Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Did you miss this part?
[insert stuff I already addressed]
Which has been my experience watching it. Do you have updates set to recomended? I'm also not convinced a VM proves anything other than at this moment, you are experiencing that behaviour. MS changed it so frequently over the last year you can't really replicate all the changes.
|
Did you miss
this part?
Quote:
|
I ran a little experiment to test the veracity of claims that simply opening the GWX dialog and closing it without any further interaction would result in a download or an upgrade taking place. I have a Windows 7 Pro retail guest on Hyper-V (Home Premium and Pro SKUs are eligible, Enterprise is not). It is fully updated, opted-in for recommended updates, and I have the GWX icon showing on it. The GWX dialog displays "Microsoft recommends upgrading to Windows 10". It has been running since... I think early April 2016, maybe even March. It has not been upgraded. I have opened GWX, I've read some of the informational panes, and then closed it with the red X. No upgrade has been scheduled or performed, and the machine runs 24/7.
|
This is a very simple piece of software (or, piece
s as it is comprised of a few different EXEs that handle different pieces of the opt-in experience) designed largely to get user permission to flip a some registry keys, the single most important of them being the AllowOSUpgrade DWORD from 0 to 1.
The Windows Update service simply will
not download the upgrade bits without that registry change, and the only thing that will change it is as I described above. Dismissing the window with a red X when opt-in has not occurred does not opt you in. Conversely, dismissing the informational window notifying you of your upgrade time/date schedule does not
cancel the upgrade. That would be like clicking the red X while Windows Update is downloading hotfixes to dismiss it and it cancels your updates.
You say you run a network with a domain, how much experience do you actually have with end users? In my early days, I chased more than my fair share of red herrings because I took user issue reports at face value, failing to realize that
people lie; either unintentionally, or because they don't want to be held responsible for what they did. Some users simply don't see the connection from the first action they performed having an impact on the result, and thus it isn't relevant to the issue, so why mention it? Some people genuinely don't remember. Others know they did something and who wants to get into trouble? I get it, I understand it, but that doesn't change reality, and that's why digging into and repro-ing issues is important. Understanding the conditions under which something
will happen is handy when you have to work backward from "this happened" to "user did this".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
When you buy an Apple or Android device, you know it comes with updates an sometimes new OS's. When we all bought and payed for Windows 7, that's what we expected. There was no expectation that MS would force an update to a new OS stuffed with ads and tracking. By forcing the update, they are in effect stealing what we bought and giving us back what some of us consider a lesser OS. And because they DO have an agenda(as you point out), and it sure as #### isn't to the benefit of the consumer, that's why people are angry.
|
There's no expectation that anyone would force an upgrade, and no one
is forcing the upgrade. The process is opt-in. It actually
has to be.