Windows 10 upgrade is FORCE installing to Win 7/8/8.1 PC's, without user consent!

Users in general have no idea what is going on with their PCs. They might have reserved it unintentionally or have forgotten about it. Saying "I never installed Google toolbar" means they did install it but didn't uncheck some box when they were updating some program. There's really no way to demonstrate that the did or didn't reserve the upgrade. I can't know either way, and neither can you. So tell them: "Oh, okay, you don't remember reserving it, then let's just unreserve it and maybe disable auto-updates if you don't want them enabled."

I posted a pic from the OOBE for Win7. There is no default there. The user must pick an update setting to continue and use their system. Whether or not the user can read or understands the information being presented is another matter entirely. Again, users have no idea what's going on with their PCs. The requirement for the OOBE on first boot is part of the licensing terms set by MS to OEMs and windows also defaults to OOBE when installed.
1) Do you understand that when going through the Windows install process, the user must go through OOBE?
2) Do you acknowledge that when going through the OOBE for Win7 that there is no default update setting?
3) Do you understand that users must explicitly decide to set their upgrade setting in Win7's OOBE, which may or may not be changed later, in order to use their PCs?

I think this is the root of our disagreement. In my view, the user giving their consent and acknowledgment is enough. I'm not really worried about specific implementation details. An update isn't "FORCED" if you change some setting somewhere from enabled->disabled and the updates stop. If you want to be granular about it, there are some options to check for updates on specific user-defined intervals (like once a month) so the user can know when to expect the OS to start updating. That they don't know how to do that...is an insolvable problem. As you've demonstrated, even when presented with a screen they can't get past that requires them to explicitly tell the OS what their preference is for updates, users either can't understand what the OS is trying to tell them or don't remember at all.

Consider this:
If I ask someone "do you want a candy-bar?"
and they say "sure" and
the next day I throw one across the room to them.
They respond, "I don't remember asking for this and I certainly didn't ask for it to be thrown to me".
Well then, "Oh I thought you wanted a candy bar."

It's fine, miscommunications happen all the time. What the user needs to do now, is to explicitly withdraw their consent. So...set updates to disabled and move on. I don't get the problem here other than...Users not knowing what is going on with their systems.

The register isn't known for being technically accurate and linking to sensationalist articles and screenshots of failed upgrades doesn't demonstrate that those upgrades were performed without the users implicit consent, or that the consent to upgrade cannot be withdrawn explicitly by unreserving or by disabling auto-updates in Win7.

Wait, what? So does this mean the user didn't even know their OS had been upgraded? Or does it mean that you're equating an "unreserve" to a "removal" of windows 10 that was never installed? Does it mean that the upgrades failed and the OS was never upgraded? How do failed upgrades cause printer problems such that disabling them fixes the printer? What? >.<

As a side note the upgrade process doesn't reformat the disk so the worst that can happen is to have to do a reinstall of the OS (which is quite bad actually) but without any data loss. Some data loss could occur if the user chooses to reformat their own hard drive afterwards however or if modifying the software exposed an underlying hardware problem.

 

wait..lets get the facts straight.
this thread is about ms forcing
w10 down our throats.
it is intrusive.
it is unacceptable,
your exercises in ms justification
notwithstanding.

 

You are right nodnar, W10 should NOT be forced down anyone's throats.
YukinoAi is NOT against this view (he will correct me if I'm wrong), he is just making a clear reasoned arguments that the OP has not proven "beyond reasonable doubt" that this is the case.....from the discussions on both sides so far...I find YukinoAi reasons more compelling. The OP is yet to show/prove/substantiate the "accusation that M$ is forcing W10 down throats"

 

So this thread is about reinforcing our predefined conclusions?

That's all I'm trying to do.

Win10 is trash, privacy matters, auto updates suck, and it is also the case that users have no idea what they are doing. The OOBE example is pretty glaring.

If a user enables auto-updates there's no way for the OS to divine that they wanted to do the opposite so it will just do whatever it's configured to do. There's plenty of stuff to blame MS for so you shouldn't need be blame them for updating the OS when told to.

 

"Windows 10 Home users will receive updates from Windows Update automatically when it's available. Windows 10 Pro and Windows 10 Enterprise users will have the ability to postpone updates. The amount of time that Windows 10 Pro users can postpone updates is limited."

Found this on Microsoft under the Windows 10 Requirements section. Don't know if this United States only, but it is enough for me to feel the OP is correct about Home users automatically (no consent) receive the upgrade.

 

For some reason, I didn't have KB2952664. But after manually installing it, my Home Basic virtual machine is now configured to receive W10.

 

well, we may have something that we can agree upon.just when i see yens post,there can be no discussion;
no question that he turned update on, or does not know
what he is doing..
when he says that he saw an undesirable kb appear
several times, that is good enough for me..

 

If upgrades are actually being pushed onto systems with only auto updates enabled then that's a EULA issue (which they read right?), something misconfigured, or something else. The best way to demonstrate that is to set up a VM and let it auto-upgrade with literally no user intervention, besides restarts, all the way to windows 10 and record the entire thing with OBS. Anecdotal data means nothing to me, nor should it to you, as I can counter your anecdotes with mine and we get nowhere fast.

You're missing the big picture here, enough so to misunderstand your own argument. The issue here isn't that MS is pushing updates/upgrades automatically that have the potential to break their system, since the user has consented to that. The scope of what we are discussing is within the context of windows 7 users who have autoupdates enabled but do not want upgrade to Windows 10. These people who have “not given their consent, reserved it or allowed it” do, in fact, have windows updates enabled, and that includes the IT staff from the article. Windows 7 users who do not have auto-updates from microsoft enabled (like myself) do not experience this issue nor do those running WSUS.

Thus the obvious conclusions are that MS isn't giving users enough chances to opt-out again after they have opted-in and that users are too stupid to notice they opted into an OS upgrade. Such multiple chances to opt-out can help to more clearly establish that such updates represent the will of the user. And that is what you should be arguing. The OS isn't being rigorous in communicating what the user has already decided back to the user.

But honestly, if a box that forces the user to make a decision prior to using their computer... doesn't communicate to the user that they are making some sort of important choice, then I'm not sure what can. It's difficult to know what you've opted into by just clicking next->next->express. It's also very difficult to argue that the OS should somehow try to divine the will of those types of users anyway or be somehow liable for doing something the user “obviously didn't want.” How the heck is the OS supposed to know if the user can't be bothered to tell it?

How the heck does a user not notice that? Seriously >.< I'm betting that if they didn't even notice their OS upgrading in the background they wouldn't even know if they upgraded to 10 successfully if their background stayed the same.

There are instances where security updates made windows not bootable when rootkits had been installed on enterprises systems en mass when the base image was tainted. MS changed some kernal pointers the rootkit was using to hook in so when it tried to load, it couldn't and kernel panicked. Just an ordinary security update. So here's the question: Is it MS's fault for doing the security update that broke the OS that was running just fine or the fault of the IT staff for installing rootkits on the systems? What if these systems where mission critical and the down time cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars? Should the company be able to hold MS liable? Why or why not?

If the IT staff had restored from a backup image and narrowly avoided costing the company hundreds of thousands of dollars, should they still try to sue MS?

 

Up until now, every Win OS user assumed "automatically download and install updates" was for their current OS. M$ has changed everything now.

It's like going to a baseball game, but after the 7th inning stretch, they are playing football.

 

You need to login to view this posts content.

 

It's actually quite easy to demonstrate that upgrades are happening against the expressed wishes of the user on Win7, which is what this thread is about. Start up a VM, and produce a series of repeatable steps that reliably replicates the issue. Ideally, record it with OBS. This creates a very strong piece of evidence to clarify what is actually going on and qualifies as actual factual evidence as opposed to testimony/hearsay/anecdotes.

Of anyone on this thread, Mutagen is the closest to discovering what is really going on with his VM running Win 7 Basic and I approve of his methodology.

Not exactly. Generalize it a bit more. Reading something like "MS forcing upgrades on Win7 users." I ask myself: "How do I know that's true?" "What else could be causing that?" "What is another way to look at the same set of facts?" "Is the evidence presented sufficient to support the claim?" “What other conclusions could I come to given the same evidence?”

I have not. It's also the case that Win10 is “free” (more or less), unlike previous versions of Windows.

Yes exactly! That's the entire point! It's difficult for computer systems to establish “consent” with their users for a wide variety of reasons. The entire point of the OOBE screen asking for explicit input is to establish consent. Even that seems to fail considering that most people think Win7 updates are on by default (which they are not). Consent is the core issue of this thread. There is an expectation that both MS and end users each take steps to establish the Win10 upgrade as consensual.

After discussing things with Mystical, it seems that whatever is occurring only affects those systems with auto-updates from MS enabled. Presumably, the users of such systems have “consented” to updates with the exact details for the upgrade mechanism in relation to user-interaction unclear but definitely involving KB3035583.

On one end of the spectrum, are users who have not opted into updates or have opted out them. They do not experience the issue at all. On the other end are users who opt into everything presented to them for a variety of reasons. These users received exactly what they “asked” for and, while they may have concerns about the upgrade process, it's not reasonable to hold MS liable for providing what these users have “requested”. This class of users might be happier on Apple systems. In the middle, are users who have opted into upgrades but are choosing to be granular about whatever: the upgrade process, the security updates, the non-security updates, the third party software updates, driver installs.

What update settings should be available? To what extent should MS allow users to tweak update settings for this class of users? The user has already opted in, should they be given a chance to opt-out of every update or should the user seek to opt-out once they have opted in? Given that MS can release future versions of software, how should Microsoft communicate the availability of the newer version to users? What types of systems can MS be realistically expected to support in the upgrade process? How does MS know that a system is Win10 capable in order to offer the user such a choice? Should MS not offer the user such a choice at all but require that users seek it out? These are really important questions, with conflicting interests everywhere.

Sometimes updates will break systems and it's doesn't always make sense to hold MS liable for such failures. My rootkit example was not rhetorical but rather a question that should be answered to establish a baseline for upgrade/update failures that MS cannot be reasonably expected to support because we need to know 2 things to move forward. 1) That baseline: can we agree at the very least, to not hold MS accountable for overt user stupidity/or “tainted” systems & user-level poor planning? If the answer given here is that MS is liable, we really aren't ready to even discuss consent yet. Deeper disagreements exist. 2) The facts: What is /actually/ going on? We need the VM tests for that.

Then we are finally ready to ask the question: Was consent for the Win10 upgrade process clearly established, or at least, did the software make a reasonable attempt to establish such consent? And our answers to that question will make sense. Without knowing what is really going on (#2), it's difficult to know what we are discussing and the burden of proof exists on the person making the claim (Mystical) to provide sufficiently compelling evidence to justify their claim that updates are being “FORCED” on Win7 users. In my view, opting out of the whole ordeal sufficiently discredits the “FORCED” claim but w/e. It may also be the case that MS provided mechanisms to allow users to opt-out/not opt in and is not honoring their own mechanisms. This also qualifies as “FORCED” but needs to be demonstrated.

This option is available any time by turning auto-updates off and selecting the updates manually. The issue here is that perhaps MS isn't being granular enough for users with auto-updates enabled, something is misconfigured, that end users may not know how to select which updates they do or do not want or something else.

We simply don't know that. Yen, pics or it didn't happen (VM + OBS) Translation: while your own personal experience may be sufficient for you to make that claim, it's not compelling enough for anyone else who doesn't share that experience to take such a claim as more than an anecdote.

Every bit of experience I have when dealing with computers and users always leads to the same conclusion: users have no idea what they are talking about.
“My computer doesn't work”. It's fine, but the wifi is a bit lousy.
“It can't power on.” Press the power button.
“The internet is slow.” Restart firefox.
“My files were deleted.” You moved them over here.
“I deleted it but it's still there.” Removed a song from a playlist doesn't delete it.

So hopefully you'll understand where I'm coming from that when a user says: “I don't want Windows 10” I tell them to go unreserve it, and I'm going to go ahead and wusa /uninstall /kb:3035583 /norestart and disable auto-updates for good measure. Problem fixed, ticket closed, moving on to the next one.... “The printer doesn't work.” What oh what, could that possibly mean? Because I doubt that it means the printer doesn't work. It actually means “I can't print.” “The printer was never installed” “I switched to openSUSE and don't understand the lpr syntax.” “I unplugged the network cord.” So let's just go find out, (preferably) by using some sort of reasonable methodology to go about diagnosing the actual issue instead of assuming "the printer doesn't work".

 

I'm surprised that law suits haven't been brought against Microsoft for this !

 

early days, r29k.. about the first thing that crossed my mind, see my earliest post..

 

The evidence is building, I think the only place we will see a proper lawsuit is in Europe, the US is a hot mess on things like this. If a piece of software installs itself on your pc and starts data mining then it is viewed as malware. Now why isn't Windows 10 viewed the same, it does the same thing!

 

too many longwinded exercises in m$ justification by a member that has barely been among us for a week..
it is not in this fashion that this thread will stay on topic..
i am not the first member here to wonder if yukinoai has got an ip-adress originating somewhere in redmond, va...
how about restricting posts here to say to a reasonable ten lines?