Has what you said been proven and documented anywhere? All I can find is threads of people claiming things, but no actual (investigative) journalism that covers these parts.
Toggling on data collection without informing the user would mean billions of dollars worth of fines in Europe, so I doubt that happens regularly. Still, I don’t mind being proven wrong if you got the proof to back it up
Toggling on data collection without informing the user would mean billions of dollars worth of fines in Europe, so I doubt that happens regularly.
More like a few thousand euros symbolic fine and an angry letter saying “don’t be an ass again pls our infrastructure depends on you” after years of blatant abuses and anti-consumer practices, followed by an ambiguous law (with positive effects affecting only european users) they will definitely not manage to circumvent withing the next week and a half. Not this time 🤡.
The problem here is the fact that most people just do not give a fuck about this; that’s why there’s no coverage in the (mainstream) media, why the only people who cares end up just leaving windows and why this kind of options are usually opt-out and they can actually afford to silently re-enable them cuz who’s gonna check anyways? Random people ranting on meme communities about my fancy malware?
You seem to forget what kind of fines the EU hands out. specifically against Microsoft in 2004 the EU fined then 500 million. And then another few 100 million.
Has it been proven to happen on Windows 11? Not that I can point to specifically. 11 hasn’t been in general use long enough to see a real pattern of behavior.
I was a mixed Windows and Linux user through the full life cycle of the Cortana implementation. The number of times they changed or moved Cortana related settings through the years was just ridiculous. It finally came down to having to manually change registry settings to keep it from scanning your files and messing with basic local search, and even if you did that you had to make sure the registry values were still set after version updates because they would get unset without warning.
I have no trust left for Microsoft, only suspicion.
No it doesn’t, at least not if the update isn’t already a month overdue
But a future Windows update will reset them without informing the user.
I’ve done 3 years worth of updates in one day cause I needed too. Pretty much everything was reset including registry edits, but the privacy toggles were one of the few things that stayed persistent. Maybe it’s a EU special feature (wouldn’t be the first), but at least here they won’t change back silently.
My windows install enjoys rebooting itself unexpectedly a lot. There is no chance I ever checked a box that said “update then reboot my computer at some time in the future”
And this update outside active hours will have a good chance to “fix” your privacy settings again. Without you noticing. One basically needs a tool that confirms that your privacy settings are still active. And then wait how long it takes Microsoft to declare that tool as “malware”.
I find it hilarious that Linux users STILL continue to hate on Windows Update when memes like this exist.
In my experience, Linux wants to update itself far more frequently than Windows (which is really generally no more than once a month these days), and it DOESN’T EVEN OFFER THE OPTION of automatically postponing it to a more convenient time. Yes, you can always say “not now”, but then it’ll just keep bugging you again until you say yes.
Ironically, at this point, updates on Linux are basically everything that Windows used to get made fun of in the past (for good reason!), but while the situation has actually improved on Windows, on Linux it’s only become worse as distributions grow and updates become even more frequent.
That’s certainly true, and there may even be advantages to this because security issues might get fixed more quickly, but it doesn’t change the fact that the annoyance factor is at least as high as that of Windows used to be, and there is no convenient option to have it taken care of automatically, say, at shutdown.
Instead of making fun of Windows, it would serve Linux far better to actually address this issue, even if that means copying what Microsoft did here.
I don’t know how much this varies by distro, but I find the updates completely non intrusive. I think in Fedora I’ve seen one or two “critical updates are available” or “version N+1 is available” popups, but they aren’t intrusive and don’t get in the way. I’m not sure if I’ve seen a popup in Mint or not. Most of the time I notice there’s an update available because there’s a notification in the system tray or equivalent.
And I’m not even here to bash how Windows does it. I haven’t had many issues with my windows machines because I’ll check for updates and/or install available ones right away. Either that or I don’t use the machine for a while (working as a server) and it may or may not restart itself at night sometimes.
I still prefer the Linux way, which is kind of a win-win in my eyes because you get control over updates and reboots AND your system isn’t as much of a target in the first place so updates aren’t usually time critical.
Windows 11 just shows a little icon in the notification tray and won’t really bother you otherwise until you click on it. I think by default it will try to install the pending updates on shutdown, but when you click on the icon you can choose to either postpone it or do it immediately.
Meanwhile, Ubuntu always interrupts you with a popup which yes, you can click “Not now” on if you want to deal with it later, but then it’ll just pop up again some other time. And the only other option is to just let it do its thing (but at least it can run unobtrusively in the background and only requires a restart if there’s a kernel update).
I agree with the general sentiment but it literally says it will update outside of active hours. So as non-disruptive as possible.
And the privacy toggles are set when you install the OS. You can untick all of them the last time I checked.
Sorry for being such a pedant
Yeah, but it lies.
But a future Windows update will reset them without informing the user.
Microsoft respects user choice about as well as Republicans respect voting rights.
Has what you said been proven and documented anywhere? All I can find is threads of people claiming things, but no actual (investigative) journalism that covers these parts.
Toggling on data collection without informing the user would mean billions of dollars worth of fines in Europe, so I doubt that happens regularly. Still, I don’t mind being proven wrong if you got the proof to back it up
More like a few thousand euros symbolic fine and an angry letter saying “don’t be an ass again pls our infrastructure depends on you” after years of blatant abuses and anti-consumer practices, followed by an ambiguous law (with positive effects affecting only european users) they will definitely not manage to circumvent withing the next week and a half. Not this time 🤡.
The problem here is the fact that most people just do not give a fuck about this; that’s why there’s no coverage in the (mainstream) media, why the only people who cares end up just leaving windows and why this kind of options are usually opt-out and they can actually afford to silently re-enable them cuz who’s gonna check anyways? Random people ranting on meme communities about my fancy malware?
You seem to forget what kind of fines the EU hands out. specifically against Microsoft in 2004 the EU fined then 500 million. And then another few 100 million.
Has it been proven to happen on Windows 11? Not that I can point to specifically. 11 hasn’t been in general use long enough to see a real pattern of behavior.
I was a mixed Windows and Linux user through the full life cycle of the Cortana implementation. The number of times they changed or moved Cortana related settings through the years was just ridiculous. It finally came down to having to manually change registry settings to keep it from scanning your files and messing with basic local search, and even if you did that you had to make sure the registry values were still set after version updates because they would get unset without warning.
I have no trust left for Microsoft, only suspicion.
No it doesn’t, at least not if the update isn’t already a month overdue
I’ve done 3 years worth of updates in one day cause I needed too. Pretty much everything was reset including registry edits, but the privacy toggles were one of the few things that stayed persistent. Maybe it’s a EU special feature (wouldn’t be the first), but at least here they won’t change back silently.
Do they do that? I’ve had my laptop for a while, and it’s never happened to me.
My windows install enjoys rebooting itself unexpectedly a lot. There is no chance I ever checked a box that said “update then reboot my computer at some time in the future”
And this update outside active hours will have a good chance to “fix” your privacy settings again. Without you noticing. One basically needs a tool that confirms that your privacy settings are still active. And then wait how long it takes Microsoft to declare that tool as “malware”.
I find it hilarious that Linux users STILL continue to hate on Windows Update when memes like this exist.
In my experience, Linux wants to update itself far more frequently than Windows (which is really generally no more than once a month these days), and it DOESN’T EVEN OFFER THE OPTION of automatically postponing it to a more convenient time. Yes, you can always say “not now”, but then it’ll just keep bugging you again until you say yes.
Ironically, at this point, updates on Linux are basically everything that Windows used to get made fun of in the past (for good reason!), but while the situation has actually improved on Windows, on Linux it’s only become worse as distributions grow and updates become even more frequent.
I think Linux seems to have more updates because the package update manager is taking care of every installed program as well as the OS.
That’s certainly true, and there may even be advantages to this because security issues might get fixed more quickly, but it doesn’t change the fact that the annoyance factor is at least as high as that of Windows used to be, and there is no convenient option to have it taken care of automatically, say, at shutdown.
Instead of making fun of Windows, it would serve Linux far better to actually address this issue, even if that means copying what Microsoft did here.
I don’t know how much this varies by distro, but I find the updates completely non intrusive. I think in Fedora I’ve seen one or two “critical updates are available” or “version N+1 is available” popups, but they aren’t intrusive and don’t get in the way. I’m not sure if I’ve seen a popup in Mint or not. Most of the time I notice there’s an update available because there’s a notification in the system tray or equivalent.
And I’m not even here to bash how Windows does it. I haven’t had many issues with my windows machines because I’ll check for updates and/or install available ones right away. Either that or I don’t use the machine for a while (working as a server) and it may or may not restart itself at night sometimes.
I still prefer the Linux way, which is kind of a win-win in my eyes because you get control over updates and reboots AND your system isn’t as much of a target in the first place so updates aren’t usually time critical.
I mean, popups are by definition intrusive, no?
Windows 11 just shows a little icon in the notification tray and won’t really bother you otherwise until you click on it. I think by default it will try to install the pending updates on shutdown, but when you click on the icon you can choose to either postpone it or do it immediately.
Meanwhile, Ubuntu always interrupts you with a popup which yes, you can click “Not now” on if you want to deal with it later, but then it’ll just pop up again some other time. And the only other option is to just let it do its thing (but at least it can run unobtrusively in the background and only requires a restart if there’s a kernel update).