Unfortunately, the OS is then loaded with so much extra crud, like all the privacy snooping problems, the crapware (even an ISO downloaded from MS contains junk adware-loaded 3rd party games and software), and so on.
From a technology standpoint, the base OS is far more than lipstick-on-a-pig. Windows XP -> 7 -> 10 has been a decent progression.
I'd still never recommend Windows 10 to anyone though. The evil outweighs the good.
It does disappoint me, though. Microsoft was one of the few major players in IT that could realistically have offered an antidote to the always-online, spy-on-everything, everything-is-a-service, subscribe-not-buy, force-updates-you-don't-want madness of recent years. Instead, they seem to be throwing good money after bad in what I'm already expecting to be a repeat of Vista/8 level failure. They have about as much chance of actually out-Googling Google as Mozilla do with Firefox, yet like Mozilla they persist in trying and in doing so alienating the substantial user base who valued their products precisely because they weren't like that.
I felt the same way after they came out and said they really believe in protecting data and people's privacy. This is the exact opposite of all the big talk over the past few years. Disappointing for sure.
I tried upgrading to Win 10 this past weekend and it was a disaster. My 3 year old video card wasn't supported (no dual monitors) and then after I reverted back to 7, it killed all my network adapters so I couldn't connect to the internet. I had to nuke my entire OS and start fresh. I'm not upgrading anytime soon.
Here's some of those articles:
But, that's pretty much a well-established pattern (Microsoft has done it with lots of things before, but so has Apple and lots of other companies, its not particular to Microsoft) -- if someone realizes an opportunity you didn't, you attack them for it and try to get the market to see the product as unnecessary or even abusive, right up until you are ready to push something that exploits the same opportunity.
Fair enough, they actually create big holes in the market that startups can eventually fill in. Albeit it won't be easy (replacing Active directory, Exchange and Office suites), rewards are worth it. With that, Microsoft as desktop and server solution provider is a history.
Still not getting why they want to copy Google's revenue stream, when they have solid base in vastly different areas...
I'm half-wondering whether the plan has always been to prioritise the consumer market with Windows 10, and they're taking a reasonable punt on the fact that most businesses won't upgrade for a considerable time anyway, giving them enough opportunity to push out updates that address those businesses' concerns based on the early feedback before it really makes much difference. If that is the case then it's still possible that they have misjudged their market and they'll never fully recover from the negative initial reaction they've been receiving in recent weeks, but the strategy itself would be reasonably logical.
And since Windows 10 is to a large extent a move into remote PC management, Microsoft obviously wants to manage them with as much info as possible. Telemetry is the quid pro quo for free upgrades for the life of the device.
The handful of geeks (somewhat less than a billion users) who are capable of managing their own systems obviously don't like this. However...
> the negative initial reaction they've been receiving in recent weeks
Public interest has been phenomenal, the reviews have been overwhelmingly positive, and most people seem to be very happy with it.
This is where I start to challenge what Microsoft should (as a matter of law and/or regulation) be allowed to get away with. As I've stated in other posts in this discussion, I think there is a reasonable expectation of support for a significant period for this kind of software product given that the only reason those updates are actually necessary is that the original product someone paid for was defective. We don't know how to write perfect software yet, but I don't think software companies should be allowed to ship defective software and then change the deal retrospectively in exchange for putting right what was their own mistake in the first place.
I wouldn't know. Among people I actually know personally in real life, whether professionally or friends and family, geeky or not, I'm aware of literally no-one who has actually installed Windows 10 other than for testing purposes. On the other hand, I do know plenty of people, again both professionally and personally and both geeks and not, who seem quite convinced that they don't want it for now in light of things like forced updates, privacy concerns, hesitation after being disappointed by the Windows 8 touch-biased UI, hearing about paying to hide ads just to play a game, and other negative aspects. Moreover, so far no-one I've talked to seems to have found any good, concrete reason to upgrade, other than the not-really reasons like "it's free" and "it's the new version". The occasional gamer mentions DirectX 12 and the occasional web developer mentions Edge as something they might need to test with, but the general reaction seems to be a resounding "meh" in the circles I move in. YMMV, of course.
I'm also curious about where these positive reviews are, because the Internet I've been reading for the last few weeks has been one disaster story after another as far as Windows 10 coverage is concerned. In light of my previous point, I assume the Internet all those other people have been reading has looked similar. But again, YMMV.
A quick google....
Windows 10 review: Why the new Start menu, Edge browser, new apps and Cortana make Windows 10 the best Windows yet
Windows 10 review: The OS upgrade we've all been waiting for
Windows 10 review
Microsoft Windows 10 review
Are you a Windows 8 user? Still using Windows 7? Either way, you'll love Windows 10.
That seems where we disagree.
With other kinds of product I buy, at least in my country, there are consumer protection laws about the being of sufficient quality and fit for their intended purpose. If a product doesn't live up to those standards, I am entitled by law to have the situation put right or compensated one way or another, for example through repair, replacement, or ultimately a refund of some or all of the money I paid to buy the product. If a product is so bad that it causes other harm as well then in some cases I would also have grounds for further compensation. (The situation is also somewhat different when selling to businesses vs. private individual in my country, so I'm oversimplifying here.)
With software, developers have historically been given a lot of slack, in part because none of us know how to write bug-free programs so expecting everyone to achieve that standard before being able to sell anything is unhelpful. However, the same basic legal principles do still apply, and they have sometimes been used in practice. Part of the reason that big software developers like Microsoft don't fall foul of those rules more often and wind up paying back a lot more in refunds and/or other compensation is that they do make reasonable efforts to fix defects in their software for a reasonable time after purchase.
My point is that providing a reasonable degree of support is not really optional for them and they are not really being generous in providing it. If they stopped doing so, and their customers then started suffering real damage because of bugs or vulnerabilities in Windows, then Microsoft would risk being sued until either they fixed the problems or their business failed.
This has absolutely nothing to do with any other kind of update. Microsoft has, to my knowledge, no obligation after a customer has already purchased their copy of Windows to provide ongoing development of new features, drivers for other vendors' hardware, or their UI. They might choose to do that, and they might choose to offer those things to customers in return for money, data, or any other agreed form of compensation.
But whether or not they do that, it doesn't change the basic obligation they do have to provide a decent product if they're charging real money for it, and to make reasonable efforts to fix defects or compensate for them if their original product is flawed. The customer is entitled to get what they paid for, not a broken version of what they paid for, and not a version where a defect was fixed but some other unwanted change was also made so it's still not what the customer was originally supposed to be buying.
I'm not sure how much credibility I'd give reviews from that kind of source. Of course they look favourable, because they seem to make little effort to be at all critical of anything and almost completely gloss over the widely reported problems and backward steps in favour of... ooooh, shiny!
For example, several of them highlight robustness as a big point in favour of Windows 10. Given the huge amount of negative comments from people who were in the beta/preview programme and the multiple, widespread, system-breaking forced updates that have already been pushed out within just a few days of launch, I don't see how any unbiased review could possibly conclude that stability is a strong point for Windows 10 so far, and I see no basis for the blind faith several reviewers seem to have that Microsoft will fix the fundamental risk of bad updates bricking boxes. Few of the reviews make a big deal of removed features like Media Center, or hardware incompatibilities with older devices, which are the kinds of issues that won't trouble the majority of users but will be very bad for those who are affected. I don't see much mention there of clunky search tools or the confusing division of what used to be in the control panel into multiple areas. None of the reviews that I looked at even mentioned things like privacy concerns, or spamming ads at you unless you pay subscription money to turn them off, or the WiFi Sense security concerns.
Try Googling a few other relevant terms, like say "Windows 10 laptop reboot loop" or "Windows 10 WiFi Sense security" or "Windows 10 search", and see how overwhelmingly positive the commentary looks then.
Compared to who?
They're selling Home OSes for roughly $10 to $40 (sometimes free with Bing) and even a trivial support incident costs 2x to 3x revenue.
Further, most people have never actually bought anything from Microsoft. They "buy" it from the PC manufacturer, who is actually responsible for supporting their product.
> I'm not sure how much credibility I'd give reviews from that kind of source.
They're the sources most people use.
"Windows 10 laptop reboot loop" doesn't apply as it came after the launch; "Windows 10 WiFi Sense security" just shows a lot of ignorance, and "Windows 10 search" doesn't show anything very much. Paranoia, maybe? I looked that one up on Google, which probably now means "sending personal information to Alphabet without my consent".
That's their problem, just as it is the chair maker's problem if he sells defective products on tight margins and then has to repair them at an overall loss when someone sits on them and they break. They're perfectly entitled to sell their software for more, if people are willing to pay more for it, but whatever the price, the buyer is entitled to have the working software they reasonably expected to receive in return for their money.
That is basically true, though as soon as Microsoft start arguing anything about EULAs being binding agreements they're probably going to be on the hook as well. Third party rights and liabilities are an interesting area of the law, particularly when it comes to software.
But yes, if you buy a PC then the shop that sold it is primarily responsible, if you get a phone with your plan then the shop/network that provided it is primarily responsible, etc.
"Windows 10 laptop reboot loop" doesn't apply as it came after the launch
OK, but you were arguing that "most people seem to be very happy" with Windows 10. I suspect those people were not.
"Windows 10 WiFi Sense security" just shows a lot of ignorance
That is unfortunately true. However, it also shows quite a few people dismissing a genuine security concern because as long as everyone who ever uses a network fully understands the implications of the feature and makes no mistakes in configuring it (i.e., they leave the entire feature turned off), no harm should be done.
Of course, the moment a single person in your company accidentally hits share instead of don't share, your sysadmins can look forward to a fun day changing all the credentials and notifying everyone of the new arrangements, and your executives can look forward to explaining the resulting regulatory investigation and fines for not security data properly to the shareholders.
"Windows 10 search" doesn't show anything very much.
That's funny. When I googled it before writing that post, it found a rather lengthy list of articles and blog posts commenting on how poorly the new search feature actually works, mentioning several different points about the order results are shown in, not searching parts of the local network that were searched in previous Windows versions, and generally more work being required to find useful things that search found before. Plus there's the less favourable perception of Bing search results, and the privacy concerns, of course.
Most people are happy, as far as I can tell. Clearly some are not, but if 50 million people were unhappy they'd be making a lot more noise....
>Of course, the moment a single person in your company accidentally hits share instead of don't share, your sysadmins can look forward to a fun day changing all the credentials and notifying everyone of the new arrangements, and your executives can look forward to explaining the resulting regulatory investigation and fines for not security data properly to the shareholders.
I'm assuming companies are run by people who are not complete idiots. There's a simple way to make sure your corporate (or other) network is never shared, and it's covered at in the FAQ.
I wasn't kidding when I said the coverage "showed a lot of ignorance". I was too polite to mention the incompetence.
> blog posts commenting on how poorly the new search feature actually works, mentioning several different points
Works fine here, for what I use it for....
Regardless of your opinion or mine, the corporate sysadmins and decision-makers evaluating a possible move to Windows 10 aren't going to be forming their opinions based on the kinds of reviews you linked to before, and they're going to be well aware of the kinds of issues raised by the less favourable coverage. What really matters isn't whether you can convince me that, say, changing a corporate WiFi SSID used by hundreds or thousands of people is no big deal, it is whether Microsoft can convince the sysadmins and the team running the help desk. And based on the reactions I've seen so far from people who are in those kinds of positions, Windows 10 certainly isn't making a great first impression, so I do think Microsoft has left themselves a bit of a mountain to climb.
Not quite. It doesn't cause me any problems that I regard as unsolvable for what I get in return. Android, for example, is a much tougher proposition. That's a bigger privacy leak and the only real alternative is to go to an AOSP-based ROM.
Just using the web requires some effort (Ghostery, uBlock Origin, Google Search link fix etc).
> so I do think Microsoft has left themselves a bit of a mountain to climb.
We shall see. I expect Microsoft has actually talked to its business users, and it doesn't expect them all to defect (though, as I said, it's got until 2020 before it becomes critical).
Bank of America CTO Talks Windows 10 Plans, Security
Reilly promised a Windows 10 upgrade is on the horizon for Bank of America. "We're looking to adopt as early as we can," he said. Such a project will be a massive undertaking given the sheer multitude of Windows devices within the organization, but he appears optimistic about the process.