Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th May 2017 18:13 UTC
Windows

The arguments are well-worn, and we've been hearing them ever since Apple opened the App Store for the iPhone. Windows 10 S blocks the execution of any program that wasn't downloaded from the Windows Store. Arbitrary downloaded apps, or even apps with physical install media, are forbidden, a move that on the one hand prevents running malware but on the other blocks the use of most Windows software. Windows Store apps include both tightly sandboxed apps, built using the Universal Windows Platform, and lightly restricted Win32 apps that have been packaged for the Store using the Desktop App converter, formerly known as Project Centennial.

This positions Microsoft as a gatekeeper - although its criteria for entry within the store is for the most part not stringent, it does reserve the right to remove software that it deems undesirable - and means that the vast majority of extant Windows software can't be used. This means that PC mainstays, from Adobe Photoshop to Valve's Steam, can't be used on Windows 10 S. It also means that Windows 10 S systems can't be used to develop new Windows software. Should you want to run this kind of software, you'll need to upgrade to the full Windows 10 Pro for $50.

Aside from the obvious and entirely valid moral arguments against locked-down computers, there's also a huge psychological one specific to Windows 10 S: it's taking something away that we used to have. Comparisons to iOS or Android are, therefore, off.

I'm not a fan of locked-down, application store-only devices, because the companies patrolling these stores don't just do it for security and quality reasons, but also for anti-competitive and puritan reasons. They will block perceived competitive threats, and since they're American companies, they will throw gigantic fits over nudity while allowing gratuitous violence like it's no big deal. These application and digital content stores export (to us) outdated American ideas about sex and nudity and impose them upon their users.

I know why Microsoft is hiding the switch behind a $50 upgrade to Windows 10 Pro - to discourage people from actually upgrading, therefore trapping more people into the Windows Store - but like with Android, this switch should be standard and free to flick back and forth at will.

Thread beginning with comment 644007
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Even worse
by JMcCarthy on Wed 10th May 2017 13:33 UTC in reply to "Even worse"
JMcCarthy
Member since:
2005-08-12

Talk about a sense of entitlement. You've had to pay for all previous versions of Windows. Then when Microsoft experiments with giving at away for free people bitch endlessly that there's a "catch". Well no ****ing kidding there's a catch. They did not spend millions of dollars developing it out of the kindness of their hearts. Then when they give you the option to opt out for a nominal fee, which is still a bargain compared to previous iterations, they're crucificed.

Microsoft just can't win.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Even worse
by darknexus on Wed 10th May 2017 14:25 in reply to "RE: Even worse"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I don't recall anyone asking Microsoft to give anything away for free. It was their choice to try that. I'd have gladly kept the previous system of paying for Windows in place if it didn't mean turning it into this kind of train wreck.
The problem isn't that Microsoft tried to give away Windows for free, it's that they try now to shove literally everything down our throats. Don't want Windows 10 because of software incompatibility? Too damn bad, we're going to work with Intel to make goddamn sure you have to anyway. Don't want the next big build until you've tested compatibility? Too bad, we're going to force install it at a time of our choosing, fuck what you want!
So no, they can't win. Not like this.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Even worse
by Alfman on Wed 10th May 2017 15:05 in reply to "RE: Even worse"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

JMcCarthy,

Talk about a sense of entitlement. You've had to pay for all previous versions of Windows. Then when Microsoft experiments with giving at away for free people bitch endlessly that there's a "catch". Well no ****ing kidding there's a catch. They did not spend millions of dollars developing it out of the kindness of their hearts. Then when they give you the option to opt out for a nominal fee, which is still a bargain compared to previous iterations, they're crucificed.

Microsoft just can't win.


1. "sense of entitlement" goes both ways - lets use a car analogy, should owners be allowed to modify their own cars with after-market parts? Clearly the car manufacturers would love to lock down customers so they have no choice but to use manufacturer channels, but that's frowned upon for being anti-competitive.

2. "Microsoft experiments with giving at away for free"

This is skewing the facts. Microsoft never gave it away for free. It was exchanging windows 7 licenses that had a higher market value for windows 10 licenses that had a lower market value. Seriously the free market value of windows 7 computers was higher than windows 10 computers at the time.

When many consumers didn't like microsoft's value proposition, microsoft went even further in using tactics to dupe users into installing windows 10 over windows 7. I would hope that even an ardent MS fan would admit they crossed ethical lines.

https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/27/microsoft-sued-for-10-000-after-...


3. "there's a 'catch'. Well no ****ing kidding there's a catch."

This one worries me, why does there have to be a catch? Why can't microsoft just release desirable products for a fair price?


4. "Microsoft just can't win."

Again I'd turn the statement around and ask why would a microsoft supporter feel that microsoft needs to have owner restrictions in place in order to win? Eliminating owner choice could be a "win" for microsoft, but certainly not for consumers. It honestly seems quite dystopian to me.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Even worse
by flanque on Wed 10th May 2017 22:25 in reply to "RE[2]: Even worse"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

This is skewing the facts. Microsoft never gave it away for free. It was exchanging windows 7 licenses that had a higher market value for windows 10 licenses that had a lower market value. Seriously the free market value of windows 7 computers was higher than windows 10 computers at the time.


That is incorrect. Microsoft made it clear what was happening with your old licenses:

If you upgrade from a OEM or retail version of Windows 7 or Windows 8/8.1 to the free Windows 10 upgrade this summer, the license is consumed into it. Because the free upgrade is derived from the base qualifying license, Windows 10 will carry that licensing too.

Your Windows 7 license will always be valid and will not be changed or deactivated because of the upgrade to Windows 10: you'll be able to install or restore Windows 7 again in case you'll need to do that (provided that you've the Windows 7 installation DVD

Source: https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/insider/forum/insider_wintp-insi...

Edited 2017-05-10 22:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Even worse
by JMcCarthy on Thu 11th May 2017 03:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Even worse"
JMcCarthy Member since:
2005-08-12

1. "sense of entitlement" goes both ways - lets use a car analogy, should owners be allowed to modify their own cars with after-market parts? Clearly the car manufacturers would love to lock down customers so they have no choice but to use manufacturer channels, but that's frowned upon for being anti-competitive.


Were they given the car for free in exchange for accepting this agreement? When you pay for something it should be yours to do with what you please. But when you're given something gratis -- which you do not own -- you have zero right to complain. This policy applies whether you're an invidiual or billion dollar company.

Reply Parent Score: 2