Windows 10 - Deeper Impressions

[JorgeA]

 

Apparently, this wouldn't be the first time that Microsoft has bullied hardware manufacturers. Check this out:

 

 

Manufacturers put a recovery partition on the hard drive for use when a Windows Installation fails.

 

They found that many users lost the disks and then expected the manufacturer to procure a recovery disk set years after the model had been discontinued. It was a system that wasn't working very well.

 

OEMs only done this because Microsoft forced them to. Dell were quite happy sending out Windows Reinstallation DVDs with all their systems and Dell customers were quite happy that they could readily clean install with this media. They were then not allowed to include the Reinstallation DVD with the system. To market it as an improvement they stated it was green policies not to send out discs with the system. However still send out a Dell Drivers DVD for some time which of course was useless without the OS Reinstallation DVD. There are far more customers complaining that they did not get proper installation media with their system than customers complaining they got too many discs and that it wasn't "green" especially on the home consumer market.

 

A UK PC chain company who tried to help their customers got sued by Microsoft so it is Microsoft who are making life difficult and not the OEMs[...]

 

--JorgeA

 

Really? That explains a lot. I thought the sudden disappearance of reinstall CDs after XP was just the OEMs being cheap.

 

 

Yeah, that's what I had thought, too.

 

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

Some FUD purifying:

 

Intel's Skylake vPro chips will support Windows 7 after all

 

"... Some features in the new chips—such as chip-level storage of biometric authentication data—will work only with Windows 10 ..."

 

That's a little better than what we heard last week, but I would feel more reassured if Microsoft and/or Intel were to come out and state flatly that Windows 7 and 8.1 will be fully supported on all those CPUs through the announced end of the OSes' support cycles in 2020 and 2023, respectively. None of this "2017 and then you'll only get extraordinary patches" stuff.

 

--JorgeA

[TELVM]

Here's why you MUST 'upgrade' NOW!:

 

[JorgeA]

Whoa! 

 

What movie is that poster from?

 

--JorgeA

[jaclaz]

...talking of the Windows 10 App Store , it seemingly exists but you cannot find apps in it :

http://www.irrlicht3d.org/pivot/entry.php?id=1485

 

jaclaz

 

...meanwhile in Australia ( Off Topic, but dealing with lamb chops, hence interesting ):

http://www.zdnet.com/article/61-agencies-after-warrantless-access-to-australian-telecommunications-metadata/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/19/lamb-chop-weight-enforcers-want-warrantless-access-to-australians-metadata

Edited January 20, 2016 by jaclaz

[Drugwash]

Whoa! 

 

What movie is that poster from?

 

--JorgeA

Looks like some Half Life game (mod). Notice the lambda letter instead of 'n' in 'windows'.

[Tripredacus]

Apparently, this wouldn't be the first time that Microsoft has bullied hardware manufacturers. Check this out:

 

Manufacturers put a recovery partition on the hard drive for use when a Windows Installation fails.

 

They found that many users lost the disks and then expected the manufacturer to procure a recovery disk set years after the model had been discontinued. It was a system that wasn't working very well.

 

OEMs only done this because Microsoft forced them to. Dell were quite happy sending out Windows Reinstallation DVDs with all their systems and Dell customers were quite happy that they could readily clean install with this media. They were then not allowed to include the Reinstallation DVD with the system. To market it as an improvement they stated it was green policies not to send out discs with the system. However still send out a Dell Drivers DVD for some time which of course was useless without the OS Reinstallation DVD. There are far more customers complaining that they did not get proper installation media with their system than customers complaining they got too many discs and that it wasn't "green" especially on the home consumer market.

 

A UK PC chain company who tried to help their customers got sued by Microsoft so it is Microsoft who are making life difficult and not the OEMs[...]

 

--JorgeA

This is only partially true. MS requires a recovery solution of some type to be available with the sale of a computer and this has gone back to at least XP. That meant that if hard disc based recovery was provided, then the OEM could sell a PC without the Recovery CD/DVD. I first saw this configuration with Sony VAIO in 2003. However, it is not to mean that just because you have hard-disk based recovery that a disc is not allowed.

The "forcing" of adding a recovery partition is a 2 part problem. First was MS idea to unify the product lines with Windows 8. While they could have said "if the hardware is of x configuration" (like they do for other things) then it wouldn't be required. They did not and thus did require recovery partition for all Windows 8 (and newer) OS that they pre-installed. Second, consider early market forcasts of the time indicated what is true. Computers are being sold without ODD and of course small-form tablets and the like do not have them. Still, it does not mean a disc cannot be provided.

So in summary:

1. Microsoft requires a recovery solution to be made available with the sale of a computer.

2. This recovery can be recovery partition, DVD and/or USB

3. DVD or USB recovery can only be made by an Authorized Replicator (see lawsuit mention in the quote)

The complaints people have about the recovery media not coming with the computer or having to pay for it later are against the OEM and not Microsoft. This is a decision the OEM has made to keep costs down. Sony, for example, used recovery CD sales in XP days as a profit booster. If it cost them $10 per disc to make it, they would sell them for $60.

[jaclaz]

Don't forget to mention how the stupid Windows 8.1 update did not update the recovery image, thus making the original Windows 8 based recovery partition either a non-recovery or a botched-recovery.

 

jaclaz

[Tripredacus]

There are a lot of problems concerning how the Windows 8.1 Update (or even the 10 Update) works!

[NoelC]

 

Well, if you believe that you shouldn't be surprised

 

Having myself bought a new desktop system (Dell PowerEdge T20) last April, I immediately saw that in the setup screens I was able to choose "BIOS" over "Secure Boot"...  I forget the exact wording, but I was able to opt out of having to do anything having to do with restricted bootup.  Unfortunately I didn't shoot a photo of the screen.  This was a new, 2015 model I'm talking about.

 

Do some systems now just not provide that choice?  Laptops?  If not, when are secure-boot-only systems slated to arrive?

 

Or is the FUD being spread to increase paranoia, so that everyone will believe they MUST use Secure Boot?

 

I'm demonstrating my ignorance of the market here, but being forced to do something implies lack of choice, and I GOT the choice.  I should think it's to all motherboard designers' advantage (i.e. to sell more boards) to offer a choice.  After all, there isn't just one OS out there.

 

-Noel

[JorgeA]

 

Apparently, this wouldn't be the first time that Microsoft has bullied hardware manufacturers. Check this out:

 

This is only partially true. MS requires a recovery solution of some type to be available with the sale of a computer and this has gone back to at least XP. That meant that if hard disc based recovery was provided, then the OEM could sell a PC without the Recovery CD/DVD. I first saw this configuration with Sony VAIO in 2003. However, it is not to mean that just because you have hard-disk based recovery that a disc is not allowed.

The "forcing" of adding a recovery partition is a 2 part problem. First was MS idea to unify the product lines with Windows 8. While they could have said "if the hardware is of x configuration" (like they do for other things) then it wouldn't be required. They did not and thus did require recovery partition for all Windows 8 (and newer) OS that they pre-installed. Second, consider early market forcasts of the time indicated what is true. Computers are being sold without ODD and of course small-form tablets and the like do not have them. Still, it does not mean a disc cannot be provided.

So in summary:

1. Microsoft requires a recovery solution to be made available with the sale of a computer.

2. This recovery can be recovery partition, DVD and/or USB

3. DVD or USB recovery can only be made by an Authorized Replicator (see lawsuit mention in the quote)

The complaints people have about the recovery media not coming with the computer or having to pay for it later are against the OEM and not Microsoft. This is a decision the OEM has made to keep costs down. Sony, for example, used recovery CD sales in XP days as a profit booster. If it cost them $10 per disc to make it, they would sell them for $60.

 

 

Thanks for the explanation, Trip.

 

My first experience with the no-DVD policy was in 2008 when I bought my first Vista PC (a Hewlett-Packard model). Even in my technologically-challenged condition back then, I remember my first reaction being, "What?! I can't believe how cheap they're getting!", and my second reaction being, "Hey, what if the hard drive crashes? That partition thing's gonna be useless!"

 

As part of my purchase, the store made recovery disks for me, but in the back of my head I always wondered about all those people out there who wouldn't know to make them, or would never get around to doing it. It seemed a needless risk to make this an extra step.

 

--JorgeA

Edited January 20, 2016 by JorgeA

[JorgeA]

 

Whoa! 

 

What movie is that poster from?

 

--JorgeA

Looks like some Half Life game (mod). Notice the lambda letter instead of 'n' in 'windows'.

 

 

Ah, thanks!

 

--JorgeA

[jaclaz]

@NoelC RE:Secureboot

I am not too sure about the matter.

 

The issue is (thank goodness) not "generalized" though there are some reports of PC's (AFAICR only tablets or "small screen" laptops) without the "Secureboot" toggling option or with it really well hidden or where a BIOS UEFI firmware upgrade was needed to have the option.

The secureboot is mandatory (and cannot be disabled) on ARM devices (think "Windows RT" or non-pro Surface) but given the diffusion of this kind of devices is a really minor problem.

 

However and in any case there are third party bootloaders (or boot shims) that are certified so it is overall only a nuisance, let's call it a failed attempt to monopolize the market (while AFAIK the certification process is still a monopoly).

 

In this secureboot mess however - though the good MS guys certainly had their relevance in the decision - the root cause is IMHO overall a flaw (among the many) in either the UEFI specifications or in the way the firmware has been implemented (or badly modified by the OEM) or in the way the signing was setup, or a combination of all these, if I were to look for something to blame I would choose primarily the UEFI (please read as "Intel") guys, actually the good MS guys  required that secureboot should be switchable on/off when Windows 8 came out, though they made every possible attempt to make the signing procedure "inaccessible" or at least very, very, "unfriendly".

 

The "news" at the time being that this is (possibly) not anymore required for Windows 10 and this could allow OEM's to remove the toggle, see:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2900536/windows-10s-secure-boot-requirement-could-make-installing-linux-a-big-headache.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2901262/microsoft-tightens-windows-10s-secure-boot-screws-where-does-that-leave-linux.html

 

But of course IF they do that it is THEIR responsibility.

 

jaclaz

Edited January 20, 2016 by jaclaz

[NoelC]

OK, so perhaps I'm not *quite* as stupid and ignorant as I thought.  Thanks for the additional info.

 

I wouldn't make a good modern scientist.  I try too hard to test theory against observed phenomenon.  Nor marketer...  I have an overriding tendency to consider the real world the reference.

 

-Noel

[TELVM]

I've not yet seen a desktop PC mobo lacking the option to disable secure boot in BIOS. Were that to change in the future, courtesy of Microborg 'advice', I'd just refuse to buy any locked up mobo.