Talk:Criticism of Microsoft Windows

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microsoft Windows: Computing Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Microsoft High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Privacy concerns

I think a new section about privacy concerns could be included, provided suitable refs can be used. The privacy concerns could mention things like: possible backdoors in Windows, the NSA and GCHQ spying on Windows users with Microsoft's help, Windows Product Activation information sent to Microsoft and anything else concerning the privacy of Windows users.

Example Microsoft is already working with the NSA.

MetalFusion81 (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Literally the first sentence of your own source disproves your statement: "alleged". The second sentence even repeats that: "allegedly". So nothing has been proven (at least, not according to this ref); this should reflected in the text. Also, the article doesn't mention the NSA at all (except for the title), so stating that MS is working with the NSA may not be accurate. All of that said, I think (if enough sources can be found), this would be a good addition. Just be careful to word it correctly. --DanielPharos (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion of new article

I suggest a new article of "Criticism of Windows 8". A starter for information: a lot of people tend to criticize the new start menu.

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those kinds of articles tend to get merged into their parent subject. And I think that has already (effectively) happened: Windows 8#Reception I would suggest expanding that section instead. --DanielPharos (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is the Criticism of Windows Vista page, so why not write one for Windows 8 too? As long as it could fill a page, instead of just a few paragraphs. MetalFusion81 (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All windows 10 updates are forced upon consumers

Updating Windows 10 or downloading a Windows 10 feature is not a choice. Microsoft forces all consumer version of Windows 10 to download all updates to features, drivers, Apps, etc.--[1][2] Enterprise/Business version of Windows 10 not yet released, so we don't yet know the situation there. --Ne0 (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updates. Updates are forced. The lock-screen (which I assume you're talking about) are optional features that you can either install or not, user's decision.

But don't take my word for it. Both sources explicitly state this lock screen is optional, so please find sources that explicitly say this lock screen with ads is forced-downloaded. --DanielPharos (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essay of Windows problems with links

This essay contains a long list of Windows problems, mainly about Windows 10: http://itvision.altervista.org/why-windows-10-sucks.html

Obviously it's not suitable for references, but it's regularly updated, including external links, which could be used for updating the article on here in future. MetalFusion81 (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just... be careful. There's untruths in there, such as the statement that "Windows 10 offers exactly zero new protection mechanisms to the end user vs. Windows 7", which ignores Control Flow Guard. --DanielPharos (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Control Flow Guard appears to be something that software developers use, not the end user. Feel free to add a comment on the essay page if you notice any mistakes, I'm sure the author will reply. The Windows 10 spying is definitely notable and concerning. Even worse, Microsoft backports telemetry into Windows 7 and 8 via Windows Updates e.g. KB3068708 (already mentioned in the article). I've yet to find out exactly what data Microsoft collects from its users, how it's stored and who are the 'third parties' which Microsoft share users' data with (maybe GCHQ? NSA? and others!)? Could private files end up in the wrong hands when you connect to the internet in Windows 10?! MetalFusion81 (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CFG is a new protection mechanism that protects end users. So, unless the author is being deliberately misleading in his/her wording, it's simply wrong. I don't feel inclined to comment on that page, just because "someone on the Internet is wrong"; I'm only here to safeguard the integrity of Wikipedia. --DanielPharos (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say the author is misleading, unless CFG is something that end users can control (in the GUI or command line) or if CFG is enabled in Windows 10 for all programs? AFAIK, CFG is used by software developers.[3] The essay is almost entirely about Windows 10 anyway e.g. the data mining, no control over Windows 10 Updates on Home editions and so on. Windows 7 was fine. The Windows 10 Wikipedia article has already mentioned a few of these issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10#Reception

If you use Windows 10, I would be more worried about your private data being shared with Microsoft and any third party which Microsoft chooses or requests for your recorded data by government agencies, at any time (ostensibly for legal or 'national security' reasons). MetalFusion81 (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You thus agree with me that Windows 10 offers a new protection mechanism for end users, good. That it is developers that have to enable it in their compiler is true, but the protection offered goes to the end users, as support for it is enabled by default in Windows 10. That statement by the author is either wrong, or "technically correct" due to the careful wording, and thus misleading.

As for the data mining; as you've already noticed, there's a lot of unsupported claims about it going around, so proper sourcing is going to be both difficult and key. --DanielPharos (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I find it funny that the author calls Microsoft claim about not supporting newer CPU's in Windows 7 "egregious lying", while it is technically true ("support" doesn't mean "doesn't work", it means "if it doesn't work, we're not going to fix it"). In fact, the author even suggests that him/her-self! So when Microsoft makes misleading but technically correct claims, it "egregious lying", but when the author does it, it's ok? But to be honest, it probably just means the author never heard about CFG, and thus is just misinformed. Which doesn't bode well for the rest of the made points... --DanielPharos (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think wires have been crossed. The author means there's zero new protection mechanisms to the end user vs. Windows 7 because the end user does not have control over CFG and I doubt CFG would be enabled for non-CFG compiled programs (to avoid runtime errors)? The CPU statement just makes it clear that even MSDOS will work on newer x86 CPUs. Windows 7 may not include support for the advanced features of the said CPUs, but Windows 7 will run on Intel Skylake regardless (similar to how a Windows 95 program works on today's x86 CPUs). Microsoft makes it appear that only Windows 10 will actually run on the newer CPUs. The Windows 10 telemetry, which also affects Windows 7 and 8 — if certain Windows Updates are installed, is worth mentioning in more depth; I've come across these two pages.[4][5] If there's evidence that users' personal data in Windows 10 (or Windows 7/8) is recorded and shared, this must be mentioned in the article. Given the serious nature of Windows 10 problems, I would only recommend using Windows 10 for playing games which aren't available in other OS's or gaming consoles. MetalFusion81 (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The author means"... that's what is technically stated, yes, but the statement seems to imply no new security feature that help protect end users were added at all. Just as Microsoft's statement is technically true, but seems to imply Windows 7 won't work on Skylake CPUs. I don't see how one is misleading while the other isn't. I mean, why would somebody complain that while new security features were added, but they cannot be configured? There's nothing to configure about CFG (except maybe for the binning size, but that's way too technical, complicated, and cumbersome to implement), so how is its addition or non-configurability a bad thing? And to make matters worse, just search "new security features in windows 10". I'm quite sure some of those are end-user configurable.

Look, if you don't see how that statement is misleading, then fine, we'll agree to disagree. Just be aware that this author seems to have written that list with a bias, and take everything in it with a grain of salt.

"even MSDOS will work on newer x86 CPUs" is anybody still making those? I thought AMD64 was pretty much commonplace nowadays... And with VM86 mode missing in those CPUs, MSDOS doesn't work properly on these newer CPUs. Actually, that situation pretty much perfectly mirrors the Windows 7 - Skylake situation!

About Windows 10 spying: we can throw claims around all day long, but in the end without evidence it won't be eligible for inclusion anyway. So the next step is actually finding hard evidence. --DanielPharos (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, lack of evidence is a problem. So it's true that Microsoft records user activity Windows 10 (and Windows 7/8 with certain updates installed), but there's no evidence so far to prove if Microsoft is misusing the collected data or not. Who are the third parties (trusted partners) who Microsoft shares this data with? Lack of evidence. Exactly what information is being collected? No evidence. You get the idea.

The section on data collection in the article needs updating. It should mention that Microsoft can collect personal information from its users, including keystrokes. Microsoft does not state what data is collected from its users. End users are kept in the dark about all this. The data collection cannot be turned off! [6][7] MetalFusion81 (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your own links state that the collection of personal data is done only with the user's consent, and that the part of the collection that cannot be turned off are only crash and performance information. So if you add this to the article, make sure you make a clear distinction between these. --DanielPharos (talk) 05:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS WERID

if you put in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windoze ,it redirects to this. why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBendly (talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know myself, but there's some clues in its history ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windoze&action=history ) --DanielPharos (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me, for years I've understood "Windoze" as a mildly critical nickname for MS Windows. A brief explanation in the article might be worthwhile. Pastychomper (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]