Slashdot Mirror
More Than Half of PC Applications Installed Worldwide Are Out-of-Date (helpnetsecurity.com)
Avast's PC Trends Report 2019 found [PDF] that users are making themselves vulnerable by not implementing security patches and keeping outdated versions of popular applications on their PCs. From a news report: The applications where updates are most frequently neglected include Adobe Shockwave (96%), VLC Media Player (94%) and Skype (94%). The report, which uses anonymized and aggregated data from 163 million devices across the globe, also found that Windows 10 is now installed on 40% of all PCs globally, which is fast approaching the 43% share held by Windows 7. However, 15% of all Windows 7 users and 9% of all Windows 10 users worldwide are running older and no longer supported versions of their product, for example, the Windows 7 Release to Manufacturing version from 2009 or the Windows 10 Spring Creators Update from early 2017.
Half the time the upgrade doesn't add any value for the user, so why upgrade? VLC is a great example, it pretty much just works and the updates only add support for very obscure stuff that most users don't care about.
The real problem is that security fixes are not well communicated, and that sometimes abused as a way to get users to take user-hostile changes.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Avast's PC Trends Report 2019 found [PDF] that users are making themselves vulnerable by not implementing security patches and keeping outdated versions of popular applications on their PCs. From a news report:
The applications where updates are most frequently neglected include Adobe Shockwave (96%), VLC Media Player (94%) and Skype (94%).
There are a lot of applications that the newer versions are considerably worse. It's funny that they mention Skype. It worked much better and was more intuitive 10 years ago in comparison to what is currently available.
I'm surprised that Shockwave is on the list. I didn't know that it was still in use.
Software now adays seems to want to update every 6 hours.
This is not surprising and prolly the reason for stuff like this.
People should make stuff that doesn't require that many updates.
http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
There was a time stable software was a standard, not a luxury. Now, the definition of stable is whatever the software maker decides at that point in time. This doesn't make sense. The user is the one with his requirements in mind. That's what makes people buy some piece of software and expect a life-long license. That's also why cloud apps are cheaper and have a time-frame. The real problem comes when the two worlds mix: you buy a piece of software that is offline only but is a time bomb, with expiring license and basically stopping because the local clock got past a point or the remote clock from the authentication server did. Or the opposite, when you purchase an Office 365 cloud license but have access to a download of the offline suite which will only work for as long as your remote account hasn't expired.
Because coders can't stop coding. Quit adding shit for the sake of adding it. You're done, stop, move on to another project. At some point your project has evolved to a pinnacle and anything you do from there on detracts from it.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
As others have mentioned a lot of newer versions of apps remove features or rearrange the UI just to seem fresh but that's annoying to the user.
Besides that, on Windows a lot of apps seem to install a companion app just to check for updates, a lot of the time this gets disabled because it adds clutter to the taskbar and adds to startup time, not to mention triggering annoying popups if it can't reach the internet or if they need you to agree to new terms.
During Windows installers people see a checkbox for that and disable it automatically because they're usually trying to shoehorn some adware or promotional app, or take over file associations or sign you up for something you don't want. So people just disable these.
I moved away from Windows because of these hassles and now I have a central updating service for everything on my system. I understand Windows Store can do this, but not all apps are on the Windows Store because of certain restrictions and other criteria that leaves out the app you may want, or because the third party has their own storefront service/launcher they want you to use, and some people want to avoid it altogether because of the experience.
It seems like a hassle to deal with all of this when you just want to accomplish things in a straightforward way, especially if you are an end user who gets anxious when they are presented with a dialog box with options like many non-techies who will just see that and immediately call the local nerd.
Twinstiq, game news
"If you like your feature you can keep it"
I think in the consumer software space there is very real conflict between security updates and functional requirements.
Uses chose software because it did something they wanted to do. The home computer is not purely entertainment for a lot people. Many of them actually do care that they can create the weekly mailer, exchange very documents with people in their only hobby group - which could range from pictures to CAD drawings and 3d printing instructions.
The trouble is these days installing that update could do any number of things. Maybe a feature you used is out right dropped or is only available in the paid "pro" version now; requires an active internet connection when it did not before etc etc. Maybe is just works and looks different and learning some new work flow or rebuilding all your scripts and macros just isn't something you want to do this month. If the changes don't work for you to bad; no security fixes then. Also if you only have one system and don't know other people doing exactly what you are doing often its a mystery as to what version next will bring. Again if its a process that is critical to you, can your risk updating?
At least before critical system components like Windows itself could be pretty well depended on not push major user visible changes or changes likely to break other applications and API functions in updates. Increasingly this too is changing and its no surprise people respond by not updating.
What does MS do in response make it more and more difficult to turn off auto updates; yes I suppose it keeps people on the update train a little longer but it does nothing to build confidence. Increasingly it drives the to other platforms which they will then not install updates on with our without justification.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
... the updates did not add data collection. One application I am using requires me to install google analytics when I upgrade the application. So I stopped upgrading it. Then there is Windows 10, if I upgrade to Windows 10, I turn my PC into a Microsoft data collection machine. If you want to know a reason why some do not upgrade, ask the software providers who put egregious data collection into their upgrades.
Here is a (partial) list of why people don't upgrade:
- Don't fix what isn't broken. The old version is KNOWN to work, the new one is a GAMBLE. /s Because Microsoft has such a good track of updates not breaking -- oh wait, they don't!
- Hate having to schedule time for updates
- Telemetry bullshit
- New version is not compatible with old version files
- New UI is crap
- Useful features removed
- Cost of new version is prohibitive
- New version holds you hostage -- if you don't pay the rental tax it stops working
- Can't run the old version along side the new version to test what changed
- No ability to "downgrade" to the previous version if you run into issues with the new version
- Installer fucks up
- New installer has malware and/or ads or hijacks the browser.
- No solution for upgrade issues
- No perceived value with a patch that only has security fixes. "They don't effect me."
- Distrust of a patch that was "only" supposed to address security issues -- yet breaks functionality.
- Updates dont respect MY time for when is a good time to update
- New version doesn't work on your older OS -- such as Microsoft's bullshit of not releasing DX12 for Windows 7,
- Forced updates which means downtime.
- Auto updates are broken
- Patch notes don't list WHAT has changed. MS has a shitty habit of this.
When I installed Gimp 2.8 it blew away my working 2.6 versions on OSX. I then had to track down why Export wasn't working AT ALL. Turns out it was a problem with one of the python scripts IIRC. There is no way in hell a normal user would have been able to track down what the cause was.
I also ran into this recently when I upgraded to the latest Inkscape 0.9x.
I did an upgrade but all the menu icons were missing. Had to uninstall and reinstall to fix.
Once I got the new version working I noticed the default units got changed from 90px/inch to 96px/inch. Now whenever I open old files I have to manually verify they didn't get fucked up.
Upgrades aren't cheap -- both from a Time and Money factor.
The old version may have a fixed cost; the new version may nickel and dime you -- worse it holds you hostage. If you stop paying the monthly rental tax it stops working.
Users have learnt to distrust upgrades. They almost never work out-of-the-box. This means wasting even MORE time.
There are only 2 main reasons to update:
- New features
- Security fixes
When the risk:reward ratio is analyzed it isn't always cut and dry.
Is it any wonder people don't trust new versions?