New
#10
The REAL solution here is to allow users to defer updates for say up to 18 months EVEN on Home.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^This.
The REAL solution here is to allow users to defer updates for say up to 18 months EVEN on Home.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^This.
I think it's one of those things where people can agree to disagree on. Some people enjoy dabbling and being involved in the insider builds etc. Personally I have very little time or enthusiasm for such regular updates. I want to be fully up to date but the pace of them is frustrating. I have very little spare time to use the PC (which I've always enjoyed) let alone worry about big feature updates and worry about making time to possibly troubleshoot the side effects. So I would welcome far less regularity. But looks like it's not going to happen for the forseeable.
Of course if there was an update that was purely about bug fixing and getting rid of the all the irritations i have with daily pc usage i'd be all over it but in reality they don't do that too very often. There are bugs still in there that I remember from Windows 7. And the windows / microsoft store and those native apps continue even after all this time and all those feature updates to be as fragile as an egg (but that's a whole different grumble).
MS could still keep its "permanent beta testing" program.
The only reasons the 6 month cycle exists are:
- Mobile phones are buggy and disposable
- To justify the claims:
- That Windows is a service
- There will never be another version of Windows
Since MS won't supply updates for the early W10 versions, is the current version of W10 still really W10?
For the majority of users, W7 was "set and forget".
Even now (despite MS' efforts to make it painful) W7 is easier to keep running than W10.
Since almost no one uses Windows phones, the real solution is for Windows to return to the old "3 years per version" model.
The "6 month upheaval" model is also becoming an issue in Linux Distros.
If you read Linux blogs/forums, you'll notice that there are complaints that now the OS is more mature, the rapid schedule is just "change for change" sake and it's reducing the quality of the OS (due to regressions, new bugs, pointless changes, etc.).
I have the CU update Blocked for 365 days and when that runs out and I can't block it again, I will go back to Linux.
Yup - some choose to lead and others are happy just to follow..In summary - it is not the build frequency that is the issue, but the "forcing" of everybody to upgrade frequently that is the problem.
My problem is not so much the frequency of these new "versions" but the apparent fact that with every one of them, a new subset of "upgraded" PCs suddenly do not work, anymore. I support folks that have been using Win7 PCs since "day one" and even today, they still work JUST FINE. I also support folks that have been using Win8x PCs, and those too, continue to work JUST FINE.
I have one person who upgraded their Win7 desktop to Win10 when it first became available, and no amount of tweaking will get the FCU to install and run on it. SO now, they have a PC that will, at some point in the near future, most likely NOT WORK anymore because MS had done something to Windows in the FCU that this PC can not handle.
If new versions of Win10 bring new features, and some of those require new hardware and/or updated drivers -- then the solution (to me) appears simple -- do NOT install those features and present a message telling people that those features aren't available because their hardware does not support them. But to "force" upgrades on folks, and then TRASH their PCs -- to me (at least) that is inexcusable -- and that is what is happening with every one of these new Win10 versions.
Software can not damage hardware, maybe true.
But clearly old hardware can damage New Software..
Just FYI,
the is no comparison between windows and Linux (or linux distributions) in terms of upgrades or updates, with linux you always have a choice, given that there are distributions supported for 3, 5 and 10 years it's just up to you to decide what to use and when to upgrade, the fact that a machine designed, built and shipped to work with windows can have problems using "Linux" has nothing to do with the release cycle/support of the Linux kernel and/or the GNU/Linux system.