Too many Windows 10 versions!

[Antilogic]

You cannot buy Enterprise if you do not have a Volume License Agreement.

As I said, there are only two versions for consumers. Home and Pro will both do the job fine. If you want to add your PC to any domains, encrypt etc then you want pro: Breakdown: https://cdn.ndtv.com/tech/images/gadget ... ficial.jpg

I have never had an issue with Windows Update on my home machines. Then again my active hours is set to a sensible time and I do not put them off. 99% of the time it has setup to patch when I shutdown for the night. The extra 30 second delay on startup the next day is somehow manageable.

Patching insistence wouldn't be required if humanity wasn't universally not giving the sightest crap about patching and creating a massive global security crisis.

[Morkonan]

Win10 patches/updates have psuedo-bricked my laptop about three times, now, forcing into either an "Attempting Repairs" or "Spinning Thingie of Doom" screen forever until I repeatedly reboot/restart. The last time it took three days of fiddling to get it to fix itself and I STILL don't know wtf it's doing. The only error is a "Driver Watchdog" error and it locks out all the recovery/bios/function keys when it does this, so there's no way to get to anything meaningful other than forcing a manual reboot and hoping that it eventually fixes is friggin' self... Even the "Don't insert a paperclip and press this Emergency Use Reset System Button Unless Your System is Completely Borked" button does nothing at all...Nada. Nothing. Useless... friggin...hnnnggh.. thing... Win10 just sits there and spins itself. I dunno, it may be losing/locking out driver info for the keyboard/IO or something... dunno, don't care. I recommend getting mad and cursing a lot because it seems to help.

I've never understood all the constant complaints about "People not updating their Windows OS installs" that Micro$oft makes. It may just be my generation, but I've never known anyone that didn't allow updates and patches. The only people I know who habitually don't update OSs are industry/org/government systems that are running legacyware or internally developed crap that requires stuff like XP Service Pack 1 or something.

(PS : Is there any data from anyone that has a reliable estimate for how many people don't update? Prob hack tracking or some hack that reports to a known location that can be counted, maybe? But, it'd be hard to see how many individual, private, users didn't update versus business/industry users that can't update unless Micro$oft could weigh in on that.)

On a Windohs related note: Microsoft to offer extended Windows 7 patching and update service! YAY! Win 7 will remain viable for three years or so after the planned phase-out, so that's great news for those who require it! (It seems it will be a special subscription service, per install. Still, it's good news.)

[jlehtone]

There is trivial way to solve the update and privacy concerns: do not connect Windows machine into network[1]. If that is too restrictive, then set your edge firewall to limit the WAN-access of Windows to bare minimum; as close to "nothing in, nothing out" as possible[2]. Net browsing you can do from trusted systems.



[1] IIRC, an early Win NT version did pass (US Gov?) security certification, provided that the PC was disconnected from all networks.
[2] Allow egress forum.egosoft.com:https ?

[red assassin]

Regarding privacy I would also be interested in knowing if enterprise 10 could be told to not track ANYTHING EVER since I'm working on "stuff" and it's incredibly hard to overstate just how important secrecy is to keep me from losing the possibility of registering trademarks or patents, if even a single phrase slips out an entire project can be instantly ruined forever. No I'm not exaggerating, I could literally ruin my chances of getting the (possibly quite well paying) job I'm currently aiming for by uttering two specific words (together and in the correct order mind you) in any way shape or form anywhere before the time is right. Even typing these two words together in a search engine could lead to them being added in a statistics database somewhere and become a time bomb until their meaning loses all value because another entity beats me to the punch, even if the risk is one in a million it's a risk I don't want to take because it would be stupid.

If this is your risk model you should be keeping things related to this project airgapped. There are enough ways of accidentally leaking something you didn't mean to if you're network connected without worrying about the OS's telemetry.

I've never understood all the constant complaints about "People not updating their Windows OS installs" that Micro$oft makes. It may just be my generation, but I've never known anyone that didn't allow updates and patches. The only people I know who habitually don't update OSs are industry/org/government systems that are running legacyware or internally developed crap that requires stuff like XP Service Pack 1 or something.

(PS : Is there any data from anyone that has a reliable estimate for how many people don't update? Prob hack tracking or some hack that reports to a known location that can be counted, maybe? But, it'd be hard to see how many individual, private, users didn't update versus business/industry users that can't update unless Micro$oft could weigh in on that.)

Home users don't update because they don't want to be interrupted, don't want to wait for shutdown, don't trust it not to break, etc etc. Granted, Microsoft aren't helping themselves with how much of a pain in the ass Windows Update is - updates on Linux certainly aren't as intrusive! But it's definitely a real problem. Organisations don't update because if they're small they don't have IT staff to manage the updates, and if they're big they've got stuff that might occasionally break because of updates. Look at WannaCry if you want an example of how much trouble this causes - that whole drama happened months after Microsoft patched the bugs it was using.

[Morkonan]

..Home users don't update because they don't want to be interrupted, don't want to wait for shutdown, don't trust it not to break, etc etc. Granted, Microsoft aren't helping themselves with how much of a pain in the ass Windows Update is - updates on Linux certainly aren't as intrusive! But it's definitely a real problem. Organisations don't update because if they're small they don't have IT staff to manage the updates, and if they're big they've got stuff that might occasionally break because of updates. Look at WannaCry if you want an example of how much trouble this causes - that whole drama happened months after Microsoft patched the bugs it was using.

I agree. It's just that I don't personally know anyone who doesn't allow their Windows-based OS to update regularly in some fashion. For myself, at least with Win7, I pick and choose the time, but always update within a few hours of the notification.

It's likely due to my age cohort that I don't personally know any home users of the sort that Microsoft keeps rattling on about. As far as large network environments are concerned, they have other priorities and should have personnel dedicated to security concerns. "Should." That doesn't mean they're "effective" personnel, though.

People shoot themselves in the face while cleaning their gun. They walk out into traffic while texting on their phone. They break their foot running into the coffee-table that hasn't been moved in decades... I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that quite a few of them also don't regularly update their computer's operating system, still use "Internet Explorer," don't use a script-blocker and have no idea what an "Anti-Virus" program is.