If you do a search on Google for “what happens if I refuse to download and install Microsoft patches” you will find a plethora of websites all insisting that only an irresponsible IT cad would ever not immediately do as Microsoft tells them to do and download and install the patches.
But there is a plot twist. Microsoft does not want to let you decide whether or not you should install the patches: Windows 10 decides for you. It just goes right ahead and locks up your computer for up to two hours while it installs the latest giga-patch, over your connection to your ISP at your cost. If you’re lucky and have unlimited downloads, the only problem you have is that your computer will not be available to you for the length of time it takes to download and install the patch.
If you pay for overages, you might have a real problem.
As I said, you have no choice. At least, not without some hacking.
I am stunned by this attitude of Microsoft. No, I’m not. I’m stunned by the passive acceptance of this state of things by the millions of users of Windows 10. There is some complaining out there, but the usual process is “massive outcry” followed by a swift retrenchment by the Corporation along with soothing messages about trying to please their customers who, after all, are the heart of our blah blah blah.
And then they back off. And all is well again.
Not this time. Microsoft is determined to shove this change down everybody’s throats. I know people who were in the middle of important meetings at work when their laptop suddenly went into “choke off any possibility of function mode” while downloading and installing numerous extremely large system patches. They were furious.
A few years ago, I had a spare computer running Windows 2000 which I left online, connected to the internet, unprotected, for several years. Just for fun. Nothing much happened to it, but then, I’m a reasonably astute user not likely to install some strange application or macro, or click on buttons that promise to remove a dangerous virus that is not on my computer.
Conventional wisdom is that these patches are intended to improve the safety and security of your system. Microsoft tells you that they also improve the functionality of your system but there is no public outcry for constant, continuous addition of new functionalities. The argument is essentially “security”, but Microsoft appears more than happy to blur this distinction.
Is there any possible reason Microsoft might be fudging this distinction as part of an over-all strategy? Is it possible that Microsoft is sick and disgusted with people purchasing software with their computer and then not forking over more and more money to them on a continuous basis in order to keep their coffers bulging?
I use Office 2003 myself. Yes, 14 years old and counting. I absolutely despise the later versions of Office, all of which are kludgey, clumsy, confusing, and stupid. Am I telling you that Microsoft doesn’t know how to design a user interface? Are you telling me that Microsoft thinks you’ll pay for Office 2014 if it has loads of new features that you will never need or use and looks just like Office 2003? But then, they don’t give you the chance to decide whether your would like it or not anyway. It’s going to come pre-installed.
You cannot go out and buy Office 2003 (except “used”– a grey area since software companies in general say that you can’t do that). Why not? What other industry gets away with preventing you from using old versions of their products? (Microsoft will try to convince you that new features and security patches make it impossible to continue to use old paid-for software on an indefinite basis even if you want to.)
So, they need to persuade you that you are not buying software that you might already have (like Office 2003). They need to persuade you that you have to pay for it again and again and again– but don’t cry– for all the amazing new features and fabulously redesigned menus that you demanded.
[whohit]Microsoft Can Do Whatever They Damn Well Please[/whohit]