A few details are here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2016/01/02/microsoft-windows-7-problems/
Microsoft has something on their pages that warns about using WinXP so they're probably doing the same for other non-Win10 machines, I blocked that ages ago using adblocking software when Win7 or Win8 came out when they started that annoyance notification rubbish. They just want people to use their newest spyware OS.
I just recently replaced hardware to get my WinXP computer running again, and that old dog of a PC I think is more secure (even without monthly updates) the way I have it configured compared to my mothers brand new Dell laptop running Win10 which I view as insecure spyware.
It seems odd that they have waited until now to tell people Win 7 isn't safe
Methinks Microsoft are trying even harder to make people move to Win 10 by trying to frighten them.
Most operating systems are safe if they are set up correctly and secured with up to date tools.
I have a Win 7 and a Win 10 machine, and the Win 7 machine will be staying as it is. It's my machine..my rules.
"...Win10 which I view as insecure spyware" >gasp< . . . Just when I was about to upgrade.
@ Andavari: You said " . . . the way I have it configured "
That is a huge issue, mostly overlooked. The vast majority of mere mortals have neither the time nor knowledge to secure an OS after windows comes out with a new model. As a result, most business owners and government entities MUST update and pay the fee. For liability control.
The profit from that goes to microsoft and is paid for by everybody, either in taxes or the cost of products.
Edit:
One small office I know of had to upgrade 6 or 7 computers.
With new professional software and other expenses, cost $30,000.
One government organization had to upgrade thirty thousand (30,000) computers.
Cost unknown, but they get sort of pale looking when you ask'em.
I just recently replaced hardware to get my WinXP computer running again, and that old dog of a PC I think is more secure (even without monthly updates) the way I have it configured compared to my mothers brand new Dell laptop running Win10 which I view as insecure spyware.
i share his statement
"...Win10 which I view as insecure spyware" >gasp< . . . Just when I was about to upgrade.
I should clarify, that comment is based upon a base computer without adding additional security software or settings, and just relying upon an antivirus which isn't really much protection/security at all.
I've read links Hazelnut linked in a topic not to long ago about 3rd party tools to turn off the junk in Win10, although I'm not willing to use any on my mothers laptop since well it isn't my computer and I don't know what I'd cripple, but if it were my computer I'd turn off allot of the spying aspects and especially the annoyances I encountered popping up when I removed that McAfee rubbish from the laptop she told Dell not to put on but they did anyway.
Out-of-the-box any Windows computer regardless of OS version is very insecure, some tinkering is required to avoid being compromised, i.e.; HOSTS file, browser adblocking, SpywareBlaster, etc., and a computer with factory defaults doesn't use any of that other than antivirus. Layered security through 3rd party programs, but some tinkering in the OS settings is also needed although my tinkering would probably cripple a laptops Wi-Fi abilities.
Quite right. That's what I understood you to mean. Actually you are being generous, though.
Not too long ago, software was considered malware if it:
1. Collected information about you and sent it to its masters without permission,
2. Made significant system changes to your OS without permission,
3. Add / removed software without permission
4. Made deceptive claims about its functioning,
Quite right. That's what I understood you to mean. Actually you are being generous, though.
Not too long ago, software was considered malware if it:
1. Collected information about you and sent it to its masters without permission,
2. Made significant system changes to your OS without permission,
3. Add / removed software without permission
4. Made deceptive claims about its functioning,
that could well describe most Windows OS's.
It explained XP too I clearly remember before I had a PC with it installed all the uproar on security related sites about it being spyware.
It seems odd that they have waited until now to tell people Win 7 isn't safe
Methinks Microsoft are trying even harder to make people move to Win 10 by trying to frighten them.
Most operating systems are safe if they are set up correctly and secured with up to date tools.
I have a Win 7 and a Win 10 machine, and the Win 7 machine will be staying as it is. It's my machine..my rules.
My sentiments also hazelnut, I maintain it's a typical Microsoft structured "marketing ploy" to frighten the maddening crowd into "upgrading". With layered security running and it's going to be 90% safe and I love your final words hazelnut "It's my machine..my rules" Beautifully said. These days in retirement I also only run 1 x Win 7 and 1 x Win 10..........I donated my XP unit to a worthy Uni student that could not yet afford a new PC.
Based upon an experience I had just recently, I truly believe that Microsoft is deliberately trying to discourage people from using Windows 7 and upgrade to Windows 10 instead.
Just after Thanksgiving I created a backup image of Windows 7 using Macrium Reflect, then used the machine for test installs of several Linux and BSD operating systems I've been meaning to try. Last week I decided to put Windows 7 back on the machine. Naturally, two months had passed and everything needed updating, including Firefox, Avira, Malwarebytes, and CCleaner just to name a few. I saved the Windows system updates for last, and that's where the fun began.
After clicking "Check for updates", I had to wait 50 minutes for it to come back and list the 23 updates that were available: 20 important and 3 optional. All were left unchecked with the exception of the very last optional update: Install Windows 10. I thought that was being a bit sneaky, since the optional updates are listed on their own separate page, and if you're not paying attention, you could unintentionally install Windows 10. So I unchecked that one, checked everything else, then proceeded to download and install. That took just over an hour! So in all, it took me about 2 hours to download 22 updates and install them, which is simply ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. I'm waiting for January's update Tuesday to see if this "agony of waiting" repeats itself.
---> See my follow-up to this post below!
After clicking "Check for updates", I had to wait 50 minutes for it to come back and list the 23 updates that were available: 20 important and 3 optional. All were left unchecked with the exception of the very last optional update: Install Windows 10. I thought that was being a bit sneaky, since the optional updates are listed on their own separate page, and if you're not paying attention, you could unintentionally install Windows 10. So I unchecked that one, checked everything else, then proceeded to download and install. That took just over an hour! So in all, it took me about 2 hours to download 22 updates and install them, which is simply ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. I'm waiting for January's update Tuesday to see if this "agony of waiting" repeats itself.
similar on my vista :-)) ofcourse without w10 upgrade
That took just over an hour! So in all, it took me about 2 hours to download 22 updates and install them, which is simply ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. I'm waiting for January's update Tuesday to see if this "agony of waiting" repeats itself.
That was the normal experience I faced on XP whenever they released "security" updates for .NET Framework, it would sit there for 45 minutes at least during the install phase - so no I don NOT miss the monthly updates at all and good riddance to them.
@ Derek891.
I have found 27 updates which will "probably" try to update to win10. Most lists are shorter than that.
Avoiding win10 is whole bunch more trouble than its worth. A whole bunch. ![:angry:]()
A Startpage search for "windows 7 telemetry updates to avoid" finds lots of useful information.
It finds this page, which purports to be a complete list. Maybe it is??
http://www.paulstenning.com/windows-gwx-and-telemetry-updates-to-avoid/
Today is Feb. 9th, 2016 (a.k.a. Update Tuesday for this month). I began checking for updates to Windows 7 at 1:37PM and the list of 12 available updates did not appear until 2:59PM. Then download and installation took until 3:12PM. So that's a total of 1 hour and 35 minutes for 12 updates! That confirms it as far as I'm concerned: Microsoft is deliberately making this process as slow and agonizing as possible for Windows 7 users in order to encourage them to upgrade to Windows 10.
@derek,
any idea how many megabytes those 12 updates were?
how was your bandwidth speed/latency at the time?
don't get me wrong, I'm seeing crazy times with Win7 updates too - but in MS's defence, there are many more 'closer to home' factors that control download speed.
My Win10 will update at 3:30AM this morning. It can take all the time it wants. I'll be asleep.
@Tas
Win 7 64bit.
5.40 am.... turn on machine and click check for updates.
6.20 am..... updates downloaded and installed.
20 important updates (I have Office on this machine)
No optionals done yet.
Time taken includes the MSRT scan.
If you get any .NET Framework updates installed the following service it what caused XP to take forever to finish updating:
.NET Runtime Optimization Service
You'll see this process running viable via Task Manager when it's doing its slow evil dance called "optimization":
mscorsvw.exe
Don't bother trying to stop it, it will just continue on restart if you attempt to thwart it.
If you get any .NET Framework updates installed the following service it what caused XP to take forever to finish updating:.NET Runtime Optimization Service
For win xp, I downloaded and saved the.net updates, and sp3, onto an external HDD. If a full system restore (back to square 1) is needed I can install them offline, saves download time and seems to install them quicker. The storage space is cheaper than the time required imho. Don't know if anybody else does that, but it works.
It may not be necessary if one makes proper backups, but there is always the chance that you'll have to start from scratch again.
i plan to do the same thing with win 7, maybe win 8.1. That is, save all the big backups locally.