I'm all about peer to peer to make efficient use of resources but this, to me, is another feature that should be opt in by default.
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.
Or perhaps the default should have been "PCs on my local network."
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.
It'll actually wreck havoc on a lot of small businesses, actually.
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.)
You're right, I hadn't thought of it that way. And, no, the Pro version behaves the same as Home in this case. even more reason for it to be off default and opt in only.
Yeah, I don't even know what Microsoft is thinking then -- practically, the Pro version would be the highest edition accessible to most of small businesses.
There seems to be a lot of poor choices Microsoft decided make on Windows 10... (Wi-fi Sense, and then this...)
If they were going to change anything, I think the LAN-only policy they employ for Enterprise and Education should probably be the default.
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.
What I mean is that I'd love to see a scheme where ISPs only count any of your bandwidth that traverses their backbone. Or perhaps charged incrementally less per hop in the ISP architecture.
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.
Not charging for all customer-to-customer or customer-to-cache traffic is pretty neutral. In cable networks, customer-to-customer traffic may increase congestion rather than reducing it, though.
They're walking back the click-bait title (it used to say “steals your bandwidth”) but it's still somewhat hyperbolic: it could be described as “Windows 10 uses other peoples’ bandwidth to give you updates faster” with equal accuracy.
If it's worth discussing a documented feature, could we at least link to the actual source:
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.
"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 wonder how they get those values, considering bandwidth limit parameters can vary depending on contracts even when it is happening to identical networks...
(Perhaps some UI allows users to to put this info, similar to Android settings?)
What it does matter if it's metered or not? I've got metered connection, it's 10TB / month included + 1€/TB for excess (outbound). I don't usually worry about little extra traffic.
Wow "Microsoft says that the feature “helps people get updates and apps more quickly if they have a limited or unreliable Internet connection” and “does not slow down your internet connection” as it uses a “limited portion” of idle upload bandwidth."
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.
This is not correct. TCP does not know the total amount of bandwidth available on a network link just like it does not know the total amount of unused bandwidth available on the same link - hence the need for additive increase.
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?
BITS uses client centric bandwidth measurement, not network centric which isn't really possible and that's the point of contention. You cannot know exactly how your network usage is affecting the larger network.
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.
That does not solve it. A little technical response to your comment. The linked wikipedia page describes how TCP detects appropriate and safe bandwidth to use for transmission using 2 main techniques:
1. Detection of how long it takes to receive a round trip ACK message
2. Detection of dropped packets
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.
Is anyone compiling a list of the settings I'll need to check when I finally make the jump from Windows 7 to 10 in a few months? I'd like to be on a newer OS, but between this and Cortana and some sort of XBL overlay that apparently messes with game performance, I'm going to need to do research into the optimal setup first.
Microsoft seems to be setting all their defaults to "screw the user". This isn't good. Distributing Windows 10 as a drive-by install that takes over your machine and turns it into a spamming node is really sleazy.
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.
Sorry, there are just too many factually incorrect claims in your hyperbolic hysteria.....
> 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 ;-)
Claiming that Microsoft is not in the surveillance-and-advertising business is rather facetious. Of course they are! Or .. why else are they harvesting absolutely everything they can possibly find out about me, from the moment the install is completed, until the final day when I uncover the secret options that turns it all off? If they weren't in the surveillance-and-advertising business, none of the spy options would be default to "On" ..
It's not its main business, by a very long way. It is, however, Google's main business, and the main business of quite a few free Android and iOS apps.
> 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.
Actually I cancelled my upgrade. I'll sit this one out until it makes sense to actually do the upgrade - at the moment, I'm not seeing any benefit to be had in doing it, and a lot of liability.
"It's not a compelling product they can get people to pay for, unlike all previous versions of Windows."
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.
If a Microsoft can get away with sharing customers resources like this, could a bank do the same? When forming an account, they add some default opt-out service to "share" resources between accounts in order to help people get a better loan experience.
I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but isn't that exactly what banks do?
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.
I kind of hope it does. Nothing will educate people about the difference between protocol and content like making a ton of customers angry by banning them without cause.
> Nothing will educate people about the difference between protocol and content like making a ton of customers angry by banning them without cause.
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.
Windows 10 is turning out to be a giant bate and switch for the average user. Most people will not even suspect that their bandwidth is being leached, their information is being sucked from their entire computer and their whole OS is left wide open to whoever microsoft deems worthy.
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.
Yeah, I was sort of excited to upgrade my Win7 VM to Win10 .. but with all the hassles and privacy violations I've been seeing reported, and now this - using my bandwidth without giving me any control over it - is just the last straw.
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 ..
Looked at from a different light, if we had more things like this, on by default, it could force ISPs to remove their caps, or at least raise them significantly.
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.
Well - no, not in my opinion. Instead it could encourage ISPs and Microsoft to reach a financial arrangement per-packet proxied via the consumer and the ISP on MS's behalf.
Another point to notice is, they are probably doing this to save money on bandwidth, at the cost of the user. Commercial bandwidth connections are usually at a "wholesale" price, and consumer connections are really really expensive. They might be able to save less than a cent for every dollar users lose because of this feature.
Am I the only one having "issues" with Enterprises deciding to turn on usage of MY resources for their benefit by default? aka opt-out vs opt-in? I mean how much bandwidth and connected costs ms things to save themselves by this feature?
Hyperbole: what's next? Making my machine crack some crypto in a swarm? mining coins?
No I have a huge issue with it. They are making billions a year and they want to use my paid resources for free and then tell me that it didn't affect me at all which they cannot know.
You'd be surprised how much of a limitation one has to suffer. I'm working in just 5 minutes away from center of decent sized city in the states (well, Bellevue, WA) and struggling to find a better replacement to Clear (that's dying this November) -- though, in case of network infrastructure, I don't know I'd be comfortable calling the US a first world. :-p
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.
Actually, Win10 looks a whole lot more subversively aggressive in the quest for "user convenience". Free upgrade! ads in you Start menu. Friends easily join your secured network! by offering password to anyone who asks. Better upgrade distributions! by choking your bandwidth and abusing data caps. Every objectionable feature can be turned off! if you have any idea it's on, and nigh-unto-punitive limitations imposed for opting out.
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.
IIRC, Bill Gates famously sent a memo amounting to "you've got to be kidding me" regarding user experience
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!
OK, thanks. This is the one I was thinking of. Bill trying to download MovieMaker from microsoft.com and getting the full 90's web experience. Pretty funny stuff!
The primary use is for the local network where this is rather a nice benefit – no CDN is going to help when you have a fixed amount of bandwidth divided by every Windows PC in the building.
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.
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.