GWX - it just keeps getting worse

On 01/14/16 11:28, Nil so wittily quipped:
On 14 Jan 2016, Big Bad Bob
wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10:

hopefully I'm *BITCHING* to the right person, because over on the
'answers.microsoft' forum, all they do is BAN and DELETE our posts
when we have LEGIT COMPLAINTS. They're "fed up with us" over
there [because there is a LOT to complain about!]

Well, no, you're not. This is a user forum, there is no official
Microsoft presence here. And the person you're bitching toward is a
Microsoft shill and apologist and has never said anything even slightly
critical of the Father Company. If don't know if he has MS's ear, but
it's clear that even if he did your complaint would never pass through
him to them.


ah, damn. you're probably right.

On 01/14/16 14:14, Nil so wittily quipped:
On 14 Jan 2016, ". . .winston" wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10:

Try adding something of value.

I'm not here to give something of value to Microsoft. It's their job
to give something of value to me. They used to do that. Now I'm not
so sure.

I might even include your multiple nym's giving MSFT the
impression that it was mentioned by more than one individual.

Your superior powers of perception are failing you. I don't use
multiple nyms.

As noted, you've no clue, nor will you ever, on what I feedback to
the Team in any MSFT sponsored Program Group Interaction or
private listserv.

You give some good technical advice here sometimes, but it always
comes bundled with a heaping dose of the attitude that "Microsoft is
right and you are wrong and you deserve to be left in the dust."
I've never even once detected a hint from you that you disagree with
any Microsoft policy or action. Nor have I seen any complaint
discussed here addressed by Microsoft. THAT's why I seriously doubt
you pass on any criticism to them.


looks like I stirred up a hornet's nest. and it's odd to see a
Microsoft MVP nearly acting like a troll!

GWX is a MAJOR attitude problem with Microsoft as a corporation. The
decision to SHOVE WINDOWS 10 at people who do NOT want it is just,
plain, wrong, on SO many levels.

"something of value" indeed. THERE's a _subjective_ requirement!

So go ahead and offer W10 for free. Just don't try and *MAKE* *ME*
*DOWNLOAD* *IT* (let alone INSTALL it). I need my 7 machines as-is for
testing and software development, k-thx.

On 14/01/2016 20:48, . . .winston wrote:
Like any other update you can decide to install 3035583 or not. GWX is
only for the free update and limited to the qualifying o/s(7Sp1, 8.1
Update versions)
....snip...


Problem is, GWX and Windows10 itself are not normal "updates" to Windows
7/8.x.
They are an upgrade tool and a full-fledged new operating system!
Pushing them as normal "updates", even "recommended updates", is plain
wrong. It's wrong because they won't give you an "updated", bettered,
Windows 7/8.x. Instead, they will replace 7/8.x with 10, and that's and
upgrade, not an "update".
Even worse if you think of Windows 10's sheer download size.

On top of all that, there was a technical error: an "optional update"
being checked by default. A mistake which MS admitted, at least.

"As part of our effort to bring Windows 10 to existing genuine Windows 7
and Windows 8.1 customers, the Windows 10 upgrade may appear as an
optional update in the Windows Update (WU) control panel. This is an
intuitive and trusted place people go to find Recommended and Optional
updates to Windows. In the recent Windows update, this option was
checked as default; this was a mistake and we are removing the check."

http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft...-automatically

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:26:41 -0500, burfordTjustice wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:48:58 -0500 ". . .winston"
wrote:

(honey works better than acid)


PKB!

More accurately phrased, "Honey works better than vinegar." derived from
the saying, "You can attract more flies with honey than you can with
vinegar."

--
Johnny B Good

Nil wrote on 01/14/2016 5:14 PM:
On 14 Jan 2016, ". . .winston" wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10:

Try adding something of value.

I'm not here to give something of value to Microsoft. It's their job
to give something of value to me. They used to do that. Now I'm not
so sure.

I might even include your multiple nym's giving MSFT the
impression that it was mentioned by more than one individual.

Your superior powers of perception are failing you. I don't use
multiple nyms.

As noted, you've no clue, nor will you ever, on what I feedback to
the Team in any MSFT sponsored Program Group Interaction or
private listserv.

You give some good technical advice here sometimes, but it always
comes bundled with a heaping dose of the attitude that "Microsoft is
right and you are wrong and you deserve to be left in the dust."
I've never even once detected a hint from you that you disagree with
any Microsoft policy or action. Nor have I seen any complaint
discussed here addressed by Microsoft. THAT's why I seriously doubt
you pass on any criticism to them.

Look closely Nil...see if you can find anything that recommends to use a
MSFT product. I will provide MSFT's point of view to ensure the often
misinformed false views presented by others in this forum aren't taken
as fact. Some folks just don't like to hear it. Occasionally some
feedback not previously known is discussed in this forum that really
does warrant sending it back up the ladder.

Time though has changed how MSFT reacts to public information on
complaints and problems. Product(Win10) change requests unless show
stoppers and complaints receive priority via the Insiders Program.
Problem resolution is via the Answers forums with escalation only if not
previously reviewed or falling under existing support.

Multiple complaints here have been addressed by MSFT though the majority
of complaints are centered on making Win10 more XP/Win7 like...some
addressed but it would be a pipe dream to expect a regression to the
past o/s GUI, feature set, telemetry approach and privacy - those last
four pretty much some up the majority of complaints - and just like the
last few years those issues may be tweaked slightly but for the most
part are not consistent with MSFT plan or direction.






--
...winston
msft mvp windows experience

snip

we who frequent alt.hacker know how to deal with trolls.

Didn't really intend to do that. In the chess newsgroup we have this one guy
named Sam Sloan who when you respond to his post he will crosspost it to
politics, lawyers, etc etc. What has that got to friggin do with chess?!?! I
had to respond to that guy. It is this utter arrogance that has hurt the
consumer. When Bill Gates went through the trash I wonder if he did it for
revenge against IBM or give access to the people as a good cause. I like to
use the line in Last of the Mohicans movie when DDL faces the Huron chief
Sacheem. Mogwai's (Bill Gates) heart is twisted. And he would make himself
into what twisted him.

EZoto

On 01/15/16 08:01, . . .winston so wittily quipped:
the majority of complaints are centered on making Win10 more XP/Win7
like...some addressed but it would be a pipe dream to expect a
regression to the past o/s GUI, feature set, telemetry approach and
privacy - those last four pretty much some up the majority of complaints

YES, they DO sum up the majority of complaints, don't they?

Seen the marketing info on W10 lately? Just curious.

You'd think that Microsoft would treat CUSTOMERS in a way that GIVES!
THE! CUSTOMER! WHAT! HE! WANTS! instead of **ARROGANTLY** **DICTATING**
to "the masses" that THIS! IS! WHAT! YOU! WILL! TAKE!!!

It's a RECIPE for DISASTER.

Future project development by software professionals [ones that haven't
totally become coolaid drinkers and bought into the "the METRO" ******]
need to take a really GOOD look at what OS their future projects target.

1. no need for ".Not" [aka '.Net'] on Linux or OSX

2. cross-platform looks pretty good at the moment

3. If you target Windows, target Windows 7 [or even XP] as the minimum
OS. It's not that hard to do, just a header file change will do for
native Win32 API appLICATIONS. In my opinion, you lose NOTHING by doing
this. If you want some "special thing", code it in the message handling
and use custom draw code. NOT that hard, been there, done that, since
the 90's. EASY with MFC [and it lets you STATICALLY LINK everything,
avoiding DLL HELL by NOT using things that some stupid downloaded
"app(sic)" might ruin].


SMART development will *AVOID* "the METRO". Not only do the apps(sic)
take LONGER TO LOAD [I measured this myself, multiple times] than NATIVE
(Win32) appLICATIONS, but they RUN SLOWER and typically show 100% CPU
running *THE* *ENTIRE* *TIME* [thereby KILLING battery life and
overheating the CPU, maybe even increase your electric bill]. Not very
"green", is it? Even if it's "idling" the 100% CPU usage will prevent
CPU frequency throttling from working. I pointed this out back in 9926,
and it's *STILL* not fixed. I even said why! I even gave code examples
on how to fix it!

You know that *THAT* sort of thing is REALLY FRUSTRATING, when something
so INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS to the MOST CASUAL OBSERVER gets IGNORED like that.

And the SAME goes for the 3D skeumorphic appearance of EVERY version of
windows between 3.0 and 7, which HELPED TO SELL THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE,
and OUTSOLD "Ape" (8) when 7 machines FLEW off of the shelves, and 8
machines collected dust, a couple of years ago.

So the comparison *IS* in. Yet, it's *IGNORED* by Microsoft!

THIS is the point I make. GWX tries to *SHOVE* windows 10 UP OUR ASSES,
whether we WANT it or NOT. Now it targets BUSINESSES and PROFESSIONALS,
as WELL as home users. KB3035583 "morphed" into something that tries to
KEEP ITSELF RUNNING, even if you EXPLICITLY say "I do not want this".


WHAT! kind of ATTITUDE! would THIS! be if BURGER! KING! served you a
**** SANDWICH in place of a WHOPPER??? "We *FEEL* that you should have
*THIS* instead, so we substituted our **** SANDWICH for your WHOPPER.
Have it OUR way, because WE CAN."


That is *NOT* a good attitude for customer service, now is it? And
yet... that is *EXACTLY* what Microsoft is doing, via GWX and their
policies of *IGNORING* customer desires, and *SHOVING* an INFERIOR
OPERATING SYSTEM out the door like it's gonna be accepted only on the
basis that it's "new" and called "modern" by the MARKET DROIDS.

"Big Bad Bob" wrote:

3. If you target Windows, target Windows 7 [or even XP] as the minimum
OS.

No! Target Windows 2000 (or even NT4) as the minimum. Win2k was the
fastest most stable OS MS ever released and I'm still using it.
I try to make anything I write (which isn't much) compatible with
Win95 and NT4 onwards. I use an old compiler but add a manifest
resource to make the program play and look nice on a modern OS.

Big Bad Bob wrote on 01/15/2016 6:59 PM:
On 01/15/16 08:01, . . .winston so wittily quipped:
the majority of complaints are centered on making Win10 more XP/Win7
like...some addressed but it would be a pipe dream to expect a
regression to the past o/s GUI, feature set, telemetry approach and
privacy - those last four pretty much some up the majority of complaints

YES, they DO sum up the majority of complaints, don't they?

That's what I said.

Seen the marketing info on W10 lately? Just curious.

Marketing is marketing...intended to promote or sell product. Nothing
more. Complaints about marketing are futile.

You'd think that Microsoft would treat customers in a way that gives!
the! Customer! What! He! Wants! Instead of **arrogantly** **dictating**
to "the masses" that this! Is! What! You! Will! Take!!!

Preaching to the choir.


snipped (more preaching to the choir)




--
...winston
msft mvp windows experience

On 16 Jan 2016, ". . .winston" wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10:

Big Bad Bob wrote on 01/15/2016 6:59 PM:

You'd think that Microsoft would treat customers in a way that
gives! the! Customer! What! He! Wants! Instead of **arrogantly**
**dictating** to "the masses" that this! Is! What! You! Will!
Take!!!

Preaching to the choir.

Are you in the choir?

On 1/14/2016 4:06 PM, . . .winston wrote:
Nil wrote on 01/14/2016 3:46 PM:
On 14 Jan 2016, ". . .winston" wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10:

You've no clue or ability to know what I pass on.

I have a clue (you yourself provided them,) but no ability to know of
course.

One thing is certain if you ever posted something of value it
might actually get passed on,

That's a mighty "might". I feel quite certain that you never pass
any criticism on to anybody at Microsoft who is in any position to
do anything about anything.

until then you can reasonable assume your words are wasted.

I assume that all words posted here are wasted on Microsoft. They
don't know what we say, and they don't care.

Try adding something of value. I might even include your multiple nym's
giving MSFT the impression that it was mentioned by more than one
individual. As noted, you've no clue, nor will you ever, on what I
feedback to the Team in any MSFT sponsored Program Group Interaction or
private listserv.


Your remarks show clearly an arrogance. You know, like from the hood.
The streets. Gangster mentality. No desire to learn. Only a desire to
dictate. To control. Your feedback to MSFT sponsored blah blah is to
find ways on how to make sure people don't learn computers but only the
way MS dictates to them. You will only help people when you feel
threatened. Here is something of value that you ignore since no one has
a clue what you do. Nothing. Because that is how your society is.

EZoto

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:59:21 -0800, Big Bad Bob
wrote:


You'd think that Microsoft would treat CUSTOMERS in a way that GIVES!
THE! CUSTOMER! WHAT! HE! WANTS! instead of **ARROGANTLY** **DICTATING**
to "the masses" that THIS! IS! WHAT! YOU! WILL! TAKE!!!


I don't *think* Microsoft would do what I want them to do, but I
certainly *wish* it would give the customers more choices. And when it
does give choices, I wish they wouldn't hide the choices the way they
so often do.

On 16/01/2016 06:08, . . .winston wrote:
....
Marketing is marketing...intended to promote or sell product. Nothing
more. Complaints about marketing are futile.

Marketing is worse than futile if it leads to mass complaints.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:59:21 -0800, Big Bad Bob wrote:

On 01/15/16 08:01, . . .winston so wittily quipped:
the majority of complaints are centered on making Win10 more XP/Win7
like...some addressed but it would be a pipe dream to expect a
regression to the past o/s GUI, feature set, telemetry approach and
privacy - those last four pretty much some up the majority of
complaints

YES, they DO sum up the majority of complaints, don't they?

Seen the marketing info on W10 lately? Just curious.

You'd think that Microsoft would treat CUSTOMERS in a way that GIVES!
THE! CUSTOMER! WHAT! HE! WANTS! instead of **ARROGANTLY** **DICTATING**
to "the masses" that THIS! IS! WHAT! YOU! WILL! TAKE!!!

This has been exactly their strategy since win98 and then, in the NT
line, winXP.


It's a RECIPE for DISASTER.


Apparently not (at least up to now). The response to winX in this NG is
no guide to the response from MSFT's target market, the great unwashed
consumer, which is the only market segment that counts in their view.

--
Johnny B Good

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 01:23:55 +0000, Ant wrote:

"Big Bad Bob" wrote:

3. If you target Windows, target Windows 7 [or even XP] as the minimum
OS.

No! Target Windows 2000 (or even NT4) as the minimum. Win2k was the
fastest most stable OS MS ever released and I'm still using it.

Well said! :-)

I try to make anything I write (which isn't much) compatible with Win95
and NT4 onwards. I use an old compiler but add a manifest resource to
make the program play and look nice on a modern OS.

It's interesting that you include win95 (presumably osr2 - the *real*
deal rather than the rushed to market RC1 version).

The blatant pandering to the great unwashed consumer at the expense of
the needs of computer *users* didn't kick in until those execrable
versions, win98 and winXP, were foisted on a gullible public. And, it's
been a rapid plunge downhill since then.

--
Johnny B Good