Good to hear. I liked 7. Put off 8 for a very long time but recently gave in with the addition of Classic Shell--that one little add-on made all the difference for me. I'm due for a new laptop at work in a few months, and if other feedback is like this I'll probably go ahead and give 10 a try.
It needs to go away? Like every time it starts it should be cut off immediately in mid-stream?
Hey, I hardly ever press the power button, lets get rid of that one.
Well, you totally convinced me. I had no idea that without a union, my despotic employers would suddenly remove the toilets from my workplace. So, do I just put the money in a brown bag and give it to Guido every week?
If they pay the salary that we agreed to, then they're not ripping me off.
Let's get back to Unions, worker solidarity and high minimum wages.
Fuck you. I don't need gangsters taking another slice of my paycheck.
Damned right it is. He took an oath, and he fulfilled it, while everybody else at the NSA violated it.
I've been signing my posts since before you learned how to be snotty, kid. Get off my fucking lawn.
I dispute it. He blew the whistle on tens of billions of felonies.
Snowden is a hero, and you're minion.
What the administration should do in Snowden's case is drop all charges, officially exonerate him, and ask for his cooperation in investigating and prosecuting the crimes that he made us all aware of.
"For decades, the industry has searched for ways to reduce the lag time between the processor and data to allow much faster analysis," said Rob Crooke, senior vice president and general manager of Intel's Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group. "This new class of non-volatile memory achieves this goal and brings game-changing performance to memory and storage solutions."
"One of the most significant hurdles in modern computing is the time it takes the processor to reach data on long-term storage," said Mark Adams, president of Micron. "This new class of non-volatile memory is a revolutionary technology that allows for quick access to enormous data sets and enables entirely new applications."
Link to Original Source
My proposed solution is simply that they don't force updates on those who don't want them, and instead allow users to defer or completely ignore unwanted updates and only install software they want on their own computer. This solution looks remarkably like how previous versions of Windows have worked prior to the new policy.
I'm seeing conflicting messages about what you can and can't defer/block now. For example, some posters in this thread have said you could already block driver updates before, but other sources (including the article you linked to) imply that this was not previously the case and has now been changed in response to the Nvidia driver problems that triggered this discussion. In any case, this is all academic if they do the sensible thing and don't force any update on any unwilling recipient.
Certainly some of these companies do have decent customer support -- I don't mean to imply that such issues never get resolved.
The trouble is, unless they all have good support, there is a risk involved in having automatic updates that wasn't there before.
What I honestly don't understand after all the discussions here and elsewhere in recent days is why so many people seem to be defending Microsoft's position. If they're worried about security issues not being patched, they could just as well leave updates on by default but optional, so those who know what they're doing can take steps to apply the important patches with proper testing and without risking unwanted side effects, while those who just plug in and go will probably get exactly the same result as they would with compulsory updates anyway.
As far as I can see, there is literally no reason not to do this -- which is basically status quo for most systems today -- unless someone at Microsoft has intentions that mean they would want to push an update that a clued up user/sysadmin would not want to install, which is the only time it makes a significant difference whether or not the updates are mandatory.
In such cases it is paramount that you contact the hardware vendor and insist that they provide an updated driver to ensure that it works in your environment.
But seriously, the reality is that you have no power whatsoever to compel an organisation the size of say Nvidia or AMD to provide working drivers. Both provide drivers for their gaming cards that are frequently buggy as hell. Even their much more expensive professional workstation cards -- where almost the entire point is the supposedly better drivers, because the hardware is all but identical -- have all kinds of silly driver bugs that have been known to cause anything from screen glitches while using supposedly certified applications to outright system crashes.
Several people have commented in this Slashdot discussion that you can disable the driver updates within Windows update even if you can't disable other parts, though so far I haven't been able to find any official confirmation of that from a Microsoft source. Even if it's true, that in itself says something about Microsoft's awareness of the potential for forced updates to go badly wrong.