This is probably a dangerous position as a software developer, but I think we should stop calling these things upgrades. What's being shipped are changes. Whether they're improvements or not is completely subjective.
It seems like splitting hairs, but terminology matters. It sounds harmless when you say "Microsoft reserves the right to update your machine" but things are clearer when you say "Microsoft reserves the right to change your machine, on their own schedule", which is effectively the right they've conferred on themselves.
Windows 10 (and patches) aren't upgrades, they're changes. They might be better for you, or they might be worse. Nobody should be bullied into changing their machines at a vendor's whims.
Yeah, it's like my bank "upgrading" me to a Gold account where I will be charged more fees and receive more calls from my bank trying to sell me products...
Windows 10 advertises Microsoft products, and 3rd party products, and is the first step into being suckered into Microsoft's foray into a paid subscription OS.
Sounds like a great metaphor. Let us "upgrade" you to make more money from you.
Because it glosses over the fact that upgrades to OSs have defined security benefits.
A better one would be to say that it's like your bank upgrading your card from signature to chip + pin and issuing a new card number as a result. It's a frustration to change all your automated billing, but they do it because it's more secure and costs them less in fraud protection.
Windows 10 isn't more secure. The browser runs with the same privileges than in Windows 7. People will get malware in the same way.
What Microsoft calls "more secure" is the fact that Windows Store apps, which are a micro-tiny-minority of apps a typical user will run on a Windows desktop, work in a similar fashion than iOS apps, with a very limited access to the system, and therefore much reduced risk of malware. But I do not believe a typical user will be more protected with Windows 10 than Windows 7. Except more code means potentially more attack surface.
Actually, that's a great example, glad you brought it up. That's not less secure, and very similar to this situation.
That technology is being hailed as "more secure" because it requires you to insert, and type your secret PIN, correct?
1. In many cases, you can still use it online, just as before, without insertion+PIN.
2. Most stores will still allow you to swipe it, just as before. Some retailers aren't even allowing insertion yet, even though the hardware is there.
3. Even IF everyone required you to insert and type your PIN, you are actually less secure because the little bit you "consented to" when "upgrading" to chip + pin says that card issuers are less liable for fraudulent charges and other problems. http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/understanding-EM...
And it's still not a perfect analogy, because chip+pin isn't going to force me to subscribe to a monthly or yearly fee to use my bank card in the future, like Windows 10 assuredly will. It also doesn't implement additional technology for my bank to spy on me and my activity.
So - who's really safer?
The problem is that product changes are being rolled in with/disguised as security updates. That should be wrong, and while I'm normally on the side of less mandates - this misleading behavior should be addressed by lawmakers.
I'm reminded of an article by David Pogue, who used to write the back page column in MacWorld back in the '90s. One issue, he introduced a lexicon of terms he invented that he felt the computer industry should adopt.
One of them was "corrupgrade", which was defined as something billed as an upgrade but was actually worse than the old version. It's still the only one of those terms I remember, just because it's so useful.
I think this is a legitimate distinction. Service packs are usually upgrades, as are pretty much all security patches. New versions are called that to contrast with 'updates', but calling something like release-day Windows 7 an "upgrade" is an affront to English.
"Upgrade" seems to get used when there's a major version change and "Update" when there are minor changes. Since Windows 10 is supposedly the last version of Windows, it should be nothing but "Updates" from here on out.
A Windows update broke Quickbooks for our entire org over the weekend. Happens more often than you would think. A few months back a Windows update broke Outlook for half our team.
It seems like splitting hairs, but terminology matters. It sounds harmless when you say "Microsoft reserves the right to update your machine" but things are clearer when you say "Microsoft reserves the right to change your machine, on their own schedule", which is effectively the right they've conferred on themselves.
Windows 10 (and patches) aren't upgrades, they're changes. They might be better for you, or they might be worse. Nobody should be bullied into changing their machines at a vendor's whims.