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: 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.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(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.