In my opinion, people use 'smart' phones because they aren't......

I guess in your opinion, I'm not smart. Well, in return, in my opinion people who make statements like yours are merely Luddites, and will resort to offending others to show how proud they are of their unchanging ways.

Your words, not mine. And your assumption of my beliefs, not my beliefs.

No, it was your statement. You generalized by saying "people use 'smart' phones because they aren't". Your words. Not much to assume there.

But then you go on to clarify your stance:

If the 'smart' phone is on constantly, if the day is spent 'OMGing' on Twitter, or taking 'selfies' with one's food and drink, or updating a Facebook page because you went into another room, or reading a text while operating a 3,000 pound projectile at 70 miles per hour, then yes. The phone is smarter than the owner.

Fine. Then say that next time. Not all smart phone owners are like this.

If not, why assume I so categorize you? Your assertion I have a Luddite philosophy is obviously incorrect or I wouldn't be using my computers to assist in the search for XT life.

A modern Luddite dragged by progressing technology doesn't have to be Amish. You can still have a computer and be a Luddite. If you make blanket statements about smart phone users, that makes you sound like you're afraid of 'smart' technology - or technology advancing at all. That would be a Luddite by definition.

You have been the one championing the virtues of Window$ 10 and M$, as always time and the Consumer will be the judge(with possibly a few judicial rulings thrown in).

Why is it that if one chooses to defend against the ongoing conspiracies and outright false information, they are suddenly a champion and defender of whatever the topic may be?

Yes, I like Microsoft products. I even like Windows 10 and I see it as a step in the right direction. But the only thing I am guilty of is trying o set information straight that I see as incorrect.

I am not slagging Betreger for his "severe reservations" against Windows 10. I am saying that there seems to be a lot of anti-MS rhetoric in this thread - some well founded, and others not so much.

It started nice and all, with you asking about the lawsuits out against every cell-phone provider, game manufacturer, and software developer, but your That explains your outdated definition of "theft" then and It's understandable when the world leaves someone behind they tend to have skewed views aren't your way to ridicule what he's saying?

No, that wasn't ridicule. But they were defensive statements against someone who is so clearly willing to be loose with a theft allegation who hasn't bought software in 10 years by his own admission. Why is every statement counter to someone else classified as ridicule?

Gosh, I wouldn't want to be in your way then if you really start ridiculing me, I'd probably better not show my face in the forums then anymore.

Oh, you mean the way you're doing to me right now?

Betreger's specific issue that I find odd is his claim of bandwidth theft.

But Windows 10 is stealing bandwidth. By default the Windows Update peer to peer sharing option is on. For people who aren't so computer savvy, this option will still be on. They are paying for their internet connection, that Microsoft is then using to easier share updates between systems. How is that not stealing people's bandwidth?

The peer-to-peer sharing is for devices on the same subnet, and was deveveloped for IT departments deploying Windows in a corporate environment to alleviate network and server bottlenecks.

If you are behind a NAT-T'd address or firewall, the updates will not be shared.

Why is it that if I defend certain practices, people automatically jump to the conclusion that I am saying they must do something? Is it not possible that, regardless of their own personal stance against any one thing, that perhaps some of their foundations aren't entirely correct?

But here you're doing it again, ridiculing people because their believes - not wanting to update to WIndows 10 because of their own reasons - have wrong foundations.

So according to you, any disagreement is ridicule when you point it out to other people. I'm not ridiculing anyone for not wanting to upgrade. I have not said to a single person in this thread that they must upgrade, or that they should upgrade. I have not pressured anyone into upgrading. I have not sat here and sold the benefits of upgrading. Yet these are the things I stand accused of by everyone in this thread, and I find myself feeling quite defensive in having to set the record straight. Yet the perception persists that anyone in this thread that attempts to correct bad information, or bad conclusions from bad information is somehow a "champion" or that I'm somehow ridiculing others. All these things are just ways to attempt to silence those that disagree.

According to you. So yes, in a sense you tell them that since their believes about Windows 10 are unfounded, that they should update to it.

No. Not at all. I am simply telling them that the idea of Windows 10 being downloaded for easier and quicker installation is not theft. I have also attempted to correct other information I've seen in this thread. I gave up after a while... because I was being ridiculed and having assumptions made about my positions just like you're doing now that I decided to go silent and let the bad information continue.

But you, Jord. I thought you were a friend, and I thought you would never attack me. And yet here you are, attacking me, telling me I'm ridiculing people and telling me that I'm trying to tell them they should update merely because I disagree with their arguments.

You're just not repeating every post that most all of the privacy invading stuff can be disabled -until Microsoft reenables it- and that the world is a better place once they've succumbed and joined their rank in the new World Order.

I'm not repeating that because I understand the privacy stuff cannot be disabled. I understand that some people are not OK with it and don't want to upgrade. If they don't want to upgrade because they're concerned about privacy, then don't.

But I am in no way telling anyone they must succumb to anything, yet here I am having to fend off those allegations because these privacy concerns have made people so rabid that they've turned people against each other.

Yes. I think it is OK for Microsoft to push setup files to other people's machines without their consent. I think with the future, we are heading toward making technology as easy and accessible as possible for everyone, and part of that means making OS and software upgrades easier. This also means not waiting for it to download, as that affects the user's perspective on the upgrade.

Honest answer. I'll be waiting until that day that you start your computer, to find it's lost the Windows 10 equivalent of NTLDR and therefore cannot start. And that you can fix that with a WIndows 10 start-up DVD, that you lack. Let me dream!

Don't need a Windows 10 start-up DVD to fix it. I have Windows 10 PE on a flash disk.

The justification of Windows 10 fans that 'others do it' is getting stale.

Of course it isn't. It's only stale to those that don't like hearing the argument. They only want to be heard when it comes to their complaints, but they don't want to hear that their complaints, when applied fairly to every other aspect, suddenly falls apart. It highlights how unfair they're being and no one really wants to hear that.

Of course it is getting stale, because it is the only justification that's about given to install and run Windows 10 and to smile when you do so.

It's not a justification. It's an acknowledgement that it will be the way of the future. Every time technology makes these kinds of changes, people get paranoid and crazy about it. I still remember when "always-on broadband" was becoming a new thing, and everyone rallied against it because they were concerned about hackers and various other ghosts. Now most people have always-on broadband and no one questions it.

Other software manufacturers have been doing these auto-updates for quite some time, yet the moment Microsoft does it, suddenly all the paranoia nuts crawl out of the woodwork making wild claims - just like before. I've seen this cycle repeat so many times that the pattern is obvious to me. I don't understand why it isn't so obvious to others.

I've already asked on other (Dutch) forums and here, that people give proof of their argument that those others do it. Go on, give me those links to reviews/research/the movie that show without a reasonable doubt that the others do it as well. All of them, whomever they all are.

Really? You're asking for proof that other software manufacturers auto-update their software? You're a gamer and you're asking for proof that this happens?

Or perhaps just one: I have a Huawei G700 with Android 4.2.1. Tell me what on it is sent to Huawei, what is sent to Google? Please when giving the links, that they be to anywhere else than the general conspiracy channels.

Wait, are we compounding two different arguments? Auto-update vs. shared search information? And you want me to defend the latter when I've been talking about the former? See, it is these kinds of confusion that make it difficult to have a discussion. The topic was originally about auto-updating, but now you've switched it to sending search information to Google.

Instead of forcing the other person to defend what they're not saying, why not pay attention to what their position is first?

I'm pretty sure I previously said, not too long ago in this thread, that I am a privacy advocate. I enjoy my privacy. But that being said, I don't mind what Microsoft is doing; I know it is being done by so many other companies. I know there's great potential to do harm if some of my information gets into the wrong hands (underwear size excluded).

Just this past week Europe's top court ruled Tuesday that data stored on U.S. servers is potentially unsafe because of government spying and that American sites should stop storing European private data. Of course, you as an American have the luxury of not minding that, as you're not European. "The message is clear — that mass surveillance is not possible and against fundamental rights in Europe."

Wait a minute. So you're turning this completely against me for being an American? You're attacking every single thing about me here and forcing me to defend positions I don't have, and now you're accusing me of not caring because I'm not European? You quoted me staying that I consider myself a privacy advocate, but then you start telling a story about the EU's recent comment/ruling about their concerns of privacy as a way to re-inforce that I'm uncaring? Simply wow, Jord.

See? It's this type of rhetoric that gets old. "And they'll probably block updates". You have no proof of that.

No, but then I don't need proof of that. It was a highly sarcastic post, in answer to Rick, who won't be fooled by any of this either.

So what you're doing is creating a culture in which people who are concerned are the smart ones who won't get fooled, but by proxy further dividing between those that don't take the same stance as you and directly suggesting or implying that these are the fools. But I'm the one who is ridiculing?

It's an unfounded statement meant to cause fear and panic in would-be upgraders.

Of which there are many here on the Seti forums, on page X of this thread. They cannot be chased away, stuck to our every word that they are.

Many? I've only seen a few come in here and try to say positive things about their upgrade. It would seem most of them were chased away, including myself for a while, because I knew this would happen. I dare to speak up and suddenly I'm forced to play Defender of things I'm not saying, or that somehow by telling people I'm happy with my upgrade that I'm telling everyone else they should to. I just don't see that leap in logic, but I do see the repetition every time I disagree with someone.

That difficult decission, who is going to make it for them?

No one should make a difficult decision for others unless they are incapable of it. But if people are asking questions, they deserve to have correct information and not conspiracies stating they will be forced to pay for it later. If they miss out on their free upgrade, they will be forced to pay for it later and it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy since the free upgrade is only set to last for a year.

I can't prove it isn't true, so it goes right into the conspiracy camp. And there's a lot of people that love a good conspiracy.

Come watch some X Files with me? I'm going through seasons 1 to 9 again in anticipation of season 10.

Sorry. I never really cared for X files. I'll gladly watch some Elementary, early CSI, or The Mentalist with you.

But since others do it that way, it's all right.

Now this just comes across as very cynical. Why the cynicism leveled against Microsoft, but that same level of cynicism isn't leveled against others? Oh right. That argument is stale because you don't want to hear it. (Yes, that was cynical of me).

Now you're putting words in my mouth with thoughts in my mind. And you weren't into astrology, right?

Again, you've done the same to me, then you throw in that stinger about astrology. Couldn't resist taking sucker-punches, could you? Great way to ruin friendships and I'm not quite sure what I've done to deserve this other than disagree with you and try to set the record straight on things I see as false.

I'm repeating that to Rick, because it's about all we ever hear from the WinX fans: it's all right that whatever you put onto your own computer is actually Microsoft copyright and can be used by them for advertisements sent back to you in the OS on that same computer. You shouldn't complain about it. It's what the others do as well! :-)

I haven't seen any comments like that made, nor have I read any like that in this thread. If yours and Rick's comments were in reference to some obscure statements made by others, perhaps context would help others who are reading understand this.

If I had read any statements by someone arguing that whatever you put onto your computer is owned by Microsoft copyright, I would also set that record straight.

Or they'll stop sending security updates to Windows 7 and 8.1; wouldn't be the first time.

Well yes, they will stop sending security updates to Windows 7 in five more years. That is no secret and has always been true. Microsoft shouldn't be expected to continue to support old product. They support the OS for 10 years as it is. And Windows 8.1 will eventually suffer the same fate as well.

Without updating to Windows 8.1 you won't get any security updates anymore for Windows 8. Seeing how every link to the original EULA of Windows 7 is gone, aside from the short PDF stating only the general jada jada, it wouldn't surprise me that soon they'll say to me: 'hey, you haven't got any of our telemetry updates installed, we cannot snoop on your system, so we won't send you further security updates. Jump through our hoops and be full of joy when you do!'

And I just don't see how one leads to the other unless you perform some mental gymnastics. Yes, Microsoft was attempting their update mandates with Windows 8 into 8.1. Yes, like most software manufacturers, they want to make the support of their product easier by having everyone on the same version. Microsoft has made no secret about their plans to make the question "What version of Windows are you using?" a thing of the past. Yes, Microsoft wants everyone to update.

I don't see how any of this means they're going to pull the stunts you're suggesting about taking away security updates because of lack of "snooping". The security updates are going to stop eventually for older OSes, but the stipulation isn't tied to the telemetry data at all.

Do you remember the UEFI debacle a couple years ago? Micro$oft wanted the UEFI BIOS to only allow Window$ to be installed on computers. Someone stepped in and said "You cannot do that." So there is a compromise. You can have it set to allow only Window$, but there is a setting that will allow other Operating Systems besides. Now they are doing something similar with Window$ 10, not to mention all the privacy invasion the 'software' does.

Yet again, another incorrect statement made from a lack of being informed. The UEFI issue a couple years ago was not started because Microsoft wanted computers to only boot to Windows. That was a false claim made by the Open Source community, and it was a position fueled by paranoia on their part that they wouldn't be able to install alternative OSes.

In reality, Microsoft worked with serveral manufacturers to develop the UEFI standard, and then mandated Secure Boot for Windows 8 devices to lockout the ongoing prevalence of rootkit viruses. When the concerns of the Open Source community were heard, motherboard manufacturers accommodated them by having an option to disable Secure Boot, but it is turned-on for Windows 8 and newer.

None of this has anything to do with Windows 10 or the telemetry data everyone is so concerned about. The two issues are completely separate things.

Guys, can we please keep the personal comments out of this thread. We are all friends here.

---

Reality Internet Personality

If not, why assume I so categorize you? Your assertion I have a Luddite philosophy is obviously incorrect or I wouldn't be using my computers to assist in the search for XT life. You have been the one championing the virtues of Window$ 10 and M$, as always time and the Consumer will be the judge(with possibly a few judicial rulings thrown in).

Jaundice...

Those type of attacks. Are by people who have a disturbing inner need to feel superior.

As you, and I know: They are not :) :) :)

Nice. Great to see you still like to attack the person rather than their arguments.

OzzFan and others stating that Micro$oft has the right to do as they wish with their software are absolutely correct. Just as the company who refines the gasoline that makes your car work has the right to change the formula without your consent. We as consumers have the right to choose other brands of gasoline as well as OS in our devices if we don't like the 'mix'. We can choose to accept or reject technology on a case by case basis as well.

[Edit] And 'arguments' replacing discussions is a large problem with many threads in this forum.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

... in the end you will want Windows 10...

In all the great flurry of words and multi-GigaBytes of downloads, one question seems to have been overlooked...


What for those people who are happy with what they already have and simply do not want Windows 10?

They have a choice?...



For those that care to look a little further, thankfully there still is a choice to move away from the ways of Microsoft.

(Very glad I have forsaken the Microsoft mantra from a few years ago. To me, the present game looks to be descending into hell for anyone who values anythign of any freedom!)


IT is what we choose it to be,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

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

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.

As a user of Windows, since 3.1 -

Linux is starting to get my interest.

Same here.

Seriously thinking of getting a small laptop so that I can try it out without upsetting my main machine.

---

Kevin

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.

That is not going to happen in this country and AFAIK it is being done to a certain extent in the EU.

---

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.

I have already decided that my windows 7 will be THE LAST M$ SOFTWARE THAT I EVER USE!!!!!!! I am working with Linux Mint and Ubuntu for my next OS and am more than willing to learn and make the change. As of right now M$ has a major internal problem if they think that this is O.K. the attempt to blend mobile and desktop is stupid it did not go over well with 8 and it will not work now and as far as the privacy invasions and data collection it IS AGAINST THE LAW!!!! IF THE POLICE WANTED THAT KIND OF INFORMATION THEY WOULD NEED A COURT ORDER TO GET IT PUTTING IT IN THE EULA DOES NOT MAKE IT LEGAL IN ANY COURT OR ANYWHERE ELSE IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN M$ TRYING TO FORCE EVERYBODY TO DO WHAT THEY WANT So all of us need to tell everyone we know to stay away from win10 and to be careful about windows update(I already have told many people that I work with and have set my in-laws computer for no updates so I can watch over them) If enough people stay away then maybe????????????? M$ will rethink it's position if not it sucks to be them.

---

ME AND MY BOY LOOKING FOR ET

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.

I don't know what all the complaining is in here.

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

I'm pretty sure I've already bought my last windows operating system.

As hard as it is for some people to believe, yes, I can live without windows and I can live without cable TV. Maybe others can't, but I can.

Yes, I will have to throw away software that only runs unders windows. Yes, it'll cost me more. Yes, I'll have some difficutly figuring out my computing needs under something other than windows. But guess what? It'll just make it harder for Microsoft to get me to purchase their operating system ever again.

Microsoft is relying on the fact that some people can't live without their operating system. They may win that bet. If they do, fine. It just means they now how a captive customer base. A socialist dream! Not gonna be my problem... For those of you complaining the loudest in here, why is it Microsoft's problem and why do they need to fix it? A simpler solution is for *you* to fix it. I'm fixing it. Why can't you?

Well done. Good post, sir.

As the apparent Luddite in this thread I have a few points to state.
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?
I do agree with Brutus who was once Guy on a couple of points, I have experienced M$ updates slowing down machines which is not good for my crunching.
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 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!

---

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"

Then that seems to me that it's not actually uninstalling it. Or there's another option on your end that automatically installs optional updates? *shrug*

You could try to override whatever checkboxes may or may not be enabled with the registry key. Specifically, AUoptions. Set it to 2.
And make/change AutoInstallMinorUpdates to 0.

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.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

Or there's another option on your end that automatically installs optional updates? *shrug*

The culprit in my W7 and W8 machines was a "new" option in the control panel which by default was activated. The option was to notify me of new M$ products and it stated it may also install updates. That did raise my blood pressure.

---