Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Will Resume Pushing Windows 10 To Machines With Win7, 8.1 (computerworld.com)
LichtSpektren writes: After previously apologizing on October 16th for forcing Windows 10 on some users of Windows 7 and 8.1 via the Windows Update mechanism, Microsoft disabled the default update option for Windows 10, so that users eligible for the new OS would have to opt in manually. Gregg Keizer at ComputerWorld reports today that Microsoft will soon switch the default option back to "on" again, possibly as early as tomorrow's "Patch Tuesday" update. Users who do not want Windows 10 are strongly advised to turn off automatic updating to avoid accidentally installing the OS.
But I'm glad Microsoft is shedding legacy so aggressively. There's no way the OS will install itself automatically. It'll merely be downloaded to your machine (or machines). Install it if you want to, or don't, you still have choice.
Sorry, you're mistaken. Read the comments on Ars Technica for the previous article: once the Windows 10 update was accidentally downloaded, it couldn't be stopped, only rescheduled. Some users had to go through the full update and then do the full regression back to Windows 7.
My coworker left automatic updates on her computer (Windows 7 Professional). She left for the weekend Friday. Came back Monday and Windows 10 was installed.
I have also read some comments on Ars Technica's article that some users could not find any way to interrupt the installation, only hard reboot, or wait for the full installation to finish and then regress back to 7.
Microsoft now has Windows 7 users shutting off auto updates to stop this.
I've had to shut off auto-updates for a very long time. My graduate students are VERY unhappy when they start a week-long model run and a few days later the computer has rebooted to install a needless update.
Windows 10, as I understand it, makes this problem worse.
I don't know what is in the mind of the Microsoft people. They finally get an OS that is stable enough it can run for a week without needing to be rebooted (or rebooting on its own) and they decide you have to reboot anyway.
This trend of trying to converge computers and mobile devices was stupid when it started, and still is. It's spread to website developers, where you have clowns suggest having a single site for both computers and mobile devices, rather than have different sites based on the device (like m.foo.com) That's the problem when you try to improve what's already optimal, if not perfect.
In Apple's case, making OS X like iOS was totally needless - not only b'cos of the differences b/w Macbook Airs vs iPads, but also due to the fact that OS X is an OS on x64 (and PowerPC before that) and iOS is an OS on Apple's ARM compatible CPUs. Only technical reason I can think of to converge them is if Apple decided to make their laptops and desktops based on the A9s rather than Intel's core processors. Since they're not doing it, what was the point?
In Microsoft's case, it was even more inexplicable. They had Windows 7, which was perfect. The right thing to have done would have been to make Windows 8 (w/o the desktop) for just the tablets and phones, and put the Windows 8 kernel under Windows 7. Ideally, brand them differently, like Apple did, or do something like KDE did. But even if not doing that, they should have just left Windows 7 as the interface for laptops, changing only the kernel beneath but leaving the userland unchanged. And maybe changing the model for application development.
Something like the current Windows 10 interface would have been ideal for hybrids, but the original 7 and 8 could have stayed on their respective platforms