And Microsoft wonder why people are not upgrading to Windows 10.
I’ll give you a one word hint - there is no trust.
Absolutely. An operating system, by virtue of what it does, is privy to all information stored on that computer, everything the user does on that computer, and to everything that passes through the computer. It has the keys to the kingdom, so to speak... like having top security clearance to every state secret a hypothetical country might have.
To be in such a lofty position requires the utmost in trust. To grant such a level of security clearance would require the most stringent background check possible, and if there were even the slightest hint of the potential for divided loyalty, the person would most certainly be denied such clearance. It is imperative that a person embued with such a profound level of clearance would be loyal to the entity granting that clearance, and no one else at all.
That's the key failing of Windows 10. To use an OS is to grant it total security clearance, but can Windows 10 be trusted to have loyalty only to the entity granting it clearance (in this case, the owner of the PC)? Even the possibility of divided loyalty would be enough to prevent clearance being granted to an individual, but Windows 10's divided loyalty is more than a possibility. It's a well-known, documented fact.
This alone renders Windows 10 unfit for purpose. An operating system must have only one master, and that must unequivocally be the owner of the PC (often also the user in home settings, of course, but not in corporate settings). Any company that attempts to develop an OS to serve two masters, itself and the PC owner, is going to run into inevitable conflicts of interest which it will end up resolving in its own favor. It will, of course, twist things around so that it can claim that serving its own need is really serving the PC owner, like when MS forces updates on the unsuspecting customer's machine. MS will claim this is really in the best interest of the customer, since then he gets the latest and greatest in security and features.
It's nonsense, of course, because it's the owner of the PC who gets to decide what the owner's interests are. If he decides it is in his interests to never get updates at all, then that's what the OS needs to do. It doesn't matter if you, I, or Microsoft think that he would be better served to get updates, because we're not the ones who own that PC. Ownership comes with certain benefits and prerogatives, and being able to decide things like that using any criteria imaginable is one of them. The company that makes the OS can try to persuade the owner of the PC to do something, but ultimately, it needs to respect that the owner's authority is absolute. It's why all previous versions of Windows included an OFF setting for Windows Updates (which they were sure to tell you was "not recommended").
All of the problems with Windows 10 can be traced back to this MS philosophy of WaaS, which apparently means that Windows is now a service to Microsoft. What, you thought it meant that Windows was a service to you?
The bizarre, inappropriate half and half UI was initially part of Microsoft's effort to use its Windows dominance to sell Windows phones and force a usable Windows Store into being. That's Windows being used to serve Microsoft, not the user. The ads scattered throughout are the same, as is the inability to remove "apps" like Xbox and the Store itself. It doesn't matter if you don't want these things on your PC... Microsoft does, because it serves Microsoft's interests to have them there. It's pervasive, even being evident in minor changes like the one where they took out the ability to select local searches only for entries typed into Start Menu/Cortana. The PC owner may wish just to have a local search that isn't cluttered with useless and irrelevant web results, but it serves Microsoft's interests to force you to have them, since the odds of you clicking on a sponsored link are always greater if you see the sponsored link than if you do not.
That's the root of what's wrong with 10... it's not built to serve the user. It's built to serve Microsoft and the user, and the only reason the user is even in that loop at all is because even the most Microsoft-bound victim of Windows lock-in would not use a product that never serves his needs. The worst version, of course, is Windows 10 Home, which is so loaded with monetization and MS-serving that the only way it would even somewhat be ethical would be if it were a free product. It's not, though, with MS recently increasing the price on what at best is a freemium version of Windows. Even the free-upgrade version was not free, since it relied on an existing license that had been paid for.
Satya Nadella may think that Microsoft has its mojo back, but its Windows product, no longer worthy of its own division, is in shambles. If they ever wanted to get Windows back to being fit for purpose, they'd have to undo every change they've made to the development process in "Windows as a Service." Every change they've made while getting back said mojo has been destructive. I get that MS wants to be in the cloud, but clearly WaaS has failed quite convincingly.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
