People have been saying this about Windows since Vista or earlier. If you really want to communicate with someone and not just score points for your team, you should say what the malware is, and why you're calling it that.
EDIT: And to finish the throughline back to XP, every version of Windows since then has included more "telemetry", which a perfectly reasonable person could describe as "spyware".
The standard Windows first-run setup prompts with dark patterns to show advertising and send private data like keystrokes and microphone audio to Microsoft. It very strongly pushes the user to use a Microsoft account to sign in to their own computer.
(This is my experience in the EU, so presumably the relatively polite version.)
It seems reasonable to call this malware. It's what software like browser toolbars did 20 years ago, and they were widely criticised for it.
You have to look at microsoft and windows from the perspective of an actual software product. Who in their right mind would find it acceptable if their program/operating system decided to automatically download candy crush. Let that sink in. Either you accept that candy crush itself is malware preying on an innocent microsoft or there is a significant and hostile attempt by microsoft to push unwanted and distracting software onto consumers. Which is practically the definition of malware. You could add the countless other examples of advertisement and other unwanted behaviour that is not fit for an operating system and you'll find they fit the description of malware. If you happen to disagree then I would like to ask you what fits the description of the candy crush saga on windows really is.
Nah, Win 11 introduced secure boot enforcement and forces you to use a Microsoft account. That is a new magnitude of enshitification. Even in corporate environments people get nervous.
And yes, some aspects were better in older windows versions. MS itself decided they won't remove the control panel as advertised, because the settings app is just shitty or dysfunctional.
This is beyond the level of shittyness that was Vista or Windows 8.
> The big issue with Win10/11 is that it contains malware marketed as features
Besides being extremely opinionated, remember the time Linux users were trying to say this about systemd? Now systemd is widely accepted except for the luddites at Devuan.
I know the whole debate around systemd but I never knew people even considered it to be along the lines of malware. I checked Devuan (which I also just learned from your comment) and they say
> Devuan GNU+Linux is a fork of Debian without systemd that allows users to reclaim control over their system by avoiding unnecessary entanglements and ensuring Init Freedom.
which, okay, points towards that direction but I can't find what they exactly consider "unnecessary entanglements" nor what exactly means "Init Freedom".
I'm genuinely curious, what exactly are people saying about systemd being "malware"?
I don't remember that, and I can't find any evidence of it.
Some vocal users claimed Systemd was being forced upon them, or was taking over too much of the systems functions, or represented a loss of flexibility or choice, etc. (My opinion isn't relevant to your point.)
No one was claiming it would maliciously interfere with the computer's security or the user's privacy.
recursive|1 year ago
People have been saying this about Windows since Vista or earlier. If you really want to communicate with someone and not just score points for your team, you should say what the malware is, and why you're calling it that.
yjftsjthsd-h|1 year ago
Some highlights:
"Windows 10 nagging users with Bing advertisements (push alerts)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27337382
"Why can an ad break the Windows 11 desktop and taskbar?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28404332
"Microsoft accidentally reveals that it is testing ads in Windows Explorer" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30711277
EDIT: And to finish the throughline back to XP, every version of Windows since then has included more "telemetry", which a perfectly reasonable person could describe as "spyware".
Symbiote|1 year ago
(This is my experience in the EU, so presumably the relatively polite version.)
It seems reasonable to call this malware. It's what software like browser toolbars did 20 years ago, and they were widely criticised for it.
Out_of_Characte|1 year ago
You have to look at microsoft and windows from the perspective of an actual software product. Who in their right mind would find it acceptable if their program/operating system decided to automatically download candy crush. Let that sink in. Either you accept that candy crush itself is malware preying on an innocent microsoft or there is a significant and hostile attempt by microsoft to push unwanted and distracting software onto consumers. Which is practically the definition of malware. You could add the countless other examples of advertisement and other unwanted behaviour that is not fit for an operating system and you'll find they fit the description of malware. If you happen to disagree then I would like to ask you what fits the description of the candy crush saga on windows really is.
aniviacat|1 year ago
yellowapple|1 year ago
And they've been 100% correct in doing so since Vista or earlier.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
alephxyz|1 year ago
- displaying a full screen dialog on login asking me to enable OneDrive with options being: yes/remind me in 3 days/remind me in a week;
- ads in start menu;
- using MS Edge + bing for searches from the start menu, disregarding the default browser;
- ditto but for Outlook links (at least this one can be disabled)!
- different pop up/dialogs that prompt you to switch to Edge/Edge+copilot every few weeks
raxxorraxor|1 year ago
And yes, some aspects were better in older windows versions. MS itself decided they won't remove the control panel as advertised, because the settings app is just shitty or dysfunctional.
This is beyond the level of shittyness that was Vista or Windows 8.
npteljes|1 year ago
Among other things, I'm meaning updates to Win 7 like this one:
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/213183-once-more-with-...
gjsman-1000|1 year ago
Besides being extremely opinionated, remember the time Linux users were trying to say this about systemd? Now systemd is widely accepted except for the luddites at Devuan.
yallpendantools|1 year ago
> Devuan GNU+Linux is a fork of Debian without systemd that allows users to reclaim control over their system by avoiding unnecessary entanglements and ensuring Init Freedom.
which, okay, points towards that direction but I can't find what they exactly consider "unnecessary entanglements" nor what exactly means "Init Freedom".
I'm genuinely curious, what exactly are people saying about systemd being "malware"?
Symbiote|1 year ago
Some vocal users claimed Systemd was being forced upon them, or was taking over too much of the systems functions, or represented a loss of flexibility or choice, etc. (My opinion isn't relevant to your point.)
No one was claiming it would maliciously interfere with the computer's security or the user's privacy.