And it's still true. MS has been telling people for quite some time now that Windows 10 is a recommended update and you will get it if you *opt in* to recommended updates. There's no accident involved. I don't have recommended updates enabled and none of my Win 7 hosts are doing anything than putting a notification in the system tray that the upgrade is available. Now, if you have *opted in* to recommended updates, Microsoft will keep reminding you about it to try to avoid the "THEY FORCED ME TO UPGRADE" complaints. Seemingly a hopeless endeavor.
They already opted in by agreeing to install the recommended updates. This message is just a reminder from Microsoft that they opted in to those updates and a particular update is scheduled. In other words, MS is going out of the way to keep the user informed. It's not a "dirty trick" or anything misleading. Just go opt out of the updates. There is no reason to expect them to provide a 'dont do this' option right on the reminder dialog.
Civilization itself isn't a need. Neither are food and shelter. Need always has a scope, often implied, such as "You need to eat if you want to live." Well if you don't want to live you don't need to eat. Since your claim that Las Vegas constitutes a needless use of power did not contain a scope, I think it is fair to say that it represented an opinion.
Not killer features yet, but I really like what they are doing with the architecture underlying the Windows store apps. They made some nice strides towards a much cleaner install/uninstall process as well as containerizing/sandboxing user applications. In the other direction using Hyper-V and a VM to host core security processes is also pretty interesting. I also like the native support for desktop switching.
Thanks! I was trying to figure out what "If the ATM has an NTFS file system, netmgr.dll is placed in the executable file of the NTFS data stream" meant. Which I now read means "The same file will be placed in the NTFS data stream corresponding to the XFS services executable file."
I've done idiotic things quite a few times. I'd like to think generally I am not an idiot however. Luckily those who pointed it out at the time weren't too harsh.
It is in some ways an ongoing global problem. The Internet by its nature allows a disproportionate amount of attention to the jerks on the fringe. There are some mechanisms for limiting this, such as Slashdot's karma/moderation system, but these are generally limited in scope. Unless ways of dealing with it on a wider scale are invented, we will continue to see "journalism" which consists of finding ten racists on Twitter and the headline reads "Internet reacts...."
A good point, the sentence is Ok by itself. 'Legally proscribed' is a common usage of the term, albeit redundant. But the previous sentence makes it look as if poster got it mixed with legally prescribed. As for why discuss it, well, exercise is good for you. Unless you injure yourself. That's why I like to stretch after posting.
"Proscribe" is correct word here, as in forbidden by law. Now, you might rightfully grouse about the gross redundancy of the sentence, but proscribe is correct not prescribe.
It may be that part of the calculation is the supposed benefit of building out all the infrastructure needed to provide reliable Internet. i.e. power, water, transportation. Just another way of saying that advanced economies are more productive than subsistence economies.
Sure, and since it happened to you it must be an external agency forcing it to happen and not your own mistake. I've got a dozen non-enterprise WIN 7 PCs like moms' that have never been forced to upgrade. i.e. Your anecdote doesn't confirm the notion that MS is forcing people to upgrade despite declining the upgrade. Perhaps this is what happened to you, in which case let's discuss why MS might be forcing a small percentage of machines to upgrade.
I suppose the theory is they are randomly forcing upgrades to a small minority of users? Meanwhile forty-some percent of desktops are still running Windows 7, including the thousands I work with. None of which have force upgraded despite all the claims that MS was forcing upgrades over the last year.
Well stated. I saw this article and thought, haven't we heard that MS is "forcing" Windows 10 upgrades a dozen times already? You would think everyone would already be upgraded with all the forcing that has been going on. It is getting to be like the "ICQ is going to start charging" messages us old folks would get every couple of days.
One analyst told CNET, "They just want to hook you when you're 20."? Hardly a difficult piece of analysis. I'm sure any business would like to "hook" people of any sort.
What "deterred" semms to mean here is that respondents actually thought about privacy and either chose to avoid a dodgy site or thought twice about posting something on social media. In other words, exactly what they should be doing. It doesn't mean anyone stopped using online services altogether.
I see it several times a week when starting a Youtube video (HTML5, not Flash). I have to kill all FF windows and restart it. Luckily it can restore my session from the crash so not too awful. I still prefer FF to Chrome by a mile.
This adds to my conclusion: never update apps, unless you have a specific bugfix. If everything is working fine, you have everything to lose by applying updates for no reason.
Interesting, would you mind giving an example? When you say "liberal views" I take this to mean something aside from the usual political scandal sort of thing like who manipulated which votes or some such.
Slashdot Mirror
Since they don't' mind that Google and Apple do it, there's no point in telling them MS wants to do it also.
And it's still true. MS has been telling people for quite some time now that Windows 10 is a recommended update and you will get it if you *opt in* to recommended updates. There's no accident involved. I don't have recommended updates enabled and none of my Win 7 hosts are doing anything than putting a notification in the system tray that the upgrade is available. Now, if you have *opted in* to recommended updates, Microsoft will keep reminding you about it to try to avoid the "THEY FORCED ME TO UPGRADE" complaints. Seemingly a hopeless endeavor.
No, recommended updates are a totally different option from the security updates.
They already opted in by agreeing to install the recommended updates. This message is just a reminder from Microsoft that they opted in to those updates and a particular update is scheduled. In other words, MS is going out of the way to keep the user informed. It's not a "dirty trick" or anything misleading. Just go opt out of the updates. There is no reason to expect them to provide a 'dont do this' option right on the reminder dialog.
Civilization itself isn't a need. Neither are food and shelter. Need always has a scope, often implied, such as "You need to eat if you want to live." Well if you don't want to live you don't need to eat. Since your claim that Las Vegas constitutes a needless use of power did not contain a scope, I think it is fair to say that it represented an opinion.
"Need" is a matter of opinion.
Not killer features yet, but I really like what they are doing with the architecture underlying the Windows store apps. They made some nice strides towards a much cleaner install/uninstall process as well as containerizing/sandboxing user applications. In the other direction using Hyper-V and a VM to host core security processes is also pretty interesting. I also like the native support for desktop switching.
Thanks! I was trying to figure out what "If the ATM has an NTFS file system, netmgr.dll is placed in the executable file of the NTFS data stream" meant. Which I now read means "The same file will be placed in the NTFS data stream corresponding to the XFS services executable file."
I've done idiotic things quite a few times. I'd like to think generally I am not an idiot however. Luckily those who pointed it out at the time weren't too harsh.
It is in some ways an ongoing global problem. The Internet by its nature allows a disproportionate amount of attention to the jerks on the fringe. There are some mechanisms for limiting this, such as Slashdot's karma/moderation system, but these are generally limited in scope. Unless ways of dealing with it on a wider scale are invented, we will continue to see "journalism" which consists of finding ten racists on Twitter and the headline reads "Internet reacts...."
A good point, the sentence is Ok by itself. 'Legally proscribed' is a common usage of the term, albeit redundant. But the previous sentence makes it look as if poster got it mixed with legally prescribed. As for why discuss it, well, exercise is good for you. Unless you injure yourself. That's why I like to stretch after posting.
Thank Providence for that. I shudder to even imagine imagining what Windows would be like otherwise.
"Proscribe" is correct word here, as in forbidden by law. Now, you might rightfully grouse about the gross redundancy of the sentence, but proscribe is correct not prescribe.
It may be that part of the calculation is the supposed benefit of building out all the infrastructure needed to provide reliable Internet. i.e. power, water, transportation. Just another way of saying that advanced economies are more productive than subsistence economies.
Sure, and since it happened to you it must be an external agency forcing it to happen and not your own mistake. I've got a dozen non-enterprise WIN 7 PCs like moms' that have never been forced to upgrade. i.e. Your anecdote doesn't confirm the notion that MS is forcing people to upgrade despite declining the upgrade. Perhaps this is what happened to you, in which case let's discuss why MS might be forcing a small percentage of machines to upgrade.
I suppose the theory is they are randomly forcing upgrades to a small minority of users? Meanwhile forty-some percent of desktops are still running Windows 7, including the thousands I work with. None of which have force upgraded despite all the claims that MS was forcing upgrades over the last year.
Well stated. I saw this article and thought, haven't we heard that MS is "forcing" Windows 10 upgrades a dozen times already? You would think everyone would already be upgraded with all the forcing that has been going on. It is getting to be like the "ICQ is going to start charging" messages us old folks would get every couple of days.
One analyst told CNET, "They just want to hook you when you're 20."? Hardly a difficult piece of analysis. I'm sure any business would like to "hook" people of any sort.
What "deterred" semms to mean here is that respondents actually thought about privacy and either chose to avoid a dodgy site or thought twice about posting something on social media. In other words, exactly what they should be doing. It doesn't mean anyone stopped using online services altogether.
Considering that I am married to an India, not very likely.,
I've heard of having multiple wives, but that is ridiculous!
Not to mention you get out of there twice as fast if you can just do it yourself. Like pumping your own gas.
If everyone is miserably poor there isn't much value in owning a bunch of machines to make things for them.
I see it several times a week when starting a Youtube video (HTML5, not Flash). I have to kill all FF windows and restart it. Luckily it can restore my session from the crash so not too awful. I still prefer FF to Chrome by a mile.
This adds to my conclusion: never update apps, unless you have a specific bugfix. If everything is working fine, you have everything to lose by applying updates for no reason.
Interesting, would you mind giving an example? When you say "liberal views" I take this to mean something aside from the usual political scandal sort of thing like who manipulated which votes or some such.