3 ms·

> 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

by 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. : )
- scholia 11y ago
  > Okay, I think you're conflating service with rolling updates. Or maybe you are? ;-) > 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 don't really see the point of your point. You might as well say that if you only need to drive half a mile to the shops, then a Model T Ford would do the job. True, but not every Windows user is stuck in the past. Later versions of Windows handle memory and resources better, so they are smoother in operation, don't need frequent reboots etc, and they're also more secure. The time savings alone are more than enough to cover the cost of upgrading. UEFI machines also boot and resume much quicker, which most people would notice. There's a whole class of new lightweight sandboxed apps. There's a whole new Windows Store. There's better voice and handwriting recognition. There's massively better stylus support, which is being exploited in things like the Surface Pro. > Plus pretty much every ATM on the planet, IIRC. But not the desktop version.... > My desktop, as you observe, is not a mobile operating system. Sure, but desktops are not exactly at the cutting edge in a world that is going mobile. The point of Windows 10 is that it's a converged operating system that runs on mobile phones, tablets, and games consoles, with "universal apps" that are adaptable to all three platforms. Windows 10 will also run on everything from USB sticks to high-end workstations. > And I have been particularly happy with my OS not knowing where I live for a long time Exactly how does Windows 10 know where you live more than XP knew where you lived? > the new version has superior capabilities for tracking you isn't compelling (for most people, once you explain it to them). The tracking isn't any different from what was already in Windows 8/8.1 except for Cortana, which can be turned off. (And is turned off by default.) It's not something a sensible person would worry about unless they've stopped using a smartphone and already take extensive anti-tracking measures while on the web. Microsoft is only doing a small fraction of the tracking that's done by Google and Google Android. Oh, you should also stop using bank cards, and loyalty cards, and avoid shops because they have CCTV cameras. And you can't own or drive a car because of numberplate recognition. This is the serious stuff. Even then, you'll probably be tracked by the US government, regardless of whether or not you live in the USA....

by scholia 11y ago

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. : )

scholia 11y ago
> Okay, I think you're conflating service with rolling updates. Or maybe you are? ;-) > 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 don't really see the point of your point. You might as well say that if you only need to drive half a mile to the shops, then a Model T Ford would do the job. True, but not every Windows user is stuck in the past. Later versions of Windows handle memory and resources better, so they are smoother in operation, don't need frequent reboots etc, and they're also more secure. The time savings alone are more than enough to cover the cost of upgrading. UEFI machines also boot and resume much quicker, which most people would notice. There's a whole class of new lightweight sandboxed apps. There's a whole new Windows Store. There's better voice and handwriting recognition. There's massively better stylus support, which is being exploited in things like the Surface Pro. > Plus pretty much every ATM on the planet, IIRC. But not the desktop version.... > My desktop, as you observe, is not a mobile operating system. Sure, but desktops are not exactly at the cutting edge in a world that is going mobile. The point of Windows 10 is that it's a converged operating system that runs on mobile phones, tablets, and games consoles, with "universal apps" that are adaptable to all three platforms. Windows 10 will also run on everything from USB sticks to high-end workstations. > And I have been particularly happy with my OS not knowing where I live for a long time Exactly how does Windows 10 know where you live more than XP knew where you lived? > the new version has superior capabilities for tracking you isn't compelling (for most people, once you explain it to them). The tracking isn't any different from what was already in Windows 8/8.1 except for Cortana, which can be turned off. (And is turned off by default.) It's not something a sensible person would worry about unless they've stopped using a smartphone and already take extensive anti-tracking measures while on the web. Microsoft is only doing a small fraction of the tracking that's done by Google and Google Android. Oh, you should also stop using bank cards, and loyalty cards, and avoid shops because they have CCTV cameras. And you can't own or drive a car because of numberplate recognition. This is the serious stuff. Even then, you'll probably be tracked by the US government, regardless of whether or not you live in the USA....