> “We have heard clear feedback that the Windows update process itself can be disruptive, particularly that Windows users would like more control over when updates happen.”
That only took several years of complaining.
> “All customers will now have the ability to explicitly choose if they want to update their device when they check for updates or to pause updates for up to 35 days.”
...and they didn't actually listen. This is still user-hostile bullshit and some people at Microsoft really need to be beaten with a rubber hose until they get it through their heads that they don't own our devices.
Even as a vocal critic of Linux Desktop I feel that Microsoft is doing its best to push me there. Hell, most of the computers I own have already been transitioned to Lubuntu[0] because otherwise I'm faced with forced update garbage every time I turn them on.
> Microsoft is also working to ensure the quality of this feature update, which is important given the disastrous two feature updates that Microsoft and its users experienced in 2018.
Maybe actually having QA or at least listening to the Insiders you've conned into doing QA for you for free would have helped prevent these things, but I doubt it because you seem so determined to copy the worst aspects of web and OSS development culture. User hostility, change for the sake of it, users are QA, ads (in a paid product!) etc.
[0]Lubuntu still prompts me to update it literally every time I turn it on too, but at least I can just say no.
- prompt to install updates when shutting down/rebooting
- prompt when locking the screen
- prompt when updates are available
The point is, ask to install updates. Users will update if you remind them when it's convenient for them, but you don't know when that might be, so have some kind of non-intrusive prompt at any point where a user might be ready to do an update. Maybe make it more annoying if there's a critical security patch pending, but don't ever force it.
So yeah, Microsoft didn't listen, they just did the bare minimum to make it look like they're doing something.
> This is still user-hostile bullshit and some people
> at Microsoft really need to be beaten with a rubber
> hose until they get it through their heads that they
> don't own our devices.
If you run proprietary software on a computer, the proprietors have far more say in what that computer does than you do. This is true regardless of which proprietor is involved, the user's ostensible control over updates, and the ostensible high-level purpose of the software (an OS, an application, a word processor, a flight simulator, etc.). This particular proprietary software gives Microsoft a universal back door through which Microsoft can impose any change they wish (see http://www.informationweek.com/microsoft-updates-windows-wit... for an example).
Even if update control were respected in full, update control does nothing to change the fact that what's running is proprietary software -- user-subjugating software.
The frequency or UI of updates is a minor detail. It's the least the proprietor can get away with to give the simulacrum of user control. Microsoft has tried other means to do less but they were discovered and news reports effectively outed Microsoft (for instance, there's the time Microsoft had Windows send reports even when configured not to per http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/even-w...)
So rather than engaging in harsh language or threats of physical abuse, I think a more productive way to address your understandable frustration is to switch your remaining proprietary-driven computers to a fully free OS running on fully free hardware (such as an FSF-approved free software distro -- https://www.gnu.org/distros/ -- running on a "Respects Your Freedom" device -- https://www.fsf.org/ryf ) and then install only free software on top of that.
Allowing non-technical users to arbitrarily postpone updates for such a long time seems like a step backwards and a potential recipe for trouble. This isn't the "major change" I was hoping for when I saw the article title. Why not work towards making the updates themselves less disruptive?
I’ve been doing this for decades. I simply always upgrade.
Unfortunately, most people don’t want to deal with it. The computer will be the same as the day they bought it, even if it’s 10 years old. That can be dangerous with all the security issues.
I love how Apple get everyone on the latest version iOS.
They're headlessly trying everything possible, how to let user schedule "restart after update". But they really should work on file locking mechanism instead. It dates back to MS-DOS 3.3 era. Make any process not to lock accessed file by default. Then they can serve more updates more often, as restarts would be very scarce (like on unix or linux).
"Microsoft is also going to offer a new dashboard so that the status of the feature update can be more easily ascertained. […] The new dashboard should make it much easier to discover what known issues and incompatibilities exist, along with the remedial action that can be taken (e.g. upgrading a particular piece of software) to unblock the update."
How about they let (all) users on certain, long-term-support designated versions of Windows 10 postpone feature updates permanently? That would actually be listening to customers. It's okay to force security updates (within reason), but it's not okay to forcibly upend everything else as well.
If this seems like an unreasonable maintenance burden on Microsoft, remember that the Long Term Support Branch/Channel already exists for enterprises. Microsoft supplies security-only updates to Windows 10 1607 and 1809, and will continue to do so for ten years after each versions's release.
There is no reason for Microsoft to not make this available more broadly, they've just decided not to.
This website disabled the rubber band scrolling on iPhone. Thank goodness Apple applied rubber band scrolling to the iPhone interface, reading without it is a frustration I never thought existed.
That only took several years of complaining.
> “All customers will now have the ability to explicitly choose if they want to update their device when they check for updates or to pause updates for up to 35 days.”
...and they didn't actually listen. This is still user-hostile bullshit and some people at Microsoft really need to be beaten with a rubber hose until they get it through their heads that they don't own our devices.
Even as a vocal critic of Linux Desktop I feel that Microsoft is doing its best to push me there. Hell, most of the computers I own have already been transitioned to Lubuntu[0] because otherwise I'm faced with forced update garbage every time I turn them on.
> Microsoft is also working to ensure the quality of this feature update, which is important given the disastrous two feature updates that Microsoft and its users experienced in 2018.
Maybe actually having QA or at least listening to the Insiders you've conned into doing QA for you for free would have helped prevent these things, but I doubt it because you seem so determined to copy the worst aspects of web and OSS development culture. User hostility, change for the sake of it, users are QA, ads (in a paid product!) etc.
[0]Lubuntu still prompts me to update it literally every time I turn it on too, but at least I can just say no.