Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Aug 2016 21:28 UTC
Windows

The Windows 10 Anniversary Update was released earlier this evening, and I dutifully installed it so that I could write about any oddities that might pop up. Well, a number of oddities have popped up, and they're bad - really bad. The Anniversary Update does some really shady stuff during installation that it doesn't inform you of at all until after the fact.

First, the Anniversary Update reinstalls Skype "for you", even if you had it uninstalled earlier, which in and of itself is a blatant disregard for users - I uninstalled it for a reason, and I'd like Microsoft to respect that. That in and of itself is bad enough, but here's the kicker: during installation, Microsoft also automatically logs you into Skype, so that possible Skype contacts can just start calling or messaging you - again, without ever asking for the user's consent.

Imagine my surprise when I open that useless Metro notification center thing - whose button now sits in the bottom right of the task bar, right of the clock, even, and is unremovable - and see that Skype is now installed, and that I'm logged in. This is a blatant disregard for users, and I'm sure tons of users will be unpleasantly surprised to see Microsoft forcing Skype down their throats.

There was an even bigger surprise, though: during installation of the Anniversary Update, Microsoft apparently flags Classic Shell - a popular Start menu replacement that gives Windows 10 a customisable Start menu that doesn't suck - as incompatible with the Anniversary Update, and just straight-up deletes hides it from your computer - again, without ever notifying you beforehand or asking you for your permission.

Update: actually, the application isn't removed entirely - it's still there in the Program Files folder, but it's entirely scrapped from search results and the Start menu. Effectively, for most users, that's identical to removing it. What an incredibly odd and user-hostile way of dealing with this. You can see how the wording in the screenshot below is confusing regarding the removing vs. hiding issue.

Classic Shell released an update to fix the compatibility issue detected, so I hope my settings are still there somewhere, because it'd suck having to redo all of them because Microsoft just randomly deleted a program from my computer hid a program, without informing me or asking me for my permission. It could've just disabled the program, prevented it from running - why delete hide it entirely? Are they that desperate to try and get me to use their terrible excuse for a Start menu?

So, just in case you're about to install this update - Microsoft will force Skype down your throat, and may randomly delete hide programs from your computer without asking for your permission.

Have fun.

Thread beginning with comment 632634
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Err not quite
by lucas_maximus on Tue 2nd Aug 2016 21:55 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

The skype thing is shitty.

But Windows 10 will stop you from installing incompatible programs.

I installed Visual Studio 2008 a few months ago. Bundled in the installer is SQL SERVER EXPRESS 2005 (which is deemed incompatible by Windows 10). Even though I had accidentally included it when choosing the components in the installer. Windows 10 blocked the installation.

Edited 2016-08-02 21:57 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Err not quite
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 3rd Aug 2016 04:02 in reply to "Err not quite"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Understood, but I thought windows prided itself as making each version compatible with all the crazy apps everyone already had.

I just upgraded to 10 before the free upgrade expired, and saw it hide/disable a few of the stupid OEM apps that were bundled in.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Err not quite
by Kochise on Wed 3rd Aug 2016 06:39 in reply to "RE: Err not quite"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03
RE[2]: Err not quite
by lucas_maximus on Wed 3rd Aug 2016 06:57 in reply to "RE: Err not quite"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Newer Versions of SQL Server are backwards compatible with Database Scripts of earlier versions.

i.e. SQL Server 2005 database will work with MS SQL SERVER 2008 and above. So there is no reason to keep old versions of it around.

I think SQL SERVER and the Management studio really digs it way into the OS.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Err not quite
by CaptainN- on Wed 3rd Aug 2016 05:05 in reply to "Err not quite"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

I bet there are an equal, or maybe even greater number of users who will think something like "oh cool - Skype is free - I thought I had to pay for that."

But it seems on osnews.com all we can do is bitch about change, and only consider less technical users' feelings when something might hurt them, rather than delight them - like a thing might go away or change, boo. Can't ever think that somethings might be a sensible default, or a nicety that many users actually appreciate or think is neat, so yeah Microsoft is totally lame...

And yes, I get that many users will dislike or be annoyed by this software (and it's endless unsolicited invites) - but most that do will simply turn it off, and everyone else will have a pretty decent new VOIP toy to play with. Maybe that will finally give people an alternative t the old horrible - what the hell did you just say 8 kHz - phone system that Microsoft has been tepidly trying to disrupt for ages. No, that would be horrible! MICORSOFT IS TBADD!!

Edited 2016-08-03 05:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Err not quite
by Drumhellar on Wed 3rd Aug 2016 18:46 in reply to "RE: Err not quite"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

I noticed with the UWP version of Skype that there aren't ads in it, unlike the desktop version.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Err not quite
by Ford Prefect on Sat 6th Aug 2016 14:27 in reply to "RE: Err not quite"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Oh cool - Internet Explorer is free - I thought I had to pay for that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Err not quite
by lucas_maximus on Wed 3rd Aug 2016 06:58 in reply to "Err not quite"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/4vw21h/massive_psa_do...

Classic Shell was hacked, I suspect this is why it was disabled and flagged.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Err not quite
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 3rd Aug 2016 07:20 in reply to "RE: Err not quite"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/4vw21h/massive_psa_do...

Classic Shell was hacked, I suspect this is why it was disabled and flagged.


No, this is incorrect. The hacked .exe was 4.3.0, which is the new version of Classic Shell specifically for the Anniversary Update. I was running an earlier version, and it was this earlier, non-hacked version that got hidden by the Compatibility Assistant.

The virus inside the hacked version cannot, at this point, be detected by Windows' own antivirus, so it can't even be flagged in the first place. On top of that - it's the Compatibility Assistant that's doing the hiding - not Windows Defender (or whatever it's called right now).

The hacked version of Classic Shell was on an external site; if you downloaded the new version using the updater - which is what I did - you're fine.

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE: Err not quite
by etrek on Thu 4th Aug 2016 11:01 in reply to "Err not quite"
etrek Member since:
2006-03-29

But sometimes you need to have "incompatible" stuff in order to deal with legacy situations. Old communications apps, old proprietary systems etc. Sometimes even partially broken functionality of an old app is all you need to maintain/communicate with/extend the heirloom stuff.

Granted this is likely a minority situation BUT a simple dialog box asking wether to do this or not during the update process would have been better.

All this extra control Microsoft is exerting over their platform - I wonder if their liability is increasing over it. If we no longer "own" or "control" our systems then wouldn't a breach shift at least some of the responsibility back to Microsoft regardless of the EULA crap?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Err not quite
by dionicio on Sat 6th Aug 2016 00:41 in reply to "RE: Err not quite"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

In fact MS was in direct collision course with their legacy ecosystem. Fortunately They have applied their expertize on 'blending', as the olive oil producers do, to keep consistency on their produce ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2