Just read that as of Oct. 1st, Windows 7 & 8 users will no longer be able to select which updates to install. It's all or nothing. This is so Microsoft can force those of us who heretofore, who've been able to deselect those little sneaky Windows 10 upgrade files that are always included with important security update files will no longer be able to do so. The end result being everyone who continues to keep their computer up to date with the latest patches will have Windows 10 shoved down our throats. The article can be found in ComputerWorld.

There are so many computers still running win98, and XP that are no longer updated. I just dont see it as a big deal. When my laptop dies I wont replace it, so Microsoft will loose another customer.

Saw this, but it may not be as disasterous as it sounds. When I bought my latest computer from Dell last year it had 8.1 with an additional rollup of updates. When you went into the update list you could still select and remove "most" of them--although not the very worst. Secondly, MSFT has a track record of caving in to public pressure, especially on the business side. I am hopeful that when the time comes there will still be a method for selecting updates. However, I know that MSFT hopes to put everyone on the win10 "vanilla is for everyone" forced updates, and has found great success doing so with win10.I DO NOT think there will be forced upgrades to win10. However, before I allow myself to be forced into something I don't want, I will just stop updating.

Sorry but Microsoft is a business and that said they are not going to provide free service for models that are old, period. I have 10 on 2 of my computers, no problems, no strain, no issues in learning. Bottom line here is you can always get a Mac but to be on the PC floor you need 10.

my previous laptop had win7this warranty replacement came with win8.1the first thing i did was turn off ALL updatesi don't have the win10 update fileMS can keep ALL their updatesi even stopped updating firefox

tomman58 wrote:Sorry but Microsoft is a business and that said they are not going to provide free service for models that are old, period.It looks like just the opposite. The OP is talking about being provided something with no choice.

Windows 7 - No More Choosing Updates | Good Sam Community

road-runner
Explorer III
Aug 20, 2016
I've been using Mint Cinnamon. If you're a windows user, the UI is almost identical, while with Ubuntu you have to retrain yourself.
1492
Moderator
Aug 19, 2016
braindead0 wrote:
1492 wrote:
pconroy328 wrote:
I run Ubuntu on my PCs. Not for the novice but it is so wonderful not to have to deal with the MS garbage.

A sheer joy.

Most WIN/MAC users will find Linux environments intimidating, as many applications require using command line to setup. Though once you understand the concept, it can be refreshing to download/install apps with a just a few lines. Bypassing convoluted installers.

Personally, I prefer CentOS, the free version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and use it at work everyday as my Drupal development environment.
CentOS is good for servers with long term support (I use it for critical infrastructure). Most users would have an easier time with Mint or Ubuntu.. shouldn't require touching a shell to setup what most people use (email, web, word processing, etc). CentOS is IMO not suitable for desktop use for most people

Which is exactly why I don't recommend CentOS for average users, suggesting they try MINT. Though have never personally installed it myself.

In fact, if you're not careful during CentOS setup. You'll bypass the option to install the GNOME Desktop GUI, and just end up with a command prompt at the end. Though with GNOME running, comes with common apps such as Libre Office and Firefox, functions very similar to MAC OS.
sherlock62
Explorer
Aug 19, 2016
greenrvgreen wrote:
What's wrong with paying $120 for an OS? I'd pay a lot more than that if they took all the spyware out. All the rush and hoopla and slogans and get-with-the-program coercion was simply about saving $120. IMO, that's crazy.

I paid $100 for the OS I'm running and I'm happy with it, and I don't care what MSFT thinks about that. I'm certainly not going to abandon an OS I've fully configured to my liking--and that I OWN--for a rental OS that is riddled with spyware.

Unless your current config has problems, there is ZERO reason to upgrade your OS without upgrading your hardware. And doing it to save $120 on something most people don't need or want (until MSFT told them to want it) is the very flimsiest of reasons.

-1
braindead0
Explorer
Aug 19, 2016
1492 wrote:
pconroy328 wrote:
I run Ubuntu on my PCs. Not for the novice but it is so wonderful not to have to deal with the MS garbage.

A sheer joy.

Most WIN/MAC users will find Linux environments intimidating, as many applications require using command line to setup. Though once you understand the concept, it can be refreshing to download/install apps with a just a few lines. Bypassing convoluted installers.

Personally, I prefer CentOS, the free version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and use it at work everyday as my Drupal development environment.
CentOS is good for servers with long term support (I use it for critical infrastructure). Most users would have an easier time with Mint or Ubuntu.. shouldn't require touching a shell to setup what most people use (email, web, word processing, etc). CentOS is IMO not suitable for desktop use for most people
1492
Moderator
Aug 19, 2016
strollin wrote:
minnow wrote:
... So despite another member here telling me to relax, I think I will still check each update for these files.

More power to you. Complete waste of time but it's your time to waste.

Even if you wanted to upgrade to Win 10 now you couldn't (there is still a way but it isn't thru Windows Update). MS now wants you to pay $120 for Win 10.

The advantage of getting WIN 10 during the free upgrade period was for "digital entitlement", registering your product key to your hardware. You could then go back to your previous WIN OS. Yet have the option of installing WIN 10 for free in the future. You now have to pay for WIN 10 upgrade, forced updates and all.

I decided to keep WIN 10 on my notebooks previously running WIN 8.1. But not inclined to use WIN 10 on previous WIN 7 PCs. Though I do have one NetBook running both WIN 7 and WIN 10(previous WIN 8.1) dual-boot.
1492
Moderator
Aug 19, 2016
pconroy328 wrote:
I run Ubuntu on my PCs. Not for the novice but it is so wonderful not to have to deal with the MS garbage.

A sheer joy.

Most WIN/MAC users will find Linux environments intimidating, as many applications require using command line to setup. Though once you understand the concept, it can be refreshing to download/install apps with a just a few lines. Bypassing convoluted installers.

Personally, I prefer CentOS, the free version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and use it at work everyday as my Drupal development environment.
1492
Moderator
Aug 19, 2016
braindead0 wrote:
FUD. Windows 7 update still functions as before. You can block the get windows 10 app easily, and you can also turn off OS upgrades both achieved via registry or windows policy settings.

We still sell new machines to our customers with Windows 7 installed (provided by Dell no less).

Though I'm not involved in desktop support at work, that's all we buy for our enterprise environment. DELL WIN 7 Pro or Enterprise. Even though WIN 10 has now been approved for use on our enterprise network.

DELL provides us pre-imaged PCs to our specs, though tend to already be out of date, requiring our desktop support staff to re-image all new PCs.

I've modified my Dell office PC by adding a faster SSD, and nVidia GeForce GTX-750 overclocked card. Which is running perfectly stable under the stock DELL 280-watt P.S., using only PCI bus power. Vastly improves media encoding speeds, bumping the WIN index to 7.4. Though primarily use the DELL PC for office tasks, and remote SSH client to servers. Graphics work on an iMAC.
monkey44
Nomad II
Aug 19, 2016
bcsdguy wrote:
greenrvgreen wrote:
What's wrong with paying $120 for an OS? I'd pay a lot more than that if they took all the spyware out. All the rush and hoopla and slogans and get-with-the-program coercion was simply about saving $120. IMO, that's crazy.

I paid $100 for the OS I'm running and I'm happy with it, and I don't care what MSFT thinks about that. I'm certainly not going to abandon an OS I've fully configured to my liking--and that I OWN--for a rental OS that is riddled with spyware.

Unless your current config has problems, there is ZERO reason to upgrade your OS without upgrading your hardware. And doing it to save $120 on something most people don't need or want (until MSFT told them to want it) is the very flimsiest of reasons.

X2

X3 :)
bcsdguy
Explorer
Aug 19, 2016
greenrvgreen wrote:
What's wrong with paying $120 for an OS? I'd pay a lot more than that if they took all the spyware out. All the rush and hoopla and slogans and get-with-the-program coercion was simply about saving $120. IMO, that's crazy.

I paid $100 for the OS I'm running and I'm happy with it, and I don't care what MSFT thinks about that. I'm certainly not going to abandon an OS I've fully configured to my liking--and that I OWN--for a rental OS that is riddled with spyware.

Unless your current config has problems, there is ZERO reason to upgrade your OS without upgrading your hardware. And doing it to save $120 on something most people don't need or want (until MSFT told them to want it) is the very flimsiest of reasons.

X2
greenrvgreen
Explorer
Aug 18, 2016
What's wrong with paying $120 for an OS? I'd pay a lot more than that if they took all the spyware out. All the rush and hoopla and slogans and get-with-the-program coercion was simply about saving $120. IMO, that's crazy.

I paid $100 for the OS I'm running and I'm happy with it, and I don't care what MSFT thinks about that. I'm certainly not going to abandon an OS I've fully configured to my liking--and that I OWN--for a rental OS that is riddled with spyware.

Unless your current config has problems, there is ZERO reason to upgrade your OS without upgrading your hardware. And doing it to save $120 on something most people don't need or want (until MSFT told them to want it) is the very flimsiest of reasons.