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."
they're after eyeballs and dollars. and not necessarily in that order.
frequent updates, forced upon users, is a platform for them to shove shit up your ass and down your throat at the same time. ads. paid placement. paid installs. more ads. user data. user tracking. more ads. more placements.
fuck windows 10. most people with windows computers don't need windows to do what they do on them. switch to linux. switch to macs or fuck, even chromebooks (even with google's own addiction to paid placements and ads). but just fucking go cold turkey on microsoft.
your windows 7 gonna kick the bucket in 14 months? here's your next operating system: https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
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
we can thank Linux in terms of hosting web apps and making Android tablets which devalued operating systems to nothing.
Linux reduced the cost of operating systems, not the value.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
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.
... is really about.
It's about the final move to take control of the customers PC out of the users hand and move all apps into authenticated spaces controlled my corporations. Big companies like Apple and Google pioneered app walled gardens behind their smart phones over the last 10 years, and the the videogame gaming industry, being tech companies, have always wanted to take control of software out of the end users hands for profit.
The internet allowed all this to happen because the average citizen is a tech illiterate moron. The last 20 years for anyone who was involved in tech in the 90's has been surreal, everything we were worried about in the 90's like trusted computing is slowly coming fruition due to ignorant people getting smart phones and the internet removing any and all ability to hold software companies accountable.
What are you going to do when Microsoft, Valve, or Activivison develop some new locked down piece of software? You are hundreds of miles away from these companies, you have ZERO market power in this relationship. In ye old days, they were forced to give you the complete software, otherwise they would be comitting fraud. "software as a service" is really just another name for fraud where companies undermine your ability to own, control, and operate your PC and software free from company influence.
All companies want to turn every piece of tech into a dumb terminal and they are largely getting their way because 90% of the population is tech clueless, those of us who know how technology works, were pretty horrified when say RPG's like ultima were rebadged and labelled mmo's in the 90's and a gullible and lay public lapped it up. Things like Ultima online, EQ, world of warcraft were paving the way towards an era where companies can steal whatever isn't nailed down outright because the average person is a moron.
You have no freedom and rights under big business because many aspects of how we are socially organized would need to be rethought in an internet enabled society, there's no accountability, it's just a one way fuck you free for all and companies are making mad bank.
There is nothing more embarrassing than loading up your laptop for a important conference presentation than to say "Sorry, My computer decided to update, Everyone, please wait while Microsoft eat's our time."
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.
I'm going to copy and paste the most salient points of the stock BS answer that is given to almost EVERYONE that has an issue with Windows 10 these days and says something about it on the Microsoft Answers forum:
... If it does not help, then perform clean boot and check. Refer this article: How to perform a clean boot in Windows ... After you have finished troubleshooting, follow these steps from section “How to reset the computer to start as usual after clean boot troubleshooting” to reset the computer to start as usual.
/dev/null because Microsoft seems to ignore all user feedback that doesn't align with what they wanted to do anyway.
This issue may occur either due to software conflicts or if unused files are present in Windows. I would suggest you to run system maintenance troubleshooter and check if it helps.
And then in the following comments there are floods of users saying THIS DID NOT HELP, PLEASE GIVE US SOME F***ING REAL HELP. It's like this regardless of the actual problem. It's always someone with an Indian name posting the "solution" and it's always the same basic boilerplate garbage suggestions that don't solve the problem. There is never any follow-up. There is an intervention by an actual Microsoft product team employee that can legitimately help on an extremely rare basis. On a related note, I'm fairly convinced that Feedback Hub is a fancy way of referring to
I swear, dealing with the Windows 8+ era Microsoft is like dealing with a petulant three-year-old on a constant basis, one that will deactivate or crash your shit at random and pull a South Park BP executive style "we're sorry!" when it becomes big tech news.
The internet allowed all this to happen because the average citizen is a tech illiterate moron.
No-one "allowed" anything. What happened was Apple built more locked down systems by default, and people responded by buying systems for personal use they did not have to administer or rely on an entire industry of charlatans to fix things like viruses (read: Best Buy PC repair).
The thing is, it really *is* a good idea for "tech illiterate morons" to have locked down systems. They really need that because they simply cannot manage handling computer security as you and I know it today.
It's not like there are no ways around this. On OSX you can still run apps from untrusted developers - if you tell the machine to allow that. And that seems like a pretty good compromise to me, ship a locked down system by default and let people open it up more if they can handle the extra responsibility.
Do not forget the consequences of security failure are worse now than they have ever been. Even ten years ago, if a phone or computer got hacked to most people it wouldn't be a huge deal losing a whole system. Now so many people have entire lives stored on computers and phones, keeping at least the ability to restore a system and/or prevent access is a lot more important than it has been.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Windows 10 is not an operating system, nor is it a service! Windows is a combination of a virus and spyware! It is not a service for Windows 10 to steal every possible scrap of data from your computer so that they can sell your computer to advertisers! And this was the plan for Windows 10 all along...why do you think that they gave it away for free for over a year!! Only now people that fell for the Windows 10 scam are seeing that it really wasn't free as they start to show ads! Next will be the subscription that they will have to pay to keep Windows 10 working!!!
The price of Windows is a great point. Windows 3.1 cost $39 to install on $1000 PC's. Windows 7 through 10 cost $99 to $139 to install on PC's that you can build for under $400. The cost of Windows is now excessive in many ways..
I have very old Apple laptops that still work perfectly well.
With no updates, ever, unlike Linux.
Good luck finding a Linux distro that still gets updated and works on a 486 hardware. Linux distros are generally better at retro-compatibility but they're not infinite either.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Actually Windows is a service, in the sense of "the farmer got a bull to service his cows". Windows 10 is Microsoft servicing their customers.
From the bull's perspective, the cows are servicing him.
sig: sauer
Windows as a service with a monthly bill is scheduled to go into effect in 2020 and 2022 depending on the market.
This is a set in stone date, you are in the beta update period right now and they are baking in all the support infrastructure for this right now. There will be a point in the 2020's where you boot that windows computer and it's going to ask for a credit card.