Microsoft no longer allows admins to block Windows Store access in Win10 Pro

http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-no-longer-allows-administrators-to-block-windows-store-access-in-windows-10-pro/

by walterbell • 10 years ago

297 229 10 years ago

Someone12342• 10 years ago

If Microsoft wants SMBs to use Enterprise then make the Enterprise edition more easily available to SMBs, don't try to force them to move to it by making petty little changes to make their life more difficult.

I can go on the Google Apps website right now and buy myself seats with a few clicks and a few minutes. If I want to buy Windows Enterprise licenses it will take weeks, cost an unclear amount (at the onset), and I'll have to talk/negotiate with pointless sales drones.

I worked for a startup, under 20 machines, I tried to buy then Windows 7 Enterprise. Microsoft's partners were super unhelpful, disinterested in a small account, refused to provide clear pricing, and I was getting upsold even before we got the basics squared away ("I'll just add on 20 CALs, a Windows Server license, and let's talk exchange!"). Ultimately we just gave up, and used Windows 7 Home(!) for three years.

People want to give Microsoft money, but Microsoft is intent on making the entire thing as painful as possible and their licensing as obtuse as possible. Office 365 Business gets a lot of shit, but it is a dream come true for startups, you pay one cost, and one user gets their Office license key, email, and some cloud storage taken care of.

Where is the Windows version of Office 365? Why can't I just pay a per user fee and get one Windows Enterprise key, the CAL, and Azure-based AD?

Time is money, and Microsoft likes to waste a lot of time. I'd prefer to spend a few dollars more a year and have a simple streamline process of licensing, than spend weeks being jerked around just to maybe get a few bucks off of a fake price anyway.

Qantourisc• 10 years ago

If I recall correctly they want to get people on their 365. Not a good plan unless you trust Microsoft completely, of-course these kind of moves don't help their argument.

fu9ar• 10 years ago

Sometimes, but significantly often, when I click on an email in the Outlook 365 web app, nothing happens. The display pane goes blank-white.

There is a noticable delay when I click to focus on the search bar, and often I have to retype because I click and go to start typing in my search term and lose the first few characters.

Almost always, when I search for an email in the Android app, it just hangs and even if I leave it to sit for minutes...

It's not about trust in motivation at this point. It's about trust in competency.

yuhong3• 10 years ago

You can get Win10 Enterprise with Software Assurance using Open License. It is also recommended to renew it every three years. But on the other note, I should mention that even Server 2012 Essentials include WSUS to control updates for example.

Someone12342• 10 years ago

I don't understand what this had to do with what I said? They sold Windows 7 Enterprise with Software Assurance on an Open License six years ago.

I am talking about the process you have to go through to buy Windows licenses and licensing in general with Microsoft. I literally had to take a exam at one point on Microsoft licensing to be eligible for a program of theirs.

I wasn't complaining about the price, or available options, I was complaining about how hard they make it to actually give them money, see how much things cost, and to be clear about exactly what licenses you need.

snuxoll2• 10 years ago

Where is the Windows version of Office 365? Why can't I just pay a per user fee and get one Windows Enterprise key, the CAL, and Azure-based AD?

It used to be an optional tier of Windows Intune (now known as Microsoft Intune), which they have since killed (stupid decision, IMO). However, you can just directly join a Windows 10 (Pro?) system to Azure AD, Enterprise is only necessary for things like DirectRoute, you may not be able to block the Windows Store entirely but you can restrict people from using non-whitelisted applications IIRC.

If you want to manage software updates, deploy applications, Microsoft Intune is still a great option (even includes endpoint protection for PC's) at $6/usr/mo. It's just too bad they got rid of the $10/usr/mo tier that had the Windows Enterprise license.

lstamour3• 10 years ago

It is too bad about Intune. I think the Azure AD with joining is only hybrid, unless I've missed something, which means you still need a local AD resource. Reminds me of Azure-compatible Storage Spaces Dorect -- an amazing idea until they told me I would need four identically configured servers and I realised it would be a waste of time when I only need one server and less redundancy to start. Wish they could figure out a way to provide AD entirely remotely, for those willing to require the Internet always working 24/7 to locate and manage devices on their own network... Though maybe something like bonjour could also replace those functions of AD.

levemi4• 10 years ago

I worked for a startup, under 20 machines, I tried to buy then Windows 7 Enterprise. Microsoft's partners were super unhelpful, disinterested in a small account, refused to provide clear pricing, and I was getting upsold even before we got the basics squared away ("I'll just add on 20 CALs, a Windows Server license, and let's talk exchange!"). Ultimately we just gave up, and used Windows 7 Home(!) for three years.

You were likely talking to the wrong people. You need to go through bizspark[1] if you're a startup and you'll end up with a super-helpful dedicated Microsoft representative and lots of free stuff. It's been never anything but super in my experience to work with Microsoft as a startup.

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/bizspark

monocasa• 10 years ago

If he's able to reach "the wrong people", that still represents a failure on Microsoft's part.

cortesoft2• 10 years ago

If those 'wrong' people are Microsoft employees, they should have directed him to the right people.

If they didn't, then it is absolutely Microsoft's fault.

merb• 10 years ago

bizspark is only for up to 7 people. I mean you could actually create a single account and use the same key for multiple machines but if it comes to office your limited to 2 keys per user. but you could install every key on up to 2 machines but licensing forbids to use both installations at once.

plandis• 10 years ago

The fact that it's apparently not obvious who to talk to seems to be a problem for Microsoft to solve if they care about the "little guys" (maybe they don't? I'm not sure)

stordoff• 10 years ago

You need to go through bizspark

Shouldn't Microsoft make that clear then? If I wanted Windows 10 Enterprise for a business, I'd search for "windows 10 enterprise", follow the link to "Windows 10 Enterprise for your enterprise business - Microsoft"[1], and go to the "Buy>How to buy"[2] page. There is zero mention of BizSpark in that process as far as I can see.

It's also non-obvious from your link that BizSpark includes Windows 10 Enterprise. I had to download the "Products by benefits level" Excel sheet to be sure, and it appears to be limited to five people regardless.

I understand that Microsoft's enterprise licensing typically involves going through a reseller, but Microsoft certainly could be doing a better job pointing people (esp. small businesses) in the right direction. Even if I go through to "Contact a Windows Solution Provider"[3], it defaults to searching for UK and an 8km radius (accurate enough), sort by "Most relevant". Top 5 results:

* German-language result

* Scandinavian/Nordic-language result (doesn't look like Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian to me. Possibly Finnish?)

* English-language result, but located in the Netherlands

* French-language result

* Italian-language result

Maybe these companies can help me, or maybe they are the "wrong people" to whom you refer. Following what I would see as the obvious path to try and purchase Windows 10 Enterprise, I'd have no idea how to tell the difference.

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/WindowsForBusiness/windows-f... [2] https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/WindowsForBusiness/buy [3] https://pinpoint.microsoft.com/en-GB/search?type=companies&k...

jrcii2• 10 years ago

I lived through the exact same disaster. I spent HOURS on the phone trying to acquire a license for Windows 7 Enterprise, I needed it for Hyper-V. Microsoft's main number, dead-end IVR system. Tried the Microsoft Store, they routed me to the dead-end IVR system. 50 or so minutes after my initial attempt I got some person that could barely speak English from India routing me to a voicemail, a couple of times Microsoft's phone system plain hung up on me after having me on hold for 20+ minutes.

Eventually I got some person at a Microsoft Store felt bad about the whole thing and took 2 days to get a number for a rep a CDW who could get me the price. That rep didn't have the price, but took my information after a 15 minute call and promised to get it to me. When she did days later, she couldn't give me a final price because she forgot I needed a user CAL and a remote access CAL. When I went to make the final purchase, she said oh, actually we can't do it because Microsoft won't sell the Windows 7 license anymore only Windows 10.

The whole process made me feel like I was losing my mind.

keithpeter2• 10 years ago

"The whole process made me feel like I was losing my mind."

And perhaps Microsoft shareholders are beginning to feel as if they might be losing their capital soonish... This sounds like The End.

rsync2• 10 years ago

"I lived through the exact same disaster."

Might it be easier to just get an OS-level subscription to MSDN ? I got one of those a few years ago for rsync.net and it was quick and easy to purchase ... and then we had everything.

Certainly more expensive to get MSDN than a single OS license, but it's not that expensive ...

cm33• 10 years ago

Reminds of the time when I wanted to get a license for a piece of software and they only offered training courses for teams coupled with a software license. I chalked it off as being outside their customer target group.

hackuser7• 10 years ago

Unfortunately, that is common with many large companies, including Microsoft. I've practically begged them to take my money but sometimes nobody seems to know how to do it.

yuhong3• 10 years ago

You are supposed to use downgrade rights, which every VL agreement have.

tanzam752• 10 years ago

I spent HOURS on the phone trying to acquire a license for Windows 7 Enterprise, I needed it for Hyper-V.

I'm not sure why you're trying to do that.

Windows 7 cannot run Hyper-V. You can install the Hyper-V Manager on Windows 7, but that only requires Pro or Ultimate. [1]

Client Hyper-V was only added in Windows 8, and you only need Pro. [2]

[1] https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/f0f1dc3d-9...

[2] https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/b8/2011/09/07/bringing-hype...

godzillabrennus2• 10 years ago

If you are small and want enterprise licensing you can sign up your company as a reseller through Ingram Micro and buy it through distribution faster than a reseller will quote you.

I think Windows Intune also comes with Enterprise licensing as well, but I'm not certain.

nradov• 10 years ago

The ironic thing is that when Microsoft launched Windows NT they successfully disrupted Novell's Netware business largely by just being easier to purchase. Back then Netware was a superior product in most ways, but the only way to get it was to buy through an authorized local reseller. Dealing with those shops was a huge hassle and expense. Whereas anyone with a credit card could call up a catalog retailer and order as many different NT licenses as they wanted.

z3t4• 10 years ago

Like going into an expensive store dressed like a poor man.

narrator• 10 years ago

This kind of reminds me about how QuarkXPress abused their market dominance for so long and generated a lot of resentment in the community. When a decent alternative came along in Adobe InDesign, people jumped ship in droves[1].

[1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/quarkx...

dethswatch• 10 years ago

They don't want you any more.

When you're ready to spend big bucks on Azure, please let them know.

tracker14• 10 years ago

I'm pretty happy spending small bucks on Azure... though, I'm less inclined to be stuck with windows, there are aspects I do prefer...

cm21878• 10 years ago

What's the rationale for not selling windows enterprise licenses on amazon? What's so special that it requires an official reseller?

cuckcuckspruce• 10 years ago

If Windows Enterprise Licenses were on Amazon then Microsoft could not maximize how much money they make on Windows Enterprise Licenses. They rely on the information asymmetry to charge you as much as they think they can get out of you.

leonroy• 10 years ago

Adding my voice to the chorus.

The Microsoft Windows ecosystem is a god send for those wanting to enforce single sign on, roaming profiles and group policy to control things deploy Chrome, 7-Zip or all manner of apps straight to the desktop or lock down access for say the demo room machines but give full access to engineering notebooks and enforce things like password policy, mapped network drives, etc.

It honestly just works and is fantastic in practise for companies wanting to enforce good IT policies with 10+ employees (in comparison try doing the above with Mac OS X + Mac OS X Server - like pulling teeth).

However Microsoft's licensing is absolutely fracking byzantine.

* I first need a server license - is it per socket or per core?

* Then I need my desktop licenses - do I need Pro or Enterprise? Or heck, maybe Ultimate only has the regional language options I need?

* Then I apparently need a fracking Client Access License for not only Windows Server to Windows Desktop services but for god damn DNS and DHCP services too! Like seriously MS - are you kidding me? So every iOS or Android device which pops up on our Windows DHCP/DNS needs a CAL apparently.

Now the whole cluster fudge above would be barely tolerable for any well funded startup or company IF Microsoft made buying these licenses easy.

If the above nightmare sounds bad however, just try getting licensed for it all and ensuring you're compliant.

It's seriously, a real damn shame because Microsoft Windows Server + Windows desktop is fantastic. When put together it really does work beautifully. It's just such a shame that MS seems to shoot itself in the foot consistently when it comes to figuring out their licensing.

hackbinary• 10 years ago

So every iOS or Android device which pops up on our Windows DHCP/DNS needs a CAL

Only if you have Device CALs. If you are using User CALs then each user is licensed for as many devices as they/you want.

We have good sales company (in the UK) with a really great sales REP. We moved with him when he changed companies a couple of years back. We call him up, and we have an open license the next day. That said there are some pretty aweful MS partners.

kevin_thibedeau• 10 years ago

When put together it really does work beautifully.

Except for the forced reboots because their OS still can't completely update itself at run time.

brazzledazzle4• 10 years ago

in comparison try doing the above with Mac OS X + Mac OS X Server - like pulling teeth

Because OS X Server is complete crap. As is ARD. Not even Apple uses OS X Server to manage their devices. I believe they use JAMF's Casper.

chrismarlow9• 10 years ago

I worked for a startup a while back and we tried to get quotes on running Microsoft SQL server. The sales rep could not comprehend that we were a web company. They continued to try to ask us about how we would be using it to manage our in-house inventory. Even after explaining, "no we're a web company, like myspace", the rep still didn't get it. We used MySQL.

brazzledazzle4• 10 years ago

VARs don't even know how SQL Server licensing works. It's not hard when you take the time to read about it but it's convoluted and no one should have to waste their time doing it. Basically it comes down to this:

if ($number_of_clients * $client_license) > ($number_of_processors * $processor_license) buy per-proc, else buy client licenses.

Per-processor licensing is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30K (per CPU). Standby servers and processors aren't counted toward that total. Clients are any machines or users that directly or indirectly (like via a web app) use the database. That last point is important because sales reps at vendors who's software requires SQL Server will sometimes be ignorant of it or will lie and when you get audited you're the one left holding the bill.

brazzledazzle4• 10 years ago

No joke, it's like that in no small part because corporate types love it that way regardless of business size. If it's easy to buy licenses they'll find a way to go through a VAR anyway. I've seen a consultancy engaged to middle-man the Google Apps purchase and configuration and ultimately the only value they provided were a couple trainings and some initial configuration any idiot with a few minutes and the ability to read could do.

The reality is that for your corporate/enterprise-fully-entrenched-fiefdom-building management person easily buying things or having someone read documentation and configure something is just not compatible with how they operate. They need net 30/60/90, sales drone wine, dine & golf, "is this in the Gartner Magic Quadrant?", a drawn out high-touch sales engagement and consultants they can blame.

Risk averse is the name of the game and it doesn't matter if it makes the business too slow to compete because a middle manager will never be held directly accountable for doing exactly what every other politics-first middle manager is doing. You want to sell to enterprises? Get in with the developers but be prepared to provide all of the above to the people actually making the purchasing decisions.

digi_owl• 10 years ago

Why do this remind me of how big media had to dragged kicking and screaming into the streaming age?

kidmenot• 10 years ago

People want to give Microsoft money, but Microsoft is intent on making the entire thing as painful as possible and their licensing as obtuse as possible.

This.

I don't know if this is still the case, but a few years ago I bought an MSDN subscription, and it took weeks. I could never figure out why they made it so difficult, nor why they forced me to go through partners. Just add a subscribe button on your own website, let me pay and be done with it. How you handle distribution is not my business (and I reckon distribution is not an issue anymore, since I think nobody chooses to have CDs delivered instead of downloading what they're interested in).

Again, this was a few years ago. I hope by now they have fixed this process, because it was completely broken.

Can_Not• 10 years ago

Similar story... But not with a human sales person. Went to order github enterprise for our company. Went to Microsoft Asure as one of GHE's recommended hosting partners. The interface was extremely complicated and cloudy. Costs about $200/month for what seems to be a $40-80 VPS anywhere else. Performance is not that great, too. Found out a month later that bitbucket would fit our use case hosted for $10/month. Gitlab would fit our use case hosted for free. Management had insisted on GHE "for consistency".

tdkl5• 10 years ago

How can someone still trust MS ?

askyourmother• 10 years ago

We don't. Time to get off that train wreck of a platform!

arca_vorago2• 10 years ago

There it is. The vindication I was after. I knew I wasnt just crazy for doing everything I could to minimize ms in my ecosystem. Personally, I think rms, gnu, and gplv3 are the way to go. We need to protect user freedoms more than developer freedoms.

cronjobber• 10 years ago

They almost made it to trustworthy, but observing GOOG set them straight.

adrenalinelol• 10 years ago

While I wouldn't view it from trust and mis-trust, I'd instead argue it's the company culture to act monopolistic. We've seen this hubris bite them in the ass on more than one occasion:

Windows XP -> Windows Vista Windows 7 -> Windows 8 Xbox 360 -> Xbox One

It's endemic in their company, and that won't change unless the company's back is up against a wall (financially).

CyberDildonics2• 10 years ago

How many bait and switches will people put up with?

hackuser7• 10 years ago

I want devices that I, the owner, control, whether I'm a small business or enterprise or individual. This is important for many reasons, from security to freedom-to-tinker to using the device I own in the way I want.

It was once an accepted standard in IT. Now, can anyone name a current handheld or desktop system that provides end-user control?

If you don't think security, including privacy, is important, consider what a U.S. president with fascistic tendancies would do with all this access to citizen's devices and data (and how many companies would risk their enterprises when he leaned on them?).

skykooler• 10 years ago

The Jolla phone provides end-user control.

bitL• 10 years ago

Out of stock forever

zem• 10 years ago

do laptops with linux preloaded on them not count? you can get a dell machine with rhel or ubuntu installed on it, and afaik you are free to do whatever you want thereafter.

cmdrfred2• 10 years ago

With the exception of the behavior of some of the binary blobs used to drive some of the hardware I believe you are correct.

hackuser7• 10 years ago

do laptops with linux preloaded on them not count?

Isn't the bootloader locked down?

Also, that's probably not a realistic option for most end-users.

794CD0110• 10 years ago

Most things that were "once an accepted standard in IT" are horribly insecure. The end user wanting a system he/she controls is very much one of them.

Microsoft taking away control from users, especially when it came to forcing them to take updates, is probably the biggest change they could possibly have made to improve the overall security of the internet.

unprepare• 10 years ago

are you under the impression that automatic security updates is what people dislike about windows 10?

Its mostly the:

telemetry

openended ToS

poor upgrade/reinstall behavior resulting in lost licenses

overly complicated licensing structure (with articles like this showing the professional license feature set degrading over time)

forced integration of unrelated products (cortana, bing)

integration of advertising into the OS (lockscreen and wallpapers)

lessening control enterprises have over their systems

pdkl952• 10 years ago

taking away control from users

If you don't control something, you de facto don't own it. You're advocating for a future without personal property. If you doubt this, see John Deere.

improve the overall security of the internet

When someone else has remote control over your system, your system is - by definition - insecure. The recent drama involving the FBI and an iphone is a perfect example: the phone is insecure if the OS can be forcibly updated by the manufacturer.

Remote control of the OS may improve the security of the internet, but it happens at the expense of user security.

The end user wanting a system he/she controls [is insecure]

This attitude is incredibly insulting. Instead of providing more secure products that people cant successfully maintain, or spending the time and effort to properly educate users, you're claiming they cannot be trusted with complicated tools.

taking away control

"Freedom" necessarily includes the freedom to make bad decisions. You want to take away that choice. You might want to consider the long-term effects of advocating against freedom.

cm21878• 10 years ago

Rather to force their users to see their ads and push their apps down their throat. Security? Really?

hackuser7• 10 years ago

Microsoft taking away control from users, especially when it came to forcing them to take updates, is probably the biggest change they could possibly have made to improve the overall security of the internet.

Shouldn't the end user get to decide for themselves whether Microsoft can control the computer the user paid for, that sits in their home or office, and that contains their private and otherwise confidential information?

phkahler• 10 years ago

> It was once an accepted standard in IT.

That's funny because it's the folks in IT that always want to limit users freedom. But when someone even higher up the chain takes control they get upset about it ;-)

killbrad• 10 years ago

They want to limit control in an environment they are asked to control.

drglitch2• 10 years ago

Microsoft enterprise/SMB sales process (via channel partners) is a laughable disaster.

Recent task: Run a Windows Server VM on Azure, with 4 remote desktop users connecting in.

Result: almost a MONTH of back and fourth with THREE different MSPs since none of them knew details of proper licensing. In fact, even Azure support did not know licensing terms and said just to contact the MSPs, who in turn advised we contact Azure support. In the end, after a couple of days of googling and reading obscure MSDN entries, we THINK we got the right licensing approach.

Oh, and total cost difference between different MSPs on even such a small order was over 40%.

Sadly, its currently a classic example of "please take my money" and the company doing everything in their power not to. Until microsoft clears up their licensing terms and makes pricing transparent, they will be hated.

rjbwork3• 10 years ago

I'm slightly confused...you think the multiple users RDPing into it will cause an increase in cost if you go 100% legit? The price of the windows OS is priced into the Azure hosting costs. Windows vms are a bit more expensive than linux ones for this reason.

taspeotis2• 10 years ago

Remote Desktop on Azure is a bit of a licensing nightmare. See this [1] old blog post:

Effective January 1, 2014, Volume Licensing customers who have active Software Assurance on their RDS User CALs are entitled to RDS CAL Extended Rights, which allow use of their RDS User CAL with Software Assurance against a Windows Server running on Windows Azure

Licensing costs for Remote Desktop Services (not Azure RemoteApp) is not built-in to the virtual machine pricing.

[1] https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/luispanzano/2013/07/15/remo...

rchowe4• 10 years ago

The reasoning behind this made a lot more sense to me once I started to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

There can't have been that many end users who had Windows 10 Pro and went into group policy to turn off the store. So you're looking at small businesses who were using PCs with Win10 Pro on them (likely that came with the PC) that were turning off access to the store but can't any more. The IT admins for these companies are the people Microsoft wants to upsell.

Lets say that there are 500 businesses who care about this feature each with an average of about 20 PCs (probably a high estimate for PCs, low estimate for number of businesses). That's 10000 PCs that Microsoft could potentially convince to upgrade, at (a quick guess based on Google) $120/PC, to Win10 Enterprise, or a potential $1.2M more in revenue that doesn't cannibalize one of their other businesses (assuming more changes to differentiate Pro vs Enterprise). Probably the people who will upgrade are people with factory computers running Win10 Pro.

And for people that don't upgrade, they get to promote their app store. Win-win.

fweespee_ch• 10 years ago

Microsoft has retroactively removed the ability of companies to turn off access to the Windows Store in its Windows 10 Pro version.

Yes but by "upsell" you mean "extort by way of feature removal after the product was purchased".

daveguy2• 10 years ago

Hey, at least they haven't started encrypting hard drives as an upgrade incentive.

rchowe4• 10 years ago

I suspect that the removal is actually an artifact of them saying that later versions of Windows will be incremental updates to Windows 10. Normally they would just wait until Windows 11 to make the change, but since they can't do that any more, they just roll it out in an update.

Yeah it was a bait-and-switch for small businesses.

basch• 10 years ago

Your small business is already an O365 E3/E5 customer, and Microsoft is tricking your users into signing up for Microsoft accounts ontop of O365 accounts (which creates all sorts of unnecessary sign in complications, like OFTEN having to choose WORK over Personal TWICE in a row.) Now you have all sorts of training issues and confusion when peoples onenote notes end up in their Microsoft account and not their O365 account (oh and their surface eraser only opens the metro app, which doesnt work with 0365 accounts.)

This is a classic example of two divisions who cant get along, both fighting for the same territory.

It becomes painful when you type in your username, to have to wait for it to ask work or personal TWICE, for EVERY SINGLE MICROSOFT APP. Word, onedrive, skype, sharepoint sometimes prompts 3,4,5 times in a row with slightly different interfaces. I shouldnt have to type my O365 password EVERY SINGLE time I open a Microsoft app on iOS (except outlook which only forgets it like once a month)

A new user would get prompted for their password

1) sign into windows

2) activate office

3) sync sharepoint library

4) sync sharepoint library didnt pass the last cred to the app right.

Microsoft's credential management is atrocious for end users. Guess how many times Chrome and Facebook have made me retype my password when logged into my own computer this year.

rchowe4• 10 years ago

I've been working on a web app that integrates with Office 365 using OpenID Connect. If someone is signed into their Microsoft account instead of their corporate account, the sign-in process just gives a generic error page with light-grey text explaining the error at the bottom of the page.

I know some of your pain :)

fencepost• 10 years ago

So you're looking at small businesses who were using PCs with Win10 Pro on them (likely that came with the PC) that were turning off access to the store but can't any more. The IT admins for these companies are the people Microsoft wants to upsell.

Or you're looking at small businesses (4-80 users) in regulated industries who have remained on Windows 7 and the IT folks who have recommended doing so in large part due to the ongoing concerns with what Microsoft is doing.

As a simple example: regardless of whether it does this or "just disable that (and work out something to ensure that Microsoft doesn't silently turn it back on)," I don't want to have to EVEN BE CONCERNED about the possibility that a local user searching locally for documents containing the words "John Smith neoplasm" has just submitted PII and PHI to Microsoft.

rchowe4• 10 years ago

Even better point than mine. This is probably gonna suck for independent medical practices.

FuriouslyAdrift• 10 years ago

We are tied to Microsoft due to a multi-million dollar ERP. I have frozen at Win 8.1 (software assurance contract). I love server and maybe once Server 2016 is out this Fall/Winter, I can circle back around but the 2 Win10 machines we have (one is mine) tripped every security protocol we have (we do some stuff for foreign and local defense contractors). Thi sis the enterprise edition. In the end, I block a few thousand domains and entire netblocks within and without our networks which completely breaks Cortana, Store, etc. along with just about every Microsoft website. It's a pain. I'll be moving back to DragonflyBSD ASAP on my desktop and running VM's whenever I need to hop into Windows.

chris_wot7• 10 years ago

I don't suppose you can tell us what you've blocked to get Windows 10 compliant with your security policies?

Edit: I'm genuinely interested... not sarcastic - promise :-)

godzillabrennus2• 10 years ago

The only way I have ever found to run Windows in production is in a virtual machine. I take regular snapshots so that I can restore it when something happens.

o_s_m• 10 years ago

Is DragonflyBSD a good desktop environment for someone coming from Debian and other Linux OSs?

cm33• 10 years ago

Well, the Intel DRM driver is pretty closely tracking linux upstream and most desktop stuff just works, so you could say it's a viable alternative. But it doesn't have DTrace or ZFS, although it has LUKS/dm-crypt for compatibility with Linux and the Hammer1 filesystem provides most of ZFS (missing some important bits) while requiring much much less RAM. You can actually dedup your Hammer filesystem with little RAM. Matt's been working for a long time on Hammer2 and it's still under heavy development. The message passing, less sharing concurrency in the kernel allowed Dragonfly to be competitive with Linux in benchmarks with just a few developers and a simpler kernel locking scheme altogether. DTrace is the number one feature I miss compared to FreeBSD, but other than that it's great. But FreeBSD gets a lot more contributions so is a much safer bet for production and they're also well on their way to have a linux abstraction layer for quicker sync of kernel drm drivers. So they will soon close up to Dragonfly in terms of Intel and Radeon graphics support. Also FreeBSD gets official Nvidia binary drivers if you need them and they have a kernel driver ABI that doesn't require you to rebuild nvidia.ko.

CyberDildonics2• 10 years ago

You should put something out saying what you've blocked, I'm sure many other people want to do the same thing.

I don't know when I'll be able to get off of windows, but I do know that my next computer won't run it on the bare metal. I plan on getting a CPU with good virtualization (non 'k') and only ever running windows inside a VM. Things had already gone too far about 5 revelations ago.

Namidairo• 10 years ago

The Intel CPU's with unlocked multi's have had VT-D for a couple iterations now. They're still useless if you have zero plans to overclock. (Even more so now they don't even come with stock coolers anymore.)

yuhong3• 10 years ago

You don't know about the "Security" telemetry level and why it is there? Server has it too BTW.

venomsnake• 10 years ago

Gee microsoft ... if only admins knew that there existed firewalls.

Zenst• 10 years ago

Exactly and indeed would be a flaw if Microsoft's own built in firewall for windows ignored the users wishes, as that would be a security oversight in this respect.

rasz_pl• 10 years ago

No they dont, blocking windows store is one firewall rule.

jessaustin5• 10 years ago

It has been some time since I've used Windows in a corporate setting, but ISTM that just blocking in the network would lead to a degraded user experience and many more support calls. "When I needed to open this file it opened the program [because why would a user know that's the windows store and not something capable of reading their odd file?] and then it just stopped doing anything!"

chris_wot7• 10 years ago

So uninstall it. It's still possible :-)

https://4sysops.com/archives/how-to-remove-the-store-app-in-...

mtgx• 10 years ago

Why even have a Pro version? Just to charge twice as much for BitLocker, which should be default in every Windows version, just like it is on any other operating system?

GigabyteCoin• 10 years ago

And this particular sysadmin-for-my-family will no longer allow windows to be installed on any of our computers whenever they are in need of a reinstall.

Windows is becoming more and more like Facebook. Too many users changed a setting you don't agree with? Just block access to that setting or call it something else to confuse enough people to the point that the numbers are "good enough" for management.

Almost every time I visit my parents, my mother's Windows 10 laptop has reverted at least one of the changes I have made.

I used to keep a copy of Windows available via dualboot on all of my laptops, just in case I needed to print something in a remote location where whichever flavor of linux I was using didn't support. Not anymore. Linux Mint serves that requirement just fine.

seanp2k2• 10 years ago

Yeah, at a time when their market share is declining and real solid alternatives exist for gamers, productivity, browsing, entertainment, etc you'd think they'd do everything in their power to make their platform more inviting, flexible, affordable, etc. Burning people with stuff like this will only eat up any remaining goodwill they had with consumers, and they'll be left with corporate customers and a dumbed-down product that no one wants to administrate.

keithpeter2• 10 years ago

At work I use Windows 10 for Education and it runs nicely on hardware (Atom dual core with basic integrated graphics and 2G of RAM with spinning rust + some virtualised applications) that Windows 7 found problematic.

I'm just wondering: why the hassle? Just release a 'stand alone' win10 client without all the gunge. The clue is in the name - it is a client to services currently based on Microsoft software.

cm21878• 10 years ago

One thing that windows 10 absolutely hates users changing is firewall rules. I regularly see my custom rules disappearing. This is unacceptable.

eumoria• 10 years ago

Are you modifying existing rules or creating entirely new ones?

mjevans• 10 years ago

I've seen this with file associations too.

I feel like there MUST be some way of...

1) Asking 'correctly' now...

2) Automating this from a .cmd script or something so I don't have to manually hunt through the GIANT, UNSERACHABLE (it is now sort-able thankfully), REFRESHING on EVERY CHANGE list of file associations.

Unfortunately I haven't actually looked in to how to do this... but if new versions of open source applications that I use aren't doing this automatically that sort of indicates that such a search might not be the best use of my time.

manigandham• 10 years ago

The windows firewall is also tied into pretty much everything in the system, disabling that service messes with lots of stuff, like installing fonts:

http://superuser.com/questions/957907/unable-to-install-font...

vacri• 10 years ago

my mother's Windows 10 laptop has reverted at least one of the changes I have made.

So, having moved house recently, I had no internet for my win10 gaming PC, not even the cable plugged in. Most days it'd be turned on for a bit of a play. After about a week of this, Win10 then told me it had updates to install, and took me through the install process!

barbs4• 10 years ago

Too many users changed a setting you don't agree with? Just block access to that setting or call it something else to confuse enough people to the point that the numbers are "good enough" for management.

Ergh, agreed. Ever try to change the default search engine in Edge to something other than Bing? Hoops galore.

AckSyn• 10 years ago

How is it a hoop to go to https://www.google.com and click your mouse a few times? You make it sound like a chore!

colemannerd• 10 years ago

Unlike many comments, I really like this. I think it unthinkable that businesses reduce employee's productivity by locking down their machine. In the days when Microsoft wasn't checking the security of applications, this was understandable. With a managed and secured store, this is security for the sake of security. If you believe you should disable something just for security without examing the value of the feature, why are you letting users access the internet?

cortesoft2• 10 years ago

And you think it is Microsoft's place to enforce this?

adrianN• 10 years ago

You'd be suprised how restricted some companies' web access is.

thomnottom• 10 years ago

Will Microsoft be sending people over to my office free of charge to handle technical issues with regard to their store? Can I send over any questions from auditors and federal regulators concerning user access to their store?

RaleyField• 10 years ago

With a managed and secured store, this is security for the sake of security.

That attitude is what causes multi-million dollar breaches. It's all right if your customers pay for it tho.

satysin• 10 years ago

They should rename it to Windows 10 "Professional" Home Edition

wvenable3• 10 years ago

That's actually what it is. Professional is the version for end users, people like you and me, who want to run more than "Home" on their own computers.

Enterprise is for computers owned by your company.

cmdrfred2• 10 years ago

I for one don't find this change very professional. I'd go further and call anything but enterprise 'Windows 10 Ad Supported edition'.

overgard2• 10 years ago

Who would have thought that an update policy that allows a corporation to silently update your computer whenever they feel like it would be abused?

chris_wot7• 10 years ago

So basically, what Microsoft are really doing is forcing admins to block access to the app store through their firewall or proxy. Or setup local workstation's firewall via Group Policy - to block their app store.

Or remove the app store entirely, which is technically possible as it's not an essential part of Windows. (if it is, then I invite them to review the times they were forced to state that Internet Explorer was an essential part of their operating system during anti-trust...)

I don't think they've thought this one through very well.

hardlianotion• 10 years ago

That's - er - disingenuous.

Esau• 10 years ago

I have historically liked Windows but I shudder what is becoming of it. Every time I turn around lately, Microsoft is taking administrative freedom away from users and businesses.

TheRealDunkirk3• 10 years ago

The ball is back in Apple's court. They seem to take the end user more seriously, but they've been mixed. I made a comment taking Microsoft to task when their surreptitious telemetry came to light, and someone pointed me to proof that Apple was doing about the same thing. This is Apple's chance to continue to distance themselves from their competition. They've done well standing up for privacy, with the recent FBI demand to decrypt iPhones, but this is a chance to go further.

Man, I really wish Google would release their desktop Linux. Ubuntu is OK, but someone with pockets like that could finish the job, and make a credible, consumer-accessible, 3rd alternative to keep BOTH #1 and #2 on their toes. If I could just run Linux-supported games with the same performance as under Windows -- I'm not even talking Windows games under Wine -- I might finally get rid of my Windows partition to get away from such things. Valve has got to be working on a Linux distro, which they will release on their SteamBox (along with Half-Life 3, mark my words), but who knows when THAT will be.

lake99• 10 years ago

SteamOS has already been released[1], but all they do is add some stuff on Debian. But Steam/Valve does not seem to be too committed to Linux. Their Linux games are often quite buggy[2], and in my experience, support is slow.

[1] http://store.steampowered.com/steamos/buildyourown

[2] https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Dota-2/issues

kibwen• 10 years ago

I see SteamOS as a hedge against Valve's fear that Microsoft will lock down Windows in the same way that Apple has locked down iOS. Rather than a core of their strategy, it's a last-ditch lifeboat in case third-party app stores become verboten.

cm21878• 10 years ago

Would you trust google more than microsoft with your privacy? A google OS sounds more like a fox in the henhouse than a solution to the invasion of privacy.

TheRealDunkirk3• 10 years ago

Point taken. I just assume that Google is harvesting enough personal info through search that they could carve out a space for a private OS. Maybe I'm being naive. Yeah, I'm probably being naive.

barbs4• 10 years ago

I imagine the OS would be open-source, which would probably make it more trustworthy than Windows.

Not saying it'd be completely trustworthy, however...

r3bl• 10 years ago

I work in a medium sized organization and we let people choose which operating system they want to use, but we do let them know that we prefer Linux (we've created our own little custom Ubuntu ISO with the software that we need pre-installed and it took us like two hours).

Today, we have like 10 Ubuntus, a couple of Windows PCs, a couple of Macs and a couple of Chromebooks (not counting our tech staff since we all know how to deal with whatever we're using).

Ubuntu is by far the easiest to deal with (only had a single issue related to LibreOffice crashing Linux because of some DRM issue, but the fix was already released and all we had to do is to update the system). Chromebooks are by far the worst (it took me forever to figure out how to add a damn printer). That's why I think that Chrome OS will never be more than a toy.

As for Valve, their OS is out for about a year now (don't know it it's stable yet) and you can already purchase some Steam boxes I think (I'll have to verify this).

Edit: yes they are, for half a year now: http://store.steampowered.com/sale/steam_machines

JoshuaJB• 10 years ago

From what I've seen, Google's desktop Linux systems are just customized LTS Ubuntu images. (Source: visits to Google office) They appeared entirely normal, eg. Unity, Gnome Apps, etc. but I am sure they made some Google-specific changes.

Also, Valve released their Linux distro awhile ago. [1] And Phoronix [2] has some good Windows vs Linux gaming benchmarks. My impression was that they were getting pretty comparable.

[1] http://store.steampowered.com/steamos/ [2] http://www.phoronix.com/

brudgers• 10 years ago

Apple's short support life cycles for its operating systems is problematic for many organizations. Its constant churn of hardware specifications also presents issues for organizations seeking stability and standardization. Personally, I don't see Apple as likely to move away from either practice due to its business model and consumer device focus because both have produced substantial profits for a number of years.

I don't see Google as likely to move into the space either, at least in a way that doesn't increase their cash flow from advertising. Their focus with business and enterprise sales has been on services, insofar as there has ever been such a focus at Google.

Grishnakh2• 10 years ago

They seem to take the end user more seriously

Unless you're trying to keep music on your computer and use iTunes, in which case they upload all your music to the cloud and delete it off your PC.

Man, I really wish Google would release their desktop Linux. Ubuntu is OK, but someone with pockets like that could finish the job, and make a credible, consumer-accessible, 3rd alternative to keep BOTH #1 and #2 on their toes.

Have they actually talked about doing this?

It really wouldn't take much to make a "credible, consumer-accessible" version of Linux. Most of the pieces are already present, and Linux Mint for instance is already very easy for a non-expert to install and use. The main problems are 1) graphics drivers for non-Intel chips and 2) software compatibility. Lots of games already work on Linux thanks to Steam. A little more work with WINE maybe, and some improvements to Nouveau, and some more polishing and you'd easily have something that a casual PC user can install easily and use. It'd probably help too if they finally finished Wayland and got the whole systemd thing settled. Then they'd just need to use their influence to push other companies to do their part, such as stupid printer manufacturers who don't make Linux drivers for their winprinters (not a problem for good printers, but for the cheapo inkjets it still is).

Hoenstly, I find it pretty disappointing that Red Hat hasn't done more in this area, particularly considering they're the ones who created systemd and employ many Gnome3 devs. You'd think they'd be pushing corporate Linux desktops hard, but they don't seem to be.

TheRealDunkirk3• 10 years ago

I find it pretty disappointing that Red Hat hasn't done more in this area

Me too. Especially now that the 2 things that kept Linux from being a player in the corporate space were 1) Office, and 2) Exchange. Now you can get Google Apps or iCloud or any of a number of hosted applications for these things. Unfortunately, the last time I tried Fedora, a couple months ago, I got a couple of cryptic selinux-related errors, and quickly decided "ain't nobody got time for that," but if a company would get serious about an image (as they do for Windows, anyway), the path is wide open for a Linux desktop in the enterprise, at vast cost savings.

tdkl5• 10 years ago

Also Ubuntu, they started a great thing for making Linux on desktop friendlier, then completely discarded the opportunity of Windows 8 being a shitshow and jumped on the mobile/tablet bandwagon.

Now there's another opportunity with Windows10, but not much has changed for the desktop and I won't even mention their mobile success.

Pity.

camperman• 10 years ago

I always snigger at the formula of Microsoft's public statements. You just know that in the first paragraph it will claim - disingenuously - to be doing the exact opposite of whatever it's accused of. And sure enough the very first sentence is:

"Microsoft is focused on helping enterprises manage their environment while giving people choice in the apps and devices they use to be productive across work and life."

You can take this sentence, and without knowing any other details at all, figure out that the company is somehow preventing enterprises from managing their environments properly or restricting app and device choice or both.

samstave• 10 years ago

I am more interested in learning how much the person who crafted that sentence was paid..... :)

CaptSpify2• 10 years ago

I find this true of most company taglines. "We have the highest rated customer service" = We have shitty customer service.

I think the people who write this stuff are usually presented with "Here's the bad parts of our reputation. Make sure your blurb fixes that"

tokensimian• 10 years ago

Probably something like, "we took a survey. Here's what our customers / prospects said is important to them."

If a company has poor customer service, byzantine purchase process, etc., that stuff will crop up.

Then again, so will all the standard things -- trust, etc.

userbinator3• 10 years ago

"giving people choice" = "giving people the choices we made"

This sort of doublespeak is not restricted to Microsoft. About "choice" and freedom/personalisation in general, Mozilla is the other one that comes to mind with this amazing article:

https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/11/publish...

geographomics• 10 years ago

You can uninstall it with an administrative Powershell using this command:

    Get-AppxPackage Microsoft.WindowsStore | Remove-AppxPackage

Would this not continue to work?

thothamon• 10 years ago

Just one more reason for me to avoid Windows whenever possible, for myself and for my companies.

I grant Microsoft today is a much better corporate citizen than it was 15 years ago, and I appreciate that. But a move like this feels very much like the bad old days to me.

CaptSpify2• 10 years ago

Every time they release a new open-source product, everyone jumps up and down saying "look, they've totally changed!"

No, unfortunately they haven't. They're just putting on a new coat of paint. They have improved, sure, but rising one or two levels when you've dug yourself down twenty isn't actually that much of an improvement.

jalami2• 10 years ago

Microsoft isn't the only guy doing this. I understand enterprise/professional customers have gotten exceptions for years, but for everyone else this is common practice on almost all other platforms. I still think it's a bad practice.

Microsoft is just following the other companies that are winning and somehow doing so without pissing their userbases off. Their main asset, as I see it, are people that cannot or will not switch. So as it is for most companies with a semi-loyal userbase: lock it down before the garden empties too much.

IOS has an appstore, Android has an appstore, Mac has an appstore, Chrome has an appstore, Firefox has an appstore, Ubuntu kind of has an appstore. Firefox, iOS and Chrome don't allow you to install outside of their appstore without running different builds. Android makes it difficult, removing it is even more difficult and you lose half your phone in the process. Sure there's homebrew, f-droid, cydia and chocolatey for hackers, but that's a tiny subset. Windows really wants control like everyone else. The internet has changed a lot since the decentralized software and hardware days Microsoft is used to. Microsoft doesn't get to sell their user metrics, control what users install on their systems or where they're installing from. They don't get to charge uploaders or put fees on downloaders/purchasers. The Windows store is pretty much a flop at this point, but they want it to be the canonical way to install software on Windows like every other platform.

Not a Windows problem really, they just get the negative press that every system should get for trying to force people into a garden. If it gains steam years down the road, I could see them pull a Firefox and lock down external installs without 'approval' for security.

Just a few weeks ago I bought a Microsoft Miracast dongle, OS independent or so it claimed. Only way to configure it was to have a Windows10 computer and download the driver/configuration software from their Appstore. I no longer own it. I really don't think this is an isolated problem though.

Edit: Clarification

overgard2• 10 years ago

I agree, we should be taking everyone to task for this. Nobody cares enough though. It's just inevitable that this is the future. I don't know why. People are just too beat down to raise a fuss? It's too much of an inconvenience? Hard to say, but somehow it's just become how things are.

Kristine19753• 10 years ago

iOS ... don't allow you to install outside of their appstore without running different builds

At least companies apparently can create their own appstore for their custom apps: https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/

jalami2• 10 years ago

This is true, but it still costs you 300 dollars a year, uses the same mechanisms the market uses (no loose .ipas) and you have to give lots of trackable info to Apple (company info, devices, apps, update/use metrics). It's all centralized too, so if they change their policy (like go back to the >500 employee rule) or don't like an app you're sharing, you might be in trouble. If Windows can eventually swing even this with their marketplace, I think they'd be ecstatic.

jheriko• 10 years ago

the criticism here is imo unfounded. MS are exceptionally supportive of developers in my experience, and this feels like part of that.

since blocking access to the store is in fact an enterprise requirement... why not restrict it to the enterprise edition?

... and besides that. how about employers trusting their employees anyway?

this is much less than what other platform holders have done in this respect too... Apple being foremost amongst the worst in this category - and yet still receiving fanboy support to the level of religiosity.

rjbwork3• 10 years ago

this is much less than what other platform holders have done in this respect too... Apple being foremost amongst the worst in this category - and yet still receiving fanboy support to the level of religiosity.

People just like to hate on MS due to their feelings from the 90's and early 00's imo.

pritambaral3• 10 years ago

MS are exceptionally supportive of developers in my experience, and this feels like part of that

That's a reasoning that does not justify the act. "We are friendly to developers" should not translate to "Users, you don't get to control your own computers (as much)".

how about employers trusting their employees anyway?

Wut? That is a terrible argument, it does nothing to contribute to the discussion – which is about a recent Microsoft act, policy, and behaviour, and instead tries to swerve the discussion away from it into unrelated, unagreeable sociological and human-resource-management points.

is much less than what other platform holders have done in this respect too

Doesn't excuse Microsoft

Apple being foremost amongst the worst in this category - and yet still receiving fanboy support

Are they receiving support for a similar action. Support for an unrelated action is inadmissible here, because a corporation can be condemned for one thing and praised for another.

Plus, is it the same people doing both the Apple-praising and the MS-bashing?

bedane• 10 years ago

This reminds me of the mandatory updates for the cheapest windows 10 version.

In the era of bloated/invasive OSes and arbitrary pricing according to the customer's profile rather than according to the value of the product, you don't pay more for more features.

You pay more for the right to deactivate the unwanted features.

Some day you will have to pay for disabling all the "telemetry" and "unique advertiser ID" stuff. Or maybe that's already the case, I didn't bother checking.

Microsoft no longer allows admins to block Windows Store access in Win10 Pro

Related Stories