Windows 10?

[Dimitri Yar]

Here are three tool´s to help you and save the privacy. Search for it.

Classic Shelll 4.2.3
Right Click Enhancer 4.3.6
DoNotSpy10

have fun

[9876543210]

Dimitri Yar,

Don't know much about the first two tools you mention but Rick Danger had a pretty good article on the problems associated with DoNotSpy10. Apparently its full of malware when you open in up.

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...&postcount=251

[Rick Danger]

I wanted to objectively evaluate the statement concerning the security of Windows 10. And since this was "Patch Tuesday", and being married (no sex), time to kill (unemployed), and nothing better to do (no beer, scotch, or bourbon) I decided to go through today's laundry list of fourteen (14) updates to see exactly how many applied to Windows 10.

Here are the results:

8/11/2015 MS15-092 3086251 Vulnerabilities in .NET Framework Could Allow Elevation of Privilege (Important)
ALL VERSIONS OF WINDOWS INCLUDING WINDOWS 10

8/11/2015 MS15-091 3084525 Cumulative Security Update for Microsoft Edge (Critical)
This security update resolves vulnerabilities in Microsoft Edge. The most severe of the vulnerabilities could allow remote code execution if a user views a specially crafted webpage using Microsoft Edge. An attacker who successfully exploited these vulnerabilities could gain the same user rights as the current user. Customers whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less impacted than those who operate with administrative user rights.
WINDOWS 10 ONLY

8/11/2015 MS15-090 3060716 Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Windows Could Allow Elevation of Privilege (Important)
EXCLUDES WINDOWS 10

8/11/2015 MS15-089 3076949 Vulnerability in WebDAV Could Allow Information Disclosure (Important)
EXCLUDES WINDOWS 10

8/11/2015 MS15-088 3082458 Unsafe Command Line Parameter Passing Could Allow Information Disclosure (Important)
ALL VERSIONS OF WINDOWS INCLUDING WINDOWS 10

8/11/2015 MS15-087 3082459 Vulnerability in UDDI Services Could Allow Elevation of Privilege (Important)
WINDOWS SERVER 2008, BIZTALK SERVER 2010, BIZTALK SERVER 2013, BIZTALK SERVER 2013 R2

8/11/2015 MS15-086 3075158 Vulnerability in System Center Operations Manager Could Allow Elevation of Privilege (Important)
MICROSOFT SYSTEM CENTER 2012 OPERATIONS MANAGER, SYSTEM CENTER 2012 OPERATIONS MANAGER R2

8/11/2015 MS15-085 3082487 Vulnerability in Mount Manager Could Allow Elevation of Privilege (Important)
ALL VERSIONS OF WINDOWS INCLUDING WINDOWS 10

8/11/2015 MS15-084 3080129 Vulnerabilities in XML Core Services Could Allow Information Disclosure (Important)
EXCLUDES WINDOWS 10 (Microsoft XML Core Services 3.0 and Microsoft XML Core Services 6.0 on all supported releases of Microsoft Windows except Windows 10, which is not affected. Microsoft XML Core Services 5.0 on Microsoft Office 2007 Service Pack 3.Microsoft XML Core Services 5.0 on Microsoft InfoPath 2007 Service Pack 3)

8/11/2015 MS15-083 3073921 Vulnerability in Server Message Block Could Allow Remote Code Execution (Important)
EXCLUDES WINDOWS 10

8/11/2015 MS15-082 3080348 Vulnerabilities in RDP Could Allow Remote Code Execution (Important)
EXCLUDES WINDOWS 10

8/11/2015 MS15-081 3080790 Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Office Could Allow Remote Code Execution (Critical)
MICROSOFT OFFICE 2007, OFFICE 2010, OFFICE 2013

8/11/2015 MS15-080 3078662 Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Graphics Component Could Allow Remote Code Execution (Critical)
ALL VERSIONS OF WINDOWS INCLUDING WINDOWS 10

8/11/2015 MS15-079 3082442 Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer (Critical)
ALL VERSIONS OF WINDOWS INCLUDING WINDOWS 10

Of the fourteen updates, three (3) are excluded because they apply to Microsoft Office, Microsoft Server, or Microsoft System Center Operations Manager only. Of the eleven remaining, five included all versions of Windows including Windows 10, five excluded Windows 10, and one applied only to Windows 10. Also of the four critical updates, three included Windows 10, with the fourth applying again only to Office. One critical patch applied to Microsoft's brand new Edge browser. It's like installing new drywall in your home only to find a crack in it two weeks later. Wonderful !

So on this Tuesday, the objective scorecard DOES NOT support the notion that Windows 10 is "undeniably more secure".

[Rick Danger]

Originally Posted by a435843

Apps have become nearly irrelevant on desktops because the web experience is close to perfect.......

Why might Microsoft's "Billion Devices with Windows 10", and quite possibly the Window franchise fail ? First, as you have pointed out, applications that can now be run in the cloud make running them on a desktop totally irrelevant. The key reason for this is the sophistication of data communications available in most of the developed world. I live in what is considered an impoverished US city, yet I am using a 25Mbps Internet service - and this was the lowest performance tier my ISP provides.

Since the web experience is of primary importance, that means all a user needs is a platform that includes a browser and/or app support. That applies to everything from sub $50 Android "pocket" tablets to touchscreen PCs. It also makes the operating system less important.

Add to this Microsoft's SaaS strategy of charging subscription fees and Redmond has effectively laid the ground work for users to abandon Windows and go to platforms of their choice. Again, this could mean Android or iOS tablets, small form-factor netbooks, or laptops and workstations running Linux-derived operating systems. Add to this their vision of Windows as a "universal" operating system already has a strike against it: the fundamental weakness of Windows Phone in a market dominated (again) by devices and appstores supporting Android or iOS. Even if Microsoft were to gain some traction by ditching higher priced Nokia phones for lower priced devices to generate consumer demand and an install base, the lack of apps under Windows 10 (again, compared to Android or iOS) leaves them playing catch up. Microsoft's only hope in the smartphone market would be to convince a big player like Samsung or Motorola to go with Windows 10 on their products. But again, the lack of apps would likely make such a union unpalatable to the big smartphone OEMs.

[Staffsyeoman]

What' s driving me mad is that I do not want to install Windows 10 yet as I have too much to back up and retain before it screws with my system. But it won't allow me to download security fixes for Windows 7 without "Downloading Windows 10" and then "Preparing to Install".

Unless I've missed something - what happened to letting me schedule when I installed it? Even selectively choosing Win 7 updates causes this. Any advice, comrades?

[sweatyhat]

The people that handle all the IT for our base computer and the mobile units carried by the reps have told us not to upgrade as our software's incompatible with W10.

This is the stuff we use for all our customer records and billing.
It ain't broke so I'm happy not to "fix it."

[Misrule]

Staffsyeoman
You should be able to choose which updates to install on Win7. Go to Control Panel - Windows Update - Change Settings. For important updates, select "Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them"; and check the box beside recommended updates to get them the same way. That should allow you to decide.
You might also want to check earlier in the thread for how to prevent Win10 from installing, by removing the particular updates that enable it.

Speaking of which, it is now an official pain in the neck! I have to go through all the available updates to prevent Win7 installing stuff that prepares for Win10. As I'm never going to install Win10 on this machine, I'm avoiding all related updates - but have to weed them out manually. Today's one is KB2952664 (64 bit only).

[Rick Danger]

How much will Windows 10 cost this time next year?
Millions have updated their computers to Windows 10, but how many of those millions have considered how much they will have to pay for it later?

By Mark Kaelin August 11, 2015, 8:17 AM PST



Millions of consumers have updated their desktop computers, laptops, and tablets to Windows 10. Microsoft is offering a "free" upgrade for Windows 7 and Windows 8 users for a year, and people are taking them up on that offer in droves.

I wonder how many of those eager people have considered what Microsoft will ask us to pay for the privilege of using Windows 10 after the year is up.

No free lunch
I'm not saying updating to Windows 10 was a bad idea. In fact, I think it's a very good idea, and everyone should take advantage of the update while they can. However, what I am saying is that you can't expect Windows 10 to be offered without charge forever.

Microsoft is a for-profit company, and giving away a billion pieces of software (the company's goal is one billion devices) is not going to sit well with the shareholders. At some point, users will be asked to pay a subscription fee for Windows 10. We all know this, even if we haven't thought about it until now.

How much
I have no knowledge of what Microsoft plans to charge for Windows 10, but I can make some educated guesses.

Free with charges for additional features: In this scenario, users get the base operating system at no charge, but there's a subscription fee for other features like cloud storage or email, etc. This seems like a logistics nightmare for Microsoft, so I think this is the least likely possibility.

Free with subscription to Office 365: This would be an interesting plan for Microsoft. One billion devices all running Office 365, all operating in the Microsoft ecosystem—that would be a fantastic turn of events for the company. This subscription scenario is very possible and may be a likely approach for enterprises, but not all consumers are interested in a productivity suite, so it won't work for everyone.

Monthly subscription for all devices: Microsoft could keep things simple by requiring a small monthly fee for all devices—let's say $5 per installation. That would make a nice revenue steam for Microsoft, one that Wall Street would appreciate. But many households have several computing devices, and consumers might balk at the extra cost.

Monthly subscription for multiple devices: This seems like a more realistic approach to me. Each household would pay a single subscription fee for up to five devices. The fee could be similar to what Microsoft charges for Office 365, which is about $60 per year.

I think that the actual pricing structure will be some combination of these, with discounts for students and maybe retirees. I can see Microsoft wanting to be flexible about pricing while at the same time establishing a predictable revenue stream. It will be interesting to see what they eventually come up with.

What we get
Most users could live with $60 per year for Windows 10, provided they get something of value out of the transaction. This is where Microsoft is going to see the greatest push back from consumers. People will not be willing to pay a subscription fee for the status quo. They are going to want to see innovation and new features.

If Microsoft can deliver new features that people actually want and use, then they can successfully charge a nominal fee for Windows 10. But if they can't, they are going to be looking straight into the face of a rebellion.

What happens if one billion users of Windows 10 decide they don't want to pay a subscription fee for Windows 10? Microsoft better have a Plan B, just in case.

Your thoughts
Would you be willing to pay $5 per month ($60 per year) for the right to use Windows 10? Let us know your thoughts in the discussion thread below.

About Mark Kaelin
Mark W. Kaelin has been writing and editing stories about the IT industry, gadgets, finance, accounting, and tech-life for more than 25 years. Most recently, he has been a regular contributor to BreakingModern.com, aNewDomain.net, and TechRepublic.

[Misrule]

Would I pay $60 per year for Win 10? Short answer, NO. Longer answer, still NO. I'd prefer to buy an OS than go subscription with all the data harvesting it will inevitably involve.

One thought - what about people who do not have an always-on internet connection? People who are not in an area with broadband?
Right now, if I want to play Solitaire on the Win 8.1 tablet, I turn off the wi-fi connection and that gets rid of the offer of ads. Will that work on Win 10? If not, it's a brick without an internet connection. No thanks.

[Rick Danger]

While Microsoft prepares to roll forward with it's Software As a Service (SaaS) model and charging for such items as Windows, email, cloud storage, etc., another industry based on subscription fees is getting a wake-up call: the cable/satellite TV industry.

For a few years I've been wondering when cable and satellite providers would move away from "bundling" and move to an "a la carte" service model where subscribers were allowed to pick their own TV content. Only now as alternatives like Amazon, NetFlix, Sling, Roku, and Apple TV have provided consumers with real alternatives are the big TV companies starting to get the message. Of course only when shareholders feel the pinch do the industry giants sit up and take notice.

I was also surprised that the (US) Federal Communications Commission landed on the side of the consumer in the "net neutrality" debate, recognizing that the top cable providers like Verizon, Time-Warner, and Comcast also controlled a large percentage of Internet access, which they could use to stifle streaming services in favorite of their own lines of business.

Needless to say the pricing of TV services is a much more complicated affair than what Microsoft is contemplating. A large amount of the cost of cable/satellite TV service is the cost of providing programming, esp. sports. The massive new 2016 TV contract for the NBA is $24 billion split between basic cable channels ESPN and TNT. NBC-Universal (Comcast) paid an additional $7.65 billion to extend it's $4.4 billion contract to cover the Olympics for an additional ten years through 2032. That averages out to $1.3B per game. But it is becoming clear that cable/satellite TV is no longer "price elastic" - i.e., the time when triple digit monthly cable bills and annual price increases were acceptable to the viewing public are obviously over. Even Verizon has started offering FIOS TV and Internet bundles without requiring a land-line phone service.

As outlined in the Mark Kaelin article, Microsoft has a few options it could exercise in imposing SaaS fees on the Windows public. But they need to keep an eye on the cable/satellite TV industry as they contemplate their next step.

Media stocks slammed as pay TV bundle starts unravelling

Ryan Nakashima, Associated Press
Aug. 6, 2015, 5:39 PM

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Signs that pay TV's pricy bundles of channels are starting to unravel finally took a toll on major media companies.

Media stocks were hammered for a second day Thursday as Viacom's underwhelming earnings gave investors another reason to sell, after industry bellwether Disney earlier in the week trimmed a profit outlook due to more people cutting the cord on pay-TV packages.

While there have long been signs consumers love online video distributors like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon, it's the first time that signs of trouble for the traditional cable and satellite TV business have sent such a powerful shudder through the stock market.

Disney's stock dropped 11 percent since Tuesday, when it reported that it was trimming its forecast for TV subscriber-fee profit growth through next year because of subscriber losses at its flagship ESPN sports network.

Over two days, Viacom fell 21 percent, Time Warner dropped 10 percent, Discovery Communications slumped 9 percent, Twenty-First Century Fox fell 13 percent and Comcast fell 6 percent. CBS was down just 1 percent after mostly recovering from a slump on Wednesday.

"Questions around the death of pay TV are now front and center even if the size and pace of declines are likely being overstated by press and Street commentary," wrote analyst Michael Nathanson of MoffettNathanson Research.

Dish said Wednesday its satellite TV subscriber losses accelerated in the quarter through June, falling 81,000 to 13.9 million, nearly double the loss of 44,000 a year ago.

Viacom Inc., which owns Comedy Central and Nickelodeon, reported Thursday that its profit fell in the most recent quarter. While that is largely due to a lack of big films this year, there have been questions about how it will handle a shift in how people consume media. Its shares have fallen 41 percent this year.

"There is no question that our industry is in the midst of significant change," Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman told investors Thursday.

Analysts say that popular channels like ESPN would likely survive any dramatic shift in consumer preference toward online channel packages like Sling TV, which at $20 a month, is far cheaper than traditional pay TV packages.

The question, wrote analyst Martin Pyykkonen of Rosenblatt Securities, is "whether the revenue substitution from skinnier bundles and/or a la carte channel plans will at least approximate the traditional cable bundle revenue over time."

Disney's profit-forecast cut suggested otherwise.

Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob Iger told analysts Tuesday that while the company is proactive in supplying ESPN to small online packages like Sling TV, "we don't think right now it's the greatest opportunity."

Iger said he didn't see "dramatic declines" in pay TV packages like those offered by DirecTV, Comcast and others "over the next, say, five years or so." He said he would contemplate options for ESPN if the traditional pay TV universe continued to shrink, "like going direct to consumers."

In the meantime, it was unclear whether individual channels and skinny channel bundles were succeeding.

Time Warner Inc. said Wednesday that its HBO Now app was the top-grossing app in Apple's iTunes store in May and June following its debut in April, and it was investing more in programming.

HBO chief Richard Plepler tried to allay fears that the single channel offering was causing people to drop bigger TV packages.

"We have seen less than 1 percent of HBO subs leave the bundle to go get HBO Now, which is exactly what we suspected was going to happen," he said. "We feel very good about it and we think HBO Now will be very profitable in the coming quarters."

The comments didn't generate overwhelming enthusiasm on Wall Street.

"The take rate is encouraging but I think it's still early," said Vasily Karasyov, senior research analyst with CLSA Americas. "You have to see conversion from free trial to full pay subscription and so on."

Meanwhile, CBS Corp. CEO Les Moonves was upbeat Wednesday about CBS's go-it-alone online channels called CBS All-Access, which provides CBS content for $6 a month, and Showtime, with original shows and movies for $11 a month.

Not only are its online audiences younger — and therefore more valuable — but it is getting paid more for each subscriber than through traditional distributors, making any shift a benefit.

"Each of these deals resets the value of our content higher than it was before," he said.