Windows 10 Creators Update could block non-Store programs

Tsutarja

Tsutarja

  • Dice Poké Ball Great Ball Ultra Ball
    • 28,139
    Posts
    15
    Years
    https://arstechnica.com/information...lock-win32-apps-if-theyre-not-from-the-store/

    It looks like someone spotted a feature inside of the latest Windows 10 Insider Preview that could indicate the prevention of non-Store Win32 apps onto your computer. From the looks of it though, this can be prevented and should not be enabled by default (or at least I hope it's not enabled by default).

    What do you guys think of this restriction? Is Microsoft perhaps taking it a step too far here?
     
    Microsofts been testing the waters with some earlier features in W10, and with people accepting them they decided 'hey, lets take things a step further...'

    I suppose this feature wouldn't be a issue if it ships unlocked, with a first time run giving the option to enable it, but considering the rumors that one version of windows is going to ship with it enabled and require you to pay to be able to unlock it...
     
    I hope the disabling of non-Store Windows programs are not enabled by default, considering that some may also get the apps from other sources, like from DVD, stuffs downloaded through the net, or Steam, for instance. So things might not get well if Microsoft wanted to force that you have to get it from the store and all. Besides, iirc, Android and Linux are quite laid back on this, eh?
     
    Unlocked by default.

    This is a good option for those that have folks which you'd rather not trust them to keep their computers squeaky clean.

    Remember that almost every other platform that has such an option has it default to at least a state of semi locked-down. Unlike Microsoft, which is expected to only enforce it by default on Windows 10 Cloud - which isn't likely to be a concern on anything with hardware worth its salt.

    Smart money's on this being nothing. Certain tinfoil hatters might disagree, though, even if it makes no sense anywag
     
    Looks like Microsoft really wants a Store-only ecosystem. It's not a bad goal. They just need to fix some minor and major errors in their Store. And be much more mindful of those that use traditional PCs rather than focusing only on touch-based systems. And have Google using UWP too
     
    It's good on sorta way such as preventive measures so your PC is safe from nasty malware or ransonware also in bad way since certain programs are packed without the use of STORE only and blocking it it's like smartscreen everywhere and make programs that look like from STORE (Plaque inc Non-store) from working.
     
    Tsutarja said:
    https://arstechnica.com/information...lock-win32-apps-if-theyre-not-from-the-store/

    It looks like someone spotted a feature inside of the latest Windows 10 Insider Preview that could indicate the prevention of non-Store Win32 apps onto your computer. From the looks of it though, this can be prevented and should not be enabled by default (or at least I hope it's not enabled by default).

    What do you guys think of this restriction? Is Microsoft perhaps taking it a step too far here?
    Click to expand...
    i think they are taking it a bit to far microsoft is not gonna tell me what i can and cant run on my system i will override it like i did gatekeeper but i also think this could prompt lawsuits from companies who make legitimate software that isnt put into the store this makes me feel like they are trying to make it where you have to get a microsoft account to really do anything with windows 10 eventually while i do have a microsoft account im not converting my local account on the laptop to use my password from the microsoft account instead i have a strong password on the account but i dont want to have to constantly type it in when i wake up the laptop
     
    I don't see this as going over too well, especially if Microsoft does about-face and enables this feature by default in all Windows 10 installations. Just because most smartphone operating systems limit you to installing apps through a vendor-provided 'app store' doesn't mean that desktop/laptop or server operating systems should implement such a limitation also. But, given how Microsoft has been able to get away with abusing their PC operating system monopoly since the United States v. Microsoft antitrust ruling requiring said company's breakup was overturned, anything's possible (case in point-their SecureBoot mandate and then allowing OEMs to lock the feature as being permanently enabled on new computers).

    While this may be intended for a "cloud" edition of Windows, what's to stop Microsoft from enabling this on their regular desktop editions (Home, Pro, Education, Enterprise) at this point? While some may use this 'feature' to prevent unauthorized program installations (you shouldn't be granting users who don't own your device administrative privileges anyway), like others said, this could deter the installation of perfectly legitimate software that the computer's owner or administrator wants on there in the first place.

    Forgive me for sounding like Nathan Lineback from ToastyTech, but it concerns me that limitations on usability in our software are being put in place in the name of "improving security". Stuff like this is why I'm trying to phase out Windows, and switch to doing most of my computing tasks on some form of Linux.
     
    Seeing what kind of thing this does, I don't think it's for average users, and if it is, it's for one reason. Let me explain.

    The most important thing in security is the ability to limit what can be installed. Obviously the easiest way is to just not be an administrator. Okay, what if we installed into appdata instead? Alright, we'll just prevent you from launching programs that aren't on a whitelist. Something like this is perfect for corporate use because it makes it easier to manage applications while still giving a degree of freedom to end-users because apps on the Windows store probably have to be filtered.

    From a consumer standpoint though, Microsoft may enable it by default on new installations so that the device is the most secure at that point. With a setting to allow non-store apps it can give the user the freedom they desire, at the cost of potential security implications because of unchecked software. Yeah, it could block Chrome or Filezilla or Steam from being installed, but Microsoft can't check every piece of software out there for viruses, so it's easier to just safeguard the consumer and let them know the risks of disabling, essentially, a security feature.
     
    I wonder if/when this will cause problems. After all the October updates issues (removing all files in the downloads folder and more) I don't trust win 10.
     
    Otter Mii-kun said:
    I don't see this as going over too well, especially if Microsoft does about-face and enables this feature by default in all Windows 10 installations. Just because most smartphone operating systems limit you to installing apps through a vendor-provided 'app store' doesn't mean that desktop/laptop or server operating systems should implement such a limitation also. But, given how Microsoft has been able to get away with abusing their PC operating system monopoly since the United States v. Microsoft antitrust ruling requiring said company's breakup was overturned, anything's possible (case in point-their SecureBoot mandate and then allowing OEMs to lock the feature as being permanently enabled on new computers).

    While this may be intended for a "cloud" edition of Windows, what's to stop Microsoft from enabling this on their regular desktop editions (Home, Pro, Education, Enterprise) at this point? While some may use this 'feature' to prevent unauthorized program installations (you shouldn't be granting users who don't own your device administrative privileges anyway), like others said, this could deter the installation of perfectly legitimate software that the computer's owner or administrator wants on there in the first place.

    Forgive me for sounding like Nathan Lineback from ToastyTech, but it concerns me that limitations on usability in our software are being put in place in the name of "improving security". Stuff like this is why I'm trying to phase out Windows, and switch to doing most of my computing tasks on some form of Linux.
    Click to expand...
    Well said. "it concerns me that limitations on usability in our software are being put in place in the name of "improving security". Food for thought.
     
    Team Embrace said:
    I wonder if/when this will cause problems. After all the October updates issues (removing all files in the downloads folder and more) I don't trust win 10.
    Click to expand...

    That was considered to be a bug. That's why I don't try to be one of the first people to install an update unless people can say for sure that it's safe. I've updated to the October update, although I did it after they re-issued it, and I've had no problems with it since. In fact, it's fixed a few bugs that I've had with Windows being Windows.
     
    OSX has had this for a very long time, with a simple tickbox in the settings to change it.

    Good feature imo now that the store is there to back it up. There's still plenty of people without the ability to discern untrustworthy sites/software from the safe ones, some who probably never will.

    I do think It should be enabled by default, all it would mean for anybody who doesn't want it is one minute more of configuration when installing the OS fresh.
     
    Last edited:
    The problem is people don't change defaults though. That's one of the reasons why over the years Microsoft has been able to put on users the kind of stuff they have (removing user files from their computers, really...), heck it's the reason Mozilla is going down quality-wise too. And when those switches are found in software, they are not anywhere as simple to reach as a mere switch, they tend to be hidden behind a lot of menuing and special options or even crap in the style of "hold your computer upside down and keep the J and M keys pressed while rebooting, then cite a quote from Citizen Kane on the mic" tho (see: UEFI, also from Microsoft by the way).

    That said, there's not really an easy, intuitive compromise between "enable safe features by default" and "allow people to extend their user experience on the device" and, from what the '00s have taught us, we do still need to steer a bit more to the former.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top