therefore there's no reason to believe that Windows 10 and Windows Subscription [for lack of a better, descriptive term] will be the same or an inevitable upgrade. How is what I just typed not reasoning?

Your supporting fact for a subscription based Windows is Office 365, which is a separate office product, and that Microsoft keeps talking about Windows as a Service (which has actually been explained already as to what that means, yet it seems many continue to translate that into a subscription-based model). Microsoft still releases Office as a stand-alone product.

If Microsoft releases a subscription-based version of Windows, it will be a separate product, just like Office and Office 365 are separate products. This free upgrade that Microsoft has released will not be the version that becomes subscription based. Microsoft has already said this publicly. If they go back on their word, they risk a class-action lawsuit and possibly another DoJ investigation. The only way to get around their statements would be to release the subscription based Windows as a different product.

Yes. And here all depends of will this separate product really separate and if it will have alternative. You claim "yes". I hope so, but far not sure. And frustrated from current Win10 privacy settings enough to warn others about such possibility.

Fine. I'm perfectly OK with your concern about Microsoft's future lineup. And once again, I'm perfectly OK with the concerns about privacy. But before you warn others, just make sure your information is accurate. There's no reason to go around spreading bad information once someone corrects you.

EDIT: In last 2 paragraphs of that long post you did some reasoning based on Office vs Office 365.
Yep. Indeed Office 2016 available: [snip] version with Access at cost of mid-PC. If Windows "stand alone" would cost as Ferrary I would refrain to consider it as real alternative.

That is the normal cost of Microsoft Office. It has always been an expensive suite. The full version of Windows is also typically high. People have just gotten used to the upgrade or OEM prices.

EDIT2:
If one read carefully page with Office 2016 one will read: "upgrading to Office 365". What it means: Office 2016 positioned as restricted version. So could be with Windows "stand alone". Limited set of features (critical element for me is RDP availability for example) that could be enabled by "upgrading" to Windows with annual fee.

No, it doesn't mean that it is a restricted version. See? This is how the bad information starts. You take a simple, albeit poorly written statement and you interpret it any way you see fit without researching to see if you're right. Office 2016 will be a full-featured, fully functional product without restriction. Look it up. Don't make me do all the work for you. You should be researching this stuff first before you start making false statements like that, and it shouldn't be on me to do your work for you.

Additionally, reports are coming in that KB3035583 is now released as an important update on both Windows 7 and Windows 8.1.

To stop Microsoft from automatically putting the Win 10 logo in your Win 7 system tray, you really should do the following. I can't say if this "step by step" is the same in others Win versions as I only use Win 7 64-bit.

In Start / Control Panel / System and Security / Review your computer's status / Windows Update, make sure you have selected "Windows Update is set to check with you before downloading and installing updates."

If the icon in NOT yet installed, the above action will stop it. If it IS installed see last paragraph below.

Now, if your "clean" and have no icon showing, go to Start / Control Panel / System and Security / Windows Update / Check for updates and look at the "important updates" that are available. If you find KB3035583, UNCHECK the box and install the other normal updates if you wish. This will prevent the Win 10 icon from loading.

From now on, perform the above anytime you feel the need to "update" and UNCHECK the KB3035583 box as Bill Gates, who loves you, will put it BACK there again, I promise. :)

If you already have the Win 10 icon in your Win 7 system tray, look for "View installed updates" and follow the instructions to TRY to uninstall it. More on uninstalling it, if this doesn't work, is given in various places on the net.

Good luck with that!

---

River Song (aka Linda Latte on planet Earth)
"Happy I-Phone girl on the GO GO GO"

KB3083710 is a re-release of KB3065987 on Windows 7, which enables you to block Windows 10 upgrade updates via group policy.
KB3083711 is a re-release of KB3065988 on Windows 8.1, which enables you to block Windows 10 upgrade updates via group policy.

---