I see it the other way, this is a great example of why its irritating when microsoft holds security enhances behind anti-features. (on top of putting adware in

I see it the other way, this is a great example of why its irritating when microsoft holds security enhances behind anti-features. (on top of putting adware in their updates like that IE windows 10 update infobar they added shortly after GWX (that was included in a security update pack)) I did a job for a small (5 employee) tax/accounting firm that paid us to disable windows update on all of their windows 7 machines to avoid the windows 10 update after it brought down their entire office on a february monday by updating overnight. I asked him about upgrading to enterprise versions of windows so things like that can't happen while still having updates, and his response was "I shouldn't have to pay microsoft more to gain control over my machine, so I'd rather pay you more to remove their control." He's not wrong, neither are you. So the question becomes, who should give way? The user? or the corporation? As far as I know, he is still on update disabled windows 7 for his office. Users don't care about security, they care about usability, and when security gets in the way, users will bypass it, even if it means paying somebody to bypass it for them. The current trend is to solve this by making security unbypassable by the device owner, but thats not sustainable, nor is it ethical.