Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Feb 2018 01:02 UTC

Windows 10 S, the Microsoft Store-only version of Windows, is going away, but not really.

Currently, Windows 10 S is a unique edition of Windows 10. It's based on Windows 10 Pro; Windows 10 Pro has various facilities that enable system administrators to restrict which software can be run, and Windows 10 S is essentially a preconfigured version of those facilities. In addition to locking out arbitrary downloaded programs, it also prevents the use of certain built-in Windows features such as the command-line, PowerShell, and Windows Subsystem for Linux.

For those who can't abide by the constraints that S imposes, you can upgrade 10 S to the full 10 Pro. This upgrade is a one-shot deal: there's no way of re-enabling the S limitations after upgrading to Pro. It's also a paid upgrade: while Microsoft offered it as a free upgrade for a limited time for its Surface Laptop, the regular price is $49.

Nothing much actually seems to be changing; it just turns Windows 10 S from a version into a mode. Pretty much a distinction without a difference. My biggest issue here is that you can't go from regular Windows 10 back to Windows 10 S if you ever had a reason to do so (e.g. if Windows were ever to be usable with just Metro apps in the future and you want the additional security Windows 10 S provides). Seems like an odd restriction.

Permalink for comment 653639
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Mission creep is afoot
by Alfman on Wed 7th Feb 2018 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mission creep is afoot"
Member since:


Last time you mentioned force and this time you mentioned force on OEMs as well. I always debate you on that part of your statement because for the most part we agree otherwise. I have no problem with gradually phasing in restrictions if they are optional or beneficial. I believe that the market (supported by the law) will make sure that such restrictions will only become the new normal if people accept them.

Ideally yes, but the fault with this is that it assumes the market is competitive, and unfortunately it isn't. When one party has too much power, it can result in changes gaining "acceptance" through force & coercion rather than customer demand. I don't like it one bit but the fact is coercion is a very effective business strategy for monopolies and oligopolies.

Currently I couldn't do what I want to do on a computer in S-mode so I use "Full mode".
My point is...Options!

As is mine, that's why I keep focusing on the importance of owner rights and combating coercive practices that hurt competition.

Reply Parent Score: 4