5 ms·

The thing is, Microsoft's updates shouldn't be these all-encompassing, UI-destroying messes. They should be sensible, useful, smaller updates. If there is any

The thing is, Microsoft's updates shouldn't be these all-encompassing, UI-destroying messes. They should be sensible, useful, smaller updates. If there is any component that stands in the way of small, easy updates, a better-designed component should be created and made available as a free, opt-in update (e.g. state that the older version is unsupported and that all major updates will only occur in the new-better-designed-incrementally-updated design).

epmatsw 11y ago
Has Microsoft ever changed a UI in an automatic Windows update? I mean, they did in 8, 8.1, and 10, but those required an opt-in as far as I know...
scholia 11y ago
Indeed, Windows 10 is "Windows as a Service", which does exactly that: it provides continuous mostly-small updates, so there's never another "big bang" update. Also, these free updates mean never having to pay for a big one. Obviously people are bitching like mad about this. Some of the most vocal seem to resent every change in Windows since XP SP2. People are also bitching about telemetry, even though both the success of new upgrades depends on it, and even though all this anonymous data is actually driving Windows 10's development (in the same way that it drives Gmail, Facebook etc). I guess it's a fact of life that if you have 1.5 billion users, then the odd hundred million or so will find something to bitch about, whatever Microsoft does....
- Jedd 11y ago
  > Indeed, Windows 10 is "Windows as a Service" Not quite sure precisely what you're trying to describe with the 'as a Service' thing here. Purchasing options include (though are not limited) methods comparable to previous Win versions, and it runs on hardware I own and am sitting in front of. The aaS appellation is often needlessly overloaded, I find. > which does exactly that: it provides continuous mostly-small > updates, so there's never another "big bang" update. Also, > these free updates mean never having to pay for a big one. Okay, so make a small adjustment to the parent(s), and think of their complaint/observation more like 'If you're going to transition users to a new golden era where every time you turn your computer on you have fast boot times (and a ten minute wait for updates to process), then don't make the transition such a brutally painfully experience - it reduces our trust in them as a vendor that they can actually deliver on promises of constant update golden eras'. Or something like that. > Some of the most vocal seem to resent every change in > Windows since XP SP2. For many (perhaps most?) Microsoft platform users, all of what they require of their computer could still be done just fine with Windows XP SP2. As an aside, it's lovely that you mention specifically SP2 - so obviously a part of a previous 'continuous mostly small update' process that you imply we won't have until we embrace Windows 10. Anyway, all the intervening updates have for many people been a combination of frustration, time, and money misspent, with little practical gain. > People are also bitching about telemetry, even though > both the success of new upgrades depends on it, and > even though all this anonymous data is actually driving > Windows 10's development (in the same way that it drives > Gmail, Facebook etc). I am not one such bitchee, but I can understand the concerns. And if an operating system's success depends on knowing where I am, it's doing something wrong (all my other operating systems, current, and historic, have been successfully used by me without access to these data). And, really, it should not be funding / driving development the same way some service providers acquire personal data and then market it on your behalf.
  - scholia 11y ago
    > Not quite sure precisely what you're trying to describe with the 'as a Service' thing here. The long-term idea is to have Windows delivered as a service like, say, a Chromebook. Or Gmail. > you mention specifically SP2 - so obviously a part of a previous 'continuous mostly small update' process Except it wasn't. SP2 involved a massive rewrite and was a significant upgrade. It could almost have been shipped as a new version of the OS, though it would have been somewhat unfair to charge for delivering what XP buyers should have had in the first place. Anyway, XP SP2 was and still is worse than Vista SP1 or Windows 7 in all sorts of important ways. Sure, people could still use it (some are), but you could say the same about DOS 3.3. It just depends how many years of innovation and improvement you want to do without. > And if an operating system's success depends on knowing where I am, it's doing something wrong (all my other operating systems, current, and historic, have been successfully used by me without access to these data). It's one of the things that today's internet-aware mobile operating systems like to know. It's obviously more important when Windows 10 is running on a phone or a small tablet. It's generally not important on a desktop, but almost the whole web is using geolocation and cookies to track your location anyway, whether you like it or not. > And, really, it should not be funding / driving development the same way some service providers acquire personal data and then market it on your behalf. Location isn't driving development, but anonymized telemetry is. Indeed, it has done for some time, even if it was just feedback from Windows Update, or the rises/falls of popularity of certain software. It has nothing to do with "marketing personal data". In fact, unlike Google, Microsoft doesn't even sell ads against the contents of your online emails.
    - Jedd 11y ago
      > The long-term idea is to have Windows delivered as a > service like, say, a Chromebook. Or Gmail. Okay, I think you're conflating service with rolling updates. > Except it wasn't. SP2 involved a massive rewrite and was a > significant upgrade. It could almost have been shipped as a > new version of the OS, though it would have been somewhat > unfair to charge for delivering what XP buyers should have > had in the first place. My point is that if you ask someone using Win7 or Win8 today what the advantages of that OS is over, say, Vista or XP, they probably can't provide any. Or, from a different angle, if they can think of anything that they can do on their current platforms that they couldn't do on the previous one. I know the improvements exist (I've been sys-admining on/off since the early 1990's) but _for most people_ the functionality they had since, say, XP (or perhaps even earlier) is pretty much what they are using now. Web mostly, some office document manipulation, occasional printing, games. > Sure, people could still use it [XP] (some are), but you > could say the same about DOS 3.3. It just depends how > many years of innovation and improvement you want to do > without. I don't know anyone still using DOS 3.3, and indeed the user experience of trying to crank up a web browser on that OS would be truly horrendous. On the other hand I know LOTS of people still using XP. Government agencies and large commercials, mostly, but both are typically cited as the more important consumer demographic for Microsoft operating system. (Plus pretty much every ATM on the planet, IIRC.) > It's one of the things that today's internet-aware > mobile operating systems like to know. It's obviously > more important when Windows 10 is running on a phone > or a small tablet. It's generally not important on a > desktop, but almost the whole web is using geolocation > and cookies to track your location anyway, whether you > like it or not. My desktop, as you observe, is not a mobile operating system. And I have been particularly happy with my OS not knowing where I live for a long time - but that's just one point of data, I accept. Nonetheless, selling an update on the proposition that the new version has superior capabilities for tracking you isn't compelling (for most people, once you explain it to them). The 'whether I like it or not' ... is also not a good way of convincing someone of the merits of gratuitous change. : )

epmatsw 11y ago

Has Microsoft ever changed a UI in an automatic Windows update? I mean, they did in 8, 8.1, and 10, but those required an opt-in as far as I know...

scholia 11y ago

Indeed, Windows 10 is "Windows as a Service", which does exactly that: it provides continuous mostly-small updates, so there's never another "big bang" update. Also, these free updates mean never having to pay for a big one. Obviously people are bitching like mad about this. Some of the most vocal seem to resent every change in Windows since XP SP2. People are also bitching about telemetry, even though both the success of new upgrades depends on it, and even though all this anonymous data is actually driving Windows 10's development (in the same way that it drives Gmail, Facebook etc). I guess it's a fact of life that if you have 1.5 billion users, then the odd hundred million or so will find something to bitch about, whatever Microsoft does....

Jedd 11y ago
> Indeed, Windows 10 is "Windows as a Service" Not quite sure precisely what you're trying to describe with the 'as a Service' thing here. Purchasing options include (though are not limited) methods comparable to previous Win versions, and it runs on hardware I own and am sitting in front of. The aaS appellation is often needlessly overloaded, I find. > which does exactly that: it provides continuous mostly-small > updates, so there's never another "big bang" update. Also, > these free updates mean never having to pay for a big one. Okay, so make a small adjustment to the parent(s), and think of their complaint/observation more like 'If you're going to transition users to a new golden era where every time you turn your computer on you have fast boot times (and a ten minute wait for updates to process), then don't make the transition such a brutally painfully experience - it reduces our trust in them as a vendor that they can actually deliver on promises of constant update golden eras'. Or something like that. > Some of the most vocal seem to resent every change in > Windows since XP SP2. For many (perhaps most?) Microsoft platform users, all of what they require of their computer could still be done just fine with Windows XP SP2. As an aside, it's lovely that you mention specifically SP2 - so obviously a part of a previous 'continuous mostly small update' process that you imply we won't have until we embrace Windows 10. Anyway, all the intervening updates have for many people been a combination of frustration, time, and money misspent, with little practical gain. > People are also bitching about telemetry, even though > both the success of new upgrades depends on it, and > even though all this anonymous data is actually driving > Windows 10's development (in the same way that it drives > Gmail, Facebook etc). I am not one such bitchee, but I can understand the concerns. And if an operating system's success depends on knowing where I am, it's doing something wrong (all my other operating systems, current, and historic, have been successfully used by me without access to these data). And, really, it should not be funding / driving development the same way some service providers acquire personal data and then market it on your behalf.
- scholia 11y ago
  > Not quite sure precisely what you're trying to describe with the 'as a Service' thing here. The long-term idea is to have Windows delivered as a service like, say, a Chromebook. Or Gmail. > you mention specifically SP2 - so obviously a part of a previous 'continuous mostly small update' process Except it wasn't. SP2 involved a massive rewrite and was a significant upgrade. It could almost have been shipped as a new version of the OS, though it would have been somewhat unfair to charge for delivering what XP buyers should have had in the first place. Anyway, XP SP2 was and still is worse than Vista SP1 or Windows 7 in all sorts of important ways. Sure, people could still use it (some are), but you could say the same about DOS 3.3. It just depends how many years of innovation and improvement you want to do without. > And if an operating system's success depends on knowing where I am, it's doing something wrong (all my other operating systems, current, and historic, have been successfully used by me without access to these data). It's one of the things that today's internet-aware mobile operating systems like to know. It's obviously more important when Windows 10 is running on a phone or a small tablet. It's generally not important on a desktop, but almost the whole web is using geolocation and cookies to track your location anyway, whether you like it or not. > And, really, it should not be funding / driving development the same way some service providers acquire personal data and then market it on your behalf. Location isn't driving development, but anonymized telemetry is. Indeed, it has done for some time, even if it was just feedback from Windows Update, or the rises/falls of popularity of certain software. It has nothing to do with "marketing personal data". In fact, unlike Google, Microsoft doesn't even sell ads against the contents of your online emails.
  - Jedd 11y ago
    > The long-term idea is to have Windows delivered as a > service like, say, a Chromebook. Or Gmail. Okay, I think you're conflating service with rolling updates. > Except it wasn't. SP2 involved a massive rewrite and was a > significant upgrade. It could almost have been shipped as a > new version of the OS, though it would have been somewhat > unfair to charge for delivering what XP buyers should have > had in the first place. My point is that if you ask someone using Win7 or Win8 today what the advantages of that OS is over, say, Vista or XP, they probably can't provide any. Or, from a different angle, if they can think of anything that they can do on their current platforms that they couldn't do on the previous one. I know the improvements exist (I've been sys-admining on/off since the early 1990's) but _for most people_ the functionality they had since, say, XP (or perhaps even earlier) is pretty much what they are using now. Web mostly, some office document manipulation, occasional printing, games. > Sure, people could still use it [XP] (some are), but you > could say the same about DOS 3.3. It just depends how > many years of innovation and improvement you want to do > without. I don't know anyone still using DOS 3.3, and indeed the user experience of trying to crank up a web browser on that OS would be truly horrendous. On the other hand I know LOTS of people still using XP. Government agencies and large commercials, mostly, but both are typically cited as the more important consumer demographic for Microsoft operating system. (Plus pretty much every ATM on the planet, IIRC.) > It's one of the things that today's internet-aware > mobile operating systems like to know. It's obviously > more important when Windows 10 is running on a phone > or a small tablet. It's generally not important on a > desktop, but almost the whole web is using geolocation > and cookies to track your location anyway, whether you > like it or not. My desktop, as you observe, is not a mobile operating system. And I have been particularly happy with my OS not knowing where I live for a long time - but that's just one point of data, I accept. Nonetheless, selling an update on the proposition that the new version has superior capabilities for tracking you isn't compelling (for most people, once you explain it to them). The 'whether I like it or not' ... is also not a good way of convincing someone of the merits of gratuitous change. : )