SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Microsoft has been criticised over its Windows 10 software by consumer rights group Which?.
The body said it had received hundreds of complaints about the upgrade, including lost files, emails no longer syncing and broken wi-fi and printing.
In some cases, it said, users had had to pay for their computer to be repaired.
Microsoft defended its software and highlighted that it provided help online and by phone.
"The Windows 10 upgrade is a choice designed to help people take advantage of the most secure and most productive Windows," said a spokesman.
"Customers have distinct options. Should a customer need help with the upgrade experience, we have numerous options including free customer support."
Which? surveyed more than 5,500 of its members in June, and said that 12% of the 2,500 who had upgraded to Windows 10 had later reverted to an earlier version.
It's not a surprise to anyone on Soylent, but this is the sort of thing that causes conventional wisdom to shift.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday September 23 2016, @05:58AM
I condemn Windows Ten. Not for the deception, not for the tricks, not for the spying, not for the false pretenses. I condemn it because it is Windows. The people behind this ought to be forcibly apprehended, thrown roughly to the ground, and crucified. The degree to which the promise of computational technology has be subverted and perverted by Microsoft is incalculable. Well, Apple helped. But still, pure, un-distilled evil on cracker with a non-optional upgrade. Windows X. Nemesis. Nibiuru. Always two there are, a master and an apprentice.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday September 23 2016, @02:26PM
Yes that.
An OS is to provide a standard foundation upon which to run compatible applications. And abstract away the raw hardware. Pass data between applications. Make it easy to manage your files and applications. And basically get out of the way.
Applications should be compatible basically forever.
An OS should be easy enough to use, especially in the 21st century, that you don't need help on how to use the OS (not the applications).
An OS is not an advertising billboard. Or a data collection system that phones home to the mother ship.
The user should be able to trust the OS. That is necessary in order to trust their applications. (Of course, you have to be able to trust from the hardware up. Intel has subverted that trust with management engine.)
But it reminds me of a recent 1989 usenet saying. Unix is like the government. It was originally created to provide a few basic essential services.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Friday September 23 2016, @03:15PM
An OS is to provide a standard foundation upon which to run compatible applications. And abstract away the raw hardware. Pass data between applications. Make it easy to manage your files and applications. And basically get out of the way.
All wrong.
An OS should be easy enough to use, especially in the 21st century, that you don't need help on how to use the OS (not the applications).
Wrong again.
An OS is not an advertising billboard. Or a data collection system that phones home to the mother ship.
Completely and totally wrong.
You have entirely the wrong view of what the purpose of an OS is, and this fundamental disconnect in your underlying assumptions is causing your wrong thinking.
The purpose is not to be a "standard foundation" or "get out of the way", the primary purpose of an OS is to make money for the corporation that sells it.
Everything else stems from this. Advertising in an OS is a good thing: it makes more money. Phoning home and collecting user data is a good thing: it makes more money. Needing help on how to use it is a good thing: this makes more money, in the form of expensive support calls. "Getting out of the way" is a bad thing: that doesn't help make money.
If you're going to use a commercial operating system, made by a corporation whose purpose is to make money for its shareholders, then these things are unavoidable. Any product that's commercially driven will be this way: it has to constantly add new features (to justify to consumers that they need to upgrade, which costs $$$), and it has to find other ways of generating more revenue (hence the advertising and spyware).
There's only one way to avoid this: don't use a commercial OS from a for-profit company.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday September 23 2016, @06:07PM
Most of what you describe are simply money grabs. Unnecessary. The commercial software could just raise it's price instead of inserting advertising, phoning home, spying on you, etc.
As much as I agree with your final statement about not using a commercial OS from a for-profit company, I don't think there is anything wrong with commercial software per-se. It is best avoided. But sometimes necessary.
If I were to use a commercial OS, I would simply expect to pay what it reasonably costs to develop, plus some profit. I would expect it to do its primary function well, and nothing more. I don't use a commercial OS currently. But back in 1999, I did. I would buy an $80 boxed set of SuSE Linux each time a major upgrade came out. It was the easiest path to get what I needed at the time. It did what what it was supposed to do. No ads. No spying.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:07PM
The problem with that sort of version of capitalism, ie where there is effectively no alternative or competition, is that the prices will go up and you'll get the adverts and spying too just because they can. Every last available cent will be squeezed from the victim (some might call it a customer) because of the demand for continuous growth.
I am frequently unpleasantly surpised when I see the new depths to which companies will descend in the name of the shareholders and their return.
Business: it's all about what you can get away with. (And it's nothing poysonal as they say in noo yoik as they give you the concrete shoes).
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday September 26 2016, @03:08PM
Most of what you describe are simply money grabs. Unnecessary. The commercial software could just raise it's price instead of inserting advertising, phoning home, spying on you, etc.
What do you mean, "unnecessary"? Who are you to make that judgment? Do you own the OS vendor? Are you answering to their shareholders? No? Then your opinion is worthless.
They *could* raise their price, but they also have to account for piracy: if the price is too high, people will either just copy it, or actually go to the trouble of switching to something else like Apple or Linux (unlikely, I know, but if they jack up the price to $50,000 per copy of Windows, that's what you can expect to happen).
And besides, why *shouldn't* they put advertising and spyware in their OS? They can make more money that way, without having to change the price tag to the consumer. It's perfectly sensible. Consumers don't want to pay high prices up-front for stuff, but it's easy to get money out of them with spyware and advertising. What's the problem? You don't like being spied on? Too bad, so sad! Why should the corporation care about your little feelings?
If I were to use a commercial OS, I would simply expect to pay what it reasonably costs to develop, plus some profit.
Wow, you are totally clueless.
Why would you *expect* this? Corporations charge whatever the market will bear, and in the case of an OS with near-monopoly marketshare, the market can bear a lot (including spyware and advertising).
But back in 1999, I did. I would buy an $80 boxed set of SuSE Linux each time a major upgrade came out. It was the easiest path to get what I needed at the time. It did what what it was supposed to do. No ads. No spying.
That's not exactly a "commercial OS" considering you could also download the thing for free at the time. And look how successful it was: it wasn't. The one with ads and spying is successful.