people don't upgrade unless they are forced to.
People will update firefox any day of the week, because they've made such updates many times in the past; only a small fraction of users have been burned by radical user interface changes or breaking compatibility with existing sites; and most of those who have had a problem with changes have found a configuration option (albeit hidden) to disable the change.
On the other hand, updating from Windows 7 to Windows 10 means a bunch of user interface changes you can't opt out of; and a bunch of your existing software no longer working.
It doesn't take a genius to tell if you bundle your security updates with radical user interface redesigns and break compatibility with a bunch of existing software, some users aren't going to apply the security updates.
Do you hear yourself? What if people don't need to upgrade ? Sorry, but I'm the one knowing best about if I need to upgrade my OS.
And when you pay for a machine, a lot of money, and you pay for a system, a lot of money, you expect to have the choice of what you do with said machine and system.
Plus, do you know why people sticked to XP ? Because it worked. Same with windows 7.
If you don't need a new system, there is no reason to change. It's work. It's uncertainty. It will break things. And I won't even begin with the w10 spywares.
Not to mention the way it's been done which is downright disrespecteful.
Automatically installing security updates is fine. Upgrading users to a new major release that deprecates a shitton of working hardware and software for no reason but to make life for MS easier, is not fine.
- ads in the OS (FFS!)
- spywares
- an app store to control the channel of user installs
It's not about the customers at all. In no way it's for their own good. And fact you paid for it has no importance, you'll be forced to give more.
Spyware? The telemetry enabled them to have faster feedback and the quality of Win10 improved before my very eyes. If you have developed an app and used a telemetry framework, you should know that it is not spying. If they were to spy they'd do it differently, not by asking you to please provide us some data for QoS.
App store is bad? Is it not bad for the other major OS-es? It is good if it is called apt-get? The App store provides sandboxing and isolation, security to the users, where a single install of a software cannot break others. When the containerization arrives (as new features come to Win10 continously) this will be even cooler, as legacy apps can be packaged and spread through the app store. No more problems with installing stuff unattended, or having to accept EULAs, as those can be stored on an account level in the Store. No more installshield madness.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-disable-windows-10-start...
> The telemetry enabled them to have faster feedback
I know the commercial pitch.
telemetry is a polite name for spywares. The fact one of the goal is the OS improvement doesn't change that. If I kick you in the face to scratch my hand, I still kick you in the face.
> App store is bad
I never said app store were bad. I just said MS was pushing 10 so they can get the app store in so they can improve their sales. Not because they wanted to help anybody. I like stores. Altough comparing app stores to package repo is like comparing a group of libraries and book clubs to the only book shops available in the city.
Should an OS that I have paid for (the Windows tax, never mind that it's not listed as a separate item on the invoice) be ad-supported on top of that? I'll leave that one open, as I don't see The One Correct Answer.
Because neither iOS nor Android contain ads in the core OS. This is a different issue than ad-enabled third party apps.
> I have not met much ads, apart from the install office stuff.
And the Tomb Raider lock screen, and all that crap in the start menu, and…
> If you have developed an app and used a telemetry framework, you should know that it is not spying
The EULA states that they're selling your telemetry data to third parties. Sometimes opt-out, sometimes hardcoded (try to make the start menu search not connect to the internet). That's a tad different from just using opt-in (or even fully opt-out) telemetry for internal debugging purposes (which Microsoft has been doing since at least XP times, and which I don't mind).
> Is it not bad for the other major OS-es?
It is, which is why I don't use them, or don't use their app store.
> It is good if it is called apt-get?
A decentralized package manager and a centralized, heavily censored, tithed app store are two completely different concepts.
> The App store provides sandboxing and isolation, security to the users, where a single install of a software cannot break others
All features that are not inherently tied to the concept of an app store.
Here's what I get if I press the logo key. (Just now it's advertising "Sonic Dash".)
The ads in iOS are a problem. But those ads are in the app store, they're not on my home screen.
(The behaviour of a web page in chrome being able to switch me from chrome to the app store to show me an ad is baffling and terrible. If you're talking about sucky ads that's a great example of piss-poor experience on iOS.)
Also note: when people say they moved to Ubuntu, they do the same whining about systemd and every innovation they perceive as "breaking change". Ordinary people are the greatest burden of progress, because usually they cannot (or do not wish to put effort into) understand the greater picture and the benefits to them.
Sidenote: GWX is broken. I had to do my update with manually downloaded installer media as windows update on win7 and GWX didn't work.
Boohoo. Maybe Microsoft should have priced that into the product before they sold it, instead of using borderline illegal methods to scam people out of providing the service they expect?
That's totally true, but some things blur the lines:
- XP SP2 introduced an inbuilt, on by default firewall. It was a major new feature but necessary.
- XP user accounts were admin by default, Vista added UAC: another major new feature but also necessary.
I can't speak about you, but I certainly don't think I know best about when to upgrade my OS. I rarely need new features, and hate unnecessary changes to my running system like anybody else. But I've seen spreading malware crap far to often to take chances.
Remember the time when you had to disconnect the computer from the internet while installing Windows XP, because unpatched installations would be taken over in minutes by worms? For most people (unless you have an excellent firewall and don't browse the web), the only sane option is to keep everything up-to-date with all security updates.
If Microsoft decides they can't afford to backport security updates to older versions after some years, then at some point we have to swallow the toad and upgrade. It's just the unfortunate reality of current OSes.
In other words, "I am not capable of deciding" does not translate into "therefore everyone gets force-fed the upgrade (because of course they're not capable of deciding, either)."
I think there are two different questions. Should updates auto-install by default (after a warning), and should you be able to reject any update? I'd say yes to both, but unfortunately Microsoft tends to no for both sometimes.
This is very short sighted on multiple fronts. If you force someone into an upgrade they didn't actually want they're going to be annoyed, and they may revert the upgrade.
If you then start showing ads as part of your OS after the upgrade, those people are going to be really upset.
Then once they find out just how much data about them you are collecting, some of them are going to have such a damaged option of your company they will never buy another product from you.
That all is just talking about home users of Windows and their experience. The amount of money wasted by Windows 10's aggressive upgrade in corporations is probably in the billions of dollars. Think about how many calls and trouble tickets have probably come in over the last year about the unintended upgrades.
Lastly, I personally only use my PC for gaming. I don't like Windows 10. I've had to turn off auto-update on my Windows 7 machine because the attempts to trick me into upgrade have gotten more and more aggressive and I can't be sure that I'm not fall for it late at night or just wake up one day with my machine upgraded to an OS I don't want. That's bad.
It's probably far less of a problem for enterprise customers, because they have the tools to control updates centrally within their IT departments. Microsoft is surely well aware that professional sysadmins won't tolerate things like having arbitrary updates applied to their systems by Microsoft, and for sysadmins in larger organisations there is enough real revenue at stake that Microsoft will do something about it, hence LTSB in Windows 10 Enterprise.
The thing I don't understand is why Microsoft think smaller businesses or power users -- the kind of people who were running Pro on Windows 7 or 8.x -- would be any more willing to compromise on that count, and why they think that market is going to voluntarily update to Windows 10 Pro, which appears to be a very different kind of product to its namesake in earlier versions.
"Users: this is what we are planning. We know it's uncomfortable, but it's best because of _ and _. Please make arrangements now if you want your computer to continue operating as-is (without security or updates), because as of _, the OS upgrade will be rolled out automatically".
The other thing to remember is that they made their own bed: they wanted to be able to sell users each individual "new" version of the OS, which created this mentality in the first place.
Like the (currently) top comment wisely says: if you focus relentlessly on the user, all of this is a much smaller problem, because your upgrades are amazing, and users want to upgrade voluntarily.
I wish my punishment for writing some software and issuing a few updates for security defects was also measured in billions of dollars.