I have decided as Windows 10 has no value for me whatsoever I'll be sticking with Windows 7. Windows 10 is something that I plain don't need as it works in a way I don't want or need too.
Some software companies/products/programmers have good reputations.
Other software companies/products tend to be "crash happy" and require constant patches and security fixes (I'm not referring to MS).
IMO, MS does a very good job when it comes to OS patches and Security fixes.
However, I only installed one bad update during the past few years.
It only caused some minor issue (for me) and I simply used my backup OS image.
OTOH, if I were an "average" user and I had my machine stop working correctly, I'd be pretty upset.
MS needs W10 to work "perfectly" out-of-the-box.
W10 needs to perform for every user, the same way W7 performed for me when I installed it (i.e. reliable, solid and usable).
After the W8 series fiasco, any W10 issue (from trivial to disastrous) will generate negative commentary on the TV and Internet.
I agree that in principle that more "looking" should lead to the faster identification/location of bugs.
I'm not sure Heartbleed, POODLE and FREAK support that proposition.
I wouldn't be surprised to discover that there isn't much difference between the "actual bug" and/or "detected bug" rates of Proprietary Software and OSS (excluding known outliers).
If you are concerned about the updates, you simply have to stay on a slower ring, and regardless of whether or not they have a bad patch, you won't be affected.
"more eyes" is not what we're talking about here either. We're talking about millions of machines actually installing the patches, and Microsoft getting telemetry data about the success or failure rates of them.
That is one of the advantages of a rolling update/upgrade system, there are people(usually with more than one system(real or virtual)), who want to test and see what's coming(like most here it the forums with the Technical Preview), and don't expect it to work 100% of the time, and there are people who need to play it safe.
The only concern I have is I don't want to be downloading 4gb updates each month because of bandwidth for windows 10, if Microsoft can keep windows update under 500 mb each week than I wouldn't have an issue. I tried the 32 bit version of windows 10 current build, to many problem. I am going to try the upgrade route instead and see if that fixes my issue otherwise I am going to have to totally give up on windows 10.
How many of those people will whine to their friends and anyone else who'll listen (in person, on the media or via blogs)?
If the end result is a machine that has been broken by an update, most users won't care what the update was supposed to be for.
Telemetry is of no use if an update causes telemetry to stop working because:
- The machine won't reboot
- The networking functions have been broken
- The telemetry functions have been broken
Given the complexities of a modern OS, there are probably hundreds or reasons (if not more) why telemetry could fail (or return erroneous reports).
Telemetry also has to be interpreted correctly.
Sinofsky claimed that W8 dropped the Start Menu because (allegedly) W7 Telemetry showed that no one used the Start Menu.
We know how that turned out.
In that case, telemetry was used as a smokescreen to justify a change that MS had already decided they were going to introduce "come Hell or high water".
Just for information, A lot of people and oems have Telemetry turned off by default. Some if they knew about Telemetry might turn it on. I also think people have a concern with privacy when Telemetry is turned on. I am referring to Windows 7.