Tykkopoles :
1. Microsoft does not sell your data to anyone. Neither does Google, Apple, Samsung, or Facebook (companies of whom no one accuses the same "sins" as Microsoft for doing the same thing). Microsoft collects data from you so they can position themselves as a middleman to advertisers. The advertiser provides Microsoft the ad and pays Microsoft to show it to relevant audiences. If Microsoft sold your data, they could no longer be that middleman.
I think everyone knows this. They just call it "sell your data" as shorthand for how it works, because having to type up "collects data of interest to advertisers so they can act as middleman to advertisers" each time to keep the pedants at bay gets a bit wearisome.
No, everyone does not, and you are daft if you think that such terminology was designed as anything other than a scare tactic and sensationalist. If media wanted to brand it as honest short-hand, they would be saying "Microsoft collects data to sell you ads, just like Google and Facebook".
Instead, Microsoft is selling YOUR data to unknown and potentially nefarious sources. How EVIL of them!!! (Exaggerated example to show the emotion put behind the verbiage). It's propaganda fueling the blind nerd-rage hard-on for Microsoft.
Don't get me wrong, I will never advocate anyone trust Microsoft, but at least I apply the same claim to any corporation. Microsoft is, in fact, no different than Apple, Google, Amazon, or Facebook. Somehow, I never see the same level of rage pointed at those other companies for blatant anti-competitive decisions. Here, I see people openly proclaiming that "execs(sic) at M$(sic) should be shot" for pressuring people to update their OS. Seriously? That doesn't strike you as the least bit insane?
Tykkopoles :
There are no more "privacy concerns" using Windows 10 than there is using an Android phone or using Facebook, yet people have this blind nerd-rage hard-on for Microsoft for some reason.
Difference is Android and Facebook are free. You pay for Windows. (Even if you get the Win 10 update for free, you still had to pay for Win 7 or 8 to qualify for the update.)
This is a silly attempt to warp facts to fit a narrative. I had Windows 98. I paid to upgrade to Windows XP. I then (foolishly) paid to upgrade to Windows Vista, and again paid to upgrade to Windows 7, and again for Windows 8. Are you seeing how you are trying to alter history to fit your thinking?
No, I did not "pay" for Windows 10 by buying a previous OS when I paid for each previous version. I am paying for Windows 10 through their advertisement model. Same way I pay for Android updates, but I don't hear anyone on a witch hunt for Google.
Did you know way back in the 1980s when cable TV first came out, there were no commercials? That was the sales pitch back then. "Free" over the air TV was paid for with commercials. Whereas you paid the cable company (and thus the cable channels) directly, so they didn't need to have commercials in order to pay the bills.
Sometime in the intervening years, the distinction was lost and now we both have to pay for cable service and suffer through commercials. I'll be damned if I don't fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening again. Either you give it to me free and I give up my marketing info, or I pay you and you don't try to collect my info. You don't get to have the cake and eat it too.
Irrelevant comparison. TV service is not software. This is not the 1980's. You also conveniently ignored premium TV services like HBO and Showtime that still offer commercial-free viewing.
I previously pointed out that Windows 10 is free. The reason that you are fighting "tooth and nail"? It's to receive software that took millions of dollars to develop for free *and* not be sold ads. Entitled is the word that comes to mind.
Tykkopoles :
3. Calling KB3035583 "malware-like" shows a complete lack of knowledge on what malware is. Malware is software that is intended to damage or disable computers and computer systems. KB3035583 only has a visually annoying icon on your system tray that prompts you to schedule the Windows 10 update (image in article) *after* you click on the icon, and even then it does not update without your consent. Your use of this term is intended entirely for demagogic effect.
My clients who had their system automatically update to Win 10 when their business-critical software would only run on Win 7, and one client on a 1.5 Mbps connection whose suffered through a day of unusable Internet because his network bandwidth was being consumed by the automatic Win 10 download would disagree.
Also, by your definition, the Sony rootkit was not malware. They didn't intend to damage or disable the computer, their only intent was to prevent you from copying CDs.
Comically, I'm managing upwards of 10,000 computers on Windows 7 Pro that have no such issues. Furthermore, Windows 7 Enterprise is completely exempt from KB3035583. It sounds to me like they need a new IT department that's knows how to run business technology assets. If it's a small business, they need an IT person that knows what registry edits are.
No matter how you spin this, the fact that you know people that had their business computers update is almost certainly because the end user saw the prompt and clicked on things without understanding the impact/result. Had the IT person/department done their job, the end user should not have even seen the pop-up.
My definition for malware is *the* definition of malware.
Next post:
Tykkopoles :
The linked article is a prime example of poorly researched yellow journalism. Sensationalism trying to get clicks. Anyone doing even a basic amount of research would know that:
1. Google MarkMonitor and tell me why they are an MS partner, data recipient for Win10 ?
I don't need to in order to tell you that you are full of it. As I clearly explained, it is an incredibly poor financial decision for Microsoft to outright sell your data to another company. If they sell your data, they get money once. If advertisers sell Microsoft ads to sell to you, however, they make money continuously. Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple all make billions off the same model.
2. No they are not doing the same thing... this is clearly explained in every article of the subject, if you take the time to read them.
a) Moving an update from optional to recommended is not the same thing
b) Taking an KB that you have made a conscious decision not to install by "hiding it" and then having it reappearf on the 'install now" list again and again is not the same thing.
c) Having KBs that split add popup advertising is not the "same thing".
b) having pop ups that give you only two options "install now" or "install later" is not the "same thing".
Citations, please. Citations that show the stories from Tom's relaying all of these points occurring in an objective and unemotional manner.
Rather than going into your Regression Fallacy, let's call down the actual definition of malware, shall we?
"software intended to damage a computer, mobile device, computer system, or computer network, or to take partial control over its operation"
Source:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/malware
Despite your blind nerd-rage hard-on for Microsoft, KB3035583 is not intending to damage or take control of a computer. It is, admittedly not what I would describe as an ethical means of distributing an OS update, but that does not mean it's malware.
As of yet, the social engineering is only being done by MS BVlogs and internet posters. Give it time before these popups join the other popups.
You literally are inventing a scenario to justify your indignation. There is an informal logical fallacy called Retrospective Determinism, but this would be better termed Prospective Determinism.
1. MS is a business that needs to maintain a revenue stream
2. Giving an OS away for free does not generate a revenue stream
3. In order to stay in business, MS needs to replace that revenue stream
4. So please explain, what is that revenue stream ?
Your blind nerd-rage is showing. Did Bill Gates step on your pet rock?
I answered this in the first point to which you apparently skipped. Microsoft collects data from you in order to position themselves as a middleman between you and advertisers. It's the exact same billion-dollar business model used by Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple. It's why Android and iOS are given away for free. It's why you get an extremely robust social media platform for free. It's why you get the world's largest retail marketplace with some of the lowest prices possible.
And as for the ... "well Google and Facebook do it" comments .... precisely why I don't use any of those either.
Comically, this is a rather weak attempt at a Straw Man. You barely even tried to imply that I was excusing Microsoft on the account of others being widely accepted doing the exact same thing.
Let me guess, you think Ad-Block Plus hides you from the ad platform on Tom's Hardware as well?
Listen, kid, you are welcome to hate on Microsoft all you want. That was literally none of the point I was getting at... My point was the writer of this article is an unethical hack that needs to stop pretending to be a journalist. Care to actually respond to that?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram