Microsoft Pulls Then Re-Issues Windows 11 Preview Update. Also Begins Force-Updating Windows 11 (techrepublic.com) 78
Nine days ago Microsoft released a non-security "preview" update for Windows 11 — not mandatory for the average Windows user, notes ZDNet, "but rather as optional, more for IT admins and power users who want to test them."
TechRepublic adds that the update "was to bring 'production-ready improvements' and generally ensure system stability by optimizing different Windows services." So it's ironic that some (but not all) users reported instead that the update "blocks users at the door, refusing to install or crashing midway through the process."
"It apparently impacted enough people to force Microsoft to take action," writes ZDNet. "Microsoft paused and then pulled the update," and then Tuesday released a new update "designed to replace the glitchy one. This one includes all the new features and improvements from the previous preview update, but also fixes the installation issues that clobbered that update."
Meanwhile, as Windows 11 version 24H2 approaches its end of life this October, Microsoft is now force-updating users to the latest version, reports BleepingComputer: "The machine learning-based intelligent rollout has expanded to all devices running Home and Pro editions of Windows 11, version 24H2 that are not managed by IT departments," Microsoft said in a Monday update to the Windows release health dashboard... "No action is required, and you can choose when to restart your device or postpone the update."
Neowin reports: The good news is that the update from version 24H2 to 25H2 is a minor enablement package, as the two operating systems share the same codebase. As such, the update won't take long, and you should not encounter any disruptions, compatibility issues, or previously unseen bugs... Microsoft recently promised to implement big changes in how Windows Update works, including the ability to postpone updates for as long as you want. However, Microsoft has yet to clarify if that includes staying on a release beyond its support period.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader Ol Olsoc for sharing the news.
TechRepublic adds that the update "was to bring 'production-ready improvements' and generally ensure system stability by optimizing different Windows services." So it's ironic that some (but not all) users reported instead that the update "blocks users at the door, refusing to install or crashing midway through the process."
"It apparently impacted enough people to force Microsoft to take action," writes ZDNet. "Microsoft paused and then pulled the update," and then Tuesday released a new update "designed to replace the glitchy one. This one includes all the new features and improvements from the previous preview update, but also fixes the installation issues that clobbered that update."
Meanwhile, as Windows 11 version 24H2 approaches its end of life this October, Microsoft is now force-updating users to the latest version, reports BleepingComputer: "The machine learning-based intelligent rollout has expanded to all devices running Home and Pro editions of Windows 11, version 24H2 that are not managed by IT departments," Microsoft said in a Monday update to the Windows release health dashboard... "No action is required, and you can choose when to restart your device or postpone the update."
Neowin reports: The good news is that the update from version 24H2 to 25H2 is a minor enablement package, as the two operating systems share the same codebase. As such, the update won't take long, and you should not encounter any disruptions, compatibility issues, or previously unseen bugs... Microsoft recently promised to implement big changes in how Windows Update works, including the ability to postpone updates for as long as you want. However, Microsoft has yet to clarify if that includes staying on a release beyond its support period.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader Ol Olsoc for sharing the news.
Microsoft Pulls Then Re-Issues (Score:4, Interesting)
"Force-updating" (Score:2, Flamebait)
These days, it's literally not even *safe* to fail to upgrade to the latest version of whatever software. Software developers must continue to update to the latest version of libraries they use, in order to keep their software from being vulnerable to previously-discovered, and patched, defects. Even Microsoft, with all its billions, can't afford to maintain every old version of their software, protecting them all against security defects.
The days of upgrading when you want to, are a relic of the 1990s.
Re:"Force-updating" (Score:4, Informative)
>"These days, it's literally not even *safe* to fail to upgrade to the latest version of whatever software.[...]The days of upgrading when you want to, are a relic of the 1990s."
Seems to work fine for Linux. I update only when I choose to on all my machines. Granted, I don't let most of them get much behind. But there are those that are intentionally left alone, and need to be, for various complex reasons.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your experience is not an indication of a good practice. Linux is somewhat sheltered because of its low adoption as a desktop operating system. If Linux had a 60% market share like Windows, you can bet hackers would be all over it, finding all kinds of ways to attack.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Your experience is not an indication of a good practice."
My experience is normally updating frequently. But it is still on my schedule, when I choose to do it. I wouldn't say it is bad practice, especially since I am aware when the rare high-priority update is released. The few that are not updated that I mentioned are those that are intentionally isolated (and are safe regardless).
>"Linux is somewhat sheltered because of its low adoption as a desktop operating system."
That is true. But it is al
Re: (Score:3)
But it is also generally more secure, outside of its obscurity
This is a fantasy not substantiated by evidence. Heartbleed--a Linux vulnerability in an open source library--was lying in plain sight for years before some hacker discovered it, and it was exploited in the wild for years before anybody discovered the attack.
Re:"Force-updating" (Score:5, Insightful)
But it is also generally more secure, outside of its obscurity
This is a fantasy not substantiated by evidence. Heartbleed--a Linux vulnerability in an open source library--was lying in plain sight for years before some hacker discovered it, and it was exploited in the wild for years before anybody discovered the attack.
Now tell us how many similar bugs are in Windows, and will be found even without the obscurity of closed source. You don't know, because you depend on Microsoft to tell you when they fuck up, but you're declaring this a victory for Microsoft anyway? Do fucking tell.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said Microsoft had it all together. What I said was that it's a fantasy to assume that Linux is inherently more secure. It tends to have fewer exploits in the wild because hackers, when given a choice between going after 60% of the desktop market, and going after 5% of the desktop market, will nearly always choose the 60% piece of the pie. It's just not profitable enough to go after a tiny sliver of the market.
Re: (Score:3)
It tends to have fewer exploits in the wild because hackers, when given a choice between going after 60% of the desktop market, and going after 5% of the desktop market, will nearly always choose the 60% piece of the pie. It's just not profitable enough to go after a tiny sliver of the market.
Linux underpins the internet. It's the primary server OS on the planet. High-value data is held on Linux systems. The idea that it's not profitable to attack those targets is silly. They're harder to attack. People still do it. That's why there are still ssh port scans for example.
Re: (Score:2)
We were talking about Linux desktop, not Linux server.
There are indeed a lot of Linux server exploits. https://www.exploit-db.com/sea... [exploit-db.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We were talking about Linux desktop, not Linux server.
The only difference is that servers are more likely to have more outdated software.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that actually true?
Companies that run Linux servers are becoming more vigilant about keeping their servers updated, and I'd guess that commercial server farms are the largest users of Linux servers.
You could be right, I don't know, but it seems doubtful given the current times we're in.
Re: (Score:2)
Server OSes are more likely to have older versions of software and then backport fixes. Desktop OSes are more likely to default to doing automatic updates, or at least hassling the user to do them.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you've worked in IT for a while. IT these days have specific OS update schedules. If they don't, the security guys are onto them about it all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
I never said Microsoft had it all together. What I said was that it's a fantasy to assume that Linux is inherently more secure. It tends to have fewer exploits in the wild because hackers, when given a choice between going after 60% of the desktop market, and going after 5% of the desktop market, will nearly always choose the 60% piece of the pie. It's just not profitable enough to go after a tiny sliver of the market.
Hold on a second Tony. You used a security flaw in Linux as proof it was as insecure as Windows. Now you say it isn't a large enough share to care about.
Which is it - dnd why haven't this equally insecure OS been exploited with Apache servers, or Chrome, or Android, or Mac.
Once you have all of the Unix and Unix variants, the bad guys would be fools not to exploit that - especially since the meme is that Mac Users are stupid. I know a little bit about Linux and Unix, and they strike me as more secure i
Re: (Score:2)
Words matter. I said the Linux desktop market isn't large enough for hackers to care about. it's literally in the part of my post that you quoted. Heartbleed was a problem for Linux servers, where Linux dominates, with more than 60% of the market. So yes, that's plenty enough for hackers to care, and they have indeed gone after Linux servers. Heartbleed is just one of many. https://www.exploit-db.com/sea... [exploit-db.com]
Mac and Chrome have been mostly left alone because they, like the Linux desktop, have a small share of
Re: (Score:2)
Windows, Linux, and MacOS were designed and built long before security was a major concern
This is not even vaguely close to true, although classic MacOS was designed like security didn't matter. All of these operating systems were built after the invention of the computer virus and two of them had security baked in. The third required two antivirus programs for relative safety (gatekeeper and disinfectant) because it had no security, which was always stupid. The modern MacOS is descended from an OS where security was understood to matter. The state of the art in computer security was simply unde
Re: (Score:3)
Words matter. I said the Linux desktop market isn't large enough for hackers to care about. it's literally in the part of my post that you quoted. Heartbleed was a problem for Linux servers, where Linux dominates, with more than 60% of the market. So yes, that's plenty enough for hackers to care, and they have indeed gone after Linux servers. Heartbleed is just one of many. https://www.exploit-db.com/sea... [exploit-db.com]
Mac and Chrome have been mostly left alone because they, like the Linux desktop, have a small share of the market.
Just a simple question - A simple yes or no will suffice.
D you believe that Windows is just as secure as Mac??
Newest question - Why am I wrong in saying it is not? Having extensive experience in Mac and Windows, and a goodly amount of Experience in Linux. My thesis is that any OS can be exploited. There are approximately 100.4 million people using Macs in 2024.
Many like myself have multiple Macs
In addition, many MacOS users use no AntiVirus software.
Mac users are considered less tech savvy than W
Re:"Force-updating" (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not even vaguely close to true,
This made me laugh. You made this statement and then followed it with other statements that confirm the opposite.
Windows, Linux, and MacOS *all*...
- Allowed installers to do anything they wanted, including replace core OS files.
- Allowed unsigned installers.
- Allowed software to write to memory and then execute whatever was just written.
- Allowed full access to memory to applications.
- Allowed passwordless logins.
- Had no (or weak) memory protection.
- Used unencrypted disks.
- Had no secure OS upgrade process.
- Had no built-in firewalls.
Now, what was that you were saying about security was a major concern when building those old OSes?
Re: (Score:2)
Windows, Linux, and MacOS *all*...
- Allowed installers to do anything they wanted, including replace core OS files.
You're conflating Windows versions as if they were all the same, Linux only allows that if you're root and there is no good reason for it to be otherwise, etc. and I specifically stated that one of those OSes has no security, obviously MacOS. Thanks for proving you don't know shit about shit and no one should listen to you.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say anything about which user you are or how much permissions you have. The fact that these OSes allow even *root* to make changes to the OS, is insecure in itself. By contrast, Android and iOS strictly limit what installers can do. Even if you do have "god" permissions, an Android or iOS installer can't update the OS itself. That is not true on Linux, Mac, or Windows, or certainly wasn't true in the 1990s.
Clearly, you should *not* listen to me, especially if you don't want to ever admit you made a
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't say anything about which user you are or how much permissions you have. The fact that these OSes allow even *root* to make changes to the OS, is insecure in itself. By contrast, Android and iOS strictly limit what installers can do.
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA
Even if you do have "god" permissions, an Android or iOS installer can't update the OS itself.
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHA
Keep going, this is precious
Re: (Score:3)
I see you've run out of intelligent things to say.
Re: (Score:1)
I see you've run out of intelligent things to say.
I admit that it's not intelligent to continue to waste time talking to someone like you, who thinks you can't do things I've done because you have no practical experience.
Re: (Score:3)
So you've updated components of the Android or iOS operating systems, through an APK or IPA? Impressive!
Re: (Score:1)
This is not even vaguely close to true,
This made me laugh. You made this statement and then followed it with other statements that confirm the opposite.
Windows, Linux, and MacOS *all*... - Allowed installers to do anything they wanted, including replace core OS files. - Allowed unsigned installers. - Allowed software to write to memory and then execute whatever was just written. - Allowed full access to memory to applications. - Allowed passwordless logins. - Had no (or weak) memory protection. - Used unencrypted disks. - Had no secure OS upgrade process. - Had no built-in firewalls.
Now, what was that you were saying about security was a major concern when building those old OSes?
You are just embarrassing yourself now - serving more as entertainment than anything else.
To answer your question - Why don't we talk about how badly Windows One sucked. Or that I've done everything you claim iin Windows machines.
But seriously - I know you are getting pissed that people don't understand, and are willing to go down in flames in your support for Windows, but this is getting a little cringy at this point.
Re: (Score:1)
So you've updated components of the Android or iOS operating systems, through an APK or IPA? Impressive!
You're still embarrassing yourself. I'm embarrassed for you at this point.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, Windows 1 sucked. Windows 2 sucked. And Windows 3 sucked, and 98, and Me, and quite a few others. What does that have to do with this subject?
You didn't actually address any of the points I made. I guess you accept them then.
Yes, I'm very, very embarrassed.
Re: "Force-updating" (Score:2)
Oh look, moving the goalposts.
What a fucking clown.
Re: (Score:2)
This was literally my point about how security was built into Android and IOS. Neither one lets installers do anything to the OS, the package can only be unpacked in ways that are specifically designed by the installer mechanism. It's not a user permissions thing, it's an installer capability thing. In the phone world, you don't write an executable to do your install, you create a package, which the OS itself unpacks.
By contrast, a Windows or Mac OS or Linux installer, is just an ordinary executable under t
Re: (Score:2)
Then why did you say "The fact that these OSes allow even *root* to make changes to the OS, is insecure in itself" when root has access to rewrite the entire OS? Could it perhaps be because you don't know what you're talking about and you're casting around desperately to look like you do? Don't bother answering, it's obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Root should *not* have access to rewrite the entire OS. This is what Microsoft was forced to learn the hard way, through the CrowdStrike fiasco. As a result, they are moving drivers from Ring 0 into a more protected layer, so that the drivers, even with root permissions, cannot cause an OS-level crash.
You are conflating user-level permissions, with role-level capabilities. To be secure, the installer must be a part of the OS, and the developer must only be able to supply a package for that installer to proc
Re: (Score:2)
Now tell us how many similar bugs are in Windows, and will be found even without the obscurity of closed source. You don't know, because you depend on Microsoft to tell you when they fuck up, but you're declaring this a victory for Microsoft anyway? Do fucking tell.
Your comment fails for the same reason. By your reasoning you don't know anything about Microsoft's process but you're declaring victory for Open Source. The reality is that everything who makes this an open vs closed issue is very ignorantly missing the underlying fact that security update affect all platforms and all practices for releasing code, open or closed. Just in different ways.
Re: (Score:3)
By your reasoning you don't know anything about Microsoft's process but you're declaring victory for Open Source.
Oh no, there is no victory. Your summary is pretty good here. But the idea that Linux is provably less secure because old bugs were found is flatly wrong. They were found late, but they were indeed found. How many ancient bugs are lurking in proprietary software that nobody has found for positive reasons and made full disclosures of so affected parties know they need to mitigate? Nobody knows!
Re: (Score:3)
But it is also generally more secure, outside of its obscurity
This is a fantasy not substantiated by evidence. Heartbleed--a Linux vulnerability in an open source library--was lying in plain sight for years before some hacker discovered it, and it was exploited in the wild for years before anybody discovered the attack.
I love how people defend Windows by pointing out a flaw in Linux as proof.
Sir, there is no such thing as a completely secure Operating system. But Is the plethora of Windows exploits because it is more secure?
Finally, I don't care - I prefer to use an OS with less exploits because I'm ore about fewer exploits, not the most "popular" OS. I want to get work done.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>"Your experience is not an indication of a good practice."
My experience is normally updating frequently. But it is still on my schedule, when I choose to do it. I wouldn't say it is bad practice, especially since I am aware when the rare high-priority update is released. The few that are not updated that I mentioned are those that are intentionally isolated (and are safe regardless).
>"Linux is somewhat sheltered because of its low adoption as a desktop operating system."
That is true. But it is also generally more secure, outside of its obscurity. And updates usually come out much faster. And most do not require rebooting.
I've never bought into poster's security through obscurity claims. There are plenty enough Linux machiners out there, as well as all the Apache servers - and let's not forget all those Raspberry Pis - to make a decent "attack force" for whatever the bad guys want to do.
As for the update process, here is a reason Windows forces their updates, and Linux and MacOS allow you to install them at your leisure. People don't avoid Linux and MacOS updates because the computer works afterwards. Windows? Well this a
Re: (Score:2)
>"I've never bought into poster's security through obscurity claims. There are plenty enough Linux machiners out there, [...]"
Multiple things can be true at once. I do think Linux is inherently more secure AND that being more obscure provides additional protection in some ways.
>"As for the update process, here is a reason Windows forces their updates, and Linux and MacOS allow you to install them at your leisure. People don't avoid Linux and MacOS updates because the computer works afterwards."
My exp
Re: (Score:2)
That is nonsense. The difference is that on Linux, you get patch-notes and then can decide whether you have the exposure. The time that Linux was "sheltered" is long, long past.
Re: (Score:2)
And you believe that you personally have sufficient understanding of every patch-note to make a wise determination of whether you need that patch?
Let's suppose you *are* a security expert and know what the patch-note means for your security. The reality is, that patch contains many changes, the patch-note is just a summary, probably more or less as accurate as an AI summary. Unless you inspect the source code diff, you wouldn't actually know everything that is in that patch.
And even if you did inspect the s
Re: (Score:2)
And you believe that you personally have sufficient understanding of every patch-note to make a wise determination of whether you need that patch?
It is called "competent system administration". I am not surprised you do not understand that idea though.
Re: (Score:2)
A competent system administrator would know that they don't know enough to fully understand the details of every security patch. Such knowledge requires much more research and analysis than the typical system administrator has time to do, regardless of their level of competence. It's not their job to second-guess which security updates they should accept, it's their job to keep the systems updated, not to pretend they know more than the software vendor about which things are important.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to work fine for Linux.
It does not. Zero-days are a thing on Linux. EOL is a thing on Linux, and many modern distros very much will force auto-update packages marked as a security risk.
I update only when I choose to on all my machines.
Congrats, you so clever. All users did this in the 90s. It was a security nightmare, especially when people were proud of running out of date buggy software. You may be an expert and capable of curating your update process (I'll give you the benefit of doubt, generous of me since you think this concept is OS related) but that doesn't mean what you
Re: (Score:3)
These days, it's literally not even *safe* to fail to upgrade to the latest version of whatever software. Software developers must continue to update to the latest version of libraries they use, in order to keep their software from being vulnerable to previously-discovered, and patched, defects. Even Microsoft, with all its billions, can't afford to maintain every old version of their software, protecting them all against security defects.
The days of upgrading when you want to, are a relic of the 1990s.
If there was a way of only doing the security updates, but preventing any other updates, such as the removal of Wordpad, or the alteration of Notepad and Paint, I'd be fine w/ it. One security practices is to always have the latest security patches, so I'm fine w/ that. However, I don't want them pushing an alternate Outlook version on me every release, or mucking around w/ the user interface of a package just so that their programmers aren't just twiddling their thumbs
Re: (Score:2)
No, nobody separates out security updates from feature updates in this way. Literally nobody. That's because it's too hard to untangle the code changes related to feature updates, from code changes related to security updates. It would be necessary to put every single change behind a feature flag, and track which feature flags each person has chosen. The permutations that would result are insanely complex, nobody, even mega-rich tech giants, can test that many combinations of settings.
The result is, securit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you say "I do" do you mean you create different patch versions of your software, with each combination of security fixes and feature updates that can be chosen? Or that you create feature flags that the end user can select?
Either way, I'm skeptical. When you reach 30 feature flags, or 30 selectable updates, you reach more than 1 billion permutations. User 1 wants A but not B and C, User 2 wants A and B and C, and so on. There is NO way you can produce that many patches, or adequately test that many fea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, what you are doing is not what I was talking about.
Your choice is binary for each new version. You can install an update now, or not. You can't choose to install, say, an updated version of Office that includes last year's security fixes, but doesn't include last year's feature updates. If you want to update, you get it all. If you don't want the new features, you also don't get the new security patches.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, Win 11 24h2 (and Win10 ESU) currently gets the same security updates as 25h2. Much like how linux backports new fixes into old releases. So, new fixes without new features is common.
Re: (Score:2)
"Force-updating", does this require midi-chlorians?
Re: (Score:2)
If anybody actually cared about security, they wouldn't keep computers connected to the Internet 24/7.
I do all my work on Win7 machine running software that's a decade old. Nothing requires the Internet. I only use an up-to-date system for playing games and surfing the web.
Re: (Score:2)
If anybody actually cared about security, they wouldn't keep computers connected to the Internet 24/7.
That's kind of like saying, "If anybody actually cared about safety, they wouldn't drive their cars every day."
These days, the #1 reason to have a computer at all, is to do things that are connected to the internet. Without an internet connection, most people's computers would be as useful as a refrigerator without a power outlet. Even I, as a software developer, can't imagine building software without an internet connection.
I'm glad you've found the one thing to do on a computer, that doesn't require an in
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't need to be said. (Score:5, Interesting)
As opposed to half-assed improvements? Obviously updates/patches pushed to end-users should be "production ready". It's sad that it had to be specifically stated that Microsoft actually worked on these. I imagine people will remain dubious anyway.
So much better than those updates designed to do the opposite. /s
So it's ironic that some (but not all) users reported instead that the update "blocks users at the door, refusing to install or crashing midway through the process."
Ironic? Yes. Surprising? No.
Re: (Score:1)
Microsoft being Microslop. If their Azure platform is run like what this post claims, considering MS makes more revenue from their cloud offerings, it's no surprise their OS is maintained like shit.
https://isolveproblems.substac... [substack.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Wow (Score:4, Informative)
What a shit show Microsoft has become.
Re: (Score:3)
>"What a shit show Microsoft has become."
I don't remember it NOT being. Although I guess it depends on comparisons to which point in the show.
And I thought I heard they were 'listening to their users' and trying to undo some of their "mistakes". Hmm. Any word yet of removing forced cloud logins? Ads in the menus? Changing browser choice/settings without permission? Removing artificial hardware requirements? Opting out of "AI"?
Re:Wow (Score:4)
Yes, I agree, but the last 6 years in particular has seen the shit added to the show exponentially.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I agree, but the last 6 years in particular has seen the shit added to the show exponentially.
You have a short memory. This shit show isn't worse than the past. MS very much pushed out colossally fucked up updates, even back in the XP days. Heck back then, before the days of automated recovery processes shit was MUCH worse. There were actual updates that may have forced you to go looking for your Windows XP install disc to fix.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I agree, but the last 6 years in particular has seen the shit added to the show exponentially.
You have a short memory. This shit show isn't worse than the past. MS very much pushed out colossally fucked up updates, even back in the XP days. Heck back then, before the days of automated recovery processes shit was MUCH worse. There were actual updates that may have forced you to go looking for your Windows XP install disc to fix.
I remember XP days when our Conference rooms had a moratorium on the day after Patch Tuesday. Something was always broken. If someone really really needed to have a meeting on "Dead computer Wednesday" , I had a special computer that was isolated from Patch Tuesday. IT didn't want to do that, but I told them they had a choice. Let me have that computer, or I'd have them come up and fix the one in the conference room. They were deathly afraid of Mahogany Row.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>"What a shit show Microsoft has become."
I don't remember it NOT being. Although I guess it depends on comparisons to which point in the show.
And I thought I heard they were 'listening to their users' and trying to undo some of their "mistakes". Hmm. Any word yet of removing forced cloud logins? Ads in the menus? Changing browser choice/settings without permission? Removing artificial hardware requirements? Opting out of "AI"?
Here's my recent W11 story.
For my Digital radio classes, I picked up a Lenovo Laptop. A decent one. I wanted to have something similar to the class member's computers. So after a couple weeks of dealing with the update problems of class members, I had my first. Despite my disabling OneDrive The update re-activated it, but I didn't know until the next class, when I found out that they moved all of the non-program files with program settings and multiple instance settings and other program related folders to
Re: (Score:2)
>"What a shit show Microsoft has become."
I don't remember it NOT being. Although I guess it depends on comparisons to which point in the show.
And I thought I heard they were 'listening to their users' and trying to undo some of their "mistakes". Hmm. Any word yet of removing forced cloud logins? Ads in the menus? Changing browser choice/settings without permission? Removing artificial hardware requirements? Opting out of "AI"?
I disagree. Windows 7 was a quality OS. If one wants to go under the hood, even the Windows 8 kernel was great, even if the Metro UI sucked. Problem is that from that point, Microsoft didn't know how to leave well enough alone
They could have done a few things:
Re: (Score:2)
It just has become more obvious. They were always a 3rd rated amateur-level shit-show. As complexity raises and attacker pressure increases, their sheer incapability becomes impossible to ignore.
Force update? (Score:2)
How does that work on machines not meeting the minimum requirements?
Re: (Score:2)
By bricking them?
Re: (Score:2)
How does that work on machines not meeting the minimum requirements?
One of two things in most cases. 1) You get a massive number of nag boxes telling you your machine isn't compliant and is now vulnerable and the only solution is to "upgrade" to a newer system. 2) Try to install anyway and fail, leaving you trying to sort out how to roll back to a known-good configuration from before the attempted update.
Re: (Score:2)
Things are getting flakier (Score:2)
I expect that in the near future, we will get an "update" broken enough that only a reinstall will fix it.
Begins force-updating...so no choice (Score:5, Insightful)
We will improve Windows (Score:2)
Even if we have to shove it down your throat.
Re: (Score:1)
Even if we have to shove it down your throat.
If it was only improving, not regressing.
Tiny11 (Score:2)
If one has Windows 11, one should look at converting it into Tiny11, and then only installing the software one's really going to use. And only allow Windows Defender updates, and security updates on Windows update
Yes Microsoft, this is why Windows 11 is Hated (Score:2)
At the end of the day, MSFT can't be trusted (Score:2)
Even for basic level functionality testing. Lord knows how many dragons lurk under the covers. I don't use Windows for anything that I care about. Full stop and there are more and more people in C-level positions at major enterprises that feel the same way every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this part of the planned simplification? (Score:2)
Didn't they announce a plan to simplify, remove bloat, and make Windows behave a little more like what people wanted? This doesn't seem to be fitting that announcement. Though it does seem to fit Microsoft's nominal trajectory.