3 ms·

I wonder when Europe starts to stop this and also forces Microsoft to stop users from the hard requirement for an online account. It's about time. I mean, they

I wonder when Europe starts to stop this and also forces Microsoft to stop users from the hard requirement for an online account. It's about time. I mean, they could make a ton of money by charging users for Windows without tracking/online accounts/bloatware.

alkonaut 2y ago
I'm guessing that selling OS:es to consumers isn't making a ton of money. Most would come as OEM for a small Windows tax on a new computer. The money is in AppStores, OneDrive subscriptions, Office 356 subs and so on. And letting people run some sort of no-frills windows where you login as a local account and run your old spreadsheet for 10 years is completely at odds with any kind of strategy that will make money from home users. I don't like it - but I'm also not disagreeing with the beancounters at ms if this is the conclusion they reached. I have a feeling it's the right call.
- chrisandchris 2y ago
  I'm not saying that MS shouldn't sell M365 or similar. The thibgs you mentioned are not exclusive to my issue. I would be willing to pay for an OS that has no Candy Crush, LinkedIn and whatever installed and that would allow to use local accounts. I also don't want forced reboots because of updates. Yet, I still would use OneDrive, M365, ... It's currently possible to to run your Office 2010 on Win 10/11, there's nothing holding you back.
  - alkonaut 2y ago
    > I would be willing to pay for an OS that has no Candy Crush, LinkedIn and whatever installed and that would allow to use local accounts. Me too. But I do agree with the beancounters at MS that putting such an OS on the market might reduce sales of store apps or O365 subscriptions or make it less convenient for people to use OneDrive backup etc - in a way that costs them more than they would make from selling this great version of Windows to very few enthusiasts. Btw I think there are lots of differences between getting a good LTSC install now, vs if you have an OEM Home version of Win 11. A lot of my complaints only apply to the "bad" SKU's of Windows and not generally. The problem is of course that you can't buy this "good windows 11". It's reserved for volume license customers.
    - paulmd 2y ago
      the problem is things like forced updates are low-key good security policy. users already have the power to defer updates for up to 35 days. What do people do with it? defer it as long as humanly possible and then whine when the timer runs out and they have to run the install. again: the cure for forced updates has always been simple: run your updates occasionally. the people like GP who are forced into it? those are the people who should not be allowed to defer updates indefinitely, because they obviously can't handle the ability to defer updates which they are already allowed. selling those users a version of windows intended for enterprise environments with a formalized lifecycle, managed by dedicated users, which is allowed to break the normal rules around updates etc, is like giving a no-limit amex to someone who has repeatedly overdrafted their secured credit card. They literally already have self-identified as not being able to handle even a little bit of a responsibility, they are the last users in the world you want to be able to defer indefinitely Occasionally, a little user-hostility can be a good thing, in the big picture. Like, laws are fundamentally "citizen-hostile", but we still have to have them, because without fences a significant amount of people will choose not to be good neighbors.

alkonaut 2y ago

I'm guessing that selling OS:es to consumers isn't making a ton of money. Most would come as OEM for a small Windows tax on a new computer. The money is in AppStores, OneDrive subscriptions, Office 356 subs and so on. And letting people run some sort of no-frills windows where you login as a local account and run your old spreadsheet for 10 years is completely at odds with any kind of strategy that will make money from home users. I don't like it - but I'm also not disagreeing with the beancounters at ms if this is the conclusion they reached. I have a feeling it's the right call.

chrisandchris 2y ago
I'm not saying that MS shouldn't sell M365 or similar. The thibgs you mentioned are not exclusive to my issue. I would be willing to pay for an OS that has no Candy Crush, LinkedIn and whatever installed and that would allow to use local accounts. I also don't want forced reboots because of updates. Yet, I still would use OneDrive, M365, ... It's currently possible to to run your Office 2010 on Win 10/11, there's nothing holding you back.
- alkonaut 2y ago
  > I would be willing to pay for an OS that has no Candy Crush, LinkedIn and whatever installed and that would allow to use local accounts. Me too. But I do agree with the beancounters at MS that putting such an OS on the market might reduce sales of store apps or O365 subscriptions or make it less convenient for people to use OneDrive backup etc - in a way that costs them more than they would make from selling this great version of Windows to very few enthusiasts. Btw I think there are lots of differences between getting a good LTSC install now, vs if you have an OEM Home version of Win 11. A lot of my complaints only apply to the "bad" SKU's of Windows and not generally. The problem is of course that you can't buy this "good windows 11". It's reserved for volume license customers.
  - paulmd 2y ago
    the problem is things like forced updates are low-key good security policy. users already have the power to defer updates for up to 35 days. What do people do with it? defer it as long as humanly possible and then whine when the timer runs out and they have to run the install. again: the cure for forced updates has always been simple: run your updates occasionally. the people like GP who are forced into it? those are the people who should not be allowed to defer updates indefinitely, because they obviously can't handle the ability to defer updates which they are already allowed. selling those users a version of windows intended for enterprise environments with a formalized lifecycle, managed by dedicated users, which is allowed to break the normal rules around updates etc, is like giving a no-limit amex to someone who has repeatedly overdrafted their secured credit card. They literally already have self-identified as not being able to handle even a little bit of a responsibility, they are the last users in the world you want to be able to defer indefinitely Occasionally, a little user-hostility can be a good thing, in the big picture. Like, laws are fundamentally "citizen-hostile", but we still have to have them, because without fences a significant amount of people will choose not to be good neighbors.