Page 10 of 14
Re: Windows 10
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:19 pm
by Malcolm
"We disagree with Google's characterization of a local elevation of privilege as 'critical' and 'particularly serious,' since the attack scenario they describe is fully mitigated by the deployment of the Adobe Flash update released last week. Additionally, our analysis indicates that this specific attack was never effective in the Windows 10 Anniversary Update due to security enhancements previously implemented."
I thought everyone knew Adobe Flash itself is a security risk.
Re: Windows 10
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:35 pm
by TPRJones
TheCatt wrote:7 days?
That seems too long if the requirement is just an advisory and it's being actively exploited. 48 hours should be more like it.
Re: Windows 10
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:50 pm
by TheCatt
So I replaced my MoBo + video card + RAM (but same hard drives), and my Windows told me to re-activate. Of course, it wouldn't, cuz I was no longer valid or some shit.
MSDN acct to the rescue.
Re: Windows 10
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:02 pm
by Leisher
You get 5 re-activations. After that you have to call MS and just get a new code or some shit.
Re: Windows 10
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 8:29 am
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote:You get 5 re-activations. After that you have to call MS and just get a new code or some shit.
Wouldn't let me. Told me my product code was no longer valid, and I had to buy another one. So I just switched to my MSDN account.
Re: Windows 10
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:44 am
by GORDON
Speaking of which, will you have Win10 home versions available like you gave me your Win7 home licenses? When I build my next PCs, Win7 is too much of a pain in the ass to install, now. Also I think I used all 5 you had available.
Re: Windows 10
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:06 am
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:Speaking of which, will you have Win10 home versions available like you gave me your Win7 home licenses? When I build my next PCs, Win7 is too much of a pain in the ass to install, now. Also I think I used all 5 you had available.
I believe so. I have 2 multiple-activation keys that I plan to use for myself, and then 10 other single use licenses I can give out.
Re: Windows 10
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:18 am
by GORDON
Word.
Though unless I can finagle some sort of small windfall, all of my disposable income is going into scuba diving, so a new PC probably isn't an imminent thing.
Re: Windows 10
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 4:45 pm
by Leisher
Wouldn't let me. Told me my product code was no longer valid, and I had to buy another one.
Were you using a legal copy?
Re: Windows 10
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 5:00 pm
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote:Wouldn't let me. Told me my product code was no longer valid, and I had to buy another one.
Were you using a legal copy?
Yes. It was a Windows 7 that I had allowed MS to upgrade to Windows 10 for "free"
My daughter's laptop did something similar back in the day, went to upgrade to Windows 10, and it allowed it, but then said I couldn't activate it as my product key was invalid (while the product was still 'free' supposedly).
Re: Windows 10
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 12:14 am
by Leisher
Re: Windows 10
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:27 am
by Malcolm
Nothing instills confidence in me like hearing this:
In a blog post Terry Myerson, Microsoft's Executive Vice President of the Windows and Devices Group, said the words millions have been waiting to hear:
“Many of you have asked for more control over your data, a greater understanding of how data is collected, and the benefits this brings for a more personalized experience. Based on your feedback, we are launching two new experiences to help ensure you are in control of your privacy.”
Translation: "No one at MS was betting the average customer might give a fuck about this or dig deeply enough to, so we overlooked or squashed it to begin with. But seriously, trust us, we'll get this right."
Windows 10
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 5:29 pm
by Leisher
Windows 10
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:38 am
by Leisher
Windows 10
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:58 am
by Leisher
Adding a "feature" that will disable the ability to install apps from outside of the Windows Store.
I guess this is a feature of Macs, so once again Microsoft is copying the unpopular Apple OS, and ignoring what made their OS the world leader.
The feature will be off by default, and I can't imagine it being on by default without monopoly lawsuits.
No idea what they mean by "apps" though. If this "feature" blocks downloading and installing actual programs I expect lawsuits no matter what. "Sorry Steam, Origin, Trend, Adobe, Google, and every other legit software vendor on the planet. You either put your stuff on the MS Store where we'll charge you a fee or you don't get to put your software on our users' PCs."
The current MS CEO cannot get the fuck out soon enough.
Windows 10
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:46 pm
by Malcolm
The feature is similar to a feature on Macs, which by default prevents users from installing apps from "unidentified developers". The update is set to release in April in the upcoming Creator's Update.
Yeah, because when I think "computing standards," I think "mac."
The company is also reportedly working on a ChromeOS-like version of Windows 10 that will completely prevent installing Win32 apps.
Fuck off and die.
No idea what they mean by "apps" though.
A thing you download yourself from an external website that you don't install by hand, I bet especially those things requiring auto updates. This would cover damn near everything on my hard disks except Windows and MS-related development software.
It's supposed to help protect casual users from malware and bloatware, but it could impact developers who release their apps via direct downloads from their websites rather than via the official Windows Store.
Such a machine would be virtually useless for development purposes, but it's obviously being targeted at the biz market.
The current MS CEO cannot get the fuck out soon enough.
He's not going anywhere soon, unfortunately.
Windows 10
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:59 am
by Leisher
Serious questions about being a shareholder.
Let's say X bought a share of Microsoft. Doesn't MS hold shareholder meetings, and would X be allowed to attend based on owning that one stock? Would he be allowed to voice an opinion the same as Y who owns 10% of MS's stock? Granted Y's will have more weight, but would X's opinion be heard over say Z, who owns no stock, writing a letter to a random "Contact Us" address?
I think it'd be fun to do this and ask the asshole in charge why X-Box still exists when it's making no money, or why they're so focused on copying Apple who consumers and businesses don't like, or why their phone strategy has been such a disaster, or why they don't copy Apple's marketing methods, or why they're spending so much time and resources auditing customers and pissing them off, etc.
Windows 10
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:04 pm
by TheCatt
1 - yes
2 - Generally yes, this varies by company.
3 - Sure. But he doesn't have nearly as many shares to vote (which is, generally, and simplistically) how voting is weighted.
Go for it.
Windows 10
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:50 pm
by Leisher
TheCatt wrote: 1 - yes
2 - Generally yes, this varies by company.
3 - Sure. But he doesn't have nearly as many shares to vote (which is, generally, and simplistically) how voting is weighted.
Go for it.
Challenge accepted.
Windows 10
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:53 pm
by Malcolm
You're thinking of buying shares so you have a more legit forum to yell at them in?