61–70 of 323 posts
So I wonder if they are they going to move to more aggressively limiting you moving a license from one machine to another. Or are they just going to rely on people just paying for the convenience of having Windows pre-installed and working out of the box? In all honesty, they'll probably do fine relying on the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now, with windows 10, my security updates will come bundled with my unwanted OS changes. This is going to be utter and complete chaos for any organization that performs strict change management and compatibility testing. It's already hard enough to push out normal security updates for some organizations, so having to mix in feature or even kernel changes is going to be a nightmare...
I think there will be some problems, but I don't think it will be that bad. The web has coped perfectly fine with continuously-updated browsers. A significant proportion of 'change management' is pointless, box-ticking bureaucracy and achieves nothing. Just look at any large company's mostly semi-broken IT systems! Critical infrastructure probably shouldn't be running on desktop Windows anyway, so it's not going to a…
I use Arch which does the rolling release thingy and I love it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I doubt microsoft will let people opt out of unwanted cloud-based security risks or crazy interface experiments. you're wrong. IE/Edge has the same type of updating, and it can and ill always be opt-outable because of the enterprise.
Well but if you op-out you op-out of everything, including security updates. There's no "I want security updates but no random feature/interface changes" button.
As someone else mentioned, to support the enterprise Microsoft makes updates piecemeal and optional.
I'm not happy with this. I waited on XP until they got over vista, and I'm still on 7 while I watch in bemusement at the windows 8.1 nonsense. Now, with windows 10, my security updates will come bundled with my unwanted OS changes. I doubt microsoft will let people opt out of unwanted cloud-based security risks or crazy interface experiments.
Care to tell me what your issue is with Windows 8.1? I've been using 8/8.1 for well over a year now, and it has been, perhaps, one of the best installments of the Windows line of operating systems I have ever used. There are a variety of third party applications and workarounds that can effectively re-patch explorer.exe to completely disable Modern UI and bring back the old start menu (think Start Is Back).
You answered your own question with this line:
"There are a variety of third party applications and workarounds that can effectively re-patch explorer.exe to completely disable Modern UI and bring back the old start menu (think Start Is Back)."
Making a deploy image that doesn't try to get computers to sign in to Microsoft's cloud services and doesn't require patching or extensive training is very much a problem. We skipped 8 like we skipped Vista.
This was news around January, I thought. Why are all the tech sites playing this up now? I feel like i could reply to half the top level posts with this link: http://blogs.windows.com/business/2015/01/30/windows-10-for-... >January 30, 2015 > this is much more than a one-time upgrade: once a Windows device is upgraded to Windows 10, we will continue to keep it current via Windows Update for the supported lifetime of…
It's Sunday and it finally got picked up. It happens. I submitted it a while back and its just when people see it.
Off-topic rant: I used to live in a remote area, with very little connectivity. Upgrading tech used to involve traveling to a retailer, and buying the latest version off the shelf. More recently, it involes traveling to a solid internet connection, downloading incremental updates and distributing them on location. In Australia, satellite internet was subsidized in the 2000s (and easily eligible). Now, although still…
Well, this is part of why Microsoft has Service Packs. These consolidate existing updates as well as adding new features.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there will be some problems, but I don't think it will be that bad. The web has coped perfectly fine with continuously-updated browsers. A significant proportion of 'change management' is pointless, box-ticking bureaucracy and achieves nothing. Just look at any large company's mostly semi-broken IT systems! Critical infrastructure probably shouldn't be running on desktop Windows anyway, so it's not going to a…
The problem isn't that Bob in Marketing's box doesn't work for a few days. It's that Bob (along with 90% of everyone over 25) hates user interface changes and works slower the first two-three months after a change. If MS starts throwing changes at him every 6 months that's a 15-20% decrease in Bob's productivity.
I can see consumers being annoyed have to pay every month to use the computer now. With the current versioned releases the consumer has a choice whether to pay for the upgrade or not.
In the enterprise space I dont see how this will work. There are plenty of reasons that some companies are still clinging to Windows XP. For a large company to give up control over exactly what is on each computer and be able to plan long term is a non starter. Would we then see yearly "cumulative packs" being offered that can be tested prior to release?
Would there be a central tool provided by Microsoft for the enterprise customers that will allow them to control the exact feature versions, fixes etc for every computer centrally and that way to cumulative upgrades?
I would love for Microsoft to come out with a new Next Generation Operating system that breaks compatibility even more than Windows NT did back in the day. I think its long overdue but unfortunately i don't see it happening anytime soon.
They are investing a lot now in trying to use as much of the codebase as possible across all of their targeted devices. I