Windows 10 uses your bandwidth to send other people updates(thenextweb.com) |
Windows 10 uses your bandwidth to send other people updates(thenextweb.com) |
If you are like me you have a decent connection, know for a fact you're not utilizing as much as you're given and understand how a P2P protocol can help you and those around you.
But your average user doesn't really know what this all means without explanation. IMO most people probably have no idea what the optimal setting for them would be, therefore they will leave it on for fear of breaking something by switching it off.
Cool feature but let those who know better turn it on and let the rest of the masses opt in once their techie friend explains it to them and makes sure it won't hurt with regard to data caps.
I knew this feature was coming (wasn't paying attention to the details of it, though) and actually thought it is a great feature for actually "reducing" bandwidth usage.
The article does say Windows 10 Enterprise and Education have the feature enabled, but only for the local network.
So at least that's a sensible default for business/schools.
That said, instead of changing anything I'd so much rather see MS take this and run with it, working with ISPs to help them understand that this traffic should be exempt (or even rewarded as a bandwidth credit) because it'll lower ISP costs and improve customer satisfaction simlutaneously.
If it's worth discussing a documented feature, could we at least link to the actual source:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/windows-update...
It's a valid concern for people with really low bandwidth caps who might want to set the metered flag but given the short duration it seems unlikely that this would be an issue for most people.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/windows-update...
"As with Windows 8.1, Windows 10 won't automatically download updates or apps if it detects that your PC is using a metered connection. Similarly, Delivery Optimization won’t automatically download or send parts of updates or apps to other PCs on the Internet if it detects that you're using a metered connection."
I think it's for tagging things like wireless hotspot, etc.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/xaml/w...
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/xaml/m...
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh7503...
Sorry but Microsoft cannot know that. They can know how much bandwidth your machine has access to on some level, but they cannot know what kind of strain is being put on any shared router upstream including your home wifi router. It absolutely can slow down your internet. Maybe the author paraphrased Microsoft's response, but with that wording it's not accurate.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Windows10/comments/3f38ed/guide_how...
Microsoft is giving away Windows 10. That's a huge problem. It's not a compelling product they can get people to pay for, unlike all previous versions of Windows. Microsoft, for the first time, has to claw its revenue out of the user some other way.
For decades, Microsoft has been hard on their competitors and hardware suppliers, and they've had antitrust problems. But Microsoft didn't usually apply pain to their users, who were their primary customers. With Windows 10, that all changes. Windows users, you are no longer the customer. You are the product.
This may not end well for Microsoft, because most of their revenue is in the B2B space. Business customers don't like being the product.
You deposit money, banks go off and invest that money to do stuff, they give you a little interest as "pay back". I don't think it's even something you can opt-out of (maybe depending on what kind of account you open?).
It's the reason why bank runs are bad for the banks. They don't take your cash and keep it in a vault, they turn around and try to make more money with your money. They don't have enough liquidity to give everybody their money back all at the same time.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
When people think of torrenting copyrighted material as some sort of talent that they are proud to have (I've meet plenty of people who are actually feel proud/clever to torrent games/movies/shows) - they honestly think Comcast is/would be a bad company for disconnecting them.
At an undisclosed university they had a wireless system which you had to login with your university login. Students would login (thus giving the ability to track usage to the individual student) and torrent copyrighted material (they actually had to send out a campus wide email about it telling people to stop). That's how out of touch with logic people are. To my knowledge no student was prosecuted but if the RIAA/MPAA was angry enough I'm sure a lot of students would have a really bad day.
My point being - they won't be able to understand why the ISP is banning them - they will just think it's unfair.
The entire thing feels like a gigantic violation by taking advantage of the average person's ability or willingness to deal with all the added complexity.
I'll probably never upgrade Windows again and just let my Win7 VM die an eventual death. This is not an Operating System being released by a company that cares about the user experience - its more like an AOL CD being shipped out to gullible users ..
I'd really like to know if the current caps, low as they are, are there for a very good technical reason, or if it's just to protect existing old media outlets. It certainly feel like the later here in Canada.
Hyperbole: what's next? Making my machine crack some crypto in a swarm? mining coins?
That aside, I've seen the same type of limitation in Australia, albeit was a while ago -- their hotel connection was paid and was metered (something like at 350MB), which I haven't seen elsewhere in countries I've visited. I wonder if it's something common in these regions.
Seems like they're still up to the same dirty, user-hostile tricks as they've always been since the 90's.
IIRC, Bill Gates famously sent a memo amounting to "you've got to be kidding me" regarding user experience in a current/new version. Maybe it's time for a repeat.
Wasn't that about microsoft.com? WRT the download page? I don't recall anything about him bashing an actual desktop product. If I'm wrong and you can dig up a link, I'd like to read it. The "trying to download xxx" rant was classic!
Because LAN-only doesn't save Microsoft as much money by using other people's upstream bandwidth instead of Microsoft's.
It'd be interesting to see how it handles nearby node discovery since e.g. the average cable modem user often has far more bandwidth in their neighborhood compared to their ISP's uplink.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_congestion-avoidance_algor...
What will happen is that two TCPs will share the available bandwidth (or close to it) via AIMD. However, if you've ever uploaded a file on an asynchronous Internet connection (i.e. a DSL connection), saturation of the uplink kills effective throughput for other TCPs (I presume because ACKs queue up at the router and are either delayed or timeout, resulting in fast retransmit if you're lucky, and a timeout at the sender if you're not).
> "does not slow down your internet connection" as it uses a "limited portion" of idle upload bandwidth."
How do Microsoft know what your upload bandwidth is? When do Microsoft know when that upload bandwidth is no longer idle?
Is there an RTT estimator that stops the upload if the RTT exceeds a threshold? How would Microsoft know what the RTT should be for that customers network link?
Perhaps they can detect consecutive timeouts of TCP segments? That would be interesting because the TCP I know provide the abstraction of a reliable, in order transmission over an unreliable network - so why would this API call exist? Perhaps it does exist? Can anyone comment?
I think this raises more questions that it answers?
Neither of those mechanisms guarantee that the client bandwidth has negligible effect on upstream data links or the bandwidth of other clients sharing those connections. The detection mechanisms are completely self focused on achieving the highest rate of transmission possible and correcting any changes to network reliability over time. They cannot create a reliable picture of overall bandwidth or the exact impact on other clients.
> Distributing Windows 10 as a drive-by install that takes over your machine and turns it into a spamming node is really sleazy.
You only get the Windows 10 download if you have requested it. This means it is not actually a drive-by install, even if you are determined to use the term to smear Microsoft. (Drive-by installs are not requested and are usually from websites.)
> Microsoft is giving away Windows 10.
This isn't true, and I'm frankly amazed you don't realize that it it's not true.
Microsoft is giving consumers a free upgrade to Windows 10 if they have already paid for Windows 7 or 8. This is no different from Apple or Google giving away OS upgrades to people who have already paid for the product in the same way as Windows users (bundled with hardware).
> It's not a compelling product they can get people to > pay for, unlike all previous versions of Windows.
Yeah, and by the same pretend "logic", Apple and Google don't have operating systems they could get people to pay for either.
> Microsoft, for the first time, has to claw its revenue out of the user some other way.
The business model hasn't changed. OEMs pay to install Windows 10, exactly like every other version of Windows. Microsoft is still in the software business, not, like Google, the surveillance-and-advertising business.
You're welcome to your conspiracy theories, of course. However, perhaps it would be better if you didn't try to support them with facts, because you don't appear to be able to get them correct ;-)
I don't think Windows has been a compelling product people pay for since Windows 95 (or just maybe XP). How many home users specifically go out of their way to buy Windows? IME most people use whichever version of Windows comes with their computer when they buy it, and only change versions when they buy a new computer. So the people who are getting a Windows 10 upgrade for free are mostly people who wouldn't have bought it anyway.
It seems like that would be neutral, simple, and sensible, though I'm not quite sure how peering and colocated caches would be treated. Probably the same as bandwidth for the end user since it's up to ISPs and content providers to do that.
(Perhaps some UI allows users to to put this info, similar to Android settings?)
A lot of smaller businesses where operating system upgrades/update cycles are ad hoc, and mostly on whatever comes with their new PCs (which usually is Home editions) and won't or can't upgrade to Enterprise. (I don't know if the Pro version's also set up the same way -- but even then, I wouldn't say there's great incentive/reason there, too, anyways.)
There seems to be a lot of poor choices Microsoft decided make on Windows 10... (Wi-fi Sense, and then this...)
Basically Microsoft's response to concerns over the bandwidth usage is, "Well, the bandwidth was just sitting there not being used. Doesn't affect anything if we use it."
That's just not true and it's an oversimplification of network topology.
> until the final day when I uncover the secret options
So you did an Express install instead of actually going through the options? More fool you.