Windows 10 anti-bloatware update attempts to block installation of Win32 apps

[captaindiptoad]

- Over at https://www.pcgamesn.com/microsoft/microsoft-windows-10-bloatware-win32-apps They appear to have discovered an interesting direction Microsoft is headed.

"The added problem with this feature as it interferes with many perfectly safe programs which use Win32, like Google Chrome, Steam, Photoshop and even older versions of Microsoft Word. While useful for new computer users who have a propensity to install anything that looks interesting, including malware, it’s disconcerting to see Microsoft treat non-Windows programs as inherently threatening to a user."

 

[bigdogchris]

It's not a secret Microsoft is ever so slowly nudging people towards the Windows Store. As long as this functionality can be turned off I don't care because I'll only see it once.

 

[BulletDust]

It's not a secret Microsoft is ever so slowly nudging people towards the Windows Store. As long as this functionality can be turned off I don't care because I'll only see it once.

Unless they re-enable the feature in the next update and block the ability to disable the feature all together in the update after that....

It's Microsoft's OS and they're making that perfectly clear.

 

[heatlesssun]

Played around with this setting a bit over the weekend. The single biggest strength of Windows is its software support. It also happens to be its single biggest weakness. It's to easy to arbitrarily install anything on Windows machine and this is not a bad thing as long as it's a controllable option.

Of course there's always going to suspcision and FUD over this sort of thing. I just don't see how Microsoft benefits from removing the greatest strength of Windows across the board at least. But I do see a lot of benefit in locking down users from installing whatever Win32 app but giving some option to install better curated software. Again, as long as it's a controllable option is a nothing but a good thing.

In testing it out this setting on allowed me to install stuff from Steam.

 

[Shotglass01]

Of course there's always going to suspcision and FUD over this sort of thing. I just don't see how Microsoft benefits from removing the greatest strength of Windows across the board at least. But I do see a lot of benefit in locking down users from installing whatever Win32 app but giving some option to install better curated software. Again, as long as it's a controllable option is a nothing but a good thing.

I really don't think there's much to the suspicion. We'll see a lot of FUD, but, like we've jousted about in a different thread, I'm sure MS will eventually lock down Windows to their store. The advantage in removing it is total control/monopoly over billions of installs. It'll happen.

 

[heatlesssun]

The advantage in removing it is total control/monopoly over billions of installs.

I don't see the advantage in disabling the ability to use the vast amount of Windows software. I think people are overthinking it and missing just how important this is with certain classes of devices that need to locked down by default. But yeah I do this as a way to get more traditional apps into the Windows Store.

 

[SuperSubZero]

Person: "Gah, Windows, just lets anyone install anything and my grandma got another trojan while my brother installed some 'movie player' that messed up his system"

Microsoft: "New update that can optionally block software installs"

Person: "HOW DARE THEY TAKE AWAY OUR FREEDOM!!!!1!"

 

[Shotglass01]

I don't see the advantage in disabling the ability to use the vast amount of Windows software. I think people are overthinking it and missing just how important this is with certain classes of devices that need to locked down by default. But yeah I do this as a way to get more traditional apps into the Windows Store.

Yea, we'll agree to disagree on this one. The fact there's even options for the pop up's basically proves where they're headed. Sooner, likely later, Win32 won't install or may be modified such that it can be only installed through the store. Walledgarden is coming.

 

[heatlesssun]

Yea, we'll agree to disagree on this one. The fact there's even options for the pop up's basically proves where they're headed. Sooner, likely later, Win32 won't install or may be modified such that it can be only installed through the store. Walledgarden is coming.

This would only be about 2 millionth time that Microsoft has been accused of software lockout, such as purposely disabling 3rd party for over 20 years now. As much as Microsoft has invested in backwards compatibility over the years in Windows, that they now would through all of that away and give up their biggest advantage on the desktop, I just don't see it. Something like how helps to address what it perhaps their biggest weakness on the desktop, crapware and malware. And we've all see it from IE toolbars to fake video players.

So yeah, I'm more inclined to see the beyond obvious reasons why something like this makes sense than to make it into something that's been a boogieman issue on Windows for decades. I'm not saying that Microsoft would never do what you're saying, again, it's all about the benefit to them. There's no benefit in locking down Windows period from classic Win32 software installs, which by the way is also possible with universal Windows apps on Windows 10, they don't have to be distributed by the Windows Store.

 

[zero2dash]

I think people are overthinking it and missing just how important this is with certain classes of devices that need to locked down by default.

By the hardware owner's choice, or Microsoft's?
No overthinking here. Just another gate that only Microsoft has the key for, that will probably eventually be shut and locked.
They've done it before - no reason to believe they won't do it again. They give no fucks about what the PC end user wants.
Just further goes to show how much control you have over "your PC" when Windows 10 is the OS you're running.

 

[BulletDust]

What MS have been doing since the advent of Windows 8 is completely off course in relation to previous builds of Windows. I see no evidence that MS doesn't have every intention of locking Windows down to the Microsoft Store, in fact the writing's literally on the wall that's what they intend to do.

 

[SuperSubZero]

Windows literally includes Linux. Like "Windows comes with Linux." "Windows has Linux ON it."

Walled garden.

 

[zero2dash]

What MS have been doing since the advent of Windows 8 is completely of course in relation to previous builds of Windows. I see no evidence that MS doesn't have every intention of locking Windows down to the Microsoft Store, in fact the writing's literally on the wall that's what they intend to do.

Not only that, they have no reason not to do so.
They want control; they clearly want control with 10. They have all the control. Sysadmins, short of running an Enterprise flavor behind WSUS, have no control. Control has been taken away compared to what was acceptable just a few years ago.

They could have tried this with 8/8.1, but it would have been an abject failure, and people would have never trusted them with 10 like they do.
They couldn't give 8 or 8.1 away; the penetration would have been minimal.
10, OTOH - well it's clear as day. Million billion zillion users...flip the switch. What's the recourse? You're using a "free" OS; there is no recourse.
This has been their MO on basically every bitch about 10. Don't like advertising on the lock screen and in the Start menu? Don't like being in control over updates?
"We're in control. We know what's best. We gave you this free OS upgrade, we know how to make it more secure, you don't."
Doesn't take a rocket scientist or a thick pair of trifocals to read the writing on the wall in regards of 'where they're going'. Most people can 'connect the dots', and a tinfoil hat is not required to do so - just common sense.

 

[bigdogchris]

I really just see this as an optional security feature. I also wouldn't doubt if they forced this on if you use the cheap/free "Cloud" edition.

 

[heatlesssun]

Doesn't take a rocket scientist or a thick pair of trifocals to read the writing on the wall in regards of 'where they're going'. Most people can 'connect the dots', and a tinfoil hat is not required to do so - just common sense.

Well, common sense would also make one wonder why Microsoft would make it impossible to install millions of existing applications for Windows, applications that many over the years have paid lots of money for. Preventing installation of all of those programs unless they are in the Windows Store because that benefits Microsoft because... control! Never mind it pretty much negates the reason why countless millions use Windows and by far the best desktop ecosystem there is.

 

[BulletDust]

Never mind it pretty much negates the reason why countless millions use Windows and by far the best desktop ecosystem there is.

If popularity was in any way a measurement of 'best' you may have a case. But when the OS is forced onto the consumer's machine by various means with the worst being 'simply there on reboot', well....As stated in many threads, McDonalds isn't popular because it's 'the best' now is it? Not to mention that turd attracting all the flies.

The Windows store isn't necessarily about control, control's just something you need to corner the marketplace in pursuit of profit. The Windows Store isn't about protecting the user from malicious software, if that was the case there'd be no additional charge for selling software on the Windows Store. The Windows Store is all about increasing profit.

 

[B00nie]

I really don't think there's much to the suspicion. We'll see a lot of FUD, but, like we've jousted about in a different thread, I'm sure MS will eventually lock down Windows to their store. The advantage in removing it is total control/monopoly over billions of installs. It'll happen.

So what you mean is that WIndows PC:s will eventually become the Xboxes they should be already treated as.

 

[daglesj]

Will it allow me to uninstall all the junk MS installs with single click? Would be nice to have a single click "uninstall all Store apps and features" button.

 

[zero2dash]

Well, common sense would also make one wonder why Microsoft would make it impossible to install millions of existing applications for Windows, applications that many over the years have paid lots of money for.

What are the most commonly used Windows applications?
Browsers? Email client? (Outlook?) Adobe software? Intuit? (Quickbooks/Quicken)
Do you think any of those would suddenly not be available in the Store if/when they flip the switch?
I would say that arguably Adobe and Intuit are the 2 biggest (non-MS owned/based) Windows software providers in the world.
I'd be willing to bet that both would get right in tow, in line, releasing their apps (or at least the CC client/download app, in Adobe's case) in the Store.
MS would surely help those companies port their apps to be native.

Is there anything else? Honestly?
Games? They already have games. Store has games.
I think they could stretch the boundaries a little and tell people they have to download a vendor's client from the Store, and then the onus is on the vendor to prevent their client from being compromised or offering sketchy downloads. (Basically same as what happens now.)
Steam, Origin, UPlay - all would be fine when they do that.

Again, common sense tells me this is not only feasible, it's likely. IMHO - this is the way they are going. Fall in line, or get left behind. There is no recourse for them either. Valve already tried that with SteamOS.

Server 2016 has the Store app. (Unless things have changed since the last preview evaluation.) Let that sink in for a minute. Why in the fuck does a Server OS has a front end for downloading desktop software?

 

[heatlesssun]

What are the most commonly used Windows applications?
Browsers? Email client? (Outlook?) Adobe software? Intuit? (Quickbooks/Quicken)
Do you think any of those would suddenly not be available in the Store if/when they flip the switch?

There are countless millions of Windows programs, yeah, there's good chance that many will not have available something they use.

Again, common sense tells me this is not only feasible, it's likely. IMHO - this is the way they are going.

Sure, because running any Win32 x86 program on ARM is "falling in line". https://hardforum.com/threads/qualc...snapdragon-835-chips.1926031/#post-1042845093. If this weren't the millionth time this kind of claim about Microsoft locking out apps on Windows had been made, I would take it more seriously. If they weren't working on ARM devices that can run Win32 apps or that anyone can deploy universal Windows apps, then sure.

As it stands, there's nothing in it for Microsoft to want to lock down all versions of Windows this way. But it makes a hell of a lot of sense in schools or libraries or even certain businesses who setup a self service store for deployment of company software. There are good reasons for this kind of option that have nothing to do with Microsoft wanting to kill it's biggest edge on the desktop.

 

[Frobozz]

As it stands, there's nothing in it for Microsoft to want to lock down all versions of Windows this way. But it makes a hell of a lot of sense in schools or libraries or even certain businesses who setup a self service store for deployment of company software. There are good reasons for this kind of option that have nothing to do with Microsoft wanting to kill it's biggest edge on the desktop.

The big thing "in it for Microsoft" is strongly encouraging the use of their Store as a primary software distribution/publishing platform. Getting a cut of all sales would be quite an attractive goal for making shareholders really happy.

I could see them doing like Apple did with Gatekeeper (enabled by default, but *flick a switch* overridable) but that's probably the extend of where they'd push it.

for now

 

[Tawnos]

Server 2016 has the Store app. (Unless things have changed since the last preview evaluation.) Let that sink in for a minute. Why in the fuck does a Server OS has a front end for downloading desktop software?

Because some developers use it due to the fact Server has data deduplication? Because it runs on the same core OS? Because the OS doesn't have it when it's installed for use as a server (that is, a Server Core install)?

Pretty much everything except what you imply.

 

[Absalom]

It sounds to me like MS are 'poking' its users to gauge how they'd react to such a drastic change in the behavior of their OS. Then when MS are confident, drive the stake in deep. The worrying thing is that if people don't complain about this stuff, then it gives MS incentive to not probe with experimental updates. I'm glad to see news coverage of this type of stuff, although some take it out of context as a platform for Windows bashing.

The keyword here is 'optional'. So I could care less about what is 'default' so long as I can configure my OS how I like it. Let's be honest, it would be suicidal for MS right now to abandon legacy apps altogether, although I could see them sandboxing them in the distant future (assuming Universal Apps ever takes off - which looks sketchy today).

 

[heatlesssun]

It sounds to me like MS are 'poking' its users to gauge how they'd react to such a drastic change in the behavior of their OS. Then when MS are confident, drive the stake in deep. The worrying thing is that if people don't complain about this stuff, then it gives MS incentive to not probe with experimental updates. I'm glad to see news coverage of this type of stuff, although some take it out of context as a platform for Windows bashing.

The keyword here is 'optional'. So I could care less about what is 'default' so long as I can configure my OS how I like it. Let's be honest, it would be suicidal for MS right now to abandon legacy apps altogether, although I could see them sandboxing them in the distant future (assuming Universal Apps ever takes off - which looks sketchy today).

Most users won't even know this setting is here as the default changes no behavior. This setting would be used for specific reasons and by more advanced users who may want to lock down a system.

I'm sure that we'll keep having this debate but I don't buy it one bit that Microsoft is going to widely lock down all consumer versions of Windows to only the Windows Store. There's simply far too much software out there, tons of proprietary, custom and small stuff is a key reason people still use Windows. Is Microsoft going to lock Windows down where a developer can't even run his own code on a Windows PC?

Now sure, this might encourage more devs to package their apps in the Windows Store, a few are already doing that with Win32 apps. Obviously there will be folks who see it as a bad thing and will never support Microsoft's store.

In any case, it's the vast ecosystem of Windows that makes in interesting and useful and Microsoft is well aware of it, that's why they've spent so much energy on backwards compatibility over the years.

And if I'm wrong, well, it's not like I could move to Linux to solve the problem of running Windows software that's not Linux compatible.

 

[Sp33dFr33k]

The OS is the biggest bloatware, when will they change that. I work on (fix) Windows 10 PC's pretty frequently now and damn is there a lot of crap going on without any programs running. Just watching resource monitor is crazy on these machines.

 

[BulletDust]

The OS is the biggest bloatware, when will they change that. I work on (fix) Windows 10 PC's pretty frequently now and damn is there a lot of crap going on without any programs running. Just watching resource monitor is crazy on these machines.

Memory usage, surprisingly enough, is actually no worse than a packaged Linux install TBH.

 

[KarsusTG]

Memory usage, surprisingly enough, is actually no worse than a packaged Linux install TBH.

Not really. Currently using 4.9gb of ram on this machine with nothing but a chrome window open (2 tabs,) dropbox, task manager, and bitdefender in autopilot (not currently scanning or anything.) When I am on debian side, which is admittedly most of the time, I am using far less than this at idle... Like <1gb.

The memory under processes only add up to just over 1gb though. Like a great many things on windows 10, what the rest of the memory usage is is just a mystery.

 

[BulletDust]

Not really. Currently using 4.9gb of ram on this machine with nothing but a chrome window open (2 tabs,) dropbox, task manager, and bitdefender in autopilot (not currently scanning or anything.) When I am on debian side, which is admittedly most of the time, I am using far less than this at idle... Like <1gb.

The memory under processes only add up to just over 1gb though. Like a great many things on windows 10, what the rest of the memory usage is is just a mystery.

Identical usage under both Windows and Linux here, nothing open, no browser Windows, just the normal background applications on both machines. I think Windows 10 task manager looks tacky, but there's nothing you can do about that:

 

[Simmonz]

Identical usage under both Windows and Linux here, nothing open, no browser Windows, just the normal background applications on both machines. I think Windows 10 task manager looks tacky, but there's nothing you can do about that:

Weird, usually my Mint 18.1 uses less than 1GB of RAM at idle. My Windows 7 is usually 2-3GB. At work at the moment but can screenshot later.

 

[BulletDust]

Weird, usually my Mint 18.1 uses less than 1GB of RAM at idle. My Windows 7 is usually 2-3GB. At work at the moment but can screenshot later.

This isn't a lean install of Linux, I don't use my Windows PC so this Linux install is my main PC and has everything I need and more installed as a result.

 

[heatlesssun]

Windows 10 out of the box on from my observation will used about 2 GB with no active programs running on machines with 4 GB or more with the 64-bit version. On 2 GB tablets it seems to use about 1 GB under the same circumstance with a 32-bit OS.

 

[rezerekted]

I downloaded drivers for my Philips monitor and Microsoft refused to install them claiming they had been monkeyed with, this on Win8. I have to use a generic PnP Microsoft driver instead.

Anyway, I download loads of software but it is mostly portable apps so there is no installer for Microsoft to block.

 

[BulletDust]

I downloaded drivers for my Philips monitor and Microsoft refused to install them claiming they had been monkeyed with, this on Win8. I have to use a generic PnP Microsoft driver instead.

I've experienced that before. Install the drivers using the CMD prompt.

 

[rezerekted]

I've experienced that before. Install the drivers using the CMD prompt.

Thx, will try that.

 

[BulletDust]

Thx, will try that.

No problem. Otherwise do what the malware coders do and steal a driver signature.

 

[rezerekted]

No problem. Otherwise do what the malware coders do and steal a driver signature.

I'll look that up sometime.

 

[BulletDust]

I'll look that up sometime.

I was just joking, don't do that, I don't even know how hard it is to do! Using the CMD prompt method should work fine.

 

[rezerekted]

I learned how to embed malware into a .jpg but didn't actually do it.

 

[BulletDust]

I learned how to embed malware into a .jpg but didn't actually do it.

Really?!

Well do it and PM me telling me how to do it!

 

[B00nie]

I learned how to embed malware into a .jpg but didn't actually do it.

If you mean the malformed header vulnerability, that was patched years ago. Still works in OSes older than XP though since they never got that patch.