Microsoft criticized for changing the pop-up box encouraging users to upgrade - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36367221 <comment><USER2> I get that Microsoft wants to get people to upgrade, but forcing it like this is just plain rude

Reality is, there are still driver issues on older hardware (especially laptops) with Windows 10. Some of my friends get random hangs since upgrading. My grandma's sister had her laptop upgraded and can't find anything anymore.

It's a huge download and a huge change in how your computer works. This is not something you should just force on your users by tricking them to install it. Nudges and prompts are fine by me. Pushing it as an opt-out thing you have to actively cancel is just awful.

<comment><USER3> My girlfriend's laptop touchpad died upon update. After stopping her panic I had to enable using arrow keys for the cursor movement (getting to this menu without using said cursor was interesting..) and then roll back the "upgrade" using arrow keys.

<comment><USER4> Microsoft gets a lot of flack for these breaking updates, but I wonder why more criticism isn't directed at manufacturers who pack laptops full of obscure and poorly-written drivers.

<comment><USER5> Because, like Google with Android, Microsoft enable this behaviour. They deserve to take the flak.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have already spent several hours this week on the university student IT helpdesk fixing laptops broken by this Windows 10 update.

Every single person said they hadn't chosen to update - clearly it was a result of this popup. Most of the failures were broken drivers that prevented Windows from even booting. It particularly annoys me that Windows 10 tries to install itself on completely incompatible hardware.

A nasty dark pattern.

</comment><comment><USER7> >Clicking the red cross on the right hand corner of the pop-up box now activates the upgrade instead of closing the box.

This is just laughably evil. You can just imagine the Microsoft CEO sitting on his throne and chuckling like a supervillain.

<comment><USER8> It's also completely wrong.

The red X simply closes the notification - nothing more. Like pretty much every notification ever.

The dialog is telling the user _something will happen_ rather than asking them to make a choice.

Unfortunately, users largely don't pay any attention to what they're doing...

<comment><USER9> While that is true, you're missing that this is a change from how the upgrade dialogue worked for the past several months.

In the past, it popped up a window asking when you want to schedule the upgrade, and the only way to get rid of it without agreeing to upgrade was to close the window.

The difference is that now the upgrade is immediately scheduled without the user's consent. If you close the window, following your past behavior, it upgrades anyway. To stop the upgrade you need to click on an 8 point blue link.

This didn't just start today. Everybody running windows 7 or 8 today has REPEATEDLY declined Windows 10 upgrade notifications for months on-end. These consumers made a choice not to upgrade, and Microsoft tricked them using standard malware tactics!

That's why this is nothing less than a _shameful_ act by Microsoft.

<comment><USER8> Nope.

In the past, you received notifications that you _could_ upgrade. You clicked the Red X to _dismiss the notification_.

This time, you received a notification to tell you it was going to upgrade. You clicked the Red X to _dismiss the notification_.

They're exactly the same process. The difference is that if you didn't actually read the notification, you didn't know what it was telling you.

Anybody that really didn't want Windows 10 would have used one of the many ways, either through group policy or 3rd party apps, to prevent even being asked.

Sure, many people don't read dialogs or notifications, but that's not Microsoft's fault - it's user's that can't be bothered to actually understand what they're doing.

<comment><USER10> > Sure, many people don't read dialogs or notifications, but that's not > Microsoft's fault - it's user's that can't be bothered to actually > understand what they're doing.

Your response is either disingenuous or naive.

Changing how software behaves as established by previous UI conventions with the differences restricted to changes in text labels is a known dark pattern. Furthermore, it is well known that an increasing percentage of users will not read to the end of a notification as they attempt to return to their initial task. [0]

> As we all know, people tend to start reading at the beginning of a piece of > text and as they advance, an increasing percentage of people give up and do > not read to the end.

Unquestionably, the effect of dismissing the notice is different and, also unquestionably, the people responsible for this behavioral change are well aware of how such a change would affect users who have no intention of upgrading.

What such a change achieves, in addition to tricking unwitting users into upgrading, is plausible deniability.

[0] [http://alistapart.com/article/dark-patterns-deception- vs.-ho...](http://alistapart.com/article/dark-patterns-deception-vs.-honesty- in-ui-design\\)

EDIT: Supply missing object. Rhetorical emphasis in last sentence.

<comment><USER8> Except _it 's not changing how software behaves_.

In both cases, clicking the Red X _dismisses_ the notification. That's it. Nothing more. That's the UI convention as it always has been.

As for users not reading, that may well be the case - it doesn't mean it's not their fault.

If you wanted to take aim at a screwy dialog, I'd go for the original [A]bort [R]etry or [C]ancel... This 'change' (that isn't) is nothing compared to around 75% of UIs today.

Sure, lots of people are upset because something didn't do what they expected. Yup, the engineers sorting this out maybe aren't the greatest UI/UX people.

To state that MS are trying to 'trick' people is the disingenuous line though.

Anyway, I really can't be bothered to discuss it anymore, as (a) I read dialogs, (b) I have machines that aren't auto upgrading because I followed the methods to stop the prompts a while back, and (c) xkcd tells me it's time to stop.

<comment><USER11> Regardless of people not reading dialog boxes, a major update of Windows can take a long time and be very disruptive. When it's done, things may look and feel unfamiliar and applications may not work.

Such a significant change should not come about automatically by way of simply closing a dialog box.

There should at least be one final dialog box requiring confirmation: "go ahead with Windows 10 update now? Yes/No" and if that dialog box has an X close button, it should be wired up to "no".

If user clicks "yes", it would be polite to double check with "this update could take awhile, are you sure?" and supply links to a checklist of things people might want to know ahead of updating.

This is undoubtedly a deceptive and aggressive UI pattern by Microsoft for their own product agenda, and the bad press is deserved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Seeing them this desperate to get windows 10 on to people's computers for FREE really has me worries about their motivations. I know it's loaded with tracking and spy features, are they selling that collected data and want as many people contributing to it as possible? Whether they want to or not? If I could afford it I'd get a mac and be done with this nonsense. Used to use ubuntu but I need photoshop :(

<comment><USER13> A chunk of the telemetry recorded by Windows 10 has been back-ported to 7 and 8 in updates since anyway so that isn't a reason not to upgrade (though if it is a concern to you it is a reason not to use 7 or 8 as much as it is a reason not to use 10).

I have two machines that will likely never see Windows 10: a laptop on which it ran like a one legged arthritic dog (8 wasn't terribly fast on there, 10 was just impossible, it currently runs Debian as a test-bed for a few things) and a tablet that had significant driver issues that I don't particularly expect to see resolved (so it'll be sticking at 8 as I don't have time to upgrade and roll back again if it fails, my time is precious!).

The "but it is free" thing amuses me somewhat. Does anyone else remember hearing the "Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing" mantra from various Microsoft supporting camps?

<comment><USER14> _A chunk of the telemetry recorded by Windows 10 has been back-ported to 7 and 8 in updates since anyway so that isn 't a reason not to upgrade_

Of course it is a reason not to upgrade: in Windows 7 or 8.x _you don 't have to install the telemetry_, but in Windows 10 you have no choice.

<comment><USER13> Fair point, but you have to actively not install them if you have the officially recommended configuration (automatic update, include recommended updates).

Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but I can't believe the behaviour won't "accidentally" get in without continued effort on the part of the user to check that it isn't there. I for one don't have time not the care to keep constantly monitoring the situation.

I accept that Windows is watching me, _whatever version_ , and if Windows watching me becomes a problem in my mind I'll stop using Windows, _whatever version_.

<comment><USER14> The thing is, my personal views are such that I wouldn't be happy using Windows with unclear phone-home behaviour, but for my small businesses, accepting that Windows is watching us in unknown ways is absolutely out of the question for regulatory and contractual reasons.

The average home user might be set to automatically install recommended updates, but I doubt many businesses or power users do that. The important thing in this case is that they do have the option not to.

As for telemetry "accidentally" getting in, this is why as mentioned elsewhere our policy is now not to install any Windows updates by default, even security ones. We install _selected_ security updates manually, if and when we've confirmed they are relevant to our needs and not getting reported for anything sneaky.

Several of our machines can't even install those updates at the moment, because Microsoft appear to have horribly broken Windows Update in the past few weeks anyway, so until that's fixed it's a moot point anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Does anyone have data on what percentage of devices fail the upgrade process? Surely Mircosoft does. They also probably have data on how many people then end up purchasing a new machine.

Microsoft seems to me like car dealer who in their spare time pours sugar into the gas tanks of parked cars. They don't care how many people the inconvenience. If even one percent of them buy a new car then it was worth the sugar.

<comment><USER16> They could easily know, by counting the machines they told to upgrade and counting the ones that came back from upgrade and subtracting one from the other.

But you might be fired if you tried to implement the collection of that data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I know several people who tried to be super diligent in opting out of windows 10 only to wake up to a win10 install on their PCs. They all ended up buying Macbooks the next day.

Forced windows 10 upgrades seem to be the best advertisement OS X could ever get.

<comment><USER11> Sounds fishy. I get that sneaky OS updating is unwanted, but it can be avoided and there's an easy 3 click process to roll back if Windows 10 is installed.

Don't forget that Apple now enforce mandatory iOS updates, with no option to opt out or disable the annoying reminders. Even if you have automatic system updates turned off, the point release iOS updates are downloaded without your permission in the background when the phone or iPad is charging. These updates might be between 80 - 300 MB. The notification dialog boxes then begin their attack, every day with two options "install now / remind me later".

This is actually worse than Windows, since on Windows we at least have the option to disable the scheduled update and the reminder notifications. Not so on iOS as of version 9.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I got tired of being asked, so I used Never10 [1] which is freeware from a reputable developer [2]. Never10 can also undo the decision and let you upgrade if you change your mind.

[1] [https://www.grc.com/never10.htm](https://www.grc.com/never10.htm)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Gibson_(computer_program...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Gibson_\(computer_programmer\))

<comment><USER19> Also critique about [2]:

1) [http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/7](http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/7) regarding "raw socket panic"

2) [http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.user- groups.linux.gnhlu...](http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.user- groups.linux.gnhlug/22505) regarding questionable SpinRite application to fix hard drive errors

<comment><USER18> Yep, that's what the cite is for. Eccentric and sometimes "crazy uncle", but has a reputation and isn't trying to murder your computer on purpose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Having done a fresh install of Win7 recently, I can confirm that only installing important updates, not treating recommended updates the same, and being highly selective of which optional updates (i.e. drivers only) prevents any of the Windows 10 upgrade stuff from being installed.

This doesn't help anyone who has previously done things differently (which was generally accepted as the best practice), but if you're setting up any new hosts, the above may work out as well for you as it has for me.

<comment><USER21> For those of you (or people you know) that still keep getting nagged about Win10, this freeware works great at killing all the system tray, balloon, and popup notifications: [http://ultimateoutsider.com/downloads/](http://ultimateoutsider.com/downloads/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I just re-activated that dialog (I had disabled it with registry setting changes) because I don't want to miss the free upgrade option but use it at the last moment.

Anyway - I found that when I simply say "No" to the inevitable "Terms and conditions" license dialog question the upgrade stops even if you said "go ahead" in the previous step.

<comment><USER23> Wanted to comment precisely this. Yesterday my gf called me because she had W10 on her laptop, installed, and about to start all the process of adding the user and stuff (I think).

I clicked "I do no accept" to the license, got a warning that then they needed to restore my previous version of windows, and 10 minutes later the laptop was working as before.

Guess now I know why that happened.

<comment><USER17> Did the downgrade work perfectly? There's been a lot of reports of small things not working anymore, like scheduled tasks - [https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en- US/80e4f83d-1...](https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en- US/80e4f83d-1529-4405-b8e3-d1d636f8b71c/task-scheduler-is-broken-after- windows-10-downgrade?forum=win10itprogeneral)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24>
        The change occurred because the update is now labelled
        "recommended" and many people have their PCs configured
        to accept recommended updates for security reasons.

Turn off automatic updating and never turn it back on, ever. At this point, the biggest threat to Windows machines seems to be Microsoft themselves.

Manually update any Windows machines you run, unchecking the Windows 10 upgrade every single time. It will never stay unchecked, nor will it ever not be recommended.

Until Microsoft decides to override _that_ and literally force it on everyone, which I don't doubt they will do as soon as they feel they can afford the class action lawsuits that will result from the few stragglers remaining, there is no other way to avoid the upgrade, unless you actually want to hack the registry or something.

<comment><USER25> > Turn off automatic updating and never turn it back on, ever. At this point, > the biggest threat to Windows machines seems to be Microsoft themselves.

And if you turn off automatic updates, _you_ become the biggest threat to your machine's security. (As well as to many other people on the Internet, when your system becomes compromised and starts sending spam, DoS attacks, or other botnet activities.)

Yes, some people don't like Windows 10. But Windows has moved to the "evergreen" software model, as have many other pieces of software (including browsers). If you don't like Windows 10, the answer isn't "run Windows 7 forever"; the answer is "stop running Windows, because you don't like where it's going (or has already gone)".

<comment><USER14> _And if you turn off automatic updates, you become the biggest threat to your machine 's security._

What is a bigger threat to your machine's security than not being able to use it at all?

Our standard policy for a long time was not to auto-install any Windows updates, and just to manually install security ones each month.

Our standard policy today is not to install any update, no matter what Microsoft labels it with, unless we've identified a specific need for it. We do a quick pass down the usual sources after patch day and install any security updates that are potentially relevant _and_ haven't been causing problems.

Given that Windows 7 is a relatively mature OS today and obviously we also have a variety of other security measures in place, we consider the risk of overlooking a minor security fix that actually matters to be much, much lower than the risk of 2016's Microsoft breaking something by pushing an update we didn't want.

 _If you don 't like Windows 10, the answer isn't "run Windows 7 forever"_

Yes. Yes, it is, at least for now. An operating system is just a tool you use to get work done. Windows 7 works just fine on our hardware, and it runs the software we need. If it ain't broke, don't let anyone break it, and spend your time on actually useful things.

We're essentially betting that either Nadella and co will have got the boot before Windows 7 support ends and a desperate Microsoft will have significantly reversed course and offered a viable alternative by that time, or someone else will have stepped up to offer serious business software on another platform that we can migrate to by then.

<comment><USER26> >Windows 7 works just fine on our hardware, and it runs the software we need. If it ain't broke, don't let anyone break it, and spend your time on actually useful things.

The problem is that it _is_ broken, in a way: it has security vulnerabilities, just like any OS, and if it's connected to the internet has to be patched to protect it. A deprecated OS is not going to get those security updates. Win7 won't be supported forever.

Of course, if your Win7 machine is not networked, then this doesn't apply to you and you can run it forever, just like some industrial machines still run MS-DOS.

>We're essentially betting that either Nadella and co will have got the boot before Windows 7 support ends and a desperate Microsoft will have significantly reversed course and offered a viable alternative by that time, or someone else will have stepped up to offer serious business software on another platform that we can migrate to by then.

Why would Nadella get the boot? Look at their stock price since he's taken over: the company is doing great, much better than under Ballmer. All these actions are good and correct: they make the company more money. Customers may not like them, but too bad. Why should MS care about what its customers want? It's not like they're going to abandon MS and Windows any time soon, so MS is right to screw them over for more profit.

<comment><USER14> _A deprecated OS is not going to get those security updates. Win7 won 't be supported forever._

But Windows 7 _isn 't_ deprecated. Microsoft have committed to supporting it until 2020, and their customers will expect them to honour that commitment.

That is four years away. In a fast-paced industry like IT, the entire landscape could be different by then.

 _Why would Nadella get the boot? Look at their stock price since he 's taken over: the company is doing great, much better than under Ballmer._

You and I seem to be looking at very different stock charts. In the one I'm looking at[1], MSFT had pretty respectable growth through 2013-2014 when they were doing a lot of talking about Windows 10 and the new vision, but their stock price looks much less happy since around the start of 2015 as the reality became known.

In a few months, if Windows 10 is still far less established than Windows 7 and it becomes undeniable that the campaign to get everyone onto Windows 10 didn't succeed even with literally giving it away and underhand tricks like the one we're talking about, executives like Nadella and Myerson are going to be under a lot of pressure to present a more realistic vision of what happens next and to turn the stock price back to a steady pattern of growth or their positions are going to be under threat.

[1] [https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=MSFT#symbol=MSFT](https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=MSFT#symbol=MSFT)

 _Why should MS care about what its customers want? It 's not like they're going to abandon MS and Windows any time soon_

Perhaps not. I suspect they've probably got until about 14 January 2020 before things get really bad.

But by that time, anything could have happened. Apple could have started competing more aggressively for desktop/laptop/server markets. Less and less business software could be locally hosted, making a range of different devices that can access web apps more attractive. In more than three years, even a major new player entering the market or a shift in strategy from some other tech giant isn't out of the question.

Screwing your customers for profit looks good at the next quarterly earnings call, but not so much two years or five years down the line when your customers and competitors have had time to react.

<comment><USER26> >But Windows 7 isn't deprecated. Microsoft have committed to supporting it until 2020, and their customers will expect them to honour that commitment.

So what? They can change their mind at any time, and I for one hope they do. What are customers going to do, file a complaint? hahaha

>You and I seem to be looking at very different stock charts.

I don't know what you're looking at, but the Google chart I'm looking at for 2010-now shows constant growth, starting at about 2012 and really gaining steam in 2013, and continuing until now, albeit with some stumbling in the first half of 2015. Their stock price now is higher than it ever was in 2013-2014, and is in general going up.

>Apple could have started competing more aggressively for desktop/laptop/server markets. >...even a major new player entering the market or a shift in strategy from some other tech giant isn't out of the question.

Apple's been competing in those markets for decades, and they're still a tiny player. Linux beat them easily in servers. The idea of Apple servers is a joke. And MS servers are locked into many places in enterprises thanks to SharePoint, Exchange, AD, etc. and of course Windows on the desktop. Apple hasn't gotten anywhere on the desktop for businesses, and not much in homes either thanks to their high prices. I don't see that changing; Apple has always had high prices. Linux has been tried on the desktop for decades too (earnestly since around 1998), to little effect. And don't make me remind you about the fate of BeOS.

>Screwing your customers for profit looks good at the next quarterly earnings call, but not so much two years or five years down the line when your customers and competitors have had time to react.

You seem to be making the classic mistake of thinking MS is a normal company which has to worry about competition. It isn't. The only real threats they have to their business are 1) their old OS versions (which they're dealing with by pushing everyone to Win10 like it or not) and 2) the need for their products being made obsolete by new technology (like tablets). #2 seemed to be a concern for a while but it looks like the tablet market has gotten saturated and that's played out. There's too much stuff you just can't do on a tablet, so while some people can and have gone to all-mobile computing, everyone else is stuck with Windows, and they aren't going to stop using it no matter what. MS might as well take advantage of that as much as they can.

<comment><USER14> _They can change their mind at any time, and I for one hope they do._

Maybe the law is different where you are. In my country, the public statements they have made about ongoing support would carry legal weight, and pulling that support several years early would be obvious grounds for legal action. Potentially they are on the hook for all kinds of nasty things, starting with undermining every consumer purchase of a system with the version of Windows that is no longer supported as promised.

 _I don 't know what you're looking at, but the Google chart I'm looking at for 2010-now shows constant growth, starting at about 2012 and really gaining steam in 2013, and continuing until now, albeit with some stumbling in the first half of 2015. Their stock price now is higher than it ever was in 2013-2014, and is in general going up._

Well, you do know what chart I was looking at, because the link is right there in my last post. Go ahead and follow it, and press the 5Y button.

On that chart, you'll see that after a couple of stagnant years around 2011-2012 that ultimately brought down Ballmer, you can draw a pretty straight line through the stock price through 2013-2014, hitting close to 27, 37, and then 47 at the start of 2013, 2014 and 2015. At close yesterday, nearly six quarters dominated by Windows 10 news later, it stood at a touch over 50, after the most volatile period of trading in years going below 40 and above 55 at times but always some way below the previous levels of growth.

You're correct that the stock price today _is_ higher than it ever was in 2013-2014. What you're glossing over is that it's a mere 1% or so higher than it was at the peak of the 2013-2014 gains, nearly 17 months later. That's not exactly impressive for a business with such a dominant history and supposedly a whole new strategy to recover from the missteps of the previous few years. About the only thing they have going for them lately is that they haven't tanked along with the overall US markets since the start of this year.

 _Apple 's been competing in those markets for decades, and they're still a tiny player._

Which markets? In laptops they seem to have about 10% market share. They're on a comparable scale to any of the big Windows laptop manufacturers, something like 5th or 6th by volume of sales IIRC, presumably higher by revenue since they aim for the top end of the market. That's not nowehere on the desktop for businesses.

The thing is, though, we're talking about 3-4 years out here before Windows 7 runs out of support. If Apple wanted to make a play for the middle part of the market, maybe with a secondary brand, they easily have the financial resources, infrastructure and technical chops to do it.

The other vaguely plausible alternative is that another huge tech firm decides to actually give Linux clients a serious push. Obviously none of the current distros is going to do that; the only one with anything like the resources to make it happen is probably Red Hat, and their focus seems unlikely to shift from the enterprise/server market. But if you look at Android and to some extent Chrome OS and SteamOS, the potential for an unexpected sideways move to some new type of device is always there.

In any case, if the current trend towards outsourced IT and cloud services continues during that time frame, the advantages Microsoft retains in the corporate server room will erode over time, and with them the barriers to migrating to a completely different platform. Obviously it won't happen overnight, but it doesn't have to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm going to share the best way I have found to kill any particular thing in windows you don't like, including GWX: (this is not my full script, just a section, so you will have to modify it)

taskkill /IM GWX*

takeown /r /d N /f c:\windows\system32\gwx

icacls c:\windows\system32\gwx\ _._ /c /t /deny everyone:F

icacls c:\windows\system32\gwx /c /t /deny everyone:F

reg add HKLM\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\Gwx /v DisableGwx /t REG_DWORD /d 1

edit: one thing I ran into that caused me to use this hackish script is that, at least in the early GWX days, windows updates were re-enabling the GWX and update registry keys. So a few tuesdays later and GWX is back and asking to upgrade again.

<comment><USER28> This is my registry changes that has worked every time. Even when the install is set to kick off with the next reboot.

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate\OSUpgrade] "ReservationsAllowed"=dword:00000000 "KickoffDownload"=dword:00000000 "KickoffSource"=dword:00000000 "AllowOSUpgrade"=dword:00000000 "Refresh"=dword:00000001

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate\OSUpgrade\State] "OSUpgradeState"=dword:00000001

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\WindowsUpdate] "DisableOSUpgrade"=dword:00000001

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\Gwx] "DisableGwx"=dword:00000001

<comment><USER29> interesting, I knew about the last two, but not the OSUpgrade ones, did you find those are needed as well?

<comment><USER28> I copied the first part from a domain joined PC before a later update caused them to receive the upgrade prompt as well. It's kind of belt and suspenders so it doesn't harm but may not actually be needed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This bricked my sister in law's computer AND GUESS WHO GETS TO FIX IT.

Microsoft messed up. Instead of losing a windows 7 user and gaining a windows 10 user, they lost a windows 7 user and gained a boots-to-blackscreen user.

</comment><comment> Fire-Dragon-DoL My win7 configuration uses programdata and users folder on D. This is not supportby windows 10, i tried the upgrade and everything broke, reverted through cloned hdd. I have no plan in upgrading, my pc will die before and at that point i'll format and reinstall (and never use users directory again), they still push me that upgrade, it's terrible. People says "always update your pc", but usually things get worse when you do

</comment><comment><USER31> The underhanded and manipulative approach that Microsoft have taken with Windows 10 has put me off Microsoft completely. It is important to trust your OS and OS vendor and Microsoft have slipped up badly in this regard. Now they expect me to give them full update control with Windows 10 - never going to happen. Next OS is Linux.

</comment><comment><USER32> MS also continually re-enables the update if you block/hide it in Windows Update. I've blocked it like 5 times in the past 5 months at my company's workstation only to have it magically re-appear on a Monday morning. Just leave me to my Windows 7 peace!

</comment><comment><USER33> There needs to be a class action lawsuit. The people doing this at Microsoft are not that familiar with western legal systems or basic sensibilities or just don't care. A lawsuit will maybe wake them up.

<comment><USER34> It's probably more profitable for them to get more people on 10 and deal with a law suit than to let people stay on the other versions.

<comment><USER14> Evidently the lawsuit needs a higher damages award. I thought the motivation for having punitive damages in a legal system was so that courts could make sure it was never cheaper to do the wrong thing and hope to ride out any resulting legal action.

<comment><USER35> Doesn't matter, in the end all members of the class action lawsuit will receive a coupon for a free copy of Windows 10 for their damages. The lawyers will be paid in cash.

<comment><USER14> If the cash that pays the lawyers is a significant fraction of Microsoft's annual revenues, that might still be considered a win.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> My plan for my next computer is to not run windows on the bare metal but run it in a VM as fast as possible. Does any know of a linux distribution that is geared towards this? I basically want to boot to linux then choose various virtual machine images to run.

<comment><USER37> Look into what supports PCI passthrough That tech looks amazing (I didn't have the time to make it work though)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Got hit by this yesterday on a computer I don't use frequently and a coworker quickly turned machine off to prevent upgrade and all was well.

It is sad that they would stoop this low. I just don't understand it.

<comment><USER26> >It is sad that they would stoop this low. I just don't understand it.

There's nothing "sad" about it. If this increases their corporate profits, then it's the correct course of action. I'm only surprised they didn't resort to tactics like this earlier; they were much too nice with their customers before. They're doing a lot better now, by showing their customers who's boss.

What's sad is that customers actually think they deserve to be treated nicely. I just don't understand that mentality. If you're willing to allow a vendor to abuse you, over and over and over again, and you absolutely refuse to ditch that vendor, then why shouldn't the vendor treat you poorly if they can make more money doing so?

<comment><USER14> _They 're doing a lot better now, by showing their customers who's boss._

Microsoft might indeed be about to learn who's boss.

Spoiler: Absent legal or regulatory shenanigans, in the long run it's going to be the people spending the money.

If you really believe Microsoft are strong enough to coerce most or all of their entire market to move to Windows 10 when it's not in their interests, I invite you to look up the current market share of Windows 7 vs. Windows 10, and to consider that this is about 10 months into the 12 month free update period already.

<comment><USER26> >If you really believe Microsoft are strong enough to coerce most or all of their entire market to move to Windows 10 when it's not in their interests, I invite you to look up the current market share of Windows 7 vs. Windows 10, and to consider that this is about 10 months into the 12 month free update period already.

A huge number of people have upgraded to Win10. Many of those are because of the underhanded tricks, but it doesn't matter; they've switched now. Now MS just has to squeeze them some more by cutting support for Win7 early, or maybe they could be like Apple and start pushing Win7 updates which massively slow down the OS, in effect forcing people to upgrade.

What are people going to do, stop getting security updates? Or switch to a different OS?

Face it, people and businesses are locked into Windows, and aren't going to stop using it no matter what. MS can do whatever they want at this point; it's not going to hurt them, and will only help them. The more people they can push to Win10, the more money they'll make from advertising. I can't wait to see them pushing mandatory advertising and spyware in Win10 Enterprise.

<comment><USER14> _Now MS just has to squeeze them some more by cutting support for Win7 early,_

That would surely result in lawsuits on such a scale that even Microsoft would be lucky to survive the results.

 _or maybe they could be like Apple and start pushing Win7 updates which massively slow down the OS, in effect forcing people to upgrade._

They already do seem to be crippling Windows 7 updates; there have been numerous reports of problems since earlier this year where Windows Update will sit there taking literally hours to do the most simple tasks, apparently including several controlled experiments using new machines to prove that it really is Windows Update at fault.

This doesn't bode well for anyone remaining on Windows 7, but of course it bodes even less well for anyone committed to whatever update mechanism Microsoft wants on Windows 10.

 _What are people going to do, stop getting security updates?_

Probably.

 _Or switch to a different OS?_

Possibly.

 _Face it, people and businesses are locked into Windows, and aren 't going to stop using it no matter what._

There is rarely true lock-in within this industry. Usually there is only the relative cost of migrating to new systems vs. staying put.

The thing is, migrating to a new OS is _already_ an extremely expensive, time- consuming and risky proposition for large organisations. Entire teams of IT staff spend months planning the switch, testing hardware and software on the new platform, and so on. That is going to be true even if organisations decide to upgrade to Windows 10 from whatever they're on already.

 _That_ is the inertia Microsoft really has to overcome if it wants to establish Windows 10, and it's the same inertia that meant some organisations were willing to pay millions for support beyond the official cut-off date with Windows XP because that was still better for them than risking a migration even to Windows 7, which had relatively few areas of risk in that scenario.

If they fail to do that, either by not making 10 an attractive proposition or by trying to degrade 7 until people give up, then those big corporate migration exercises do have alternatives they could consider, and sooner or later some big names will actually make the jump. And if a few of them do that and it becomes clear that they've done well out of it, that's very, very bad for Microsoft. That's why I don't think they'll let it come to that.

<comment><USER26> >That would surely result in lawsuits on such a scale that even Microsoft would be lucky to survive the results.

Unless they're bound by a contract, which would only apply to very large customers, they're under no obligation to continue support for Win7. It's just like XP; there's no support for that unless you're a special customer who pays extra for that support.

>They already do seem to be crippling Windows 7 updates; there have been numerous reports of problems since earlier this year where Windows Update will sit there taking literally hours to do the most simple tasks,

Yep, and there's no legal recourse here either. They can run Windows Updates however they want. Don't like it? Don't get any updates, and leave yourself open to hacking and malware.

>>What are people going to do, stop getting security updates? >Probably.

See above. Good luck dealing with the malware and hacking.

>>Or switch to a different OS? >Possibly.

You're joking, right? Linux backers have been trying to encourage people to switch to that for ages and it hasn't gotten very far. Apple has a very strong brand with huge success in mobile devices and they haven't gotten very far either.

>There is rarely true lock-in within this industry.

WTF are you talking about? Every time anyone proposes switching to Linux, tons of people pop up talking about all the applications they're bound to which only work on Windows. Lock-in (with apps) is the entire reason Windows is so dominant. It's the exact same reason that WinPhone has been a disaster and can't make a dent in the Android and iPhone marketshare: there's no apps for it.

>If they fail to do that, either by not making 10 an attractive proposition or by trying to degrade 7 until people give up, then those big corporate migration exercises do have alternatives they could consider

No, they don't. They're locked into tons of applications that only run on Windows. As everyone knows, there's no Photoshop on Linux. The same is true for countless business applications that most of us have never heard of, but are critically important to businesses (and each business has different, obscure applications it's bound to).

Don't forget, with larger businesses, they do site licenses, so they pay constant license fees to MS no matter which MS they run. No matter what these customers do, they're going to be paying MS for the privilege of running their software. There's no way MS can screw this up, it's just a matter of which tactic will maximize profit. At worst, they'll have a steady but constant revenue stream.

<comment><USER14> _Unless they 're bound by a contract, which would only apply to very large customers, they're under no obligation to continue support for Win7._

After giving clear public statements of their future support cycles? Good luck being the lawyer defending that one in a nine-figure dollar lawsuit with a Fortune 100 or ten.

 _Apple has a very strong brand with huge success in mobile devices and they haven 't gotten very far either._

Now who's joking? Apple owns the high end of the laptop market and has for years.

 _They 're locked into tons of applications that only run on Windows. As everyone knows, there's no Photoshop on Linux._

No, there isn't. But people said the same thing about Adobe moving to Creative Cloud a few years ago, and initially they dominated the market too, with a few FOSS applications the not-really-competition. Today, though, there are several very reasonable alternatives to CC applications in various parts of the market, and they're gaining a foothold and loyal customer base very fast. Most of them run on Macs rather than Windows, by the way.

<comment><USER26> >After giving clear public statements of their future support cycles? Good luck being the lawyer defending that one in a nine-figure dollar lawsuit with a Fortune 100 or ten.

Yeah, so what happens when they pull support for Win7 Home and maybe Pro, and continue it as normal for Enterprise, so that the Fortune 100 companies aren't affected? Home users aren't going to sue MS, and SMBs aren't too likely to either.

Don't forget, MS can claim they don't need to offer support to these smaller users, because they're giving them a free "upgrade" to their latest and greatest! You're right about the F100 companies, but they're a totally different market. MS is still supporting XP for some companies remember; they'd likely do the same (but maybe without any extra cost for a while) for their enterprise customers running W7.

>Now who's joking? Apple owns the high end of the laptop market and has for years.

Not in the corporate space they don't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Imho, this looks like a deliberate ploy to get most Windows computers to upgrade to Windows 10 so that they can force the App Store model in order to get the 30% cut.

</comment><comment><USER40> And even _that_ assumes that Something doesn't Go Wrong:

[http://imgur.com/9WQcjyT](http://imgur.com/9WQcjyT)

</comment><comment><USER41> Windows 10 needs to be forced just like OSX,Chrome and Ios. Deal with it or use Ubuntu, which is actually very nice.

<comment><USER42> Neither OSX or IOS force upgrade. Chrome is an application, so that is a Apples to Oranges comparison.

<comment><USER14> iOS upgrades are forced in all but name. Apple can and do remove versions of apps that supporter older iOS versions from the App Store.

If you want the latest version of an app, you can be forced in practice to update iOS as well, and with so many mobile apps depending on remote services, something as simple as a change in the protocol for communicating with some essential remote facility in an app can lead to an entire OS update.

The even crazier thing is that they also don't let you downgrade either the OS or the apps if a new version is worse than what you had before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Update broke my parents friends wifi and of course they call me and ask for help, and of course they don't own an ethernet cable, and of course all he does is use the web browser to look at porn.

<comment><USER43> If that is really the only thing they use I would just install Linux mint on it in the long run it's probably better for them.

It's surprisingly easy to install mallware and viruses on a windows computer cumputer these days see download.com for a good example.

Even I've done it a few times by accident luckily it was in a VM so I just scrapped it.

There's basically no difference if all you do is browse the internet and if they run into issued doing something and the only way to do it requires a command line then revert it.

These days most basic things can be done very easily in linux without ever touching the command line so the only barrier to entry is that computers don't come pre-loaded with it.

<comment><USER37> >cumputer noun - a personal computer used just to browse porn!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> One solution that seems to not get much attention is setting the windows firewall to block outgoing connections by default. You then whitelist the couple of programs that actually do need internet access (it isn't many, mostly just web browsers).

Then you don't have to worry about windows or any other program pulling a bait and switch on you.

<comment><USER36> More downvotes without any explanations. I've literally been doing this for multiple years and it works great, I don't know why it ends up being such a controversial solution.

<comment><USER11> Because "mostly just web browsers" isn't correct for a typical PC with decent collection of good software. Many applications need outbound access and whitelisting all of them would be painful. I would never attempt that on my PC and agree with those who downvoted you!

Not only that, but sometimes it's not obvious which .exe file needs the outbound access. Some programs use other modules to connect to remote servers for application update checks and other things. Besides, you want Windows security patches, so on many levels your idea tanks hard!

<comment><USER36> I have quite a bit of software on my computer and it really didn't turn out to be necessary to whitelist very many of them. It really isn't a huge deal. There are added benefits that something like visual studio tries to access the internet for things that aren't really a benefit to someone who doesn't want to give 'smiley face feedback' or log into their locally installed IDE for some reason.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Soylent 2.0 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.soylent.com/post/125754565787/soylent-20-use-less-do-more <comment><USER3> My first thought whenever I see soylent is that we have studies proving that we can't replace breast milk with baby formula. Some of that is due to immune system being passed on to the infant, but we haven't yet mastered the nutritional content of real food to the point where we can confidently say it's safe to eat Soylent or another similar product regularly.

It takes me back to the whole issue with processed dog foods -- kibble, while even the most expensive brands claim to be "nutritionally complete", miss the fact that dogs cannot process/absorb the many nutrients within (and why their waste is... more than a nuisance). Eg, calcium added to dog food is nearly worthless, while calcium from eating raw bones is readily absorbed by their bodies. Same with many other vitamins and minerals.

We have a lot of work ahead of us in this sector. It's good that someone is trying, though.

<comment><USER4> What worries me is that soylent is 20% based on soy. Some studies indicate that eating a heavily soy based diet leads to increased estrogen levels. Which can have negative side effects regardless of your gender. [0]: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/) [1]: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303720711...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303720711007374)

<comment><USER5> This sentence gave me pause:

"The protein source is soy, which contains an ideal ratio of amino acids for excellent nutrition ..."

You can argue the merits of one protein source over another, but I think to declare any non-animal protein source as "ideal" in any way would require some evidence to be presented. Unfortunately, it shows that they are glossing over the hard decisions that have to be made in creating a product like this with so much empty marketing-speak.

<comment><USER6> I thought it was pretty common knowledge. Whole civilizations depend on soy protein. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soy_protein#Nutrition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soy_protein#Nutrition) "Based on this method, soy protein is considered to have a similar equivalent in protein quality to animal proteins. Egg white has a score of 1.00, soy concentrate 0.99, beef 0.92, and isolated soy protein 0.92."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Soylent 2.0 (liquid) is being sold alongside Soylent 1.5 (powder). The powder will continue to be sold. The liquid currently costs a little over 20% more per kcal. It's also important to note that the liquid is being sold as 400kcal is a serving (X bottles at 400kcal each) while the powder is being sold as 500kcal/16 oz prepared is a serving (X meals at 500kcal each with 4 meals to a pouch/28 meals to a box). At the 400 kcal serving size, the 28 meal box of powder would become 35 servings of equivalent calories to the liquid. Getting 2 boxes with 14 pouches to be 2 weeks worth of food is easier and takes up far less storage space than getting 72 bottles of liquid for the equivalent amount of food.

We use Soylent powder right now. Had it for breakfast this morning. The taste is really neutral... it tastes like a bland cereal, so you can add things to if if you want. It's helped us lose weight. It's helped us keep food costs down. And it's helped us enjoy the meals we do eat. We use it as a supplement for 1 or 2 meals a day.

<comment><USER8> I can see the convenience of liquid but it's seems highly inefficient distribution-wise. I wonder if there's another way to distribute it such as a bar?

<comment><USER9> I'm going to take a not-that-wild guess and suggest that they're completely aware of the inefficiency and moved forward with it because A) it gives the company a fatter profit margin when the customer is paying for less Soylent and more water, and B) this is the best way to move toward getting Soylent into the corner store refrigerator.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I looked through the thread and I see too many negative comments.

Guys, let's take a minute to appreciate how freakin' amazing Soylent is. It's like a space food every kid dreams about. It is insanely convenient. It can solve so many problems in the world.

Thank you, Soylent team, I wish you luck, your startup is amazing!

<comment><USER11> > let's take a minute to appreciate how freakin' amazing Soylent is

Soylent just markets a standard weight gainer as a total food replacement. Not sure why this is "freakin' amazing."

<comment><USER10> > Soylent just markets a standard weight gainer as a total food replacement.

I do not understand why people think it's okay to make such assertions without backing them up. Is it not obvious to you that this statement is just plain false?

If you think Soylent lacks something to be a total food replacement, or have any constructive criticism - please share it with us. But don't just throw random silly things out there.

<comment><USER11> > If you think Soylent lacks something to be a total food replacement

That's not what I'm saying.

Everyone is like, "Soylent is revolutionary." But when you look at the ingredients in a mass gainer, particularly something like Aronld Iron Mass, they're nearly identical. Maybe some slight vitamin tweaking to make a bodybuilding weight gainer a full food replacement, but really, that's not "revolutionary."

Soylent is the same old ingredients, different marketing.

What's "revolutionary" is they're touting them as a food replacement, which I'm guessing supplement manufacturers avoid doing for fear of liability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Selling bottles is really terrible from an environmental perspective. It's sort of the same problem as bottled water. Now we have a lot of plastic bottle trash instead of the pouches that pack down flat and provide much more product/waste ratio.

Plastic bottles are more recyclable but recycling bins are still not common in my area of the country (although we recycle at home).

There is also the increased fuel costs of shipment. One more question is where is the bottling happens. If it's in California like the development labs, is it contributing to the drought there a la Nestle water-bottling?

<comment><USER13> Soylent < 2.0 seemed to leverage the promise of easy shipping/portability, which > 2.0 seems to lose? Soylent as a sustainable nutrition source in areas where it's far superior to what little nutrition may be available, is less likely stable in liquid form. It's a shame, as this seemed to be one of the greatest promises of the brand beyond convenience. Not sure what the differentiation is anymore, amongst other MRP's such as Phood.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why spend energy producing and transporting heavy water and plastic bottles with this pre-mixed Soylent? Everyone already has plentiful water and receptacles at home. Seems like a retrograde step, unless I'm missing something?

<comment><USER15> From what I've read (I think in the most recent Ars Technica article on it, not counting today's 2.0 one), soylent has to sit for a while in the fridge after you make it or it's absolutely awful.

<comment><USER16> True. I'm on my first batch of 1.5 right now. The instructions are pretty clear about it needing to be cold. Room-temperature, the Soylent mix is pretty gnarly (think chalk), but once properly chilled it pretty much tastes like nothing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Can someone explain to me the appeal of this product? Why would anyone choose to drink a nondescript sludge over the plentiful ways we can get good, enjoyable & healthy food?

I can certainly appreciate the science behind it - this would be a great boon to helping feed those that are less fortunate, but from what I can see that doesn't appear to be the aim of the company.

<comment><USER18> I feel like i'm in the opposite camp. Every time i see a Soylent post in any non-Soylent corner of the web (HN, non-Soylent Subreddits, etc), there's always 1 (x100) posts of:

"Why would you do this!?"

I feel like i need someone to describe _this_ to me. Why is it so hard to grasp? "Fast food" makes its living off of ease and price. You could argue taste, but many (most?) people feel that a good homecooked meal tastes a lot better than a McBurger - so i'm going to ignore taste.

We have isles and isles of meal replacements and frozen foods. All with the purpose of giving you food on the Go, and food on the quick.

We also have people constantly skipping meals, for reasons other than diet. I myself often skip breakfast or lunch because i'm busy, and eventually 9am turns into 10am turns into 11am turns into "Welp, i may as well just eat lunch".

So it seems blatantly obvious that meal speed, ease and even price is an issue for many, many, many people. So why is it so confusing to see a liquid form of this that aims to be an even healthier meal replacement than _existing_ meal replacements?

We _already_ have meal replacements. We have had them for ages. They're just incredibly unhealthy. .. I just guess i can't fathom why so many people (not you specifically) are so confused at Soylents existence.

</rant>

<comment><USER19> There's a weird psuedo-religious aspect to it too. It's _right_ to spend an hour cooking, and _wrong_ to have a convenient pre-made meal, even if it's nutritionally as good or better.

<comment><USER18> Couldn't agree more.

I completely admit that Soylent is not perfect, and i am also a little worried of the (many?) aspects of nutrition that we're unaware of. But many people _live_ on Fast Food, which scares me far far more than Soylent does.

But just because something is not perfect, does not warrant the very odd zealotry that i see for "normal" food and against Soylent (and like products).

It's honestly, flat out bizarre to me. They act like "normal" food is their favorite sports team, or a company that they have vested interest in. As if their profits will take a hit, if this new fangled Soylent thing catches on.

And i can't imagine it is for our potential health that these people are fanatical. I don't see them being so religious about many other non-healthy life habits that people have. Yet, throw in liquid food and it's a slug fest.

I just don't understand.

<comment><USER20> It's because you're deleting an entire dimension of human experience and saying it's normal. People who don't like food seem abnormal. It's like asexuality. It takes people aback to hear that a person has no sexual interest of any kind.

<comment><USER18> If you're simply explaining why you think that people have that reaction, then that's a very good assertion - appreciate the input.

If you're posing an argument, then imo, you're largely mistaken. Most (needs citation) people don't use Soylent-like products to remove a positive human experience. They remove the "human experiences" that they already struggled with, and don't want.

For example, I'm not skipping out on meals with my family and loved ones. Those are social interactions, the food is just something to prompt the social interaction.

However, when i'm alone in my house getting ready for work - I don't think these are part of this "human experience" you refer to.

I suppose you could say removing a bad human experience is still removing a human experience, but then.. why are we arguing in favor of those bad experiences?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Seems odd that we're at 2.0 now and it's _still_ not available in the EU - <USER2> there a legal reason for this?

<comment><USER4> Importing food or nutritional supplements into the EU is difficult because the EU still has a very protective agricultural policy. You might have to look at competitors such as mymana.

<comment> Dorian-Marie Thanks, here is their website: [http://mymana.eu/](http://mymana.eu/)

I couldn't buy Soylent (I'm in France), so I made one myself based on what I learned in the DIY Soylent community: [https://diy.soylent.com](https://diy.soylent.com)

<comment><USER22> I occasionally replace a meal with Mana (e.g. when I am busy, lazy, etc.). If anyone wants a small review, just ask.

<comment><USER23> yep, I'm interested in somethign to replace lunch at work: do you find it filling/satisfying? Do you drink warm or cold? What keeps you from drinking it more often?

<comment><USER22> Definitely. Not overly full (which is a good thing when working) and enough to last until dinner/the next meal when adhering to a three meal diet.

Cold, out of the fridge.

I tend to replace those meals which would usually involve some form of fast food and the likes. When time is of the essence and I don't want to think about food.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Having tried soylent in powder form before, I came to the conclusion that on the 3D scales of convenience, taste, and price, it just wasn't far enough in the desirable region (low price, high convenience, and good taste) that I was ready to buy any more of it.

With Soylent 2.0, that seems to have changed: it's more convenient (no more mixing needed) EDIT: but higher-priced. I'm looking forward to trying it again (not until it's generally available, though). Hopefully the taste has improved, as well.

<comment><USER25> > Hopefully the taste has improved

Yeah, to me the powder is absolutely wretched tasting on its own without adding stuff. I've heard people say they like it plain, but I gag just thinking about it.

<comment><USER24> I didn't have any negative feelings toward the taste of soylent 1.x. However, I did realize just how much I enjoy the taste of real, good food.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> For me Soylent would have to be incredibly inexpensive to replace a meal or two a day. I like the idea of a cheap way to avoid going out when I don't feel like cooking, but I'm thinking ~$30 a month to replace a meal a day, not $102

<comment><USER27> I drink a syntha-6 protein shake every morning after working out or as a quick meal replacement and it works great. Costs about a buck a serving.

<comment><USER28> A protein shake is not comparable with soylent

"I eat a banana every morning. costs me only 30cents. "

<comment><USER27> It is comparable. The label for syntha-6 says meal replacement right on the bottle. And there are plenty other meal replacements just like soylent. Nothing new.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Soylent might be there (US) but it's not here (EU) yet.. :(

<comment><USER30> There are plenty of alternatives in the EU: [https://queal.eu/](https://queal.eu/) [http://mymana.eu/](http://mymana.eu/) [https://www.joylent.eu/](https://www.joylent.eu/) [https://jakeshake.eu/](https://jakeshake.eu/)

and many more I'm sure

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> With regard to the liquid vs. powdered debate. Why don't they ship bottles with powder inside? Consumers can then add water and shake. Seems like the best of both worlds. This would work for a variety of products as well like dish soap or shampoo.

</comment><comment><USER32> I tried Soylent 1.5 for about a month (not as my sole food source, but for maybe one meal a day), but I was unable to adjust to it well, my stomach was just constantly upset and I didn't feel great after eating it. I then tried Nutren 1.5 [1] thinking it might be different, but same effect for me, so I guess it is just me. I'm going to try 2.0 again, maybe I'll do it in smaller doses at first and see if I can adjust that way. Has anyone else experienced this?

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Nutren-Calorie-Vanilla- Nutrition-8-45-...](http://www.amazon.com/Nutren-Calorie-Vanilla- Nutrition-8-45-Ounce/dp/B0025UOGMQ)

<comment><USER33> why? why not just eat good food? !

<comment><USER34> As someone currently using soylent to replace my lunch during the work week I can tell you the reasons not to eat "good food". I cook every single one of the my breakfasts and dinners and strive to make a balanced, healthy meal. But I struggle to consistently bring a healthy lunch. My preparation methods don't keep up, I get bored, it turns out to not be a very balanced meal, etc. So instead I use soylent to avoid eating out every day, which the high majority of the people I work with do. I also save around $10 a day doing this. I eat plenty of good food, I love food, and I love cooking. I just also enjoy my soylent method of lunch.

<comment><USER35> If you're cooking dinner already, don't you just make a little bit extra so as to have leftovers for the next day's lunch?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Some time back, i had read about a very noticeable flatulence issue for soylent drinkers. Was that ever addressed?

<comment><USER37> I believe so in the last batch

<comment><USER38> Eh, I can say from personal experience that the problem has not been fully solved in version 1.5 of the powder (and probably can't be). Your gut flora need time to readjust, and until then-- beware!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> "Soylent 2.0 makes complete nutrition accessible to all ..."

"All", assuming you're in the USA or Canada.. I actually thought it meant they were gonna start shipping to more countries! Bummer.

<comment><USER40> Pretty disappointing that their big selling point is moot when it a) can't be sold outside US/Canada and b) aggressively tries to up-sell a subscription which actual people in poverty will have no interest in being tied to

The whole thing smacks of feel-good marketing for investors, while truthfully marketing to white-collar office workers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I am truly sorry, but I see this as sad. People thinking of supplements healthier than whole foods, and actually claiming and defending it.

First of all, what kind of macronutrients you need and how much, may depend on yours and your ancestors habitat. Paul Chek claims this, and says some are protein types, some are carb types. We all know some people who are more tolerable to carbohydrates.

Second of all, all these values depends on 'some' research (which I am sure almost none of us read them thoroughly), and 'some' baseline 'requirements'.

People claimed cholesterol was bad, some still do, and now they say no no, it is ok and good. People sad yolk is bad, now they say it is good. You get my point. This product is based on the 'realities' of today, but it is shown as a 'great' replacement, where I think 'any' replacement is not and cannot be as good as the original.

I really believe Soylent may be a key to solve hunger in some very poor countries, but right now it is just being marketed as a supplement/replacement.

I also did not like the marketing approach, such as

>>"Soylent 2.0 frees customers from crowded lunch lines at fast food restaurants and ends feelings of mid-morning hunger after inadequate breakfasts".

So this is an alternative to a fast-food, as I see it. No offense, but I would rather see true information about nutrition and eating, than a replacement for the wrongs we do. Just my 2 cents.

</comment><comment><USER40> Just looking at the product page makes me feel like I'm in a PKD short story.

</comment><comment><USER42> If I'm travelling on business, or on a road trip, where there are sometimes _no good options at all_ for healthy food, then this product wins hands-down. I have zero interest in replacing my entire diet with it, and I love good food but sometimes it is simply incompatible with one's schedule.

This company can really be a big winner.

</comment><comment><USER43> The incorrect hyphenation of "ground-up" in the second sentence is hilarious and kind of disgusting.

</comment><comment><USER44> If I'm not mistaken, they have also increased the price of the powder. It is listed now at $280 for 28 days (112 meals), which used to be $255 (when I bought it). Or had they already changed that pricing?

</comment><comment><USER45> Premixed Soylent makes a lot of sense. Ideally, I'd like to see them enter the convenience store market; highway rest stops, for example, are a place where it's very hard to get something nutritionally trustworthy, so in that context I'd choose Soylent every time, and would pay a premium for it.

In the meantime, I hope they keep the powder around for awhile. I find it very useful to pack a few bags while travelling to patch over logistics problems, and premixed soylent can't do that because it's too heavy to take in your luggage.

</comment><comment><USER37> Now available in Canada!

I'll finally be able to try this, do current drinkers like the 1.5? Or is 2.0 such an improvement that I should wait for 2.0?

edit - Oh I guess the main thing is that it's a drink now.

</comment><comment><USER46> Is Soylent ever going to be sold in Europe? I would love to try it.

<comment><USER47> Try [http://www.joylent.eu](http://www.joylent.eu) It's the european clone. I love it.

<comment><USER48> I vastly prefer [http://jakeshake.eu](http://jakeshake.eu).

<comment><USER49> Jake's shake makeup is more of a gainer shake (proteins + carbs) for athletes.

It's not a good full nutritional replacement, and it's caloric balance is for people who exercise daily and quite intensely.

If you want to take that then take just the normal gain shakes or better off buy a protein shake powder and a carb powder add to it some of those silly fiber powder drinks you buy at the wellness store and mix it yourself for a better balance with less calories per "meal" it will taste considerably better and be cheaper.

Mana is slightly better although I'm not sold on it's nutritional make up either, I've been using it to avoid eating total crap when I'm swamped or have to work late since it's better to chug down it than order another 10" pizza or a burger when you have to work late.

For any of these "replacements" to be valid they need to do 2 things a) develop a full diet regime with supplementary real food mixed in like week on week off or something, b) add actual non-liquid food products.

Eating a liquid diet even for a couple of weeks will really screw you up, humans didn't evolved to eat only liquid food heck the standing recommendation for babies is to actually skip or cut down the period of "baby food" for as much as possible. As soon as the baby can chew food he should be chewing it, the chewing action is actually a very important mechanism as it's a que for your body to release certain enzymes which are responsible for absorbing nutriments, it's also a mood stabilizer as chewing is a major mechanism in controlling serotonin production as well as other neurotransmitters.

Liquid meals also have a bad effect on the various tenants in our GI track, liquid food changes the PH level of your GI which makes it less hospitable, it is absorbed quicker and so our good friends from down below cannot get their portion of the meal, solid food also serves a role as a GI "cleaner" as it moves it scrapes dead tissue and bacterial cultures of the GI walls.

So yeah nice, cheap and very hipsterie, but if you don't want to have major GI issues don't rely on this as a sole source of subsistence, do not use it for long periods and go see a doctor before and during taking this crap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I've never really understood the hype for Soylent. It does seem like a great idea for your earthquake kit, camping, etc, but as daily food? If I am rushed for time, I'll just grab an Odwalla smoothie or similar. Can someone educate me about what I am not getting from a decent smoothie that Soylent provides? (I am probably not the target demographic as I enjoy eating, and variety).

<comment><USER51> Well if you were to drink the daily recommended amount which I break up to 4 160z drinks, you will have the recommended daily nutritional goals set by the FDA (I believe). Drinking 4 16oz smoothies won't give you the same nutritional value. I think the biggest misconception is that it needs to be a total food replacement. I think its easier to track what I'm putting in my body and count calories. The formula is essentially open source and can be tweaked for your dietary needs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> What about digestive enzymes and all that? I am still unsure about efficiency of absorption with liquids.

</comment><comment><USER8> I presume the biggest difference has already been discussed previously: the switch from powder to liquid? Liquid definitely seems more convenient but apparently more expensive (to ship as well). I suppose this was inevitable but surprised that the appears to be deprecating.

<comment><USER53> "We're always going to keep our powdered product around"

[http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/soylent-2-0-is- coming...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/soylent-2-0-is-coming-pre- mixed-in-a-bottle/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Given that soy is one of the common allergens, this sounds amazing (especially with it being high-fat which matches modern nutritional science) except for the soy. They should make one called "Soylent -1.0" or something. Are there any alternatives?

<comment><USER55> I also am consistently disappointed by their reliance on wheat and soy proteins, I'm allergic (IgE) to both and struggle horribly to find typical office-lunch type food I can eat. Also being in the EU it's very difficult and expensive to procure Soylent anyway, even the alt. recipes as all of the Amazon shopping lists link to the US stores. Particularly the typical 3lb bag of flour, a couple of bucks in the US store is being sold for €200 on the German amazon store, presumably by someone trying to game people who've clicked a pre-filled-basket link on an Amazon shopping list.

<comment><USER56> This is actually a large departure from all prior formulas, which used brown rice protein exclusively. Their product has never had any wheat in it and the only soy was the soy lecithin emulsifier.

This change from rice -> soy and from powdered to bottle - the wording makes it sound like you need 5 bottles per day - is making me think it's time to cancel.

<comment><USER57> I believe they're keeping the powdered option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I'm amazed by how FDA regulates drugs and how it regulates... actually how it _doesn 't_ regulate, supplements and things like Soylent, which is not even a supplement but claims to be food "that possesses all the essential ingredients a body needs to be healthy".

Studies anyone?

Maybe it does contain all the essential ingredients but maybe the human body can't process them effectively. Maybe it's not very healthy taking _all_ these ingredients _every_ day.

Maybe in the long run it'll have bad effect on the microbiome, intestinal mucosa or on million other things in the human body.

Whenever someone question those things, the answer is "But it's better than junk food". Well...

Edit: Ok, my bad, it's actually regulated as a food [1].

[1] [https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en- us/articles/200789315-Nutritio...](https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en- us/articles/200789315-Nutrition)

</comment><comment><USER59> It says it's completely vegan but they say the Isomaltulose is from honey? Isn't honey non-vegan? Are they just saying that it occurs in honey but they used a different source?

</comment><comment><USER60> Anyone know what the shelf life is? Does it need to be refrigerated? In the Ars Technica interview they say that thepowder has much longer shelf life, but that's as far as it goes.

<comment><USER61> It says one year shelf life, unrefrigerated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Anyone who "pre-orders" from Soylent is a bozo. They say September and if their initial launch is any indication that will quickly become 1Q 2016 and then Mid 2016.

</comment><comment><USER63> This kills me, it means I can no longer bring 20 pounds of soylent back to Argentina with me (in powder form). Or will they continue to sell soylent in powder form?

<comment><USER64> The Verge claims that the powder will also eventually use algae sources, and it's still on sale now, so one would assume it's not being discontinued.

[http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/3/9088407/soylent-20-bottled-...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/3/9088407/soylent-20-bottled- ready-to-drink-meal-replacement)

EDIT: Ars Technica has a quote saying "We're always going to keep our powdered product around".

[http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/soylent-2-0-is- coming...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/soylent-2-0-is-coming-pre- mixed-in-a-bottle/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I don't understand the pricing - do I need 12 bottles per month or 96? How much do I need to live only off Soylent?

<comment><USER56> Their prior formulas were supposed to hit 100% RDA on vitamins/minerals for 2000 kcal. Based on that and their claim that one bottle is 20% RDA, I'd say each bottle is 400kcal.

If true, and you need 2000kcal a day, you're going to need 140 bottles per 4 weeks (~12 cases). At $29/12 that's going to be ~$348, which is about $100/mo more than a 4 week subscription supply is today ($255).

<comment><USER66> They also raised the price of the powder today. They eliminated the bulk discounts so a month worth is more expensive. It is $280 for a 4 week subscription supply today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Soy is a big no within the Paleo diet group I know. This is because it's potent with Phytic acid which binds to other nutrients and turn them into waste. Consumers beware.

<comment><USER68> They've considered that: [http://discourse.soylent.com/t/phytic-acid-not- enough-of-it-...](http://discourse.soylent.com/t/phytic-acid-not-enough-of-it- to-be-an-issue/4256)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is it people yet?

</comment><comment><USER69> > Not only are its ingredients vegan, Soylent 2.0 reaches an unprecedented > level of environmental sustainability with half of its fat energy coming > from farm-free, algae sources. This next generation agricultural technology > has the potential to reduce the ecological impact of food production by > orders of magnitude, signifying a major step towards a future of abundance, > a world where optimal nutrition is the new normal

Is this like a giant parody of the gullible shepherding of American consumers?

This is pablum. You can cook. You can make your own, custom meals that fit your macros. That are _fresh_ and give you variety.

</comment><comment><USER70> Stop feeding yourself with this shit and start adapting a balanced died with plenty of exercise. If you don't have time, make some!

<comment><USER19> Stop telling other people how to live their lives.</comment></comment>