Avantenor
Keeper of the Watch
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 839
I switched to Win10 right from the beginning, upgrading from Win 8.1. I was never friend of Win 8's start menu overhaul and App philosophy. It never worked well with PCs, but it was at least acceptable with 8.1 and it supported SATA and SSD from the beginning - in contrast to Win 7. Their mixed approach for Win 10 was convincing and the upgrade process worked very well. For me, it was the smoothest transition ever, although at the same time it was my very first day one OS upgrade. It's not that everything would be perfect, but most obstacles imho only occur to power users who are used to work with administrative tools on a regulary basis. Imho, there really isn't anything particulary bad about that piece of software, except the expectable customization cycle that applys to every software. The biggest problem in my perception is, that it is from Microsoft.
At the same time, it's always the same discussion for every new Windows release. Always the complaint about Microsoft spying out or patronising its customers, the affirmation not to shift, the hope for Linux to raise to the top of the OS market. In almost all cases, none of it ever came true. Personally, I went through that cycle with XP, but at some point Windows 2000 simply didn't work anymore. I switched to XP and I wasn't put to jail or waterboarded in an extraterritorial military camp without access to a lawyer. When Microsoft introduced Vista, XP suddenly was the best system ever released. The best example, how people simply don't remember their attitude several years ago or adapted to reality. Now they cling to Windows 7, an OS you get quite a problem if installing it to a SATA SSD.
Of course there are proper examples when an update isn't recommended. For most use cases - and that does not include playing games from the early 2000s with deep level DRM like Safedisc and Securom - Windows 10 works just fine and still you won't get busted or waterboarded in an extraterritorial millitary camp. But my guess is, the whole anti-campaigning is more of an act of defiance against Microsoft's aggressive update strategy. You don't love Windows, you simply accept the fact, that there is a standard OS. Neglecting the update when Microsoft thinks it's about time to release another version, is the small kind of autonomy you have in that cycle, no matter how rational or irrational that seems.
At the bottom line, I don't think Microsoft's strategy was smart. But the crowd isn't smart either. Everytime I recognise the market share of XP I get the impression it is even partly foolish. Microsoft has a serious interest to also convince the foolish ones, because a network of zombie computers with an old Microsoft OS has an impact on their reputation. Apple and Linux use that security argument constantly to campaign against Windows. So I understand why Microsoft took that path, even if I don't agree to their methods. And I think you should consider if you're only reacting unwillingly to that pressure or if it's some kind of laziness (upgrading of course still means there is some work to do). Windows 10 is a stable OS and it will be the standard for PC gaming in the future, so most of you are going to switch anyway. Linux won't be the savior, when even Valve only showed lackluster support for the steam machines and in fact didn't change anything.
At the same time, it's always the same discussion for every new Windows release. Always the complaint about Microsoft spying out or patronising its customers, the affirmation not to shift, the hope for Linux to raise to the top of the OS market. In almost all cases, none of it ever came true. Personally, I went through that cycle with XP, but at some point Windows 2000 simply didn't work anymore. I switched to XP and I wasn't put to jail or waterboarded in an extraterritorial military camp without access to a lawyer. When Microsoft introduced Vista, XP suddenly was the best system ever released. The best example, how people simply don't remember their attitude several years ago or adapted to reality. Now they cling to Windows 7, an OS you get quite a problem if installing it to a SATA SSD.
Of course there are proper examples when an update isn't recommended. For most use cases - and that does not include playing games from the early 2000s with deep level DRM like Safedisc and Securom - Windows 10 works just fine and still you won't get busted or waterboarded in an extraterritorial millitary camp. But my guess is, the whole anti-campaigning is more of an act of defiance against Microsoft's aggressive update strategy. You don't love Windows, you simply accept the fact, that there is a standard OS. Neglecting the update when Microsoft thinks it's about time to release another version, is the small kind of autonomy you have in that cycle, no matter how rational or irrational that seems.
At the bottom line, I don't think Microsoft's strategy was smart. But the crowd isn't smart either. Everytime I recognise the market share of XP I get the impression it is even partly foolish. Microsoft has a serious interest to also convince the foolish ones, because a network of zombie computers with an old Microsoft OS has an impact on their reputation. Apple and Linux use that security argument constantly to campaign against Windows. So I understand why Microsoft took that path, even if I don't agree to their methods. And I think you should consider if you're only reacting unwillingly to that pressure or if it's some kind of laziness (upgrading of course still means there is some work to do). Windows 10 is a stable OS and it will be the standard for PC gaming in the future, so most of you are going to switch anyway. Linux won't be the savior, when even Valve only showed lackluster support for the steam machines and in fact didn't change anything.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 839
