
Microsoft embeds nagware into IE patch - coloneltcb
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-embeds-nagware-into-ie-patch-2016-3?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
======
acqq
I have a valid reason not wanting to upgrade: I've tried (after the messages
that suggested "It will work we promise") and it doesn't work on my machine:
turns out the WiFi card on my notebook is not supported by either Intel or
Microsoft for Windows 10, and if Windows 10 is running it becomes horribly
unstable (hardware interrupts are wrongly interpreted or handled).

After trying to revert to Windows 7, it wasn't fully recovered (the scheduled
tasks, created by Windows, remained corrupted). So I had to restore Windows 7
from my backup. But it seems iTunes remain confused ("can't sync due to
unknown error") as apparently some permissions in user directories remain
different than initially even now?

So I've added some registry entries which were supposed to mean "I don't want
Windows 10." And I've hidden the updates that install "Get Windows 10."

Yet not only the Update tries to install the "Get Windows 10" every month (un-
hiding the updates without me!), the updates last for hours (the famous
svchost looping in some unnecessary checking of something that doesn't have to
be checked almost infinite number of times).

(Unfortunately Linux isn't working optimally on the notebook either, making
the touchpad unusable and not handling the vendor Fn keys.)

Now I know that the nags came with the _security_ patch of IE, which means
that I can't even avoid it if I want to have security updates installed.
Horrible. How is then that the nag doesn't happen for business users if it's a
part of the security patch?

~~~
Silhouette
_Now I know that the nags came with the security patch of IE, which means that
I can 't even avoid it if I want to have security updates installed. Horrible.
How is then that the nag doesn't happen for business users if it's a part of
the security patch?_

I submitted another related article (and posted a summary) with more emphasis
on the specifics, including when this nag does and doesn't appear to be
showing up:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11261438](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11261438)

While I'm here, I'll add my voice to the chorus of people who think they're
crazy to include not just non-security but clearly not-even-important
functionality in a bundled security update. That was a line they should never
have crossed, and it's going to cost them much of whatever trust they had left
after the earlier GWX unpleasantness and the questionable practices of Windows
10 itself.

Edit: In fact, this Business Insider article seems to be a thin wrapper for
the more detailed Infoworld one I submitted before, which is here:

[http://www.infoworld.com/article/3042155/microsoft-
windows/w...](http://www.infoworld.com/article/3042155/microsoft-
windows/windows-patch-kb-3139929-when-a-security-update-is-not-a-security-
update.html)

~~~
acqq
Domain attachment as the nag/don't nag flag in fantastically stupid. In my
previous company we had very good reason to have more Windows computers not on
domain (and I'm not going to elaborate them, please don't ask, but domain is
just one specific usage pattern).

~~~
Silhouette
_Domain attachment as the nag /don't nag flag in fantastically stupid._

Maybe. If your goal is to nag as many home users and small business customers
as possible, while avoiding irritating your larger business customers as much
as possible, it's probably a pretty good heuristic.

------
Aoyagi
Could we please not share links with the _?utm_source=twitterfeed
&utm_medium=twitter_ part? I'm not interested in giving someone idea that
Twitter (or facebook or whatever) gives them more traffic than it actually
does.

------
calciphus
But when OSX does this or nags me to switch from Chrome to Safari, it's a
"feature", right?

~~~
skywhopper
I guess I missed this part, except where every browser nags you to set it as
the default.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
As a global notification even when Safari is not visibly running?

------
romanovcode
Apple does the same thing, nobody cares.
[http://i.stack.imgur.com/BkQTT.png](http://i.stack.imgur.com/BkQTT.png)

------
Animats
A few days ago, we had an article about Verizon and their "supercookies" they
were injecting into the web pages of others.[1] They didn't do this for
"enterprise and government" accounts. Now, Microsoft is pulling the same
stunt. Enterprise customers don't get the forced upgrade, the "telemetry"
backdoor, or forced ads. Only "consumers" get screwed.

You can't even buy a non-crap Windows as an individual any more.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11239781](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11239781)

~~~
cm2187
Plus you would expect at least the pro versions to be exempt.

------
ewzimm
Except they just redefined nagware, which is usually Shareware that keeps
asking for money. This is just more offers for a free upgrade before they
start charging.

~~~
kevingadd
Their bizdev people have totally botched the Win10 rollout with bad marketing
and silent forced updates, but it'll still be nasty if we end up with a bunch
of people on Win7 past its EOL who could've been getting free OS updates
instead. Newer kernel and user-mode means newer security features, and for app
developers it's nice to not have to keep supporting builds of Windows from
over a decade ago.

I just wish they got their act together so it was easier to get people onto
W10 without them (rightly!) freaking out because it broke some of their apps
or it keeps rebooting overnight and losing their files.

~~~
Someone1234
Mark my words: Windows 10 will be a free upgrade forever.

They only placed a one year time limit on it in order to increase early
adoption. They will no doubt "extend" the period right before its end due to
"overwhelming popularity" and then extend it indefinitely after the buzz from
the first extension has worn off.

For Microsoft's current strategy it doesn't make sense to leave even a single
user on Windows 7, 8, or 8.1. They need everyone on Windows 10, and further
still the number of people who, missing the free period, will pay to upgrade
to 10 is going to be miniscule.

I might be wrong, but I don't think I am. It is just more compatible with
Microsoft's strategy.

~~~
colejohnson66
But then why can I go to a Microsoft store and buy a copy of 10 for full
price?

~~~
tdicola
That's for people that build a PC from scratch and don't have an existing
license for Win 7, 8, etc. Or for running in a VM.

~~~
dividuum
Or for people that upgrade their machine for any reason. I recently switched
some hardware after my GPU died. My updated copy of Windows 10 (from 8.1) then
needed to be activated again. When I tried the automated phone activation it
didn't work and I was connected to some support guy that told me to either
reinstall 8.1 and then do the free upgrade again or just buy Windows 10.
That's a bit annoying as I didn't expect that. Oh well...

~~~
Already__Taken
It's supposed to be tied to the motherboard. Did you change that?

~~~
dividuum
I did. According to their support page at [http://windows.microsoft.com/en-
us/windows-10/activation-err...](http://windows.microsoft.com/en-
us/windows-10/activation-errors-windows-10) "If you've made significant
hardware changes to your device (such as replacing the hard drive or
motherboard), contact customer support to activate Windows". I tried that and
got the same response again. So it's either reinstall/upgrade or a new
license.

~~~
Already__Taken
When I built a small batch of OEM machines I asked about cycling the hardware
in later upgrades. I was told once the motherboard is changed MS consider that
a different computer.

Maybe if you replaced the motherboard it might have gotten activated but
upgrading it I could understand.

I wish the licencing wasn't such dark arts to work out. Go ask a different
company I bet you'll get a different answer.

------
Huhty
IE is still around???

------
plugnburn
Faildows and Infernet Exploiter users must suffer. Period.

------
owly
This ensuring that everyone will use Chrome.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
You know how much Google nags about Chrome? When I signed into Gmail on a
different computer, I got an EMAIL telling me Gmail is better on Chrome AND a
blue nag bar at the top of Gmail asking me to download Chrome. And any time I
sign into a new computer, I will get both nags.

~~~
TrevorJ
I've used Gmail on 4+ machines in a variety of browsers and have never ever
seen that. You must be in the darkest A/B test timeline.

~~~
Coincoin
That's weird because Google constantly threaten me that google.com will no
longer work with my browser very soon and that if I want to continue using
google.com I have to install Chrome.

Edit: Got confused. It's Chrome no longer having updates because of Vista on
an old laptop.

~~~
ars
What browser are you using?

~~~
josteink
I tested with MSIE11 just now.
[http://imgur.com/a/3Uztr](http://imgur.com/a/3Uztr)

I also tested with Firefox, but it seems they stopped pestering us FF-users
now. For a long time though every single page owned by Google on the entire
internets told Firefox users to "Upgrade your browser" (and yes, those words).

Guess once if by "upgrade" they meant to a new version of Firefox.

And then guess which browser my non-technical parents are using now, after I
instructed them specifically to use Firefox to avoid problems?

Can you guess which company is now harvesting all their browsing data?

Do no evil indeed.

