Standard counter-argument: Then be respectful of the trust people (voluntarily or not) place in you and don't abuse the update channel.
The problem is that Windows updates have gotten a bad reputation which is partially justified by the tracking and nagware during the Windows 10 transition. If the reputation gets too bad, then even non-computer-savy people will start to turn off updates - with even worse consequences for security.
Microsoft started by doing what every other OS maker was already doing by collecting telemetry (note: they weren't selling it). A minor community of users caused a massive uproar about the telemetry coming off the device despite the fact that you could always turn it down to basic level which was essentially crash dumps and the info we need to not push you a bad update. But MSFT listened and provided additional privacy controls AND they made it so that you have to go through them on upgrade and install.
If you continue to bash on a company even as it makes attempts to listen and respond to its users, then there is no reason for the company to continue to listen.
> Microsoft started by doing what every other OS maker was already doing by collecting telemetry
Unrelated to my sibling comment, but the parent was talking about tracking and nagware during the Windows 10 TRANSITION, which you conveniently ignored. You're talking about Windows 10 itself.
Windows 10 was forcefully shoved down so many people's throats who were desperately trying to avoid it, with misleading "confirmation" triggers to install Windows 10. Don't try to pretend Microsoft was innocent.
Just an anecdote, but I think it was a good thing in some cases to "shove the update down people's throats". I help my in-laws with their PC, and they were struggling with windows 8. I told them to update (before the free offer expired), but wasn't there in person to do it, and they didn't manage. A few weeks later, they asked why the PC now looks different... They accidentally did update :-) and they liked it now better, the only complaint was that you have to click once before logging in. So I guess different people, different needs.
Myself, I just clicked "don't remind me again" on the windows 10 reminder screen, and was not bothered anymore, until I decided to upgrade manually. But maybe the program was differently aggressive in different countries (I live in Germany)?
Which MSFT has been collecting since Win XP SP2. There are plenty of other OS's that do the same thing and plenty more than don't. If you are that paranoid, you are more than welcome to not use Windows/not work at a place that uses Windows/not use your passwords and usernames when using Windows.
Didn't they let you disable it though? Unlike what you just claimed is the case in Win10?
> you are more than welcome to not use Windows
Yes, and people would avoid upgrading to Windows 10 because of this, if you didn't shove it down their throats. Which is of course why you had to do that in the first place.
No, not to my knowledge. In fact, most people didn't even know that MSFT lit this feature up and they beefed it up for Vista.
I didn't shove anything down anyone's throat. Also, let's not pretend that everyone at MSFT was happy about this approach. But you have to think about it from MSFT's perspective. We are promising that if you move to Win10 you will always be up-to-date for the rest of the lifetime of Windows. You'll never pay for another upgrade/update. The benefit to MSFT is that if they get everyone over to 10, they only have to support a single core OS instead of backporting every single bug and security fix.
And no, MSFT isn't perfect, and it has made mistakes, just like every person and company on the planet. But it isn't doing this out of some malicious intent. The company is learning as it goes and genuinely trying to do right by its customers, but it doesn't matter what I say or what MSFT does, people like you will always find a reason to complain.
> No, not to my knowledge. In fact, most people didn't even know that MSFT lit this feature up and they beefed it up for Vista.
So you're saying you're unaware of the information on e.g. this page [1]? Which notably does not include Windows 10?
Notable quote (but not the only relevant one): "By default, error reporting is enabled. However, additional configuration steps are needed to configure error reporting, and no reports are sent unless these steps are completed."
> I didn't shove anything down anyone's throat.
I don't know about you personally, but so explain WTF was this crap they started doing after people were turning down the initial offers? [2]
"The redesigned GWX pop-up now treats EXITING the window as CONSENT for the Windows 10 upgrade."
> But you have to think about it from MSFT's perspective.
I never said what MS is doing is not beneficial to itself, did I?
> people like you will always find a reason to complain.
This is so wrong. I was pretty darn happy and not complaining about Windows XP, 7, or 8 (with the exception of 8's Metro UI). I've been complaining about Vista and 10. So it really does matter what MS does.
> Microsoft started by doing what every other OS maker was already doing
I don't think "but everyone else is doing" is a good argument, but I'm not aware of e.g. any popular Linux doing this. (There are some that do collect telemetry, but there is always an option to turn it off, if nothing else uninstalling the telemetry service)
> But MSFT listened and provided additional privacy controls
Yes, they used to provide 15 different options to configure the telemetry and none to turn it off. Now they offer 20 different options and still none to turn it off.
But those things aren't actually relevant to my main point. The technical details don't matter that much, because at the current time, Microsoft's reputation concerning updates has gotten bad enough that completely non-savy users are downloading dubious 3rd-party tools to disable updates for completely irrational reasons. This is a PR damage that Microsoft should be intereststed in fixing (for example by making the update process less forceful, more transparent and giving meaningful choice)
The actions during the transition and the current strategy seem to go in the exact opposite direction.
(Replying to this from another post[1] to simplify threading)
> But you have to think about it from MSFT's perspective. We are promising that if you move to Win10 you will always be up-to-date for the rest of the lifetime of Windows. You'll never pay for another upgrade/update. The benefit to MSFT is that if they get everyone over to 10, they only have to support a single core OS instead of backporting every single bug and security fix.
Actually, no, I don't have to think of it from Microsoft's perspective. I can think of all kinds of reasons why this strategy is beneficial to Microsoft - but this misses a lot of ways where it csn be absolutely not beneficial to the users:
First, this implies that "being up to date" is something users always want - an assumption that e.g. users of legacy software that doesn't work on Windows 10 can savely reject.
Then there is the scope of updates that seem to not just include bug fixes and adjustments to standards but new features, deprecation of old features, UI changes and even new applications. (E.g., I think the Creator's update installed some kind if 3D paint thing on my machine that I never requested).
This is demanding constant energy from users to manage and gives the impression of a system that is in constant flux and that cannot be trusted. You can manage functionality X by setting Y? Who knows, maybe it's all different after the next update...
The problem is that Windows updates have gotten a bad reputation which is partially justified by the tracking and nagware during the Windows 10 transition. If the reputation gets too bad, then even non-computer-savy people will start to turn off updates - with even worse consequences for security.