Ed Bott unloads on the horrendous state of Windows as a, uh, “service”

[woodyDa Boss]

If you only read one article today, read this one from Ed Bott on ZDNet: If Microsoft wants to treat Windows 10 as a service, it has a responsibility
[See the full post at: Ed Bott unloads on the horrendous state of Windows as a, uh, “service”]

12 users thanked author for this post.

PhotM,

Elly,

GreatAndPowerfulTech,

Mele20,

flackcatcher,

Steve S.,

FakeNinja,

lurks about,

HiFlyer,

geekdom,

fk5353,

John

[JohnAskWoody Lounger]

You know when Ed get’s upset with Microsoft its bad. Ed Bott has always tried to look at Windows 10 from a glass half full not half empty. Yeah, this last month has certainly placed a big dark cloud over Windows as a service.

7 users thanked author for this post.

Steve,

PhotM,

Noel Carboni,

fk5353,

zero2dash,

lurks about,

HiFlyer

[geekdomAskWoody Plus]

I’ve come to the conclusion that any Microsoft service received is self-service. Ed Bott’s article confirms this conclusion.

Group G{ot backup} Win7 · x64 · SP1 · i3-3220 · TestBeta

2 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer,

JCCWsusser

[MrJimPhelpsAskWoody_MVP]

geekdom wrote:

I’ve come to the conclusion that any Microsoft service received is self-service.

Or perhaps we could say “Windows as a dis-service”.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 8.1 running in a VM

3 users thanked author for this post.

wavy,

flackcatcher,

Cybertooth

[geekdomAskWoody Plus]

Or, alternately, do-it-yourself.

Group G{ot backup} Win7 · x64 · SP1 · i3-3220 · TestBeta

[Noel CarboniAskWoody_MVP]

Honestly, DIY is the only way running Windows has ever been reasonable – at least to get a professional level of performance and utility out of it.

I don’t know what “givens” went into the decision to develop Windows as a Service, but they weren’t rooted in reality.

-Noel

[geekdomAskWoody Plus]

I backup often and beta test.

Group G{ot backup} Win7 · x64 · SP1 · i3-3220 · TestBeta

[anonymous]

I have quite honestly struggled with the WaaS narrative surrounding W10. It seemed to originate in the failed mobile strategy for Windows where MS could not figure out how to get smartphone manufacturers to pay a large OEM license fee for Windows OS when Android was an option. However, we now have a situation where we have MS charging a significant license fee for various versions of W10 and using the W10 as a service narrative to cram down a EULA that basically traffics with the user as a pawn in MS’s continuing aspirations to convert a PC/Workstation OS into an advertising/surveillance platform. As is, WaaS strikes me as an intellectual muddle without any discernible near term resolution.

10 users thanked author for this post.

Elly,

johnf,

RamRod,

AlexEiffel,

lurks about,

wdburt1,

bknight721,

lanceboil,

GoneToPlaid,

HiFlyer

[bAskWoody Plus]

Apart from the lack of information, for me the worst part of the Microsoft mess described by Ed is;

“But if you were one of the enthusiastic souls who downloaded and installed version 1809 in the first week that it was available, you have not received those updates. To get the fixes for what are undeniably serious bugs in a version of Windows 10 that was released through public channels, you have to add your device to the Windows Insider Program and choose the Slow or Release Preview Ring.”

I had switched to Release Preview to get 1809 early, which didn’t work because Microsoft apparently decided not to use that ring for the first time in 32 months. Then I stopped Insider builds as that setting had served no purpose. Then I had to revert to Release Preview to get the fixes. Crazy.

Cannon fodder Chump Daft glutton Idiot Sucker More intrepid Crazy/ignorant Toxic drinker "Saluted blockhead" (Group ASAP)

4 users thanked author for this post.

Elly,

mindwarp,

Noel Carboni,

Cybertooth

[Noel CarboniAskWoody_MVP]

I didn’t realize that; I figured they’d at least support the few copies that slipped through.

You actually just made me feel better that I dragged my feet and didn’t find the time to download v1809.

Thank you.

-Noel

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

[MikeFromMarkhamAskWoody Lounger]

When Mr. MicroShill himself is frustrated with anything involving Microsoft, you know it’s far worse than the company admits… assuming it says anything at all.

4 users thanked author for this post.

johnf,

zero2dash,

BobbyB,

HiFlyer

[SeffAskWoody Plus]

I think Microsoft have to do more than just slow down the ongoing development of Windows 10, they also have to slow down the remaining transfers to Windows 10 – because encouraging more users to switch to a broken system isn’t in a company’s best long-term interests. Far better to fix the broken system first, and then open up the market.

Central to this is extending the support for Windows 7 so that those users – who still number 40% of the market and remain Microsoft customers even if they haven’t switched to Windows 10 – have a proven and reliable system to transfer to, rather than being faced with a choice of upgrading to a worse system than the one they have, maintaining their existing system without adequate support, or switching to another system provider altogether.

None of those choices is palatable to the user at the moment, and forcing people into making them will not serve Microsoft well for the future. They need to bite the bullet now, acknowledge the problems they have with Windows 10, and announce an extension of the support for Windows 7 until say 2023 to coincide with the end of support for Windows 8.1. If in the meantime they cut the Windows 10 version upgrades to one a year and embark on some proper internal testing between releases they should be in a good position by then to have Windows 10 in a fit state to meet the objectives they have set for it. To achieve that they need to make Windows 10 a system that people want to upgrade to, not one that they have to upgrade to.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Elly,

flackcatcher,

lurks about,

HiFlyer

[ArvyAskWoody Lounger]

I’d be interested in an explanation for MS’s own commentary when they say things like “only a limited number” of users were affected by various reported issues.  I suppose anything less than the total population might be considered as a “limited number”, even if it’s only short by one user who got lucky.  As I see it, however, such statements are a major disservice to all concerned when interpreted as mitigating or lessening the gravity of the issues themselves and their broader implications for producers and users alike.

Asus ROG Maximus XI Code board; Intel i9-9900K CPU; 32 GB DDR4-3600 RAM; Nvidia GTX1080 GPU; 2x512 GB Samsung 970 Pro M.2 NVMe; 2x2 TB Samsung 860 Pro SSDs; Windows 10.1809; Linux Mint 19.1; Terabyte Backup & Recovery

4 users thanked author for this post.

Elly,

flackcatcher,

Cybertooth,

AlexEiffel

[anonymous]

when an MS lackey like Ed Bott starts sounding frustrated, and it seems he has over the past year or so, you know things are NOT looking good.
Wonder how many times he’s said to MS “you’re killing me, Smalls”
MVP Edit: on request of Original poster.

1 user thanked author for this post.

johnf

[AscarisAskWoody_MVP]

Ed Bott wrote, in the original article:

“Windows as a service” sounded like a good idea in 2015, when Microsoft released Windows 10.

Did it?  Not to me.  It was quite evident that Microsoft was trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.  Windows didn’t become the 90% market share juggernaut that it is being pitched as a service.  It achieved that while being pitched as what it really is: a product.

“Software as a Service” is a loose term that can be interpreted to mean a lot of things, but in general, it is software that is sold and licensed on a subscription basis rather than in the traditional buy once, use forever model.  Windows, of course, is software. For enterprise customers, Windows often is sold in this manner, so it really is “Windows as a Service.”  For those of us who are not enterprise customers, but who get Windows with a PC we buy, as boxed software, or increasingly as a paid download, it’s not.  If you pay once and can use it forever (not that it will be updated forever), that’s the same it’s always been, which is to say that it’s a product, not a service.

People started claiming MS was going to start selling Windows on a subscription basis (for everyone) almost as soon as Windows 10 arrived, and MS has assured us this is not the case.  At the same time, they’ve been telling us that Windows is now a service.  If that contradiction didn’t sound alarm bells, I don’t know what to tell you.

Clearly, MS is not using the usual definition of SaaS when it claims that Windows is now a service. If there is one category of software that really and truly does not lend itself to SaaS, it’s the operating system! Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, I know) notes that “SaaS is typically accessed by users using a thin client via a web browser.” While “typically” leaves a lot of wiggle room, it does illustrate that SaaS is at the opposite end of the spectrum from the bare-metal, hardware-abstracting OS itself.

Given the various ways that Microsoft has changed Windows in the WaaS era, it seems evident that they’re trying to make it into what AOL or Prodigy used to be in the pre-internet days.  The AOL software (which used IE as a core, in the Windows version at least) was very much a thin client for the various services AOL offered.  AOL would often change the service in various ways, and people would often complain about it, but ultimately, it was understood that the service was whatever AOL was willing to offer, and you could either take it or leave it.

Microsoft’s recent decision to make the web search from the start menu mandatory (to remove the option to turn it off, in other words) strikes me as just this kind of thing.  Microsoft’s goal is to drive traffic to Bing, where they can offer up sponsored links and make money, so drive it they will.  It’s outrageous for an OS to do that with no option to turn it off, but for an old-school online service like AOL used to be, it’s quite normal.

AOL, though, didn’t try to blend this functionality with the OS itself.  Windows seems to be trying to do just that… gradually morphing the OS (that people have no choice but to accept if they want to keep using their Windows-exclusive programs) into a front-end for their own cloud services, much like the AOL client was a front-end for the services AOL offered (which would have been called cloud services if the term had been in use at the time).

It hardly seems like a good idea to use an obsolete online service from the dialup modem days as the blueprint for OS development today, but that’s the closest analog for what they’re doing.  Abandon the OS development model that saw them rise to 90% market share, and instead follow the model for a defunct, obsolete category of online service that was never (and could never be) anywhere close to being an OS.

To say that MS has lost the plot with Windows would be an understatement.  If they want to make an online service, by all means, they should do so… but the last one they tried, MSN, didn’t exactly set the world on fire.  The only reason to try to blend that kind of thing with the OS is to prevent people from once again saying NO to the online service MS wants them to subscribe to.  Build it into the OS they are trapped in, give them no option to turn it off!   They’ll be members of the new MSN whether they want to be or not.

That seems to be the big lesson MS learned from the Windows 8 debacle.  It was evident that if MS delivered a version of Windows that the users didn’t like, they wouldn’t upgrade, choosing instead to remain with their previous version.  The lesson we’d hoped MS would learn was to stop offering products the users don’t like.  The lesson they actually learned was that if you give your customers a choice, they might say no, so don’t give them a choice.

When I saw what Windows 10 was like back in 2015, in the midst of the GWX scandal, I can say for sure that “WaaS” did not ever strike me as a good idea.  Was any of what has been happening really that hard to predict as the months went by?  I rejected Windows 10 on my main PC within the first hour of using it back in August 2015, but I had hope that MS would listen to its customers and fix it.  I kept it on a test PC to monitor its progress.

By the end of that year, the handwriting was on the wall.  I’d completely given up on 10, wiping it off of my test PC and repurposing its SSD for a new Linux installation on my main PC (installed alongside Windows 7 at that time).  That was three years ago.

It was evident even then where Microsoft was headed with Windows, and I wasn’t willing to go there today, or ever.  “WaaS” was the name associated with this mess from the first time I read the term.  That has not changed.

 

Group "L" (Kubuntu 18.10)

• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by
  
   Ascaris.

19 users thanked author for this post.

Steve,

LH,

Elly,

SueW,

Grond,

David F,

Noel Carboni,

fk5353,

Sessh,

GoneToPlaid,

johnf,

Cybertooth,

AlexEiffel,

Steve S.,

UKBrianC,

lurks about,

wdburt1,

bknight721,

Microfix

[MrJimPhelpsAskWoody_MVP]

Ascaris wrote:

Given the various ways that Microsoft has changed Windows in the WaaS era, it seems evident that they’re trying to make it into what AOL or Prodigy used to be in the pre-internet days. The AOL software (which used IE as a core, in the Windows version at least) was very much a thin client for the various services AOL offered. AOL would often change the service in various ways, and people would often complain about it, but ultimately, it was understood that the service was whatever AOL was willing to offer, and you could either take it or leave it.

John Dvorak said exactly the same thing a few years ago.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 8.1 running in a VM

3 users thanked author for this post.

Steve,

Elly,

johnf

[watchoundAskWoody Lounger]

MrJimPhelps wrote:

Ascaris wrote:

Given the various ways that Microsoft has changed Windows in the WaaS era, it seems evident that they’re trying to make it into what AOL or Prodigy used to be in the pre-internet days. The AOL software (which used IE as a core, in the Windows version at least) was very much a thin client for the various services AOL offered. AOL would often change the service in various ways, and people would often complain about it, but ultimately, it was understood that the service was whatever AOL was willing to offer, and you could either take it or leave it.

John Dvorak said exactly the same thing a few years ago.

I saw the Dvorak mention and I couldn’t resist logging in to mention- I listen to Dvorak on his and Adam Curry’s podcast every week, and it sounded like he actually got bit by Windows updating whenever it feels like it during the beginning of the live stream just this past week.

Sorry if that’s off topic, but the odd concurrence of your comment after hearing his own annoyance a few days ago compelled me to mention it.

1 user thanked author for this post.

MrJimPhelps

[bAskWoody Plus]

Ascaris wrote:

If they want to make an online service, by all means, they should do so… but the last one they tried, MSN, didn’t exactly set the world on fire.

270 million unique users worldwide per month didn’t seem too shabby more than 16 years ago:
MSN Grows Faster in Number of Unique Users

Cannon fodder Chump Daft glutton Idiot Sucker More intrepid Crazy/ignorant Toxic drinker "Saluted blockhead" (Group ASAP)

[AlexEiffelAskWoody_MVP]

That is interesting, but what does it mean?

That the number of active users isn’t that meaningful for the long term potential of a service?

That it was a great service at one time?

There might be a lesson to learn from that. You seem to really enjoy Windows as a service and you bring an interesting and enlightened dissenting voice here. You are entitled to your opinion.

However, around me, I see mostly dissatisfied customers or indifferent ones when they haven’t yet had significant issues or because they never really got a good grasp on their computing experience anyway so for them, it is still just the same mysterious beast for which they need to call their IT friend to tame occasionally. How many home users, not admins or even power users, are active users that are really into WaaS?

To me, WaaS is a cheap trick to justify a future subscription model or an equivalent monetization scheme using you as data, because in the mind of users, there isn’t that much to add to an OS that justifies upgrading often. I never ever hear any regular folk talk to me about how excited they are about a new version of Windows, unlike back in the days where it was fashionable to make oral dissertations about how cool your new computer is. We don’t discuss laundry machines that much at family parties and Windows has become the laundry machine that wanted to be turned into a connected laundromat.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Elly,

lurks about,

wdburt1,

Cybertooth

[AscarisAskWoody_MVP]

I’m not talking about a web site (or a bunch of co-branded web sites) here.  I was referring to dial-up online services (walled gardens all) before the internet went mainstream, where MSN was Microsoft’s attempt to compete with AOL, Prodigy, and the like.  The fact that you immediately thought of the web portal kind of illustrates the point– the MSN online service didn’t exactly set the world on fire.

Group "L" (Kubuntu 18.10)

[AlexEiffelAskWoody_MVP]

What a great piece of writing again, Ascaris. You should write tech articles.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ascaris

[johnfAskWoody Lounger]

Brilliant, and to the point.  Well done, Ascaris!

I wouldn’t use the AOL model for Windows as a service (or at this point, a “Dis-Service!”). I like to look at what’s happening with Gaming, specifically two examples..Blizzard with Diablo Immortal, and EA with Command and Conquer.

Previously, you had two companies who had released earlier versions of the games on PC, but who only profited at time of sale of the game. Now, both companies are looking at moving those franchises to mobile, in order to generate a constant stream of micro transactions.

Fans of both were outraged (the Blizzard devs were booed at BlizzardCon, no shock considering the people there grew up with Diablo on PC, and had spent $60 to attend). Didn’t matter to Blizzard, who were moving developers from PC to mobile, because of the potential profits. EA..well, that ship has sailed.

And that’s what we’re seeing here. Microsoft has no intention of changing their course. MS is profitable now, with the cloud, and sees Windows as a Service as the best way to monetize users. MS knows they control the market, certainly on the business/government sides and on the home side, and will take full advantage.

Sure, you’ll see the apologies, but there won’t be any extension of Windows 7 (unless you’re a business with an extended service contract). Redmond won’t listen to Ed any more than they listened to Susan. The only thing on their minds is how to make their shareholders happy.

• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by
  
   johnf.
• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by
  
   johnf.

5 users thanked author for this post.

SueW,

David F,

fk5353,

Mele20,

Ascaris

[anonymous]

@johnf

Mobile gaming and PC gaming are separate market segments. Triple AAA games cannot be played on mobile devices.
Similarly, most business software used to run business processes are done on PCs, and cannot be done on mobile devices. Mobile business software are limited to business works that have to be done while being mobile, eg doctors doing their rounds, architects doing site visits, etc. A few businesses use drones, eg to inspect tall engineering works.

[johnfAskWoody Lounger]

Understood, but my analogy was not about Microsoft going mobile (though they still insist on using a mobile like UI). As Blizzard/Activision and EA are moving from PC users to Mobile because they can extract a steady stream of money from microtransactions, Microsoft is moving to the cloud, and putting less and less resources into traditional “Windows as a Stand Alone OS”. The emphasis is “Windows as a Service”, with Cloud (Office 365, Windows “Always On”, Cortana always on, etc.)

Like gaming, this move by Microsoft is to maximize profits by providing a steady stream of money. EA/Activision aren’t satisfied that users pay $60 as a one time payment, they want to milk games by providing DLC/LootBoxes/MicroTransactions. MS does not want a one time payment for the OS, they want a similar result with W10 and the Cloud. This has nothing to do with what users want.

 

[Noel CarboniAskWoody_MVP]

Ascaris wrote:

Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, I know) notes that “SaaS is typically accessed by users using a thin client via a web browser.” While “typically” leaves a lot of wiggle room, it does illustrate that SaaS is at the opposite end of the spectrum from the bare-metal, hardware-abstracting OS itself.

Imagine for a moment that they don’t WANT people running their own computer systems.

It’s a lot easier to monetize services if you control them running on your own servers, and have people with thin clients log in to access them.

And here we thought the mainframe and terminals were long gone.

-Noel

[AscarisAskWoody_MVP]

Noel Carboni wrote:

And here we thought the mainframe and terminals were long gone.

The pundits championing the cloud today don’t seem to remember how revolutionary decentralized computing was compared to the centralized, thin-client model (even if it wasn’t yet called that).  This was made possible by the rise of the microcomputer, a term hardly ever used anymore.  The computerization of just about everything that has led to increased efficiency and productivity across the board didn’t happen during the mainframe era– the large majority of it happened during the microcomputer era.

Microsoft has also risen to prominence during the ‘micro’ era.  In the early days, supporting the decentralized (personal) computing model meant teaming with end users to wrest control from the giants like IBM.  It was good for consumers, and there can be no doubt, if you chart Microsoft’s growth, that it was good for them .

Now that the mainframe giants been vanquished, the former challengers have become the new giants, so there’s no more benefit in trying to assist end users in opposing the big guys by letting them control their own computing tools.  They are the new big guys, and they want the control (and the steady revenue stream) that their centralized predecessors had.

The marketing guys just want something new that they can paint as the next big thing.  It doesn’t much matter if it is really better than the old thing… slap a new coat of paint on it, invent a couple of catchy new buzzwords (“cloud”) to stick on there, and call it the new revolution.  Unfortunately, the tech pundits seem to have fallen for it, and certainly the investors have.  It’s evidently relatively easy to dazzle investors with corporate-speak that speaks a lot of words but still manages not to say anything.

The right mixture of incomprehensible buzzwords will convince the investors that the company making the pitch is on the cutting edge.  Perhaps they don’t want to admit to not understanding a word of what the pitchmen are saying, so they just nod and give their huzzahs.  The more knowledgeable people realize that the investors didn’t understand what was being said because it didn’t actually make any sense, but they’re immediately denounced as old-fashioned Luddites who “just don’t get it” if they speak to that effect.  It’s a 21st century “Emperor’s New Clothes,” with one important exception: It’s not plain to see that it’s all a sham to the average observer that hasn’t heard the sales pitch.  The child in the fable who brought everyone to their senses doesn’t exist.

People have written here before about how the commenters at The Reg are some of the most knowledgeable around when it comes to matters within the IT sphere.  It’s notable, then, how negatively the large majority of “commentards” perceive anything “Cloud.”  The PHBs (pointy-haired bosses, a reference to Dilbert) don’t listen, claiming that these IT people don’t get how awesome all of this is.  The bosses, pretending they understand the pitchmen, are telling the IT people they don’t understand how wonderful this new IT paradigm is.  But it has to be wonderful and new! It had ever so many buzzwords!  What more proof does one need?

Group "L" (Kubuntu 18.10)

6 users thanked author for this post.

Steve,

wavy,

johnf,

Noel Carboni,

lurks about,

wdburt1

[lurks aboutAskWoody Lounger]

The cloud has several issues unique to it. First is the financial stability of the cloud vendor, if they shutdown you may lose all your data. Second is the need to be connected to the cloud vendor, no connection is no access to the data. Third is you are spending money monthly to a vendor whom you do not have full control over. Fourth is you have no control over the cloud hardware. If you have your data stored in house you substitute more up front costs and slightly more staff for complete control of your infrastructure.

Supposedly you gain more security with the cloud. But this is only true if you configure your cloud correctly and many do not.

1 user thanked author for this post.

AlexEiffel

[anonymous]

ascaris, I agree. I knew when Microsoft was saying it would be a “service” this was a way to make more money by not allowing the sale of an OS to the consumer. By making a “service” a yearly charge could be had and more control for the company and less for the individual user.
Even Woody was asking how long is the end of life (EOL) for a device and after much resistance, they mentioned 2 to 4 years. I think Noel complained about this too.
We have equipment that is 15 years old and still runs. Most newer computers are 5 or 6 years old and technically since the manufacturer is not making new drivers for those “devices” Microsoft could say they are obsolete and can not be upgraded with the “newer features” (old name Service Packs).
I would like to see the old model used that one buys an OS and it is theirs to use.

I like Microsoft. Apple is good too. Apple seems more stable but it is more proprietary. If you only have a few video cards to install that are approved, then the problems are lessened. Microsoft allows “hundreds” of video cards and the problem abound. Apple has a tight control of parts, Microsoft allows almost any. Who is wrong? Who is right? Each group has their own opinions.

I (many here) are hanging on to the Windows 7 for as long as possible. Even when it reaches EOL, like XP, people will still be using it and the world will still be the same.

[anonymous]

anonymous #232084 said: “Apple has a tight control of parts, Microsoft allows almost any. Who is wrong? Who is right? Each group has their own opinions.”

The court of public opinion or world marketshare has already spoken that M$ is right = fairer pricing and user-choice were a Win for both Microsoft and computer buyers. Apple exerting tight control of hardware is to profit-gouge its mostly richer customers…

[lurks aboutAskWoody Lounger]

This complaint is about recognizing customers need accurate information from the source, not ‘bafflegab’ or silence. What happened yesterday or what is going on with 1809, no one really knows outside of few employees. This means everyone is relying on the best guesses of someone like Woody or Susan or whatever rumors are floating around. While Woody and Susan try their best to get accurate information out there is a limit to what they can do when MS is not talking or if they are it is in bafflegab.

The net effect of all these idiocies is to antagonize current customers and convert many into excustomers. This is how companies die.

2 users thanked author for this post.

flackcatcher,

walker

[UKBrianCAskWoody Plus]

Absolutely. Except that Microsoft has no intention of dieing. It just wants Windows as a consumer desktop OS, controlled by it’s user, to die. And it is going about it in a spectacularly stupid, arrogant, graceless way.

[lurks aboutAskWoody Lounger]

It’s not that MS leadership wants to kill the company it is the fact they following a pattern that historically has killed many companies in the past. They are profitable now but that is no guarantee they will be profitable 5 – 10 years in the future. IBM was the dominant computer manufacturer for several decades and they are now a limping shell that does not seem to have a clue about what to do.

[anonymous]

I was keeping an open mind as I read Bott’s article until I reached the point where he wrote , “That’s not right. Customers who are running an officially released version of Windows should not have to sign up as beta testers to get critical fixes.”

What nonsense!  Windows 10 users have been involuntary, uncompensated beta testers from the beginning!

Bott’s credibility evaporated and I didn’t bother reading another word.

[PKCanoDa Boss]

In this case, Ed Bott is correct. The fixes were not released through normal channels, only released to  the Insider program when 1809 was pulled and returned to the Insiders for further testing. So, if you wanted the fixes, the way to get them was join the Insider Slow or Release ring.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly,

walker

[bAskWoody Plus]

anonymous wrote:

What nonsense! Windows 10 users have been involuntary, uncompensated beta testers from the beginning!

Home, perhaps. Not Pro/Business/Enterprise/Education.

Cannon fodder Chump Daft glutton Idiot Sucker More intrepid Crazy/ignorant Toxic drinker "Saluted blockhead" (Group ASAP)

[Noel CarboniAskWoody_MVP]

Seriously? Are you of the opinion that “Pro” users are getting professional level releases?

From my perspective, the quality of each version of Windows 10 released has neared readiness for professional use around the time the next one is released, or maybe a little after – and many notably NOT at “CBB” time, though specifically v1803 seems to have been pretty good earlier than most prior; I hope it’s a trend.

If you’re trying to imply it’s acceptable that constantly deferring updates to try to wait until quality is up is viable, where any mistake to keep up with that nets an upgrade to “the latest”, then you’re fantasizing. Everyone on the planet has better things to do than to manage Windows Updates against the will of mother Microsoft.

-Noel

[bAskWoody Plus]

Yes, seriously. All except Home can defer for a year beyond CBB/SAC with a few clicks or a couple of group policy settings. When many millions of others have already been using a version for over a year you are not then a beta tester.

Cannon fodder Chump Daft glutton Idiot Sucker More intrepid Crazy/ignorant Toxic drinker "Saluted blockhead" (Group ASAP)

[anonymous]

But please @b, really, why do you accept or propose as given that defering “for a year beyond CBB/SAC with a few clicks” is an acceptable standard procedure?

Where is the good business practice of shipping a finished product on time?

Failing that, as all good businesses will from time to time, delay shipping until the product is finished.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly,

Noel Carboni

[anonymous]

Not just users with Home licenses.

Thanks to the wonders of GWX, many users with Windows 7 Pro / 8.1 Pro were upgraded to Win 10 Pro, sometimes without their express consent (e.g. clicking the X should not mean “Sign me up for all the Windows 10 things!!”).

[bAskWoody Plus]

How many couldn’t roll back after realizing their error?

Cannon fodder Chump Daft glutton Idiot Sucker More intrepid Crazy/ignorant Toxic drinker "Saluted blockhead" (Group ASAP)

[anonymous]

Missing the point. It shouldn’t have happened in the first place.

Many average Joe’s ended up living with it, not knowing how to roll back. Not everyone is a technician.

Hopefully the GWX days are behind us for good.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Sessh,

Noel Carboni

[Noel CarboniAskWoody_MVP]

b wrote:

…after realizing their error

NOT ONE user made an error there.

Blasting off the face of the Earth user expectations of being treated with respect is the entire, complete fault of Microsoft – not the users.

-Noel

4 users thanked author for this post.

radosuaf,

Elly,

Sessh,

geekdom

[bAskWoody Plus]

ANYONE who got upgraded ignored “Click here to change upgrade schedule or cancel scheduled upgrade”. Everyone who didn’t, wasn’t.

Cannon fodder Chump Daft glutton Idiot Sucker More intrepid Crazy/ignorant Toxic drinker "Saluted blockhead" (Group ASAP)

[SesshAskWoody Lounger]

Clicking the X has always had the same effect as cancelling an action or exiting a program or installation of a program. It’s been universally true since Windows first came to be. Clicking the X = cancel the action and close the window. Period. Randomly changing that established fact to make clicking the X mean “Proceed with the installation!” is malicious and deceptive. They knew what they were doing. Stop making excuses for their actions.

Clicking the X means cancel and close. End of story. Changing that action to mean the exact opposite for the purpose of tricking people into installing Windows 10 is not defensible. Presumably, using Alt-F4 to close it would also have the same effect as clicking the X. Why should anyone think that they now had to look for small print somewhere to cancel an action when clicking the X had ALWAYS done that? There was already an established way to cancel an installation that now meant proceed instead. Stop blaming the user. It’s ridiculous.

9 users thanked author for this post.

Steve,

AlexEiffel,

OscarCP,

johnf,

geekdom,

MikeFromMarkham,

Noel Carboni,

Elly,

lurks about

[MikeFromMarkhamAskWoody Lounger]

There’s absolutely no doubt Microsoft broke their own rules for the meaning of the red x. I refer you to an earlier comment I posted months ago on this same topic in a different thread:

https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/hassan-windows-10-wont-waste-your-time-with-unexpected-updates-anymore/#post-207017

Changing the behaviour of the red x to mean “Yes, please, go ahead and infest my system with Windows 10” was pure deception (desperation?) by Microsoft.

Users who clicked it did absolutely nothing wrong – in fact, they did what years of using Windows had taught them to do, with expectation of the same result.

Whether Microsoft offered/buried options in mice type somewhere else in the dialogue box doesn’t make it right.

3 users thanked author for this post.

AlexEiffel,

johnf,

geekdom

[bAskWoody Plus]

The link to change/cancel wasn’t buried. It was right at the top below the scheduled date/time.

Cannon fodder Chump Daft glutton Idiot Sucker More intrepid Crazy/ignorant Toxic drinker "Saluted blockhead" (Group ASAP)

[MikeFromMarkhamAskWoody Lounger]

I’ll take your word for it. Doesn’t change the fact that they broke their own rules to con users into installing W10.

2 users thanked author for this post.

OscarCP,

johnf

[geekdomAskWoody Plus]

GWX Control Panel remains active on my Windows 7 machine to prevent Windows 10 installation.

Group G{ot backup} Win7 · x64 · SP1 · i3-3220 · TestBeta

[OscarCPAskWoody Plus]

I have found this link provided by clicking on a proxy for it placed by Woody in a previous thread started on this topic:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-after-two-years-microsofts-mixed-report-card/

What I have found following that link is a mildly critical, but largely very positive, review with a few taps-on-the-wrist criticisms.

Quite frankly, I cannot see the connection between what is written there and the comments on this thread. If the one copied above is not the link to the right article, could someone here provide it, please? Thanks

 

• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by
  
   OscarCP.

[CybertoothAskWoody Lounger]

@oscarcp, forgive me if I’ve misunderstood what you wrote, but as far as I can tell Woody’s post here (from which the present thread derives) is talking about this piece by Ed Bott.

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

OscarCP

[warrenrumakAskWoody Plus]

What baffles me about this is that Sarkar, LeBlanc and others are hanging out on Twitter, talking about new Insider Preview builds (and issues with them) for 19H1, and Brandon has been talking about the recent Activation issue….. but it’s a complete cone of silence on the October 2018 Update and Windows Server  2019.

Like…. come on, Microsoft…. it won’t hurt you to say, “hey everyone, we’ve found a few more things we need to fix before we begin wider distribution. Give us another six weeks.”  People would actually appreciate that a lot — it’s what so many of us have wanted Microsoft to do, which is slow down a bit and focus on quality!

 

[anonymous]

I suppose they should not be trying in a public forum to “hustle-as-a-service” these showstopping bugs.

[Noel CarboniAskWoody_MVP]

warrenrumak wrote:

Sarkar, LeBlanc and others are hanging out on Twitter

There’s the problem right there.

When the rubber meets the road, how things look is simply NOT as important as how things ARE.

-Noel

[SonicMojoAskWoody Lounger]

With all the problems coming from the Win 10 camp as of late – the one that bothers me the most is this activation issue from the last two days.

How is it even possible that a machine that was “activated” say – 2 years ago – suddenly becomes “inactivated”?

This must infer some sort of live connection, phone-home or other mechanism that is checking status at some mysterious interval.

I was under the impression that once I enter my product key (or did a “free” upgrade from Windows 7 back in the day – which must use it’s key) – I’m good and should be good forever. Unless I change out a motherboard or something major.

But it is clear that Windows is doing much more in  checking license status at least daily or maybe hourly or minute by minute.

I would think the user base would be more fired up about this issue than anything else that is going on.

S

3 users thanked author for this post.

UKBrianC,

RamRod,

walker

[anonymous]

In Task Scheduler see if you (or anybody) can find any task scheduled under Windows Activation Technologies, I do not see anything. Windows 10 must check the activation status from other mechanisms but I was curious if other people have a task listed there.

[anonymous]

Look for under Subscriptions… but disabling tasks won’t change anything.

[Noel CarboniAskWoody_MVP]

Imagine that some things are hidden.

-Noel

[anonymous]

Yeah it is hidden, but an OS that checks it’s license should probably only check during entry of a new serial key or once a day.

[EPAskWoody_MVP]

hi woody.

you should also see the reaction from Paul Thurrott from his recent article:

https://www.thurrott.com/windows/windows-10/191016/and-you-thought-the-1809-delay-didnt-hurt-anyone

yup, it is still a “fiasco” from his POV

4 users thanked author for this post.

Elly,

Mele20,

lurks about,

walker

[anonymous]

I wonder if any of those jilted PC makers have considered approaching IBM\RedHat to discuss a new partnership. It seems to me that a two tiered product line offering RHEL for business/education and Fedora for home/student would make a natural fit.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

[anonymous]

AFAIK, both RHEL and Fedora are Rolling Releases that are supported for about 13 months for each version. RHEL is supposed to be supported for 10 years but it’s paid support.

In the case of RHEL, companies have to pay subscriptions, in order to receive security updates or to use a version and be supported for up to 10 years = SaaS.
In the case of free Fedora, most consumers do not prefer Rolling Releases and become forced beta-testers like for Win 10 Home. Instead they prefer stable LTS Releases that are supported for at least 5 years.

Red Hat’s free CentOS, a derivative of RHEL, is also a Rolling Release. Each version series “lasts” 10 years = users must upgrade to a new version yearly, in order to remain supported for up to 10 years, eg upgrade from CentOS 7.0 to 7.1 to 7.2 to 7.3 to 7.4 to 7.5 and so on. You cannot stay on an old version of CentOS (eg 7.0) for up to 10 years unless you pay for extended support. Free security updates will be provided for a version for about 13 months only, thereafter you need to upgrade to a newer version. CentOS is very much like running Win 10 Home, ie forced upgrades.

So, IBM/Red Hat may be only worthwhile for certain companies, but not for consumers and the mass-market.

Google or Amazon buying Canonical/Ubuntu would be more like it.

[anonymous]

I am that anonymous#post-231803. One of us is confusing the term rolling release and I’ll admit I’m not sure which.

My understanding is Rawhide => Fedora => Red Hat. Where Rawhide is the bleeding edge constantly rolling development branch. Fedora has short lived stable releases where there is always three supported versions (n, n-1, n-2, and n-3 retires with each n). And Red Hat Enterprise Linux or RHEL is, as the name suggests, purchased support for institutional use.

Which lead to my comment

a two tiered product line offering RHEL for business/education and Fedora for home/student would make a natural fit.

Rawhide provides the fully volunteer test environment for users actively interested in that area of use.

[lurks aboutAskWoody Lounger]

RHEL and Fedora are not rolling releases but versioned releases with a set support period. RHEL has a 10 year support period for each major release. I am not sure of the Fedora support period other than it is much shorter.

[anonymous]

Fedora has a relatively short life cycle: each version is usually supported for at least 13 months, where version X is supported only until 1 month after version X+2 is released and with approximately 6 months between most versions. Fedora users can upgrade from version to version without reinstalling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora_(operating_system)
.
That is practically describing a Rolling Release, even if Fedora is not termed as such. Fedora is definitely not a stable LTS Release.

[anonymous]

I am that anonymous#post-231803, again. Thank you for looking up a source that can be referenced. And thank you for correcting my understanding of release evolution, where n-3 is retired long before release n; giving just one month’s leeway to update a two year old release. I had that point wrong.

But I still disagree with your use of rolling against stable. That same Wikipedia article will describe to you Rawhide, an actual rolling release. A stable release requires an upgrade process to move to the new release, as Fedora does on an approximately thirteen month schedule. More than twice that intended for Win10. Rawhide rolls incremental changes into the live system frequently, without requiring a distinct upgrade process. This distinction is important.

While it is important, I recognize I may still be in the wrong and am open to further correction.

[anonymous]

@ anonymous #232005

Suffice to say, new non-LTS releases of free Fedora occur every 6 months and are supported for about 13 months only = users must upgrade at least once a year or to every other new release/version, in order to remain supported. This is like running Win 10 Pro where forced auto-upgrades can be deferred by 365 days or 1 year = users must upgrade at least once a year or to every other new version of Win 10.

In comparison, free Ubuntu also does non-LTS releases every 6 months like Fedora above but in addition to that, new LTS releases of Ubuntu occur every 2 years and are supported for 5 years. About 95% of Ubuntu users run LTS releases.

So, Fedora will not cut it for most consumers and the mass-market. A tech giant-backed Ubuntu has the potential to win against Win 10 in the desktop market, not Fedora or CentOS or RHEL, unless IBM puts out an LTS release for Fedora and make it as user-friendly as Win 7, ie fully GUI-based.

[PKCanoDa Boss]

Please stay on topic – Microsoft/Windows

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly,

woody

[Rick CorbettAskWoody_MVP]

Any chance Mods can keep the posts in this thread on-topic and not let it dissolve into a ‘wouldn’t-a-linux-alternative-be great’ rant?

[PKCanoDa Boss]

Done before you asked.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly,

woody

[CybertoothAskWoody Lounger]

Paul writes,

“Companies like Samsung and Lenovo are taking the biggest risk with these devices,” Brad notes. “They are backing a Microsoft initiative to move away from Intel and experiment with ARM and for their loyalty, Microsoft is not upholding its promise to ship a version of Windows on time.”

Maybe instead of Intel, it’s Microsoft that these companies should be moving away from. I’d take any flavor of Linux on which I can install a Vista or Windows 7 Aero theme.

 

• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by
  
   Cybertooth.

1 user thanked author for this post.

johnf

[anonymous]

Thurrott does not to mention the price of these new Windows 10 S mode arm devices. Even at a discount plus free gifts this is a huge gamble, that example system from HP is more expensive than any of the the Surface RT models!

[anonymous]

The recent lack of information from M$ about the various bugs in Win 10 likely means M$ was in panic-mode, like a deer in the headlights.

This is probably what happens when you fired 150 Professional Windows testers and angered millions of your Windows customers.

[anonymous]

Nobody at Microsoft is in panic mode. It’s a well calculated procedure to ignore complaints; and they couldn’t care less about reports from tech sites and bloggers. In the worst case, they let the MSM (and Microsoft is part of it) play down everything. The vast majority of Windows users will never know what’s really going on, and Microsoft wants to keep it that way.

[anonymous]

When an empire falls, it simply self-destructs.

Herodotus believed that there were invariable laws to the rise and fall of empires. Empires rose and fell — as they still do today—because of individual decisions made by individual leaders. The greatest mistake made by those in power was the sin of hybris. That Greek word means “outrageous arrogance.” Only those invested with enormous power can commit the sin of hybris.

Hybris is the imposition of your will, at all costs.

Microsoft is an empire. It has barrels of gold, power and prominence, just like the great empires that preceded it. It also suffers from virulent levels of hybris.

Ed Bott always believed that Microsoft was beyond reproach. Now this ship rat is sporting a life jacket.

[anonymous]

99.99% of Windows users don’t even know Bott so why should Microsoft care if he’s feels they could do better?

[anonymous]

What matters is that Microsoft knows who Ed Bott is. They like him. He has always been open about being a fanboy. It does not matter if 99.99% of Windows users know who he is, though I think you are understating how well known he is.

When the rats on a ship are no longer below decks, the ship is taking on way too much sea water. It is probably sinking. When they start abandoning the ship, you know it is sinking.

4 users thanked author for this post.

lurks about,

johnf,

Mele20,

OscarCP

[anonymous]

Microsoft is too big to fail; and Windows doesn’t even have to generate revenue. In fact, Microsoft wouldn’t even notice. Windows is just a tiny fraction of their business today.

[anonymous]

@anonymous #232001

That’s a misconception. Most of M$’s revenue hinge on the market-monopoly of Windows desktop, especially in the enterprise market. Most business software are only available for Windows and MacOS but MacOS is weak in the enterprise market. If M$ loses her Windows desktop market-monopoly, so will most of her revenue.

M$-Windows-Phone 8/Win 10 Mobile lost to Google-Android in the mobile market. M$-Windows desktop will likely also lose to Google-Ubuntu if there is one. Imagine most of the enterprises/companies moving to the free or much cheaper Google-Ubuntu from profit-gouging Win 10 Ent.

Red Hat Ent Linux/Fedora does not cut it because of the unpopularity and un-userfriendliness of free Linux desktop which is mostly developer-centric and not user-centric. Most Linux developers have the attitude of “My way or the highway”, eg Linus Torvald, because their “jobs” are not dependent on payments from Linux users.

[anonymous]

Microsoft doesn’t only sell Windows.. and Windows 10 was handed out for free for several years.. because the Windows revenue doesn’t matter anymore. Read SEC fillings…

[lurks aboutAskWoody Lounger]

It is not how well known Ed Bott is to the general public but that tech press is coalescing around the collective opinion MS has a major problem potentially disastrous problem. Right now the general media is not paying attention to it but as the problem festers it will eventually make to the local news. With the tech press saying there is massive problem this can be PR disaster for MS.

The tech press is coming to the conclusion that WaaS is major stupidity as is relying on the public to be your alpha and beta testers. Each bungled release or update just adds fuel to the fire. Paul Thurrott noted that the OEMs are caught up in the 1809 mess as they can not sell any boxes with it. So with unhappy users and OEMs losing money something will break and MS will probably be blindsided.

[anonymous]

Wishful dreams, but reality shows this never happened since Microsoft ships Windows; and there were many techies screaming during that time.

[OscarCPAskWoody Plus]

Anonymous #231816 : ” Microsoft is an empire. It has barrels of gold, power and prominence, just like the great empires that preceded it. It also suffers from virulent levels of hybris. ”

The levels of hubris that matter are not of those working 8 to 5 at MS, but of those running it at (and from) the top. Going along with the “Empire’s fall” metaphor: the ones so afflicted are the CEOs of some very large corporations who, these days, are not subject, in practice, to any serious accountability for their actions (as the Emperors of old), for as long as enough big shareholders (as old-time wealthy aristocrats that were, often, also powerful generals) are happy with the dividends they get on their investments and are willing to continue to lend them their support.

1 user thanked author for this post.

johnf

[johnfAskWoody Lounger]

I’m not sure hubris is in play here.I do think there are many honest, hard working people in Microsoft who are trying their best to put out a proper product.

I see this as more of “Emperor’s new clothes” syndrome.Too many people are agreeing with Nadella’s vision, and too many shareholders simply are looking at the bottom line, and not the future of the company. It’s a common problem in companies once they get to a certain size, and aren’t concerned about competition.

In those situations, it’s very hard to stand up for quality, for fair business practices, and in general stand up for the customers. It’s safer simply to “go along” with everyone else. “Yep, those new robes look great!”

It’s easier to make apologies, and make promises that won’t get kept. As long as profits go up, and the shareholders are happy, who cares about the company’s future? But that’s why competition is essential to a company’s health…if you need to make your case to the consumer every time you put out a product, you won’t make the mistakes we’re seeing now with MS.

• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by
  
   johnf.

2 users thanked author for this post.

UKBrianC,

wdburt1

[wavyAskWoody Plus]

hubris
nuff said

🍻

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

[OscarCPAskWoody Plus]

Playing the Devil’s Advocate here, I would like to revisit something I wrote here earlier on when commenting on a contribution by Ascaris.

Since then, I have been wondering (once granted that the problem with copyright piracy is big enough to merit a defensive measure such as verifying that an installed version of Windows is not a pirated one, before providing support for it) is why should this check has to be made repeatedly, given that, in the the process of installing it, its legal provenance has already been established.

Please, let me have any counterarguments you might have to what follows:

Because a PC’s place of residence, as well as its IP number, are not bound to be the same for ever in many cases (and with laptops, almost by design), when, for example, either automatically or at the user’s initiative, Windows Updates goes in search of updates by connecting to some MS updates server for a copy of a version of Windows still under support, there has to be a handshake where the validity of the installed Windows copy is checked, to make sure it is legitimate. Alternatively, this can be made also at regularly scheduled intervals by means of a System cron daemon, or every time the machine is started.

Please, I’ll appreciate if those answering do so by concentrating on what wrote in the preceding paragraph, while leaving aside, for a moment, their sense of indignation brought about by the customer-unfriendly response offered by MS on occasion of this latest train wreck. Thank you.

 

[Noel CarboniAskWoody_MVP]

Ask yourself: What comprises the system on which Windows runs?

Consider that hardware parts can be replaced/upgraded.

How DO you identify a computer system? Is it the same one, say, after the parts have been upgraded? What if it was done a little at a time, over a long period?

It’s not hard to imagine RAM replacement, Video card upgrade, disk drive replacements and additions (possibly with backup restorals), new/better network card (or a software-changed MAC address), even CPU upgrade… Add to that OS reinstallation (many, maybe most folks have done it)…

Where do you draw a line? CAN there even be a line?

Many software publishers create a machine signature based on a set of identifying characteristics, and allow for a certain amount of incremental change before determining a machine has become too different to be considered still properly licensed.

You could imagine cloning an entire system from one similarly spec’d hardware platform to another. Under some conditions (replacing failed hardware) that could be legitimate, and in others (trying to get multiple machines running from the same license) it could be completely illegitimate. Hence the need for a coordinating body (online checks).

From the perspective of a software publisher like myself, I can confirm that it’s a more complex problem than you’d think.

-Noel

[anonymous]

@oscarcp

OEM Windows licenses are not transferable and are tied to the OEM computers for life. Only minimal hardware changes are allowed on the OEM-licensed Windows computers.

Retail Windows licenses are transferable but can be run on only 1 computer at a time, eg not on 2 computers at the same time.

So, since Win XP days, M$ Activation server always check on Windows computers every time they are logged-in and online for any of the above violations = deactivated.

[MWAskWoody Plus]

It has been my understanding, and experience, that an OEM Windows license is married to the motherboard and motherboard alone.

My W8.1 machine has an OEM license, it has also had every component except the motherboard upgraded over the last 2 years.

If I had to change out the motherboard for whatever reason, I would be out of luck and in need of a new license key.

 

W7 & W8.1 - Group W
Mac Sierra - Group A
Mint Cinnamon - Group A

[anonymous]

@ MW

What triggers the need to reactivate Windows? As intended, each hardware component gets a relative weight, and from that WGA determines whether your copy of Windows 7 needs reactivation. The weight and the number of changes is apparently a guarded secret. If you upgrade too much at once, WAT decides that your PC is new, and things can get messy.

The actual algorithm that Microsoft uses is not disclosed, but we do know the weighting of components is as follows, from highest to lowest:

Motherboard (and CPU)
Hard drive
Network interface card (NIC)
Graphics card
RAM

https://searchitchannel.techtarget.com/feature/How-Windows-7-hardware-upgrades-affect-licensing

[Noel CarboniAskWoody_MVP]

Who couldn’t see this coming (and failing)… Within hours of the very first pre-release of Windows 8? Seriously, I did. Most folks thought that 8 backslid. Very few think it’s moved forward much since… Hint: why are so many still running Windows 7?

Microsoft is an adept manager of mediocrity. They need to become an adept manager of excellence to get people to trust them to run their digital lives. That’s a tall order, and one that can’t be accomplished by Marketing.

-Noel

2 users thanked author for this post.

alphacharlie,

OscarCP

[OscarCPAskWoody Plus]

Noel Carboni: “Microsoft is an adept manager of mediocrity.”

Amen to that! And something that is becoming relentlessly more and more so as the bureaucracies, both in private firms and in governments, necessary evils that they unfortunately are, grow and grow, impelled by a dark corollary of Peter’s Principle, and tend to expand beyond their usefulness. Mediocrity, seen from their point of view, as it does not rock the boat for them, is good.

Assuming that most Windows users are helpless klutzes, MS designs for the lowest common denominator, because, at least as I think they see it, of those that are not like the majority, the ones that use Windows to run small businesses or do creative work at home from which at least part of their income is derived, are most likely too small a percentage of the total to bother with, while the rest of the “not-klutzes” probably belong to organizations with which MS has juicy contracts to help make Windows work for them.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Cybertooth,

wdburt1

[Rick CorbettAskWoody_MVP]

Noel Carboni wrote:

Microsoft is an adept manager of mediocrity. They need to become an adept manager of excellence to get people to trust them to run their digital lives.

Microsoft is not a person, it’s a business… so no, it isn’t going to become some sort of sentient being (certainly not whilst Cortana is its flagship AI) and ‘become an adept manager of excellence’. Satya Nadella’s a cloud guy and MS revenue from Azure is booming (whilst revenue from Windows is slowing dramatically). Where’s the incentive for the MS CEO to order an about-face and fix Windows?

1 user thanked author for this post.

wdburt1

[OscarCPAskWoody Plus]

Rick Corbett: “Where’s the incentive for the MS CEO to order an about-face and fix Windows?”

Good question! Could the answer be that the incentive surely should be to make sure that MS may still have a leg to stand on after the collapse of Azure and “everything in the Cloud”, following a long series of spectacular attacks by hackers and hostiles of various kinds and origins that finally brings them down in flames brighter than Nadella’s visions? But, wait!: that is long term, so why bother?

2 users thanked author for this post.

lurks about,

GoneToPlaid

[GoneToPlaidAskWoody Plus]

Just like the Titanic, Microsoft doesn’t see the iceberg coming at it.

[anonymous]

Rick Corbett said: Satya Nadella’s a cloud guy and MS revenue from Azure is booming (whilst revenue from Windows is slowing dramatically). Where’s the incentive for the MS CEO to order an about-face and fix Windows?

That’s ignoring the fact that many Windows Enterprise users subscribe to Azure for Cloud services. One Cloud for consumers is practically integrated into Windows 10. So, if M$ loses the Windows desktop market-monopoly in the enterprise and consumer markets(= about 90% world marketshare in total), so will most of the revenue from Azure and One Cloud. Eg those Win 10/7 Enterprise users who run Office 365 Business will tend to use Azure as well.

Actually M$ CEO has unintentionally broken Windows(10) while in hot pursuit for even more profit$ from the enterprise market(= milking the cash cows dry), eg the rapid twice-per-year upgrades in Win 10 was mainly to prevent Win 10 Ent buyers from using it for up to 10 years like they could previously do when they bought Win 7 Ent(= 2009 until EOL in Jan 2020). He mistakenly thought that if Fedora/Ubuntu could issue new non-LTS releases every 6 months, so could he and Win 10.
It would be an embarassment for him now to do an about face and fix Windows(10), eg return Win 10 to the Win 7 OS model, ie a once-in-3-years upgrade cycle, no forced auto-updates and upgrades and Telemetry & Data collection. So, Win 10 will likely be a train-wreck with no EOL.

[CybertoothAskWoody Lounger]

OscarCP wrote:

Noel Carboni:

“Microsoft is an adept manager of mediocrity.”

Amen to that! And something that is becoming relentlessly more and more so as the bureaucracies, both in private firms and in governments, necessary evils that they unfortunately are, grow and grow, impelled by a dark corollary of Peter’s Principle, and tend to expand beyond their usefulness.

In this context, there is also Parkinson’s Law in operation.  🙂

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

OscarCP

[anonymous]

The Windows world is not shrinking even though 2018 has been an embarrassing mess for Microsoft’s support services. Quality control on W10 and W7 maintenance has been abysmal (fee based services and windows update services) since January 2018. The enterprise has suffered less than the consumer because they have more control over the scheduling of updates/upgrades. However, once the enterprise migrate to the MS cloud, with full blown WaaS, they will loose that control. The application of maintenance will then be at Microsoft’s discretion. Datacentre Availability Targets might make a comeback.

WaaS, though questioned as being adequately designed and skillfully implemented, is going full steam ahead, according to Microsoft. “More than half of our commercial device installed base is now on Windows 10,” asserted Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella this week (Nov 2018) during a conference call to discuss the September quarter’s earnings. Microsoft based Nadella’s statement on telemetry received from W7 and W10 PCs in corporate environments.

The enterprise was bullish on WaaS at the beginning of 2018. In May 2018, Gartner expected 85%-90% of Windows users will be on W10 by the W7 eol deadline. At the same time, Net Applications’ data drove a Computerworld forecast that was quite different…
‘Of the world’s Windows PCs – all the PCs, not just those in the enterprise – 42% would still be running Windows 7 in January 2020’. In October 2018, they forecast it to be 37%.

It is unclear if pirated Windows licenses will be able to participate in WaaS. They exist on a massive number of Windows systems – consumer, corporate and government PCs worldwide. Asia has the most pirated Windows licenses, with India not too far behind. As there is a Chinese version of W10, we can assume there will probably be a Chinese version of WaaS that MS will have to agree to, especially if Azure is in the deal. The Chinese will be salivating at having total state control of all PCs from within the cloud. The rest of Asia will probably get a deal from MS too. India and eastern Europe will want a deal. If Azure cloud services becomes the defacto cloud service provider in all these locations, we will have our answer to the illegitimate licensing question.

[wavyAskWoody Plus]

One point I would like to note is that there are hundreds of thousands of Middle and Upper Middle Class jobs dependent on Windows being an OS. If Windows as Office is headed towards a Web Experience there will be consequences.

🍻

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

[Author]

Posts