--
They didn't change it, it was always that way. People only realized just now that it does that.
Also, please do take a look at the window people X out of and then are surprised about: http://i.imgur.com/aWFX0vc.png It states clearly that it is going to happen, and when it is going happen, and how to cancel it. The only way a user would be surprised about that is if they didn't read the message in the first place.
If Microsoft cared about its users, that option would be way bigger than it is.
Edit: They purposely put in all that information because they know people won't want to read through all that. That dialog is purposely designed to trick users because they've been taught that if they want to cancel, hit the "X" button, not find the tiny link to change the scheduling of this thing you don't understand.
The lesson Microsoft should have learned is that if they come out with a genuinely-improved version of Windows, the user base will adopt it in good time without being herded like sheep.
> all that
I don't know about you, but to me and most anyone i know the amount of text in that window is miniscule. Difference in perspective i guess.
As for what users are taught to: What i and everyone else i know have been taught to is "Read everything the computer prints on the screen unless you know exactly what it is."
the dialog is purposely built to trick users into clicking on the X, something users have been taught to do and what has always by default been, "cancel, don't do whatever this dialog box tried asking you to do."
also, when is the last time you saw a dialog box with that much text? which dialog boxes have you been reading exactly? even so, it's not as though the amount of text telling the user absolves them from their dark design patterns to trick users. microsoft did the bare minimum to let users know and changed the way the ui works by having the close button _agree_ to the changes rather than canceling them.
As parent (+1'ed) notes, the message itself is quite clear in its intent. I would not for a second think that closing the window would infer the "cancel path" as the result.
Yes, they are being too forceful, and Microsoft ought to have given users a clear "I do not want to upgrade, ever" option, yet at the same time Windows 10 represents a significant increase in security, and in these days of massive botnets and what not that is a good thing on a big scale. In a roundabout way, I'm picturing this as forced immunisation for the greater good.
Is that really so? It seems that last 20 years Microsoft just plays whack-a-mole game closing endless vulnerabilities instead of designing a better architecture that would not allow such things.
For example in Windows any app has full access to a device. The user can run any app written by anyone just by clicking a link on a web page or mail message. In Android these problems are partially fixed and in iOS the user is unable to run malicious applications at all.
Microsoft is committed to security updates on Win 8.1 until 2023.
Edit: *Especially for Windows 7.
Users don't read anything. They take whatever action is the quickest way to get rid of the dialog box they aren't interested in so they can do what they actually wanted to do with the computer.
“A major system update is available for your computer; for more information on Windows 10, please go [here]. IMPORTANT: In addition to changing Windows, this update could also require you to find and install updates for other programs on your computer.
What would you like to do?
[Upgrade Now] [Upgrade Later] [Do Not Upgrade]”
No marketing-speak, no crap about how many other people have been affected by the virus-er I mean upgraded, all they needed was to be straightforward with users. Why was that so hard for Microsoft to do?
