|
My understanding is that you can tell Windows 10, as with Windows 8 previously, that you are on a metered connection. Once that is set then I think low priority updates are not downloaded automatically.
Not tested this but that's my understanding.
All round good guy.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with this is that the client (business owner) did not know anything until they got their bill from Telus. At that point - it was too late.
My client is on the west coast - I'm not. As well - I did not setup their network.
The root cause of this fiasco is Microsoft assuming they can force download Windows 10 onto peoples machines without their knowledge or consent or even knowing that it's going on.
I have no control over what my clients' employees do or don't do as it is a remote site - and again - I wasn't the one to setup their network.
This is a matter of closing the barn door after the horse is gone and the fox, well, he doesn't seem to care what users are willing to accept or not accept unbeknownst to them.
It's a sh1t move on the part of Microsoft - that's it that's all.
|
|
|
|
|
23741 wrote: The root cause of this fiasco is Microsoft assuming they can force download Windows 10 onto peoples machines without their knowledge or consent or even knowing that it's going on.
Maybe, but given that I'm occasionally stuck supporting a Windows XP device I think that the negatives of assuming by default that no-one wants to upgrade is far worse than assuming everyone wants to upgrade. Of course my opinion is pretty one sided.
23741 wrote:
I have no control over what my clients' employees do or don't do as it is a remote site
Wrong!
1) Identify that Microsoft going to be stupid and do something like this.
2) Send out an email notifying all of your clients that this could happen with a note that you can stop it.
3) Profit!
I might have been working with marketing guys too long.
23741 wrote: It's a sh1t move on the part of Microsoft - that's it that's all.
If only multi-billion dollar corporations were more in touch with their consumers. 
|
|
|
|
|
Dar Brett wrote: Maybe, but given that I'm occasionally stuck supporting a Windows XP device I think that the negatives of assuming by default that no-one wants to upgrade is far worse than assuming everyone wants to upgrade.
Pride in your software and company is no excuse for a bad user experience.
Download a small update in the background, same as was done with the multi-gig Windows 10 download. Have it nag the user on a regular basis, telling them that they can get Windows 10 for free, if they want, and present them with a list of options for obtaining it (or declining it.) Then the user has been made aware of all their options, and are happier for it. Forcing change on users (because you, the company, think you know best) is not a favorable thing.
|
|
|
|
|
OUCH! We're in rural Canada with a 35GB/month cap and a few teenagers kicking about. Most months, we have to ration our network to stay under this cap or face rather heavy fines.
In early August our internet use mysterously spiked for a few days. We had to disconnect the network for the rest of the month because this download frenzy had used almost all of our quota. My machine was one of the culprits, even though it was mostly idle. Thinking I had a virus, I spent a few hours checking for infections and ripping out any software that could have caused the problem.
We never knew what happened until I read this article and the associated links. Sure enough C:\\$Windows.~BT invisibly sits on my hard drive taking up 5.87GB. This is stuff that I did not ask for, and would have never consented to downloading.
Thank you very much Microsoft! 
|
|
|
|
|
Use a Proxy Server, cache the code, for x number of days, windows PC running proxy between the router and clients, if your service provider, then create offline image they can download see check out "media-creation-tool-install" for windows 10 or provide a proxy server for the download.
However, the updates, as windows 10 runs as a service, yr at the mercy of Microsoft, what they send could be enormous, and it could be regular, it could be complete replace or patching.
|
|
|
|
|
As per this page:
http://www.askvg.com/how-to-remove-get-windows-10-app-and-its-icon-from-taskbar/
The registry script does the trick.
Windows 10 has already been downloaded on each workstation - and is starting to nag for installation - the registry script at the page above castrates it in it's tracks.
|
|
|
|
|
Facebook seems to be down for me right now.
I've heard there've been recent problems.
Now, consider this...
If you use Facebook as your Social Login at other sites, you probably can't get into those either.
Terrible!!
Unintended consequences...
|
|
|
|
|
newton.saber wrote: Facebook
newton.saber wrote: problems
newton.saber wrote: Terrible
newton.saber wrote: consequences
Indeed. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I heard the outages mentioned on local radio on Friday.
But now today I'm experiencing them.
Wonder why there's not more about this out there?
Maybe it's a localized problem?
|
|
|
|
|
Probably because most FarceBook users who are getting the problem are trying to discuss it the only way they know how...on Farcebook... 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
+5!
|
|
|
|
|
Stop using Facebook and your troubles with Facebook will go away?
|
|
|
|
|
Wise words indeed.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: Stop using Facebook
Sounds like he did. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
I'm more interested in the failure of the Social Login though.
It is interesting -- and to me, unexpected -- that if Facebook is down then I cannot use my Facebook login to login in to other sites.
OAuth Failure?
Is this an OAuth failure? Maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
newton.saber wrote: unexpected -- that if Facebook is down then I cannot use my Facebook login to login in to other site
How is that unexpected? Facebook is the one authenticating you so if it is down, you can't be authenticated.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Right.
Not meaning it is unexpected like, duh...facebook is down why can't I log into facebook...
More like, uh...
Facebook is down and I can't login to another site which has nothing to do with Facebook...
except, oh wait... I use facebook OAuth....
Here's why it is unexpected...
...
Uhh...facebook, even if you go down, I should be able to get to the OAuth piece so make it work!!
However, I do believe this points out why you SHOULD NOT use facebook as your OAuth login provider.
Because FB is a failure.
Use Google or Twitter as your OAuth login provider instead.
Ahh...
|
|
|
|
|
newton.saber wrote: Uhh...facebook, even if you go down, I should be able to get to the OAuth piece so make it work!!
However, I do believe this points out why you SHOULD NOT use facebook as your OAuth login provider.
That makes sense.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wish I could. Unfortunately, it is a great way of staying in touch with children, relatives and old friends when we live on different continents.
|
|
|
|
|
Farcebook came on line here in Florida a minute ago.
How do we preserve the wisdom men will need,
when their violent passions are spent?
- The Lost Horizon
|
|
|
|
|
|
newton.saber wrote: If you use Facebook as your Social Login at other sites
Sounds like an "all eggs / one basket" issue -- best avoided.
I don't use sites that only allow access from some other site.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Sounds like an "all eggs / one basket" issue
I understand your point and I agree with you from the "yes, all the hype about single sign on is really just that since humans fail at everything" standpoint.
However, I also believe in single sign on via OAuth because it is quite a bit safer having fewer access points for the hackers to get you and having fewer passwords to remember.
However, I'm sure you'll say, "fewer access points for hte hackers to get you, are you crazy?!"
But, I'm saying it in an exaggerated way like:
"if humans could do one simple thing right like give me one super-secure sign on that is always guarded so that no hackers could ever get through."
However, I know, humans cannot do anything right.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
