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

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.

Thread beginning with comment 653627
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Mission creep is afoot
by avgalen on Wed 7th Feb 2018 09:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mission creep is afoot"
avgalen
Member since:
2010-09-23

At least the home users can elect to turn off the s-restrictions on their own devices for now, but what did I tell you last time? As restrictions are gradually phased in, they become the new normal.

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.

Currently I couldn't do what I want to do on a computer in S-mode so I use "Full mode".
My parents prefer a couple of non-store-apps but nothing more so I locked their pc down with the above procedure.
My kids should use S-mode.
1 or 2 years from now I expect that the programs my parents use will be either available through the store or that the store has good alternatives so I will move them over to S-mode.
A few years later my kids will desire to use some more programs (Lego Creator for MindStorms pops into my mind) that aren't in the store so I will switch them over to Full Mode, locked down and as a regular user of course.
And maybe in a few years I will just dock my completely managed-and-store-only-phone into some device that turns it into a terminal that I connect to my work environment with all my non-store-tools.
My point is...Options!

Just like before I would like to emphasize that S mode is not replacing anything but is an added option. More options, more choice, better for everyone.
There wasn't an S-mode for Home or Enterprise, but now there will be. I wouldn't put that on my own laptop but I would be more than happy to put it on my childrens (future) tablet/laptop, especially if that means that device will be cheaper.

The moment "Full Mode" is no longer an option I will be right there with you, kicking and screaming.
I hope all of this will go in the complete opposite direction though, with both client and server Windows SKU's (and now modes) going away entirely and instead we will get a "basic" package similar to Home-in-S-mode with "option packages" that you pay for (because Microsoft isn't a charity)
* Old fashioned domain
* Hyper-V
* WebServer
* RDS
* Server Roles
* IE/Edge
* XPS/PDF

Off-Topic: I would not consider giving OEMs an extra choice for a cheaper (but limited) version of Windows a bribe, but I looked up a definition and it does fit!
Bribery is the act of giving money, goods or other forms of recompense to a recipient in exchange for an alteration of their behavior that the recipient would otherwise not alter

This definition also means that if 1 liter of milk is 1 Euro, 2 liter of milk should be 2 Euro to avoid being called bribery. I wouldn't buy the bigger packaging in most situations, but if the price would be lowered to 1.5 and I would buy now I have apparently been bribed

Edited 2018-02-07 09:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

The moment "Full Mode" is no longer an option I will be right there with you, kicking and screaming.

Wonderful. Too bad it'll be too late by then.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Mission creep is afoot
by avgalen on Wed 7th Feb 2018 16:33 in reply to "RE[4]: Mission creep is afoot"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

" The moment "Full Mode" is no longer an option I will be right there with you, kicking and screaming.

Wonderful. Too bad it'll be too late by then.
"
It is going to be a long time from now when that will happen. Almost all products that Microsoft sells still require "Full Mode". If their own products don't require full mode anymore we might have actually reached a point where "S mode" has all the benefits and none of the negatives and should be the only mode.
Let me put it this way:
The moment I can run the entirety of Visual Studio (including compiling/debugging/android emulators/etc) from S Mode there might not be a reason for full mode to exist anymore

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Mission creep is afoot
by Alfman on Wed 7th Feb 2018 15:59 in reply to "RE[3]: Mission creep is afoot"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

avgalen,

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

RE[5]: Mission creep is afoot
by avgalen on Wed 7th Feb 2018 16:47 in reply to "RE[4]: Mission creep is afoot"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

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

Great, please keep doing so. But this article is about extra options that won't impact your rights and only seem to offer benefits (lower price, a simpler and thus more secure system) for those that can live with the limitations.

If somebody makes a RedHat clone tomorrow that can only be configured to always accept all Alpha updates from all channels I wouldn't see a use for that personally but there is no reason for me to combat that distro. Maybe there is a group of cutting edge developers/testers that would love such a distro.
If that distro becomes very popular it would be because people like using it. If that distro dies out because nobody uses it anymore that is possible as well. And if all other distro's suddenly stop being available and only this one is left, well there isn't much I could do about that. Apparently my needs are not worth the distro-makers time. I could still continue to use the current distro I have running and there is no obligation for anyone to keep making an OS the way I like it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Dr.Cyber Member since:
2017-06-17

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.


The problem for most people is that instead of the the peoples wishes shaping the market the market will shape the peoples wishes. This is how industry has worked for a long time and why harmful things as smoking became popular.

Reply Parent Score: 0

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

You have the right of it but give a bad, and I mean really bad, example. Smoking in one form or another has been popular long before modern industry and the market forces that came with it. The best example I can think of off the top of my head is the media industry. I'll gladly stand in a room full of smokers before I subject myself to that brain-killing stuff they come out with.

Reply Parent Score: 2