Windows 7 PC users refusing to move to Windows 10

[SparkyJJO]

Guess I've been really out of the loop for a while. Never mind then!

 

[silicon]

I actually hate Microsoft's new invasive data retention/collection policies enough that I upgraded from a perfectly good 4670k to get a processor with VT-d enabled so I could migrate to Linux and still play my library of windows games without having to reboot (dual booting is a PITA and trashes my workflow). Not that Linux doesn't have its own issues, of course (documentation? that's BORING I'm too busy writing yet another audio API), but at least it's not sending my online shopping login/passwords and CC#s back to the mother ship. When some hacker cracks that nut it's going to make all these retailer data breaches over the past few years seem like a fart in the wind.



Easy. If you're not paying for the product you ARE the product. See: Facebook, Google, now Microsoft etc.

Can you explain what you mean "you ARE the product"?

 

[Mushkins]

Can you explain what you mean "you ARE the product"?

Demographic information is highly valuable. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc aren't providing you things like Gmail and social media and free web tools out of the kindness of their heart. They collect and archive data about you and sell it to marketing companies.

Those marketing companies take that data and analyze it to pull out information like "Carpenters between the ages of 40 and 50 talk about Timberland work boots more frequently than other brands of work boots." Then they sell consulting services to retailers, who use that information to do targeted advertising.

Ever do a google search for something and then suddenly start seeing ads for that kind of product all over any website you go to for the rest of the day? In a nutshell, that's how it works.

Hence "you (your demographic information) are the product." They run that social media platform or email platform and instead of charging you money, you agree to allow them to comb through your data. You're paying them with information about yourself.

People are flipping out about telemetry data in Windows 10 because it's working on the same principle. They give you a free upgrade to their new OS, and you're actually paying for it with demographic information. Personally, I don't care if Microsoft knows what brand of underwear I buy, but some people are super upset about it.

 

[luv2liv]

I will switch back to win7. Win10 is noticeably slower for me. Launching programs or opening a file is slower.

 

[readymix]

no longer even contemplating win10. just lost interest since I see nada to swing me over.

 

[Joepublic2]

Uh, any proof of such doings or are you just throwing a lot of baseless hyperbole out there for some reason? MS isn't getting fed your credit card info. And... <tinfoil hat> how do you know that the linux distro you have isn't doing the same, only sending it to somebody else</tinfoil hat> :sneaky:

I can see the source code with linux. They are definitely collecting data for govt and law enforcement agencies. Not just the US govt/LE either, if I had to guess, which is something else to think about. I'd be very apprehensive about bad mouthing the PRC from a Chinese jurisdiction on any Microsoft platform now, for example. I doubt they would deliberately collect information like raw credit card numbers but you're putting a lot of faith in their willingness to follow good security practices from a company that has proven time and time again that security is not a priority.

edit: and yeah, it's not like google or android are any better WRT surreptitious data collection but I've never done sensitive work on android for that very reason.

 

[silicon]

IMHO MS made windows 7 too good thus there is a lot of resistance to switching to windows 10. I like the way it works too much to get rid of it.

 

[Mushkins]

I can see the source code with linux.

I see this argument come up as the de-facto magic bullet argument that Open Source software is somehow magically safer and more secure and less invasive than closed source alternatives, and it's *massively* flawed.

Yes, you can see the source code. Do you bother to actually look at it? Do you legitimately take the time to go line by line through every single software update looking for malicious code? Do you actually compile it all yourself, or straight download an already compiled distro? Do you even have the high level knowledge of software engineering and kernel development to fully understand the code you're looking at and identify something malicious?

Very, very few people in the world can say Yes to all of those questions. For everyone else, you're doing the exact same thing you would be doing with closed source software:

Trusting a total stranger to tell you if it's ok or not.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Everyone is complaining about a loss of privacy while they use Chinese made phones and all manner of computer equipment everyday. Your networking gear is made in China these days as well.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I see this argument come up as the de-facto magic bullet argument that Open Source software is somehow magically safer and more secure and less invasive than closed source alternatives, and it's *massively* flawed.

Yes, you can see the source code. Do you bother to actually look at it? Do you legitimately take the time to go line by line through every single software update looking for malicious code? Do you actually compile it all yourself, or straight download an already compiled distro? Do you even have the high level knowledge of software engineering and kernel development to fully understand the code you're looking at and identify something malicious?

Very, very few people in the world can say Yes to all of those questions. For everyone else, you're doing the exact same thing you would be doing with closed source software:

Trusting a total stranger to tell you if it's ok or not.

Heartbleed comes to mind - that was open source and bug existed for what, 3-4 years before someone caught it?

 

[Joepublic2]

I see this argument come up as the de-facto magic bullet argument that Open Source software is somehow magically safer and more secure and less invasive than closed source alternatives, and it's *massively* flawed.

Yes, you can see the source code. Do you bother to actually look at it? Do you legitimately take the time to go line by line through every single software update looking for malicious code? Do you actually compile it all yourself, or straight download an already compiled distro? Do you even have the high level knowledge of software engineering and kernel development to fully understand the code you're looking at and identify something malicious?

Very, very few people in the world can say Yes to all of those questions. For everyone else, you're doing the exact same thing you would be doing with closed source software:

Trusting a total stranger to tell you if it's ok or not.

It's not a magic bullet of course, but it's still better than somebody trying to sell me something telling me that everything is A-OK and not having any ability to verify. I can pay independent third parties with those skills as a user, if necessary, and have them audit said code if I feel like it's necessary and have done so in the past; no stranger trust required. I can also modify the product and strip out everything non essential to the core functionality I require, and have done this in the past on several occasions when working with sensitive information. Neither is an option with closed source software. Obviously perfect security is impossible in practice.

Heartbleed comes to mind - that was open source and bug existed for what, 3-4 years before someone caught it?

It was fixed very quickly after it was publicly identified, without having to rely on a huge software vendor to lurch out a patch a month later (if ever). Point for open source.

 

[RampantAndroid]

It was fixed very quickly after it was publicly identified, without having to rely on a huge software vendor to lurch out a patch a month later (if ever). Point for open source.

Those same software companies do tons of security audits, and additionally are better trusted by the industry. I cannot think of a single bank that I remember reading about being affected by heartbleed - none were using OpenSSL.

Additionally, how long had that bug been known about before it became publicly known? Was anyone ever exploiting it? You'll never know the answer.

 

[Joepublic2]

Those same software companies do tons of security audits, and additionally are better trusted by the industry. I cannot think of a single bank that I remember reading about being affected by heartbleed - none were using OpenSSL.

What industry? Tons of industries have terrible to non-existent security. The financial industry obviously has to have much higher standards. I'll concede security through obscurity can work if you don't have millions of people with their hands on your code; I'm sure whatever proprietary SSL implementation those banks are using are reasonably secure if only because very few people have access to those systems/code and the ones that do are closely monitored. We're talking about desktop operating systems, though, and not bank backends.

Additionally, how long had that bug been known about before it became publicly known? Was anyone ever exploiting it? You'll never know the answer.

So the same as closed source software?

 

[Mushkins]

Heartbleed is actually a really good example of my point. Despite being open source and being one of the most widely used, security focused pieces of open source software in the world, it had a *massive* security vulnerability in it that was not found for *years*.

I fail to see how that's a "point for open source," look at how many people blindly trusted that it was safe and secure and didn't bother to (or couldn't) do their own audit of the code? And look what that got us. How many people were lulled into a false sense of security, where they would have used more scrutiny with something they *knew* was a black box?

As to your point about fast patching, that 100% depends on the people who develop and maintain the software and has absolutely nothing to do with open or closed source. Big corporations release both open and closed source applications, and small volunteer teams release both open and closed source applications.

I can pay independent third parties with those skills as a user, if necessary, and have them audit said code if I feel like it's necessary and have done so in the past; no stranger trust required.

But paying a third party to audit the code and saying its ok *is* trusting a stranger to verify it? In a quite literal sense.

I can also modify the product and strip out everything non essential to the core functionality I require, and have done this in the past on several occasions when working with sensitive information. Neither is an option with closed source software.

Sure it is, companies contract software developers to alter their out of the box products to meet their needs all the time. Likewise, if you're going to alter something *that much* developing it in house is an option, as is contracting a software developer to do so for you. That's not really an open vs closed source issue, that's just picking the right tool for the job and managing your risk.

Look, I'm not saying Open Source doesn't have it's merits, it absolutely does, but this myth that it's fundamentally more secure than closed source simply because anyone can look at the code needs to die a fiery death. It's as bad as the "Macs cant get viruses" nonsense people still spout.

 

[ultimatebob]

Uh, any proof of such doings or are you just throwing a lot of baseless hyperbole out there for some reason? MS isn't getting fed your credit card info. And... <tinfoil hat> how do you know that the linux distro you have isn't doing the same, only sending it to somebody else</tinfoil hat> :sneaky:

Wow I didn't realize the market share was so heavy towards Android. It seems it was only a couple years ago that iOS and Android were a lot closer.

Android has 80% smartphone market share, but Apple gets about 90% of the smartphone profits. Their margins are THAT good.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Well that doesn't surprise me. Apple is overpriced after all

 

[master_shake_]

Well that doesn't surprise me. Apple is overpriced after all

that's not why.

apple will sell an iphone 5c for 350 or something.

android phones range between 100-900 dollars.

in short companies sell a lot of cheap android phones.

 

[escrow4]

that's not why.

apple will sell an iphone 5c for 350 or something.

android phones range between 100-900 dollars.

in short companies sell a lot of cheap android phones.

Both of my phones are around $100 Lollipop Android's. No reason to spend hundreds on Android. Meh. I do work on hardware not a phablet.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Android has 80% smartphone market share, but Apple gets about 90% of the smartphone profits. Their margins are THAT good.

Yes, there is no counting for intelligence, or lack thereof.

 

[rchunter]

I bought an android last year for $50. They were having a closeout special on it because it was considered an old model at the time. I will keep it till it dies or am forced to upgrade to something newer. Can I afford a better/newer phone? Sure but it's not necessary....

 

[Runequest2]

I did not like the look of the new version of the start menu they are using for Win 10.

I also do not want to lose Windows media Center.

So I have no choice but to stay with Windows 7.

I guess once all support for Win 7 dies I will be forced to buy a new computer and decide what OS to support.

 

[bradly1101]

I can't give up Windows Media Center. Otherwise I would probably upgrade.

Me too.

 

[beginner99]

Not surprising really. After all people are creatures of habit and Win7 is a great OS. I don't see this as a refusal to move to Win10 but more of a comfort thing.

I disagree. It's about the spying thing and most people not knowing this was ported back to 7.

In my case I tried 10 and system was unstable, unusable. So I just rather wait and try later again. And if they really can't get it to work I will have to clean install (absolute horror).

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

I disagree. It's about the spying thing and most people not knowing this was ported back to 7.

Nothing to worry about until Microsoft removes the option to not report back from Windows 7.

 

[TheGardener]

Nothing to worry about until Microsoft removes the option to not report back from Windows 7.

I'm counting on my having disabled LiveUpdate will circumvent this. But I can be wrong. Need to see what MS has up its sleeve.