5 ms·

>> If I can't turn things off reliably on my own computer if I don't want them to happen, and I can't trust that questionable things will be opt-in instead of

>> If I can't turn things off reliably on my own computer if I don't want them to happen, and I can't trust that questionable things will be opt-in instead of opt-out It seems to me MS is simply going to the "let us take care of your system, we know what's best for you" approach - which is not only insulting, but highly suspect. When you make using an OS compulsory on several fronts (many of which I can't control), I really have to ask myself if I should try making a move to a more open, more secure OS.

yuhong 11y ago
Yea, I think it is called "Windows as a service".
Silhouette 11y ago
In the case of updates, I wouldn't mind so much if they had them on-by-default for security and stability updates, because that will usually be the best choice for users who don't know any better. However, preventing power users and small businesses from controlling their own systems even if they want to is quite a different thing, and of course it makes a difference only if Microsoft want you to have something that you actively do not want.
- yuhong 11y ago
  Yea, they have offered at least the option to enable auto updates during OOBE since XP SP2. I agree that Win10 style forced updates has its own issues, especially when they include even third party driver updates in there (to name just one of them). I think it is part of the "Windows as a service" vision.
  - Silhouette 11y ago
    I think it is part of the "Windows as a service" vision. I've no doubt you're right. Unfortunately, if there is one thing in computing that really shouldn't be some sort of super-connected, ever-changing, as-a-service rubbish, it's the basic OS your whole machine runs on. This direction was inevitable the moment they appointed Nadella CEO, but I've always maintained it was another case of Microsoft trying to jump on the bandwagon long after other big players and then misjudging when it did. I suspect a lot of people are going to watch with something of an open mind until the year after launch when the deadline for a free update to Win10 expires, and then there are probably going to be some hard questions asked about adoption levels and revenue streams and why so many businesses and home users are still on 7/8, and then Nadella is going to decide to spend more time with his family and be replaced by someone who pushes Microsoft firmly back towards its traditional and probably much more successful roots in 2-3 years before Win7 support runs out and forces some really serious questions to be asked by Microsoft's core customer base.
    - yuhong 11y ago
      I think Terry is more to blame. Of course, there is also the problem of making money on Windows too, especially as most of the Windows sales are OEM. I am thinking of breaking up Microsoft's Windows division into a non-profit foundation, funded by hardware vendors like Dell and Intel with no per system licensing fees required anymore for example. Of course, it would be complex and have to be planned carefully.
      - Silhouette 11y ago
        I think Terry is more to blame. Perhaps, but I think if you're the CEO and the flagship product most associated with your business goes to hell, the buck stops with you. Ironically, someone like Terry might be best placed to clean up the mess, as a shift back towards in-house but centralised technologies like Exchange (a team he ran for a long time) could be Microsoft's best strategy for competing both technically and in PR with the online-everything brigade.

yuhong 11y ago

Yea, I think it is called "Windows as a service".

Silhouette 11y ago

In the case of updates, I wouldn't mind so much if they had them on-by-default for security and stability updates, because that will usually be the best choice for users who don't know any better. However, preventing power users and small businesses from controlling their own systems even if they want to is quite a different thing, and of course it makes a difference only if Microsoft want you to have something that you actively do not want.

yuhong 11y ago
Yea, they have offered at least the option to enable auto updates during OOBE since XP SP2. I agree that Win10 style forced updates has its own issues, especially when they include even third party driver updates in there (to name just one of them). I think it is part of the "Windows as a service" vision.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  I think it is part of the "Windows as a service" vision. I've no doubt you're right. Unfortunately, if there is one thing in computing that really shouldn't be some sort of super-connected, ever-changing, as-a-service rubbish, it's the basic OS your whole machine runs on. This direction was inevitable the moment they appointed Nadella CEO, but I've always maintained it was another case of Microsoft trying to jump on the bandwagon long after other big players and then misjudging when it did. I suspect a lot of people are going to watch with something of an open mind until the year after launch when the deadline for a free update to Win10 expires, and then there are probably going to be some hard questions asked about adoption levels and revenue streams and why so many businesses and home users are still on 7/8, and then Nadella is going to decide to spend more time with his family and be replaced by someone who pushes Microsoft firmly back towards its traditional and probably much more successful roots in 2-3 years before Win7 support runs out and forces some really serious questions to be asked by Microsoft's core customer base.
  - yuhong 11y ago
    I think Terry is more to blame. Of course, there is also the problem of making money on Windows too, especially as most of the Windows sales are OEM. I am thinking of breaking up Microsoft's Windows division into a non-profit foundation, funded by hardware vendors like Dell and Intel with no per system licensing fees required anymore for example. Of course, it would be complex and have to be planned carefully.
    - Silhouette 11y ago
      I think Terry is more to blame. Perhaps, but I think if you're the CEO and the flagship product most associated with your business goes to hell, the buck stops with you. Ironically, someone like Terry might be best placed to clean up the mess, as a shift back towards in-house but centralised technologies like Exchange (a team he ran for a long time) could be Microsoft's best strategy for competing both technically and in PR with the online-everything brigade.