Slashdot Mirror
'Windows Isn't a Service, It's an Operating System' (howtogeek.com)
Iwastheone shares an article by former PC World columnist Chris Hoffman.
"No PC users asked Microsoft for Windows as a service," Hoffman complains. "It was all Microsoft's idea." "Software as a service" is trendy. But these types of services are generally hosted on a remote platform, like Amazon Web Services or even Microsoft Azure. Web applications like Gmail and Facebook are services. That all makes sense -- the company maintains the software, and you access it remotely. An operating system that runs on millions of different hardware configurations is not a service. It can't be updated as easily, and you'll run into issues with hardware, drivers, and software when you change things. The upgrade process isn't instant and transparent -- it's a big download and can take a while to install... [M]illions of applications (or computers!) could break if Microsoft makes a mistake with Windows.
What has Windows as a service even gotten us? How much has Windows 10 improved since its release? Sure, Microsoft keeps adding new features like the Timeline and Paint 3D, but how many Windows users care about those? Many of these new features, like Paint 3D and updates to Microsoft Edge, could be delivered without major operating system upgrades. Just take a look at the many features in Windows 10's October 2018 Update and ask whether they were worth all the deleted files and drama. Texting from your PC is great, but Microsoft could release an app that does that -- in fact, this was once supposed to be a Skype feature. Clipboard history is cool, and a dark theme for File Explorer is cute. But couldn't we have waited another six months for Microsoft to properly polish and test this stuff?
"Windows as a Service" does get us a few things. It gets us applications like Candy Crush installed on our PCs. It gets us an ever-increasing number of built-in advertisements. And it gets us activation problems when Windows phones home once a day and discovers that Microsoft has a server problem.
"Please Microsoft, slow down," the article concludes. "How about releasing a new version of Windows once per year instead? That's what Apple does, and Apple doesn't need 'macOS as a Service' to do it. Just create a new version of Windows every year, give it a new name, and spend a lot of time polishing it and fixing bugs.
"Wait until it's stable to release it, even if you have to delay it."
"No PC users asked Microsoft for Windows as a service," Hoffman complains. "It was all Microsoft's idea." "Software as a service" is trendy. But these types of services are generally hosted on a remote platform, like Amazon Web Services or even Microsoft Azure. Web applications like Gmail and Facebook are services. That all makes sense -- the company maintains the software, and you access it remotely. An operating system that runs on millions of different hardware configurations is not a service. It can't be updated as easily, and you'll run into issues with hardware, drivers, and software when you change things. The upgrade process isn't instant and transparent -- it's a big download and can take a while to install... [M]illions of applications (or computers!) could break if Microsoft makes a mistake with Windows.
What has Windows as a service even gotten us? How much has Windows 10 improved since its release? Sure, Microsoft keeps adding new features like the Timeline and Paint 3D, but how many Windows users care about those? Many of these new features, like Paint 3D and updates to Microsoft Edge, could be delivered without major operating system upgrades. Just take a look at the many features in Windows 10's October 2018 Update and ask whether they were worth all the deleted files and drama. Texting from your PC is great, but Microsoft could release an app that does that -- in fact, this was once supposed to be a Skype feature. Clipboard history is cool, and a dark theme for File Explorer is cute. But couldn't we have waited another six months for Microsoft to properly polish and test this stuff?
"Windows as a Service" does get us a few things. It gets us applications like Candy Crush installed on our PCs. It gets us an ever-increasing number of built-in advertisements. And it gets us activation problems when Windows phones home once a day and discovers that Microsoft has a server problem.
"Please Microsoft, slow down," the article concludes. "How about releasing a new version of Windows once per year instead? That's what Apple does, and Apple doesn't need 'macOS as a Service' to do it. Just create a new version of Windows every year, give it a new name, and spend a lot of time polishing it and fixing bugs.
"Wait until it's stable to release it, even if you have to delay it."
If you think about it OSX has very much moved to Software as Service - it costs nothing anymore, it's just that Apple offers as a service, that it will keep your device current for a while. Or maybe it is the updating that is the service, since OSX does not have activation codes or anything and you can stay on one version forever if you prefer.
To the extent that is not working out for Windows, they need to figure out why Apple seems to do SAS in a way that most people like, whereas Windows does not (I always hated Windows Update).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It is amazing to still hear after all these years that people think that Microsoft takes telling. They don't. Microsoft will decide what you are going to accept.
I'll probably get marked as troll for this, perhaps only because the truth triggers some folks.
There is a conversation going on CNet right now that brings out all of the reasons why the faithful will accept whatever Microsoft tells them they will accept.
The locked in factor. Some people look at the lock-in to Microsoft almost like it is some advantage.
The Macs are too expensive. Will they be too expensive when they pay a monthly fee for Windows?
Linux is something something
The fact is that Many Windows users will simply accept whatever Microsoft decides that they will accept. Microsoft knows this, and has no reason to change tactics.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The commodity PC wars in the 2000's drove down the price of desktop systems down to less that $600. This made the price of the Windows OS way more conspicuous to vendors and customers, who disliked the fact that the OS (which they called the Microsoft Windows Tax) cost a good percentage of the price of a new PC even with vendor discounts and the fact the users weren't planning to use Windows.
Then laptops and netbooks became powerful enough to read email and surf the web. These are quickly followed by netbooks and smartphones. Users weren't willing to fork out another hundred $$$$ every year for upgraded Microsoft Word/Spreadsheet and other applications. So they all have had to move to the "service" model with annual or monthly licenses, and advertising in order to continue to bring in revenue. The problems with malware led to the development of app stores. Virus databases on PC's were taking up 250 Megabytes of disk space.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Bryan Lunduke, who worked for Microsoft, and talks a lot about Linux subjects, made a good point in one of his Linux lectures that really opened my mind.
The "Who asked for this?" question. systemd having a full network stack and various other huge features instead of just being a better init script. With Wayland, and Mir, was anyone really going "OMG, X Windows sucks so bad. I really hate being able to stream a graphics shell over ssh on a system that was fast enough to use on a 486." I can't really do his arguments justice with my old man's memory, but the point is sound.
With Windows 8 Metro, or the Ribbon interface, or any of the other Microsoft failures... was anyone explicitly ASKING for this? Or, was it just some middle or upper manager type trying to justify his existence by pushing something his intuition told him would be "the future" with no science and user studies to back it up? Did the decision get made BECAUSE users complained, or, was the decision made, and any evidence contrary (such as research or users) simply thrown under the rug?
Are people DEMANDING lootboxes? Are people demanding DRM?
Are people demanding phones with shit battery life that are thinner and thinner and easier to bend? Or "notches" in their screens instead of full screens?
Where do these anti-features come from? I don't know. But I've at least started to ask the question "Who asked for this?" to help me identify those features and the examples are boundless.
Cleaning up old folders immediately after redirection is fine; they should have been moved as part of the redirection process, so there should be an empty folder that gets deleted upon completion of redirection. Cleaning up old folders DURING A FEATURE UPDATE that WOULD HAVE been cleaned up after a redirection is a big fat no-no that never should have been written into the code in the first place. Anyone who understands what user shell folder redirection is and what its purpose is can plainly see how bad of an idea it is: if the folder exists after redirection then it's a user-created data folder, not part of a redirection, and should be considered untouchable by all OS self-maintenance such as updates. There are clearly some seriously dysfunctional programmers and sysadmins making their way into Microsoft. The simple fact that this sort of stupid mistake made it out the door is proof that Microsoft has a staff competence issue. Perhaps they can't help in MS Answers because they are losing the ability to maintain the system properly in the first place.
That's complete and utter bullshit. The Ubuntu installation I'm on at this moment isn't going to just stop booting because I forgot to pay a bill. Go back to Redmond and tell them you failed, you fucking shill.
My Daughter's windows 10 computer became unusable a month ago after an update. She finally brought it to me because she needed to do some work on it. I asked her why she didn't bring it a month ago and she said she just used her phone for everything. Most people are moving from Windows to Android. Windows has made PeeCees such a fucking pain that more and more people just use their phones. The exception of course is Gamers. I spent about 3 hours fixing her piece of shit peecee and the whole time I was cursing Microsoft. I retired almost 2 years ago and haven't had to deal with it in all that time. I sure as fuck don't miss it.