More local account trouble

A vulnerability whose exploitation could result in compromise of the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of user data, or of the integrity or availability of processing resources. These scenarios include common use scenarios where client is compromised with warnings or prompts regardless of the prompt's provenance, quality, or usability. Sequences of user actions that do not generate prompts or warnings are also covered.

Microsoft recommends that customers apply Important updates at the earliest opportunity.

That is what I always thought was the definition of important. And that is why a lot of people got disturbed when they marked some of the 'marketing updates' (PUPs) for Windows 10 in Windows 7 as important.

I have no idea why those updates could effect "the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of user data, or of the integrity or availability of processing resources".

whs said:

That is what I always thought was the definition of important. And that is why a lot of people got disturbed when they marked some of the 'marketing updates' (PUPs) for Windows 10 in Windows 7 as important.

I have no idea why those updates could effect "the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of user data, or of the integrity or availability of processing resources".

Can you provide a reference or screenshot of that? If it's not a security update, it shouldn't be marked as Important, but rather as "Recommended".

According to this article, it was indeed marked as "Recommended", and not "Important".

http://www.computerworld.com/article...g-notices.html

If I recall right, there were 4 updates for that matter. 3 were marked as 'recommended' and 1 was marked as 'Important'. But no, I did not take ant screenshots. But even though, those PUPs should not be there in the first place. They do nothing for the maintenance of my systems.

Fair enough ... you can still create a local account when you select "This PC belongs to me". I've corrected that in the original post -thanks Mystere.

Mystere said:

The benefit is that you can use all of Windows features with a MSA, you can't without one. So yes, there is a difference in choice.

Huh? I can sign in to my computer with a local account and use MS services by signining in to each service individually. You still need a MS account to use the services, but you don't need to sign in to your computer with it, doing so only makes it easier to use the services.

Mystere said:

You might argue that this is non-intuitive, but Microsoft is doing this for a reason.

I will argue that it is not intuitive - Sign up? Sign up for what!
Doing it for a reason ... ya think

Mystere said:

Anyone that doesn't know why they would need a local account shouldn't be creating one. If they made it ridiculously easy to create a local account, they would have ton of tech support issues from users that created local accounts and didn't understand that doing so means you can't use most apps.

I don't need a local account in the same way I don't need a MS account.

They wouldn't have a ton of support calls if they made things clear in the first place (goes back to intuitive). We had many meetings on ease of use and screens/menus being intuitive to the end user. And then it all goes back to development - is the error message clear, can the user easily resolve the issue (click this, change that).

Mystere said:

Those who know what they're doing, want a local account and understand the consequences can find it if they really want to. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

Most users will be coming from XP or Win7, so most users won't know what they're doing. This goes to your point of increased support calls - clarity is better and results in fewer support incidences.
No it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, but people don't pay attention to screens, they just click OK, OK, OK. By the time Win10 is installed, they only have to figure out why they're PC login is Bart Fast and not Bill.

Mystere said:

But it does take someone interested in figuring it out, rather than just complaining about it.

The typical end user doesn't want to be bothered 'figuring it out' - they want it to work they way they're used to it working. They tend to accept incremental changes (XP->Vista->Win7) and reject wholesale changes (ala Win8, you might throw Vista in there too since the security pendulum swung too far fixing the holes in XP).

Who's complaining? I've submitted feedback every release. That's what this is all about isn't it - to get early user feedback through the Insider Program.

Mystere said:

"Important" doesn't mean what you think it means in Windows Update. Microsoft has several levels of updates. Critical, Important, Moderate and Low.

That's exactly what I think it means. did you miss my wink? Maybe it should have been a sarcasm smiley.

If you don't think for me, I won't think for you.

Anyway ... MS isn't likely to change the Sign-in process until IT throws a fit. Even then, they might not ... they're so obsessed with the Start menu, they're missing a lot of other under currents.

Always good to parle with you Mystere

There was only one update that was Windows 10 marketing related. If I were you, i'd check those updates. I am willing to bet the "important" one is actually a security update.

Nah, there were more than just one. But I don't recall the KBs. But it does not really matter. Even one is too many because it does not improve my Windows 7 system - and that's what KBs are for. The layman won't know the difference and will not realize that he actually got a PUP.

Thanks for finding that. I just could not recall the KB number.