This confuses me.
Are you saying that after 18 months I can still download updates - I just have to do it manually?
Windows 10 is designed to automatically update. It can be defeated, by merely going to Services and setting Windows Update to Manual startup. But there's other reasons why Windows won't update on it's own. (Users who never restart their computers and set their inactive hours during their active ones and telling Windows never to reboot when prompted, no/bad Internet connection available, no hard drive space to download updates in the first place...)
And there's Major Updates that come down. These are the ones shown in the update timeline: a Major Update replaces most or ALL of the Windows 10 files at once. This is relatively new to Microsoft, but not entirely. Think of each Major Update as a Service Pack and it won't seem so odd. But like Service Packs, people defer these or cancel mid-download because they're huge (2-4GB each.) When this happens, after 18 months, their current 'build' of Windows 10 will stop getting security updates until they let the download finish and allow it to process. These Major Updates take just as long to install as installing Windows 10 fresh (15-90 minutes depending on your system) which is why most folks cancel them or stop them from downloading by shutting the system down. When Windows 10 is ready to install it, that means a good chunk of downtime for your house or workplace.
So why bother at all? Windows went with this approach to avoid the problem that Windows 7 and 8 suffered from: installing smaller updates that changed the build number of Windows meant tracking a larger and larger pool of updates that had to be done first. And Windows 7 would just break Windows Update if the list got to be too big, or worse, another program would break it. (Like viruses and malware.) With this approach, every time you install a Major Update from Windows 10, once it's finished, you're caught up. Only the updates made since that build would be needed, and none of the prior ones. And in general, each major update is worth doing. Every one brings in new features that add to Windows 10, making it better over time compared to it's initial release.
Are you saying that these problems that you told me about when this topic began and that I am just now beginning to understand, have already resolved themselves? : ) If I understand correctly, this is good news. I didn't like reading about dual boots going away with UEFI, which, I still don't understand correctly (what UEFI is), but, that I see it in my recent shopping, and, it looks like it will be in my future.
Nope. An older problem which scared folks off of UEFI and "Secure Boot" in the first place is what I was referring to. (Microsoft in an apparent 'coup' on all Windows 8 computer makers to make downgrading to Windows 7 and Linux too difficult to bother with.) Linux can be installed on Secure Boot systems just as easily as in the past before it existed. That's all.
32-bit is still being removed. Intel needs to shuck the architecture to continue advancement with their new systems because of the end of the Tick/Tock development cycle, the end of transistor miniaturization in silicone. (10nm is still elusive to them, so they're making chips get bigger vertically.) Doing the same will only help AMD in the same pursuit. But this would be a marginal boon to either. The components for hardware 32-bit support are approximately 12% or less per chip of a CPU. It'd be a short gain, followed by the same struggle the following year to keep optimizing on limited space.
I'm not content at all, with, my control slowly going away (Windows used to just boot and run like any other program - your PC was your PC to do whatever in the world you wanted if you had the tools.. Windows was just another app..) and being replaced with commercialism/advertising/stuff I have to turn off in Windows, or the tons of stolen licenses on the market (whose stolen license did you get? Maybe Mine.. I know that I can likely overcome this if it happens but I don't want to deal with the possibility of it if I can avoid it), and outrageous pricing/short product life (we went from not really having to have a license... to being able to buy one every decade or so... to having to buy one every 18 months - and, for a higher price than ever).
Again, you don't have to buy Windows 10 every 18 months. If they did that, there would be a lot more outrage about Windows 10 than files being accidentally deleted from a bad update released last October.
But the change in Settings and Customization, that is absolutely true about Windows 10. With every release, choices are being made for you instead of more control coming your way. The operating system is becoming give/take with the mainstream. The biggest fears have not been realized, though:
- Windows 10 will be subscription based, and everyone will need to pay annually to use their computers. This is not the case. There is Microsoft 365, which will let businesses 'lease' Windows instead of buy it. (Most Microsoft Volume Licensing operates under this model anyway, after the "Open License" offerings fell out of favor.) But consumers get all the feature improvements to Windows 10 along with everyone else. The talk that "Microsoft is considering a consumer version of Microsoft 365" has a huge obstacle: Office 365. That service already gives consumers a lot, and Windows can't really 'add on' to that package. If Microsoft were to offer a suite of apps and services apart from Windows 10, maybe, but first they'd need to get their own affairs in order concerning QA issues before they can expand like that. (Like not deleting files.)
- Windows Store will be the only method to install software in the future. In the distant future, maybe. But doing so undercut's Windows strongest superpower over MacOS and Linux... hardware and application compatibility.
If you don't mind, let me expand on those two points with a topic I hate.
Walled Gardens and Users: A Journey to DisappointmentEssay by Tahquitz, Age 8.While he works in IT, Tahquitz is best described as an amateur writer and this segment may contain some or all of the following: opinions not sponsored by Titan Network, logical fallacies, plot holes, spelling errors, and meandering based on a working stiff who reads Techmeme daily and tries to mentally pin tacks and strings to various headlines thinking it all "means something." It probably doesn't.So to explain why Microsoft would be stupid to carry out the "original plan" of Windows 10 (Make Windows subscription based, and only allow Windows Store apps, telling all other apps and developers to play ball or take a hike), there's some background to get out of the way.
Consider how Mac OS, Linux and Windows handle their respective ecosystems.
MacOS: Obtaining new programs -- App Store and .dmg based installers. Apple is moving to making .dmg harder to utilize with forcing users to only allow Store apps (this can be disabled with a radio button), but over time they made it clear that in the future the App Store will be the only method soon.
Advantages: App Store handles the updates of all Mac apps in a single-pane-of-glass. Apps are vetted by Apple to meet minimum standards (don't break Macs, don't bring in malware, and use MacOS features as prescribed.)
Disadvantages: Independent developers must pay Apple $99 to make apps for the App Store, and Apple gets a cut of all app sales. Apple's standards also makes certain apps impossible (Steam was pulled from the iOS App Store for example as it let users buy games without involving Apple getting a cut, for example. So Apple's business decisions may block an app from making it onto the platform at their whim.) Apps that don't play ball need to provide an update mechanism outside of the App Store, or have to nag their users to install a new version the old-fashioned way. Until they can't anymore.
Why it'll work: Apple has two reasons they can get away with this. One: Apple computers (save for Hackintoshes) are mostly uniform. There's maybe 10-15 models each of iMacs, MacBooks, Mac Pros, iPads, Apple Watches, and iPhones that are in active development at any given month. All the others that are 'off the list' get no attention from Apple whatsoever. When a device goes out of support, Apple cuts it off like a knife, and app developers usually fall in line, with maybe 1 or 2 years of app updates before they stop supporting them too. And Apple's operating system for their computers and devices is free. They don't charge users for the operating system, and it can't be bought to put onto a system that isn't an Apple.
I attended a conference where an Apple staffer was asked about their move to a closed App Store (the staffer corrected the interviewer, "Secure App Store") what amateur programmers would do if they can't afford to participate. Their answer was in two parts: just because you can't install an app doesn't mean you can't test it in a runtime environment (which is true), and "I don't think anyone in this room can't afford $99." Still missing the point: the $99 is an arbitrary cost, which can change in the future. If you want to make money as a programmer, fine. Apple deserves a cut for operating the store for you. But if you don't intend to sell any apps and offer your work for free, it's punishing the programmer for not doing so... especially if there's no way other than the App Store in the future. They do offer a fee waiver for non-profits, but offering a free tier (even with limits: no more than 5 apps, etc.) would go quite a way towards alleviating that fear.
Linux:Obtaining new programs -- package management systems. Depending on your build, Linux uses a package manager to handle updates to both the operating system AND third party apps. For Debian (including Ubuntu), there's Aptitude. For Fedora, you have Yellowdog Updater Modified. ArchLinux has PACMAN. (Really!) All of these package managers do the same thing. They check a list of places that hold programs on the Internet called repositories, ask them for the latest versions of the apps, a list of dependencies, and assembles a list of packages for you to download to update your system. You review the list, answer Yes, and the package manager goes to work, updating away.
If you learn no other terminal commands for Debian or Ubuntu, know these two:
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get upgrade
Two lines to get updates and deploy them for every program on your computer. apt-get upgrade prompts if you want to continue, but that's it.
Advantages: This is what MacOS models their updates on. Linux did this right for years. When you run a package manager, EVERYTHING gets updated. Not just the apps you have, but system components and your operating system. The package manager gets kernel updates, drivers, firmware updates, security fixes, new software libraries and dependencies your programs need. It's really a one-stop shop to get it all done at once, and neither Windows or MacOS can compete with it in the same way. No third party installers needed. (sudo apt-get install firefox) And there's no uninstallers that nag you for "Why are you uninstalling?", the same command to update is the same one to get rid of an app. (sudo apt-get remove chromium)
Disadvantages: The repositories are a little confusing to use. There's the OS Repos that come with your system, but others in Ubuntu include Universe and Multiverse. There's the Partner Repository. And Contrib and Non-Free ones. Knowing which apps come from where is a bit of a pain, and merely enabling all of the repos makes your updates slow down, or bring in lower-quality apps (of which Linux does have a lot of... homebrew apps means no guarantees.) And the user-facing package managers really control low-level package maintainers (Aptitude is a front end for dpkg in Debian/Ubuntu, YUM is a front end for RPM, which has been around for decades.) When the packages don't work, you have a difficult road in fixing the issue, or simply removing the misinstalled packages to get back to where you were before you started. (In Ubuntu, when apt-get reports that you need to run dpkg to fix an issue, and you're not well versed in Linux, usually it means you're close to having to reinstall the Operating System.)
Why it works: Linux software has a strong reputation to prevent malware because of the layers of prompts needed to do something bad. It's not as easy as installing a program and answering yes, as it is in Windows or MacOS. And the package manager route isn't the only way to make an app. Because Linux is open-source, you have options if you don't like what's given. 1) you can install a package archive, such as a .deb or .rpm file directly. 2.) Most Linux distros have a 'middle ground' repository system like Ubuntu's PPA system. Using a PPA, you can subscribe to an amateur or enthusiast maintained repository that works with the package manager. Once a PPA is added, you can update, install and remove that PPA's apps just like any other. 3.) Using the source code, you can install build-dependencies, and compile and install the app yourself. (Very difficult.)
So even with streamlined package management, you still have options to bring in homebrew software, or go it alone and install or compile an app yourself. But these options come with varying difficulty of use.
Windows 10:Obtaining new programs -- both and neither. Like MacOS, the Windows Store is the intended vehicle for 'safe' Microsoft apps, and for updating programs in a single-pane-of-glass style update manager. But you can also use Windows App Installers (MSI packages, or in Executable self-contained apps that install, run and uninstall as a separate program) to manage programs yourself. The Store can be forced "ON" from the Settings app, rejecting any installer that doesn't go through the store, or you can disable that (which is the default.)
Advantages: Best of both worlds. You have the walled garden if you don't like updating programs like in Windows 7 and 8. (Love those little nag messages that there's a new version of Adobe or Oracle something or other? Neither did I.) So for your loved one who doesn't dabble in gaming or installing programs, turn "S Mode" on, and enjoy some simplicity. In the walled garden, you get told once that updates are needed. No helper apps are needed in the system tray. If you don't like the walled garden or want to use apps that take full advantage of Windows past the Universal Windows App framework, you can.
Disadvantages: Windows is used as the whipping child for why other operating systems do things the way they do it. And most of the bad rap comes from Windows past. Before Windows 2000 took years of bad security practices out of action by using NTFS and password security. Before XP put in Service Pack 3. Before Windows 7 allowed users to tune UAC prompts. MacOS touts their path to only a single walled garden as the largest reason why Macs are more secure and safer from viruses, when in truth, virus and malware makers target the largest group possible. (This is why exploits are increasing on Mobile Devices. Everyone has a smartphone, right?) Linux's largest strength is there's no nags to update a system other than the one window that collects info about all the apps and presents a single unified list. Windows has one list for Windows Updates, and one for Microsoft Store apps. All the others, you're on your own to update. Because Windows software ecosystem is more centered on self-contained apps than a central delivery system, viruses and malware is more likely on Windows than other operating systems (If a user can be duped into installing it, you win.)
And getting to the point... Why Windows would be stupid to go Apple's way and less towards Linux or keeping their status quo: Windows isn't free. Microsoft Windows is the only operating system you have to purchase to use on a new computer. (Most don't notice because it's included in the price of a new system.) Also, Windows has a far LARGER hardware base than Apple does. A wide array of hardware has to work under Windows, where Apple can hand pick their components, so every model number of an Apple system has the same parts, with few customizations (RAM, Hard Drive, Maybe your Processor, and Screen Size and that's really it. Everything else is on-board. And with recent 'software locks' short of visiting an Apple store, you can't change the parts once you buy it.) Forcing Windows users to just use the Store and shut out all the Windows Applications that aren't 'compliant' means shutting out years of hardware, software, and components that are used around the world.
And what is Windows 10's biggest strength? (Yes, I'm about to complement something from Microsoft, try not to faint.) It runs on damn near any system. (I have yet to find a used PC at work I can't throw Windows 10 on that ran Windows 7.)
And it also runs damn near any program written for it. Consider that Windows 10 can run any and all of the following:
-- Universal Windows Apps from their Store. Windows 8 and 10.
-- Windows x64 apps (a growing list. Works since Windows Vista.)
-- Win32 apps (the majority of apps written for it. Goes back to Windows 95/98.)
Recently, Windows 10 quietly dropped the following:
-- Windows 16-bit apps. (Have a program from Windows 3.1?)
But even with that... if you reenable NTVDM on Windows Pro, those apps work again. MacOS won't run apps that use 32-bit anything, let alone any app older than OS X ver. "when they ditched Carbon", let alone anything from Old World Macs (System 6-9). Linux requires apps to be compatible with it's current dependencies, so running older apps becomes an undertaking to bring all the dependencies in alignment with it first. Come across a library that won't work with the current kernel, and it's a show stopper.
Bringing a walled garden to Windows means shucking compatibility with far more programs than either MacOS or Linux would lose if they did the same. Adobe CC would be gone. Microsoft Office would be dead in the water, leaving folks with apps that resemble the Store version of OneNote (which I'm not digging... I still use and like OneNote 2016 over the Store version after Office 2019 ditched it.) And most games would be gone.
Going to a walled garden now means goodbye Steam, Origin, and other distribution networks. (Gabe Newell initially balked at the inclusion of a Microsoft Store in Windows 8, which prompted him to make SteamOS.) A walled garden means no more MMO updaters and patchers, And a walled garden means that it's harder for homebrew development, since Microsoft has similar fees for posting and selling apps on their store. Walled Gardens means that programs that run afoul of Microsoft's policies and business practices cannot be. (Paragon Chat would likely disappear under such a policy.)
Has Microsoft tried to do this? Yes. Twice.
Windows RT was the real reason Gabe blew up. RT was a version of Windows 8 made for the Surface tablet and other small Windows computers. But the Store delivery mechanism was more of a need on RT than anywhere else. Windows RT was based on ARM processors, which means that Intel/AMD compiled apps (the majority of Windows programs) won't run on it. Without the Store, RT can't install Windows Programs at all. And that fact made the original Surface tablet fail out of the gate.
Windows 10 S was the second attempt. It was a pre-loaded operating system that Microsoft put onto Home and Business computers to force users to only install apps from the store. While this was installed on regular computers (totally compatible with Intel and AMD), it still tanked. Why get a hobbled copy of Windows that can't install programs past the "Modern UI" apps, when you can install Windows 10 Pro on top of it and do what you please? Likewise, the sales of Windows 10 S was abysmal, and Microsoft's own analytics shown that a large amount of users replaced Windows 10 S and didn't use their Store at all. Now an Update made Windows 10 S a "Mode" that a user can elect or shut off at will, eliminating the need to replace Windows 10 S with another edition.
Have they tried mitigating the Store's avoidance with past Windows apps? Yes. For example, the iTunes in the Microsoft Store last spring was a big deal: Microsoft was reportedly using the iTunes entry in the store as a 'shim' to get the iTunes app coded as-is into the Windows Store and have the Store update it. Unlike the other Microsoft Store entries, it's not a UWA app or a Progressive Web App (read: website application that works anywhere and really doesn't need an installation.) And it seems to be working. Moreso, Apple's Software Updater isn't a part of it with this method. The Store updates iTunes without it. No more QuickTime installer prompts. If this continues, Microsoft may take out the dreaded "Storepocalypse" by merely allowing the disallowed apps anyway. It doesn't clear off the ethical downsides of the walled garden, but it might be recognition by them that UWA isn't going to work out how they think it is.
So, twice, Microsoft was told by the market that closing off the ecosystem is a bad move. Microsoft wants to direct the user experience moreso than in the past, but the road to make Microsoft follow the same route as Apple wants to go means taking out what makes Windows different than Apple in the first place. Apple can make that sacrifice because it's love it or leave it with them. Windows taking that approach would change it too much for it to be distinctive from their competition in the first place.