10 ms·

The free upgrade was to gain critical mass for the upgrade, they learned with vista, 8/8.1 that users were happy with xp/7 and wouldn't pay to change, even with

The free upgrade was to gain critical mass for the upgrade, they learned with vista, 8/8.1 that users were happy with xp/7 and wouldn't pay to change, even with LTS running out. Free upgrade was a way to convince a lot of those people to upgrade. I wouldn't compare it to Linux being free in any way. Microsoft needs to reboot to do most of its updates of its own tools, not because of badly programmed 3rd party apps but its own badly programmed apps. Out of the box with no additional software it still needs to reboot, it also takes forever, hijacks reboots without the users ability to override (sometimes for 30-60 minutes while it tries to install updates). Linux only needs to reboot for kernel upgrades, and even that isn't a full requirement (there are ways, but they aren't worth it, to load a new kernel without rebooting). Windows store is very far from anything like a linux package manager, and it ties you into their ecosystem without extensibility. Same with Apple. Linux package management is extensible and controllable (get packages from these sources, not those, blacklist this version, etc...) so I wouldn't consider them anywhere remotely equivalent. The obvious/known privacy issues in windows 10 can be disabled, but the fact the user has to know about find and run third party, reasonably advanced tools/scripts to stop the operating system from spying and advertising to you is absolutely not acceptable from my perspective. I guess sometimes nuance needs to be more nuanced For the record I use osx/linux for work, linux/windows at home. Windows only for games that don't work on linux yet.

Fnoord 9y ago
> The free upgrade was to gain critical mass for the upgrade, they learned with vista, 8/8.1 that users were happy with xp/7 and wouldn't pay to change, even with LTS running out. Free upgrade was a way to convince a lot of those people to upgrade. That is one of the reasons. > I wouldn't compare it to Linux being free in any way. Obviously not, given "Linux" is free as in speech. But free as in beer, when you also take into account things like support, doesn't exist. TANSTAAFL. And with macOS you pay via the hardware. > (sometimes for 30-60 minutes while it tries to install updates) On a SSD? Very unlikely, unless you're upgrading to a major version. True, Microsoft could make most of these updates being applied whilst OS is still online. You can schedule these reboots if you got Pro. macOS also sometimes needs to reboot btw. My Android reboots every week (LOS) for new firmware. What I said about apps requiring unnecesarily a reboot is true though. It used to be far more pervasive as well. > Windows store is very far from anything like a linux package manager, and it ties you into their ecosystem without extensibility. Same with Apple. Linux package management is extensible and controllable (get packages from these sources, not those, blacklist this version, etc...) so I wouldn't consider them anywhere remotely equivalent. Depends if you view it from the eyes of a power user or a casual user. The non-technical user just wants something which works ie. a good UI. App Store and Play Store provide that. Those non-technical users don't give a rat about features like "get packages from these sources, not those, blacklist this version". > The obvious/known privacy issues in windows 10 can be disabled, but the fact the user has to know about find and run third party, reasonably advanced tools/scripts to stop the operating system from spying and advertising to you is absolutely not acceptable from my perspective. Yeah, true, though the default settings aren't difficult to apply this is a feature most users won't use (just like "only" 33% of the browsers use an adblocker). That, together with their old model of selling licenses, is their business model. Its funny how in these last 2 points we both shift from PoV of power user to ordinary user and vice versa.
- uhhhhhhh 9y ago
  >That is one of the reasons. That's the primary reason as I've been told by former MSFT employees. > But free as in beer, when you also take into account things like support, doesn't exist. Support exists, red hat and other foundations. >On a SSD? Very unlikely, unless you're upgrading to a major version. True, Microsoft could make most of these updates being applied whilst OS is still online. I just upgraded 6 systems over Christmas, every one to SSD, all running core i5/i7 with more than 8gb ram. Yes, 30-60 minutes for the fall creators update on half of them, one of them took 2 hours to finish other updates. >You can schedule these reboots if you got Pro. macOS also sometimes needs to reboot btw. My Android reboots every week (LOS) for new firmware. Once in a while I need to reboot osx or linux for a kernel update or other deep system update. Every time I need to reboot windows. The difference is staggering and in no way does the occasional restart from linux compare to windows. To pretend they're even in the same league is ridiculous. Windows 10 barely fixed that by moving a features to apps. >Depends if you view it from the eyes of a power user or a casual user. The non-technical user just wants something which works ie. a good UI. App Store and Play Store provide that. Those non-technical users don't give a rat about features like "get packages from these sources, not those, blacklist this version". Reasonable point, however non-technical users do want to be able to find their software. Microsofts store sucks compared to apple and androids from my experience, and the vast majority of non-technical users still don't use it for many/most of their software installs from numbers I've seen. That may be changing, i'm not sure the trends. My point was in linux, you're advanced enough to use the package manager and you probably know how to add sources as a casual user. In microsoft its a walled garden, and a shitty garden. Beyond that, casual users don't want to be spied on, just because they aren't technical enough to understand whats happening and the implications does not mean microsoft should just get a 'pass' on making it difficult/impossible to disable spying on their users. This is, if anything, significantly worse if you're looking at it primarily from the casual user side which you seem to insist on.

Fnoord 9y ago

> The free upgrade was to gain critical mass for the upgrade, they learned with vista, 8/8.1 that users were happy with xp/7 and wouldn't pay to change, even with LTS running out. Free upgrade was a way to convince a lot of those people to upgrade. That is one of the reasons. > I wouldn't compare it to Linux being free in any way. Obviously not, given "Linux" is free as in speech. But free as in beer, when you also take into account things like support, doesn't exist. TANSTAAFL. And with macOS you pay via the hardware. > (sometimes for 30-60 minutes while it tries to install updates) On a SSD? Very unlikely, unless you're upgrading to a major version. True, Microsoft could make most of these updates being applied whilst OS is still online. You can schedule these reboots if you got Pro. macOS also sometimes needs to reboot btw. My Android reboots every week (LOS) for new firmware. What I said about apps requiring unnecesarily a reboot is true though. It used to be far more pervasive as well. > Windows store is very far from anything like a linux package manager, and it ties you into their ecosystem without extensibility. Same with Apple. Linux package management is extensible and controllable (get packages from these sources, not those, blacklist this version, etc...) so I wouldn't consider them anywhere remotely equivalent. Depends if you view it from the eyes of a power user or a casual user. The non-technical user just wants something which works ie. a good UI. App Store and Play Store provide that. Those non-technical users don't give a rat about features like "get packages from these sources, not those, blacklist this version". > The obvious/known privacy issues in windows 10 can be disabled, but the fact the user has to know about find and run third party, reasonably advanced tools/scripts to stop the operating system from spying and advertising to you is absolutely not acceptable from my perspective. Yeah, true, though the default settings aren't difficult to apply this is a feature most users won't use (just like "only" 33% of the browsers use an adblocker). That, together with their old model of selling licenses, is their business model. Its funny how in these last 2 points we both shift from PoV of power user to ordinary user and vice versa.

uhhhhhhh 9y ago
>That is one of the reasons. That's the primary reason as I've been told by former MSFT employees. > But free as in beer, when you also take into account things like support, doesn't exist. Support exists, red hat and other foundations. >On a SSD? Very unlikely, unless you're upgrading to a major version. True, Microsoft could make most of these updates being applied whilst OS is still online. I just upgraded 6 systems over Christmas, every one to SSD, all running core i5/i7 with more than 8gb ram. Yes, 30-60 minutes for the fall creators update on half of them, one of them took 2 hours to finish other updates. >You can schedule these reboots if you got Pro. macOS also sometimes needs to reboot btw. My Android reboots every week (LOS) for new firmware. Once in a while I need to reboot osx or linux for a kernel update or other deep system update. Every time I need to reboot windows. The difference is staggering and in no way does the occasional restart from linux compare to windows. To pretend they're even in the same league is ridiculous. Windows 10 barely fixed that by moving a features to apps. >Depends if you view it from the eyes of a power user or a casual user. The non-technical user just wants something which works ie. a good UI. App Store and Play Store provide that. Those non-technical users don't give a rat about features like "get packages from these sources, not those, blacklist this version". Reasonable point, however non-technical users do want to be able to find their software. Microsofts store sucks compared to apple and androids from my experience, and the vast majority of non-technical users still don't use it for many/most of their software installs from numbers I've seen. That may be changing, i'm not sure the trends. My point was in linux, you're advanced enough to use the package manager and you probably know how to add sources as a casual user. In microsoft its a walled garden, and a shitty garden. Beyond that, casual users don't want to be spied on, just because they aren't technical enough to understand whats happening and the implications does not mean microsoft should just get a 'pass' on making it difficult/impossible to disable spying on their users. This is, if anything, significantly worse if you're looking at it primarily from the casual user side which you seem to insist on.