MS Chief Marketing Officer talks Windows 10 and previous versions.


Recommended Posts

https://twit.tv/shows/windows-weekly/episodes/445?autostart=false

 

Interview starts around 8:30 with Mr. Capossela (the Forbes article seemed to focus on his comments around 28 minutes).  He discussed Windows 10 privacy concerns around 32 minutes.

 

Slight eye roll at 56:04 minutes (just listen).

HoloLens discussion at 56:45

 

Various other things about Windows mobile are in there as well (though I skipped it).

 

It is actually a bit interesting ... and though I do not like how Microsoft and Mr. Capossela have aggressively pushed 10 ... he does bring about good points/reasoning though I may not 100% agree with them.

7 hours ago, DoctorD said:

Windows 10:

 

They've asked nicely, tried to force it on us, now its flat out scare tactics,.......

 

Next thing will be a knock on our doors from Microsoft reps with baseball bats,

Don't give them any ideas lol

4 hours ago, Unobscured Vision said:

That's not what I meant at all. I have no issue with Microsoft wanting everyone to use Windows 10. The issues I have with Windows are the long-standing UI and under-the-hood annoyances that have gone unfixed since (in one case) Windows 2000 or even earlier. Microsoft needs to commit to making a better-quality product whenever possible; and an annoyance like "taskbar auto-hide settings becoming disregarded by the system" is inexcusable.

Windows still has crap left over from the 3.1 days in it, Microsoft not fixing UI issues and the like isn't a new occurrence.

 

Hell, I was just reading yesterday about how badly Windows handles Unicode in the console (And a myriad of other APIs), it's been broken so long that it's now "by design". uxtheme completely ignores DPI scaling and has since day 1, it's more likely that the old Win32 windowing APIs will be deprecated before the bug is fixed, etc.

  • Like 1
4 hours ago, xendrome said:

Original interview was taken totally out of context, then author decided to start story with a clickbait title and first couple of paragraphs. Horrible journalism. 

 

I'm changing the title of this thread to stop the FUD/Clickbait even though I know the source article has the same title.

thanks...   it does make sense to me. (Y)

Quote

There’s only one problem with Capossela’s statements: they are complete rubbish.

Windows 7 is no less secure than Windows 10 (it will be supported until 2020)

 

So the article writer is also completely incompetent. Getting security updates doesn't mak you as secure as a more modern OS with the same security updates. security is far more than than. The design of the OS systems and user interface among many others things that are only changed when upgrading the full OS system add a lot of security as well. 

 

It's as stupid as claiming that XP and Windows 7 was as  secure after windows 7 was released and XP was still getting security updates(well it still is in the XP POS edition). Any idiot, including the author of this "article" knows that's just isn't true. And while the difference isn't as big between 7 and 10, There certainly are system difference that make it more secure than 7 even if 7 is still getting security updates. 

4 hours ago, Order_66 said:

10 years minimum, probably longer.

 

They won't pull another XP. it's to expensive, 7 doesn't have the support and it certainly don't ave the enterprise loyalty that allowed it to live for as long. also unlike XP enterprises now have good solid thrustworthy upgrades and they know that it's cheaper to upgrade than to stick with the old now. Also since they all moved away from XP, they also moved away from the legacy software that kept many of them on XP. 

 

Enterprises was the only reason XP lived as long, and enterprises are upgrading to windows 10. home users who stick to old OS' doesn't matter in the slightest to MS. 

20 hours ago, The_Decryptor said:

It is entirely unsurprising that Microsoft wants people to move to up to date OS releases, the last thing we need is another Windows XP holding everything back.

Please inform us how XP is holding you back and is holding progress back? I myself am Using Windows 7, I never felt "held back"  by the operating system anybody else uses. 

 

3 hours ago, HawkMan said:

 

They won't pull another XP. it's to expensive, 7 doesn't have the support and it certainly don't ave the enterprise loyalty that allowed it to live for as long. also unlike XP enterprises now have good solid thrustworthy upgrades and they know that it's cheaper to upgrade than to stick with the old now. Also since they all moved away from XP, they also moved away from the legacy software that kept many of them on XP. 

 

Enterprises was the only reason XP lived as long, and enterprises are upgrading to windows 10. home users who stick to old OS' doesn't matter in the slightest to MS. 

I disagree, take a look at their stupid "upgrade to 10" update that keeps installing itself even when uninstalled and hidden, to force or trick users into installing Windows 10. Look at their "Ooops we didn't mean to force you to upgrade, sorry!" incident.

4 hours ago, SpeedyTheSnail said:

Please inform us how XP is holding you back and is holding progress back? I myself am Using Windows 7, I never felt "held back"  by the operating system anybody else uses. 

...

Because users still expect their software to run on these old operating systems, and when devs have to cater to that they can't take advantage of newer APIs (e.g. WARP is busted on Windows 7, you need Windows 8+ to use it properly, so for example Mozilla had to retain their old software compositor in their 64bit version which otherwise could have been removed)

 

And then there's the issue of things like system libraries getting security fixes, but not security updates (The TLS implementation prior to Windows 10 isn't great, etc.)

12 hours ago, SpeedyTheSnail said:

 

 

I disagree, take a look at their stupid "upgrade to 10" update that keeps installing itself even when uninstalled and hidden, to force or trick users into installing Windows 10. Look at their "Ooops we didn't mean to force you to upgrade, sorry!" incident.

You disagree? with what ?

 

That enterprises are upgrading ? well facts tell you otherwise, also they're enterprises they're no upgrading because of the upgrade assistant. 

That MS retire OS' based on enterprise usage no home users ? well another fact check for you. They won't keep an old OS alive because of home users, they will however try to bring home users to newer and inherently more secure and securely designed OS' because an un-secure OS/users isn't just a danger to himself but to everyone else as well. 

 

If you're going to make a claim, say what the claim is, then bring some arguments to actually back it up. 

2 hours ago, HawkMan said:

You disagree? with what ?

 

That enterprises are upgrading ? well facts tell you otherwise, also they're enterprises they're no upgrading because of the upgrade assistant. 

That MS retire OS' based on enterprise usage no home users ? well another fact check for you. They won't keep an old OS alive because of home users, they will however try to bring home users to newer and inherently more secure and securely designed OS' because an un-secure OS/users isn't just a danger to himself but to everyone else as well. 

 

If you're going to make a claim, say what the claim is, then bring some arguments to actually back it up. 

I disagree with the last part of your statement, "if users stick to the old OS then Microsoft doesn't care in the least". If you reread my comment in the context of the last sentence of your post then you will see that I did bring arguments to back up my statement.

 

 

How is Windows 10 inherently secure? It has a lot more chance of privacy violations and data interception than prior versions of Windows. 

 

If W10 is "inherently more secure" then a virus for a Windows 7, Vista, and XP computer theoretically should not infect a W10 computer right? So therefore using a previous version of Windows does not make somebody a danger to everybody else as well, it is more fanboy fear mongering. Alternatively, using an generally unused operating system makes you slightly safer as hackers target the bigger market shares for a reason.

 

Microsoft isn't giving Windows 10 away for free to consumers out of the goodness of their heart, there is a business reason and that is why they are pushing it so hard, it is not because they want to make the world safer. If they cared about security and privacy they would stop putting NSA backdoors in their software, they would not have data collection (Fanboys can keep saying it is to improve your experience, but having no true way to opt out is bad).

 

Enterprises get the most out of their equipment, they are upgrading from XP to Windows 10 probably because of cost and future compatibility, not because W10 is awesome and more secure. 

 

They will use these systems for another 10-15 years, small businesses (of course not enterprise) might use them even longer.

 

Take your trolling somewhere else, I know what I am talking about

1 hour ago, SpeedyTheSnail said:

 

How is Windows 10 inherently secure? It has a lot more chance of privacy violations and data interception than prior versions of Windows. 

 

Inherrently MORE ecure.

 

And it should be obvious to anyone with any degree of knowledge about code or computer technology. While both systems get patches for security holes(for now) Windows 10's systems are upgraded and use newer code with better security practices and coding. That's part of what you do when you upgrade code, you write new code that''s newer and better at the basic level. thing that are't patched by mere security patches. 

 

And you're confusing not being affected by viruses as more secure. this isn't just about viruses, it's about opening holes into you networks. about drones for their bot nets which affects EVERYONE. about infecting other targets which can then be used as man in the middle gateways to target you or infect other devices you connect through which then affects you and can leave your connections affected. 

 

oh.. right nsa backdoors... right, I just realized this discussion is pointless, and I wasted my time talking about anything technical and rational. 

 

 

 

oh and you're also completely off about your enterprise comments, again.  enterprises as a whole alreadys upgradeed to windows 7, and are no AGAIN, upgrading to windows 10. because they are no longer trapped in  situation they can't upgrade, and because there's no reason not to upgrade and because upgrading to windows 10 makes sense for them, and a major part of that IS security. If you knew what you where talking about, you would know that. 

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Python programmers in a nutshell. Now, guess what lang most AI programmers use... :-)
    • There was nothing whatsoever wrong with Vista as an OS after the SP1 update. People who claim it wasn't were using ancient machines for some silly reason. Not kidding, no hyperbole/exaggeration. Vista was good.
    • Windows ME was worse.
    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      443
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!