Why does Microsoft do what it does?

I realize this is a user forum and that most of the users are far more conversant with Microsoft talk than me but are generally not MS employees; maybe someone could explain a couple of things to me having to do with updates.

What I need in an OS is that it works, is reasonably secure, and is not a pain to use. Microsoft, for me, fails on the "no pain" issue. I do not understand what Microsoft does in two areas:

1) Why two major updates a year? Who wants to do a major update that often? If MS has designed new major bells and whistles that someone wants or needs, why not package them as separate updates?
2) Why so many updates in a month? Why not one cumulative update at the end of a month that is really cumulative of all the necessary updates in the month?

I am guessing that you have never used Linux. The direction that Windows is going, they are going to issue so many updates as they are currently to keep the changes rolling out. If they didn’t issue fixes, people would be complaining that MS is slacking.

bro67 said:

I am guessing that you have never used Linux. The direction that Windows is going, they are going to issue so many updates as they are currently to keep the changes rolling out. If they didn’t issue fixes, people would be complaining that MS is slacking.

You're right, I've never used Linux, but I'm about to experiment with it on a retired Windows 7 desktop. I prefer a Linux version with a GUI and one that is widely used. Which would you recommend? What is a safe source to used for a download? Which Linux user forum can tolerate newbies with newbie questions?

dalchina said:

Well, a similar question could be asked about smart phones. I turn mine off as I hardly use it. After a month, I turn it on and find some 30 updates.

The difference is those happen relatively smoothly- there don't seem to be complaints from smart phone users about OS updates or app updates.

Considering the feature updates- which are problematic to too many and certainly are intrusive at best- two points occur to me.

1. Whereas with XP-> Win 8, the overal specification was almost completely stable, Win 10's is evolving. MS is introducing and changing features with each build. (I leave aside arguments about whether that's good or bad).

MS's objective seems to be to try to deploy one OS across a wider range of platforms.

2. Whereas with previous builds, repairing the OS was problematic, and a clean install of Win 7, say, meant 100s of updates and a service pack, with Win 10, you get a refresh every 6 months - so services are reset to default, and various other settings reset that should not be visible to most users.

That effectively potentially repairs problems.
It also means an in-place upgrade repair install to fix things is relatively easy to do.

A clean install of Win 10 might mean 1 or 2 updates to be applied, not 100+.

Note: rumour has it that 1909 will be delivered as a cumulative update rather than a feature update.

As to updates - well, if you look at the News section you can find an article per update per build which lists what changes with each. One unfortunate reason to issue some of them, at least in part, is to fix problems introduced in the preceding feature update.

For me, one of the main things that keeps Windows 10 tolerable is this forum and the folks who answer questions calmly from frustrated users. Thanks for the explanations. So the feature updates are just incremental updates as MS tries to achieve an OS that is appropriate for any machine for any purpose? And many of the monthly updates are repairs to the changes MS introduced in the last feature update? Seems like MS is ignoring the folks who just want a laptop to work.

I am not a MS hater; I've used MS since the baby DOS days, not as a programmer, but as a user. Maybe I'd be happy if MS just understood and adhered to the meaning of cumulative. Or maybe I should try Linux.

I like lunch.

x509 said:

Abacus,

I really sympathize with you. When you consider Linux, look at all the applications and utilities you use with Windows, and see how many of those, or equivalents, are available in Linux.

Support is available for many Linux versions, but at a price. TANSTAAFL. (Look it up.)

Leave Robert Heinlein out of this. (I didn't have to look that up.)

I have never installed a Linux distro.

However, I question the value of most support offered by MS and other software and hardware vendors. I find that most of it is outsourced to script reading people with no real expertise or diagnostic ability. The primary emphasis seems to be cost saving to the company rather than real service to the customer.

Even in cases where I've had to go to MS for help with stuff that only they control (activation issues), I've sometimes had to call repeatedly until I reached a person who was actually able to help.

Fortunately, I can usually understand heavily accented English. (I only speak two languages: English and bad English. C'est tres triste.)

x509 said:

Abacus,

I really sympathize with you. When you consider Linux, look at all the applications and utilities you use with Windows, and see how many of those, or equivalents, are available in Linux.

Support is available for many Linux versions, but at a price. TANSTAAFL. (Look it up.)

I use Ubuntu, but I have some experience with linux, if you want to try I'd suggest Linux MInt.
There is no price to use Linux Mint, it is very nice and stable.
What it is needed to say is linux is very different from windows and many professional programs are not available (i.e. Microsoft office, adobe software, autocad ... ).
If all you need is mail, web/social/navigation you can use it, and after some "learning" you will be good.
If you need software unsupported in linux, there are alternatives but sometimes they lack features.
Since you have a spare machine you can surely try linux mint.

You can use linux professionally, for highly specialized tasks like machine leaning, web development and many more.