Windows as a Service (WaaS) is coming.

[Ahhzz]

I've commented a few times here and there about this, but this is the first time *I've* seen a blatant statement like this (not saying there haven't been other, earlier ones: don't ActuallyMan me):

“We’re going to make Windows cloud native. We’re making a big push for Windows 365,” he says. Get ready to start losing more and more control over what you can do if you're sticking to the M$ environment.

 

[Vayra86]

I've commented a few times here and there about this, but this is the first time *I've* seen a blatant statement like this (not saying there haven't been other, earlier ones: don't ActuallyMan me):

“We’re going to make Windows cloud native. We’re making a big push for Windows 365,” he says. Get ready to start losing more and more control over what you can do if you're sticking to the M$ environment.

Actually, man... Its old-ish news, MS said this several times before that's the long term intent. But yeah its alarming and its exactly the sliding scale we've been seeing in everything 'on demand' and 'service'.

Enterprise has already gone there, practically... and from experience I can say its functional, but its certainly not snappy and the constant stream of little changes is tiring and doesn't 'optimize my workflow' in any possible way. They just launched a new teams and its not an improvement. 365 office without on-prem data sources is godawfully slow. Working in Word with more than one user on the same document is a painful exercise.

I try to extract faith in humanity by considering the human factor; eventually we want to regain control where it has been lost, it just differs to people when they realize too much has been lost. Its a balancing act right? Comfort / ease of use versus necessity and security.

EDIT: by the by... between the horrible Copilot+ bullshit and the way they're going to nudge customers towards 'subscription OS' I don't think this is really going to happen. People are going to see they're paying for an OS on desktop while on mobile, they don't, the device is cheaper too, most of the time. Microsoft is going to find itself looking at millions of unsecured Windows 10 PCs and it will be XP all over again, with eventually MS caving and giving Windows 14 away for free again. Because on the horizon they see that people aren't growing up with Windows like they used to, and that, on top of the mobile presence is what they fear most.

Been there done that haven't we. I can hook any phone on to a screen or hub today and have a text editor and whatever else I need. Windows should cherish its unique selling points because really its all it has left. MS might be digging its own hole here.

 

[SL2]

That's the thing about FUD. It's not that the info is incorrect, we just don't know what it means (Uncertainty) and start jumping to conclusions.

I've seen Doubt for at least 12 years now since W8, and once a year a forum member (or even a moderator) reads about W10/11 WAAS somewhere and don't know exactly what it means for the future (and neither do I), and decides to post it here, opening a can of worms (Fear).

We can complain all we want, but we've done it for decades, and we still don't know what's going on beyond Nadella waving his hands and talking about synergy.

I've been through this so many times now, and I still don't know anything.

I'd sure like to see a list of all the doomsday WAAS threads filled with anger and Fear and no info, and facts/threats about jumping to Linux. If it were up to the credible sources of TPU forums, I would have been paying monthly for Windows for, say, 8 years now?

 

[Vayra86]

That's the thing about FUD. It's not that the info is incorrect, we just don't know what it means (Uncertainty) and start jumping to conclusions.

I've seen Doubt for at least 12 years now since W8, and once a year every time a forum member (or even a moderator) reads about W10/11 WAAS somewhere and don't know exactly what it means for the future (and neither do I), and decides to post it here, opening a can of worms (Fear).

We can complain all we want, but we've done it for decades, and we still don't know what's going on beyond Nadella waving his hands and talking about synergy.

I've been through this so many times now, and I still don't know anything.

I'd sure like to see a list of all the doomsday WAAS threads filled with anger and Fear and no info, and facts/threats about jumping to Linux. If it were up to the credible sources of TPU forums, I would have been paying monthly for Windows for, say, 8 years now?

Yep its the same thing as PC gaming is dead and AI will control the world, while we're stuck in our VR Metaverses, and Nvidia is going to RT all the things.

Its all bullshit. Corporate test balloons at best, and then to disprove it was just a test, they produce some pilot actually doing it and then we're supposed to believe it.

One Windows, was the term at some point in the past. They still didn't quite figure that out either did they?

 

[SL2]

I mean, where's Microsoft Bob? It was supposed to be a thing. Where are the BTX boards? SLI? RDRAM? 10 GHz Netburstz? Piezoelectric PSU's the size of a pencil sharpener? Itanium? Edit: Have to add: Where's Bulldozer? Now you don't have to kill me lol

Spoiler

These are rhetorical questions, if you're breaking them apart and answer them one by one, and I KNOW some of you wants to do it, you're missing the point.

I know where they are, and why.

rhetorical question - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

Look, I can imagine that even 24H2 will be like heaven sent compared to what MS will be offering five years from now, but if we don't really know, well, we don't know.

 

[natr0n]

LTSC/Windows 7/8.1

Many ways to use windows. I'm not like most users. I disable everything that updates and go on with my things. Once in a while I'll get an updated build if needed for a game or to test/play with.

 

[mb194dc]

Not until 2032 I think for me and by that time hopefully won't need use Windows at all...

 

[Assimilator]

Windows is in the most difficult position it's ever been since arguably its launch. In an era where business applications are increasingly web-native and thus OS-agnostic, or capable of running on multiple CPU architectures including non-x86 ones, causing the value proposition of traditional OSes like Windows to continually decay, it's becoming harder and harder to sell Windows as a standalone product.

The thing is, that doesn't actually matter to Microsoft, because they foresaw all this. That's why they got into the cloud business with Azure, which has proven to be both a more lucrative and more reliable revenue source than Windows licenses. As Windows was to business applications in the 90s and 2000s, Azure is to business applications in the 10s and 20s, and beyond. And the success of Azure in regards to the subscription model means that it ultimately makes sense to apply that model to their other product offerings - such as Windows.

So ultimately, Windows as a Service will probably happen, but that won't be the end of the Windows as we know it today. This is quite simply because there will always be organisations, like government agencies and defence contractors, that will never use anything other than on-premises software. And while LTSC editions of Windows do cover that need to some extent, those channels aren't infinitely long, and those organisations will eventually want to use new versions of Windows. So there is always going to be a demand for Windows-on-premises, and thus there will always be some sort of product to service it.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

So...my two cents.
When they tried this with the Xbox it failed hard.
A decade ago I was forced to do remote logins to use excel (their initial attempt at office as a service)...and because I had to handshake a serve from NC to MN and MN to IL it took 4 minutes to open one...which once management did it they NEEDED to fix this.
I'm currently forced to use backup software that can backup while I'm trying to rename a file...so I click on it, rename, wait 5 seconds, and if it doesn't reset I get to rename the file...so there's always something to go back to.

On the positive, about 2 miles from an MS server farm the experience is indistinguishable from a native copy of office. It's been that way since 2015.

I believe it'll be MS pushing for Windows as a service, 20-40% of people taking that, and 80-60% of people opting out. That is people...business will probably be the opposite...because software costs as a much lower overhead are often more accounting friendly.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I don't think we're that far off, in at least some capacity. Pretty much all the Office programs have moved to HTML designs, to where if I login with my work account on a browser on my home PC (even one running Linux), I can do a surprising amount of my job, and the look and feel is not that much different. Now, the catch is, there has been some loss of functionality, but web Outlook looks and acts exactly like desktop Outlook (new Outlook sucks, but at least it's getting better). Teams is another one, where many things are possible from within that app alone--meetings, phone calls, file sharing, even editing. Power BI is really a browser-first app, at least when it comes to end user consumption. It's all starting to be there.

I can totally see a case in the future where the corporate BYOD policy extends to personal computers, and you have a work portal that provides access to all of the above. If done right, I might welcome that so I could build a work machine of my choosing, instead of the sluggish laptops my company provides. For mobility, the iPad actually does pretty well for a small device in a meeting.

 

[Assimilator]

I don't think we're that far off, in at least some capacity. Pretty much all the Office programs have moved to HTML designs, to where if I login with my work account on a browser on my home PC (even one running Linux), I can do a surprising amount of my job, and the look and feel is not that much different. Now, the catch is, there has been some loss of functionality, but web Outlook looks and acts exactly like desktop Outlook (new Outlook sucks, but at least it's getting better). Teams is another one, where many things are possible from within that app alone--meetings, phone calls, file sharing, even editing. Power BI is really a browser-first app, at least when it comes to end user consumption. It's all starting to be there.

Office doesn't have to deal with hardware devices and their drivers, which is a massive part of what makes Windows what it is. Getting that into the cloud is going to be monumental undertaking, if it's even possible at all.

 

[Veseleil]

Since we're at it, what kinda scares me is the rumor that MS is readying tens of billions of $ for a Valve acquisition. Somehow fits into all of that AI/Cloud OS narrative.

 

[Morbius2021]

Well the long term goal isn't going to require drivers or software. You "all users" will simply sign into a remote desktop session on a server that is setup with your domain, whatever that is. it will be a virtual server and virtual workstations, all the software is already designed for this using group policy management. You will rent your "desktop" and the accompanying features and or virtual hardware that goes with it.

With hardware costs for high end graphics going ever higher, and fast processors also costing more and more. its only a matter of time before rent becomes more cost effective than purchase.

People will be sold little Wyse remote appliance units with minimal requirement hardware, they will cost 200.00 or less and all your stuff, data, and hardware will be in the cloud, pay up or you get locked out.

Since we're at it, what kinda scares me is the rumor that MS is readying tens of billions $ for a Valve acquisition. Somehow fits into all of that AI/Cloud OS narrative.

It will take far more than 10's of billions to buy steam...Not that MS couldn't come up with the 100+ billion required, but I doubt the sale would be allowed to happen regardless.

 

[Veseleil]

It will take far more than 10's of billions to buy steam...Not that MS couldn't come up with the 100+ billion required, but I doubt the sale would be allowed to happen regardless.

I hope so, I really do.

 

[BSim500]

I'd sure like to see a list of all the doomsday WAAS threads filled with anger and Fear and no info, and facts/threats about jumping to Linux. If it were up to the credible sources of TPU forums, I would have been paying monthly for Windows for, say, 8 years now?

We have indeed seen plenty of FUD, but it would be equally staggeringly naive to think the next +25 years of PC gaming are going to be anything like the past given how much has changed for the worse in just the last two releases on the back of "well not all complaints we're heard since W8 came true therefore all future concerns about W12 / W365 will be totally baseless". At this stage I think it's entirely sane to think about a backup plan and am sure that's half of Steam's disproportionate support of Linux is Gabe (who used to work for Microsoft) wants an insurance policy (Proton / Steam Deck) against MS eventually sh*tting the bed. And that could involve anything from making Smart App Control compulsory, ie, any "unsigned or familiar" apps (tens of thousands of older games) would instantly stop working, to deprecating Direct X9-11 to as rumoured making W12 Windows partition 'immutable' (ie, you won't be able to debloat / decrapify / customize it in any way that will "stick" between reboots). Windows 11 24H2 doesn't just block "malware" it adds a lot of software that customizes Windows to an arbitrary blocklist. So it's not FUD to say they're locking down Windows until you can hardly customize anything, just observable reality, and there's plenty of ways they could make W12 / W365 still technically "work" whilst simultaneously also making it insufferably awful enough to use you don't actually want to use it. See how unpopular W11 still is after almost 3 years post-launch. Totally different era from the +90% of users who upgraded from 3.1 to at least W95 by 1998 to the point the past "Heydey" era of Windows is useless for predicting anything.

It will take far more than 10's of billions to buy steam...Not that MS couldn't come up with the 100+ billion required, but I doubt the sale would be allowed to happen regardless.

Not sure where $100bn came from as Valve's Market Cap is actually estimated to be around $10bn in 2024 (source) up from around $7.7bn in 2022 (source). Microsoft's offer was said to be $16bn (source). It isn't anywhere near $100bn (revenue is not Market Cap). Now Gabe may not want to sell on principle and being a private company Valve is immune to hostile takeovers (when someone rich buys up 75% of stock then forces a change in management). However, Gabe is also now in his 60's and doesn't exactly keep himself in the pinnacle of health, so whatever happens "post-Gabe" is anyone's guess. If Microsoft can afford $75.4bn for Blizzard then they very definitely can afford to buy Valve if they want. Personally, as mentioned the other day, I buy the GOG version where possible as it really doesn't matter if the store you buy it from goes under / gets taken over then forced to change in unwanted ways when you don't need the store client or online account to play.

 

[Bill_Bright]

The biggest problem I see here is ONLY for us long time Windows users. It is human nature (I believe) that we humans never want something taken away we are used to having.

But I think many have forgotten what the true function of an OS is (always has been and always shall be). The OS is there to (1) facilitate all the various hardware components to "operate" together as a single, unified, well-oiled machine - a "system" - safely, securely, reliably. And most importantly, the OS is there to (2) facilitate the running of our programs.

NOBODY runs an OS just to play around in the OS. We fire up the computer, boot into the OS, then we launch our programs. At that point we want the OS to essentially get out of the way.

That's all Microsoft is trying to accomplish here. And I think that is the right goal.

What I personally don't like is "the cloud". While "in theory", "the cloud" is ideal for this, it is also totally infested with all sorts of bad guys, from individual scumbags, to greedy companies, to drug cartels, "the mob" and other organized criminals, to state-sponsored conductors of cybercrimes and cyberwarfare - non of which, BTW, is Microsoft's fault, yet still is constantly blamed for, and expected to thwart.

I said this before but it is worth repeating. One of Windows greatest assets (at least in the past) has been its "flexibility". Users have been able to tweak and customize the h3ll out of it. And we, including me, loved that!

At the same time, one of Windows greatest liabilities has been its "flexibility". Users have been able to customize and tweak the h3ll out of it - often tweaking it to death - at which point, who got blamed for Windows breaking? Microsoft.

Also at the same time, typically due to users failing to "practice safe computing" by failing to keep their systems current and secure and by being "click-happy" on unsolicited links, the bad guys moved in and infected their machines. But who got blamed? Not Norton, McAfee, or the other 3rd party security providers who whined and cried to Congress and the EU that it was their jobs to fight malware. Not the users for failing to practice safe computing! Not even the bad guys who perpetrated the offenses were blamed for the security mess THEY put us in. Again, it was Microsoft who was blamed - relentlessly.

So Microsoft beginning with W7/8 and especially with W10, started putting security first by forcing Windows Update on us, by including antimalware code in Windows, by preventing many tweaks and locking in many default settings - by taking away that flexibility we previously enjoyed - even though they knew they would get blamed for that too.

Microsoft decided, AND RIGHTFULLY SO, they would rather get blamed for a lack of flexibility than get falsely blamed for bad security. And that philosophy has payed off - big time . "IF" we users (always the weakest link in security) just leave the W10 and W11 defaults alone, and "IF" we users stop inviting the bad guys in by being "click-happy" on unsolicited links, it is extremely difficult to infect Windows. And that is a very good thing! It is also why many of the "organized", experienced badguys spend their time and efforts these days trying to hack and breach corporate systems instead of going after us individuals.

BUT Microsoft is not sitting on their laurels here. They want to make Windows even more secure, and even less a lucrative target for the bad guys by locking it down even further by putting much of its code out in the cloud. And that really is fine because after all, and once again, we users are not "playing" Windows, or word processing with Windows, or surfing the Internet or updating our social networking profiles with Windows. We do that with the apps we run on our hardware being operated by Windows.

 

[Vayra86]

The biggest problem I see here is ONLY for us long time Windows users. It is human nature (I believe) that we humans never want something taken away we are used to having.

But I think many have forgotten what the true function of an OS is (always has been and always shall be). The OS is there to (1) facilitate all the various hardware components to "operate" together as a single, unified, well-oiled machine - a "system" - safely, securely, reliably. And most importantly, the OS is there to (2) facilitate the running of our programs.

NOBODY runs an OS just to play around in the OS. We fire up the computer, boot into the OS, then we launch our programs. At that point we want the OS to essentially get out of the way.

That's all Microsoft is trying to accomplish here. And I think that is the right goal.

What I personally don't like is "the cloud". While "in theory", "the cloud" is ideal for this, it is also totally infested with all sorts of bad guys, from individual scumbags, to greedy companies, to drug cartels, "the mob" and other organized criminals, to state-sponsored conductors of cybercrimes and cyberwarfare - non of which, BTW, is Microsoft's fault, yet still is constantly blamed for, and expected to thwart.

I said this before but it is worth repeating. One of Windows greatest assets (at least in the past) has been its "flexibility". Users have been able to tweak and customize the h3ll out of it. And we, including me, loved that!

At the same time, one of Windows greatest liabilities has been its "flexibility". Users have been able to customize and tweak the h3ll out of it - often tweaking it to death - at which point, who got blamed for Windows breaking? Microsoft.

Also at the same time, typically due to users failing to "practice safe computing" by failing to keep their systems current and secure and by being "click-happy" on unsolicited links, the bad guys moved in and infected their machines. But who got blamed? Not Norton, McAfee, or the other 3rd party security providers who whined and cried to Congress and the EU that it was their jobs to fight malware. Not the users for failing to practice safe computing! Not even the bad guys who perpetrated the offenses were blamed for the security mess THEY put us in. Again, it was Microsoft who was blamed - relentlessly.

So Microsoft beginning with W7/8 and especially with W10, started putting security first by forcing Windows Update on us, by including antimalware code in Windows, by preventing many tweaks and locking in many default settings - by taking away that flexibility we previously enjoyed - even though they knew they would get blamed for that too.

Microsoft decided, AND RIGHTFULLY SO, they would rather get blamed for a lack of flexibility than get falsely blamed for bad security. And that philosophy has payed off - big time . "IF" we users (always the weakest link in security) just leave the W10 and W11 defaults alone, and "IF" we users stop inviting the bad guys in by being "click-happy" on unsolicited links, it is extremely difficult to infect Windows. And that is a very good thing! It is also why many of the "organized", experienced badguys spend their time and efforts these days trying to hack and breach corporate systems instead of going after us individuals.

BUT Microsoft is not sitting on their laurels here. They want to make Windows even more secure, and even less a lucrative target for the bad guys by locking it down even further by putting much of its code out in the cloud. And that really is fine because after all, and once again, we users are not "playing" Windows, or word processing with Windows, or surfing the Internet or updating our social networking profiles with Windows. We do that with the apps we run on our hardware being operated by Windows.

...locally.

Thats the key point here. MS is crossing the red line where a system now must be always online for its functionality.

F U C K that. And the point is no longer security. You know this too. The point is charging for subscriptions. Windows is secure enough as it is. Nobody is blaming MS anymore in that space. Its a made up problem.

Cloud is synonymous to pay more and have less. Except they try to convince us its more. The only thing you get more of is being made dependant on MS. Continuously.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

If I’m just looking at the corporate world, I see the BYOD concept, where companies have few IT assets, but the user becomes the PC owner. The challenge of course, is when systems go down. Bing was down for several hours just yesterday. It that were these potential W365 services, that amounts to a LOT of net losr productivity in the corporate space. We already see it in cloud-dependent schools. If the cloud fails, then they literally don’t know what to do to educate for the rest of the day. Are we going to have Windows for Hosts, which is basically a Chromebook?

I really hope Valve stays out of MS’s hands. I don’t like where MS is going, and the last thing they need is an even bigger stranglehold on the industry. We thought it was bad in the 90s, but today’s MS is far more dangerous, IMO.

 

[xtreemchaos]

its not like windows is the only OS, me I like windows until I don't and then I will move on change is good keeps us on our toe's. plus every wall microsoft builds there's all way's a way round it.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Thats the key point here. MS is crossing the red line where a system now must be always online for its functionality.

Well, of course, that's your red line and very subjective. But let me quickly add, I am NOT saying I disagree with you!

That said, I do not believe it will (at least not in the foreseeable future) come to the point where we "must be always online". There are too many organizations (corporations and government agencies) where security concerns require total isolation from the Internet. If Microsoft gets to the point "the cloud" is required, they will lose business big time as that will force these organizations to go with Linux or another alternative OS.

its not like windows is the only OS

Exactly. And Microsoft knows this very well too.

Windows is secure enough as it is. Nobody is blaming MS anymore in that space. Its a made up problem.

It is NOT a made-up problem by any means. It is a lesson learned that must never be forgotten. I agree that Windows now is secure enough (I essentially said that above) - but it certainly is NOT if you listen to all the marketing hype posed by the 3rd party security apps who essentially insist we must pay for their products in order to stay safe. And there are still many MS haters and biased members in the IT press profiting by promoting those 3rd party apps and by downplaying the effectiveness of Windows itself and Defender. Microsoft is indeed, still being blamed for just about every and any thing that goes wrong - even when totally unrelated to the OS. Just read many of the threads in this forum where users blame MS for their (often self-induced) problems.

The point is charging for subscriptions.

Now here I absolutely and totally agree with you. I HATE SUBSCRIPTION plans. They simply amount to another recurring bill and I already pay through the nose every month just to get on-line. This is exactly why I own my own modem and router instead of renting the ISP's. It is why I never recommend users pay for the premium versions of their 3rd party security programs as they typically provide no significant security advantage and thus are a waste of money. It is why I refuse to go with Office 360 and instead, own a stand-alone Office 2016 license. And why I will soon be upgrading Office 2024 stand-alone -even though it is expensive upfront, it will be cheaper in the long run (and hopefully not the last stand-alone version - assume I live long enough for that to matter to me).

If I’m just looking at the corporate world, I see the BYOD concept, where companies have few IT assets, but the user becomes the PC owner.

I agree with this too. And you are correct that users often are expected to use their own computers and thus are responsible for them.

But the bigger problem there is the failure of those company IT security execs, managers and admins in doing their jobs to protect their networks from breaches. See Yet another hack/breach. As I noted in that thread, the Equifax hack that compromised the sensitive personal information of 147 million Americans occurred due to pure negligence on the part of IT and security management. They were alerted to the vulnerability, and were provided the essential patch/fix by the software developer ~6 months prior to the hack. But IT management failed to apply it, security management knew about it but had no sense of urgency, and the C-Level execs, who also knew, didn't seem to care.

It would have only take one system admin person a few minutes to apply the patch and that vulnerability would never have been exploited. So having limited IT assets is no excuse. It was entirely due to mismanagement (at the C-level on down) and total disregard for security.

Another problem is accountability. There essentially is none. In that Equifax breach, despite all the clear (criminal?) negligence and failure to protect innocent citizens' personal information (information, BTW, Equifax was NOT given permission by the user to have!!!) the only one who got into trouble was one, low level exec. He spent a little bit of time in prison for "insider trading" because he sold off all his Equifax shares the day before the breach was made public and the stock prices plummeted!

 

[thesmokingman]

Time to finally jump ship to nix?

Did yall read about their planned Recall?

Microsoft Copilot+ Recall feature 'privacy nightmare'

The ICO wants to know the safeguards around Recall, which can take screengrabs of your screen every few seconds.

www.bbc.com

 

[BSim500]

At the same time, one of Windows greatest liabilities has been its "flexibility". Users have been able to customize and tweak the h3ll out of it - often tweaking it to death - at which point, who got blamed for Windows breaking? Microsoft. Also at the same time, typically due to users failing to "practice safe computing" by failing to keep their systems current and secure and by being "click-happy" on unsolicited links, the bad guys moved in and infected their machines. But who got blamed? Not Norton, McAfee, or the other 3rd party security providers who whined and cried to Congress and the EU that it was their jobs to fight malware. Not the users for failing to practice safe computing! Not even the bad guys who perpetrated the offenses were blamed for the security mess THEY put us in. Again, it was Microsoft who was blamed - relentlessly. Microsoft decided, AND RIGHTFULLY SO, they would rather get blamed for a lack of flexibility than get falsely blamed for bad security. And that philosophy has payed off - big time.

Blamed with good reason. It would be the easiest thing in the world to separate security & bug fixes from the endless stream of bloated buggy "feature" updates and have a secure Windows 10-11 without p*ssing off half the userbase with constantly degrading QoL anti-features. They've even successfully done that with Enterprise LTSC. Yet for average users they've also force-fed stuff completely unrelated to security as a "one package fits all". The backlash against "We updated the Secure Boot DB Signing Certificate, fixed a memory leak in COM+ and addressed the issue where Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) Audio earbuds would lose sound but we also force-fed more start menu ads, "recommendations" (more advertising), Co-Pilot, Spotlight (yet more advertising), a worse taskbar, Candy Crush Saga, and a 2nd rate video editor that needs a $12pm subscription if you want to export in 4k, etc", that "choice" between all of that or "no updates at all" has been one giant False Dilemma strawman all along.

So whatever MS got blamed for after many users started turning stuff off due to being forced to choose sanity over security was both justified and is entirely a mess of their own creation, as there have always been saner and better "middle-ground" of handling "Manually install a service pack" of old vs "Force-fed hyper-bloat on steroids". The real litmus test is cr*p like artificially gating off access to Wi-Fi 6E or Passkey Manager to be W11 exclusives despite W10 Enterprise still under support for another 8 years (LTSC ends 13th Jan 2032) shows they don't hesitate at all to withhold actually useful security features when it clashes with self-advertising...

 

[64K]

What about the people that don't have internet or their connection isn't reliable? I don't see MS getting this past regulators. They went through hell just acquiring Activision Blizzard.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Blamed with good reason.

Nah! I am not saying Microsoft is totally undeserving of blame - sorry if it sounded like I was saying that. But when users and admins fail to apply available security patches in a timely manner, then users visit the wrong side of the tracks and click on unsolicited links or open unsolicited emails, or disable their security features, and a bad guy steps in, that is not Microsoft's fault - yet that is exactly the scenario they were so often blamed for, over and over and over again.

Yes, absolutely Microsoft MUST do a better job at testing updates before pushing them out. NO ARGUEMENT WHATSOEVER from me there. But we must also remember that of the 1.6+ billion Windows machines out there, with each and every one becoming a unique machine within the first couple minutes it was booted the very first time (as users make their own personal, network, application and security changes), it is not unreasonable to assume there will be problems since there is no way any reasonable person can assume Microsoft (or anyone else) would be able to test each of those 1.6 billion scenarios before releasing the update.

And I note when these problems do happen, it IS a "relatively" small number of users affected. The problem is, even if just 1% of the users are affected, 1% of 1.6 billion is still 16 million users! And 16 million angry users can make a LOT of noise - especially when amplified and repeated over and over again by the IT press, bloggers and others.

 

[Vayra86]

Nah! I am not saying Microsoft is totally undeserving of blame - sorry if it sounded like I was saying that. But when users and admins fail to apply available security patches in a timely manner, then users visit the wrong side of the tracks and click on unsolicited links or open unsolicited emails, or disable their security features, and a bad guy steps in, that is not Microsoft's fault - yet that is exactly the scenario they were so often blamed for, over and over and over again.

Well we can have a debate on that subject. One thing is not the other.

I mean sure, if you are actually clicking the OK box on a thing that says install virus I'm with you. But that's not how the internet works is it. The reality is, a computer that can go on the internet simply must be protected from the invasive code the internet could present. I think its very good that we now consider this a basic necessity. This wasn't the case. MS used to rely on third parties to do the virus protection and web protection. We got, and we get malware served through java and activeX and many other attack vectors and a lot of it was security wise an absolute piece of shit. None of this was ever even remotely in the space of user agency. Sure, the eventual resulting email with questionable link to fill account details with your bank and the two page long text of Nigerian Prince money, that's up to users entirely. But the code that is malicious? MS simply never picked up that ball proper even when they had Internet Explorer dominance.

I think what really happened in the course of Windows history is that the OS evolved with the requirements of the time, usually being a bit too late with it, never pre-empting it, and sometimes failing miserably in implementation of new policy (Vista, Metro UI). Blame was thrown back and forth, but in the end it was a learning process in my view. Both for the userbase and for MS. Its such a shame to see the pretty good place Windows 10 is in right now, being overcomplicated again with commercial bullshit-driven strategies.

Every time, ever since the internet, things start off great, or good enough, improve further over time, and when they reach a point of perfection, commerce sets in (because money must now finally be made) and the whole thing goes to shit again. Its almost as if things are better when they're free or 'disconnected from commerce'. Look at gaming... digital distribution of entertainment... Somehow the paying crowd is facing change upon change that they never asked for.

EDIT: I didn't quite respond to the point you made about users tweaking Windows. On that one... total agreement. Its crazy what some people do with their PCs. But... unfortunately a lot of that is instigated by the early age and even current age of internet insecurity. Its the wild west and people feel it. I think if the internet was regulated better that way, as in, governments demanding security and basic 'hygiene' policies on computers that go on it from the onset, this perspective would have been different. But as always, we first allow many to drown before we fix the issue.