Windows 10 forced updates.
This is hardly worth talking about. But it seems to be one of the biggest topics on the Windows 10 front somehow. And by that I mean, it is a wildly popular topic amongst people who aren't the majority of Windows users. But I imagine that there will be some outrage there as well. And as usual, it will be mostly unwarranted.
Let me start with the last time Microsoft suggested something in this vein of thinking. Always online requirement for Xbox One. They dropped this due to public outrage. But it is largely ridiculous. Sure, arbitrary requirements like this can present downsides. But the reality is, Microsoft had it right. Pretty much everyone is online all of the time anyway. And, being able to assume your clients are always connected enables you to provide services you simply couldn't in the past. In fact, many of the most popular games are effectively online only in that their either truly are only online games, or the single player content is so small most people finish in no time.
Computers are much the same. For the average person, computers are used to surf the net, check email, play online games and chat. Every one of those activities are exclusively online activities. The percentage of people who would buy a new computer who don't have an active internet connection is laughably small. And this ONLY affects new PC buyers. If you don't have internet at present, the only possible way to upgrade to Windows 10 would be to buy retail media, as the upgrade itself is a connected, online process. The update process (however pushy) is also an opt-in process. So, anyone on an older version can certainly stay there.
But then, I would go even further. This isn't actually a problem for people with no internet. You can't turn off Windows Update, but, if you're not connected to the internet in the first place, you won't get any updates anyway.
So, the segment this really potentially affects is those with metered connections. Frankly, I see this forcing Microsoft to make some changes in their update policy down the road to make this less likely to be a factor. All it will take is a sizeable number of these people to be "pushed over" their bandwidth caps by a Microsoft update to get some changes. But, a positive note is that changes are now possible. Updates can potentially be consolidated for instance for those on Home or Pro editions. The historical ability to not only stop Windows Update, but to also cherry pick updates to install meant that engineers couldn't produce roll-up patches except when did something major like cut a new service pack. Since Home and Pro users have so little option, if they know where you are in the update process, they could produce a single patch with all of the changes in between consolidated, which could shrink the update sizes for those are multiple versions behind due to an offline PC.
But again, that is a small fraction of the community. And people, it seems, just like to complain.
The truth is, this approach has more pros than cons. And the group of people that benefits the most from the upgrades is the group (of legitimate users) most likely to have left it turned off in the past. As one of the techy guys in my circle, I've noticed that it is my computer illiterate friends and family who always get viruses who also seem to have automatic updates turned off. The members of my family who work in IT, development or other technical areas all have automatic update turned on already (and they are, ironically, the least likely to get a virus or be hacked for totally unrelated reasons).
Also, unlike the console gaming market, they wouldn't be the most online centric even after this move. Chromebooks are much more online dependent. While some apps certainly work in an offline mode, that OS is definitely much more geared to always online. I'd also say Linux effectively forces regular updates. Most distros don't actually "force" anything. But, the reality is, many updates ARE forced automatically by virtue of installing new modules, application, etc.... They aren't presented in the same way, but, if installing a new application forces the update of several core or shared libraries, it isn't much different. And this isn't limited to new apps. Updated apps can trigger the same thing. I've even seen app updates which require a kernel update! So, while you may technically have control, realistically, you don't.
And the "fallout" from updating is about the same.
So yes. Windows 10 will force updates on the bulk of its users. Most people shouldn't care. It takes away an option however, and there will be a small percentage of people legitimately affected for the worse by the move. And because it is a change, some people will even notice it happening. But, more likely than not, most mainstream users won't notice or care.
Let me start with the last time Microsoft suggested something in this vein of thinking. Always online requirement for Xbox One. They dropped this due to public outrage. But it is largely ridiculous. Sure, arbitrary requirements like this can present downsides. But the reality is, Microsoft had it right. Pretty much everyone is online all of the time anyway. And, being able to assume your clients are always connected enables you to provide services you simply couldn't in the past. In fact, many of the most popular games are effectively online only in that their either truly are only online games, or the single player content is so small most people finish in no time.
Computers are much the same. For the average person, computers are used to surf the net, check email, play online games and chat. Every one of those activities are exclusively online activities. The percentage of people who would buy a new computer who don't have an active internet connection is laughably small. And this ONLY affects new PC buyers. If you don't have internet at present, the only possible way to upgrade to Windows 10 would be to buy retail media, as the upgrade itself is a connected, online process. The update process (however pushy) is also an opt-in process. So, anyone on an older version can certainly stay there.
But then, I would go even further. This isn't actually a problem for people with no internet. You can't turn off Windows Update, but, if you're not connected to the internet in the first place, you won't get any updates anyway.
So, the segment this really potentially affects is those with metered connections. Frankly, I see this forcing Microsoft to make some changes in their update policy down the road to make this less likely to be a factor. All it will take is a sizeable number of these people to be "pushed over" their bandwidth caps by a Microsoft update to get some changes. But, a positive note is that changes are now possible. Updates can potentially be consolidated for instance for those on Home or Pro editions. The historical ability to not only stop Windows Update, but to also cherry pick updates to install meant that engineers couldn't produce roll-up patches except when did something major like cut a new service pack. Since Home and Pro users have so little option, if they know where you are in the update process, they could produce a single patch with all of the changes in between consolidated, which could shrink the update sizes for those are multiple versions behind due to an offline PC.
But again, that is a small fraction of the community. And people, it seems, just like to complain.
The truth is, this approach has more pros than cons. And the group of people that benefits the most from the upgrades is the group (of legitimate users) most likely to have left it turned off in the past. As one of the techy guys in my circle, I've noticed that it is my computer illiterate friends and family who always get viruses who also seem to have automatic updates turned off. The members of my family who work in IT, development or other technical areas all have automatic update turned on already (and they are, ironically, the least likely to get a virus or be hacked for totally unrelated reasons).
Also, unlike the console gaming market, they wouldn't be the most online centric even after this move. Chromebooks are much more online dependent. While some apps certainly work in an offline mode, that OS is definitely much more geared to always online. I'd also say Linux effectively forces regular updates. Most distros don't actually "force" anything. But, the reality is, many updates ARE forced automatically by virtue of installing new modules, application, etc.... They aren't presented in the same way, but, if installing a new application forces the update of several core or shared libraries, it isn't much different. And this isn't limited to new apps. Updated apps can trigger the same thing. I've even seen app updates which require a kernel update! So, while you may technically have control, realistically, you don't.
And the "fallout" from updating is about the same.
So yes. Windows 10 will force updates on the bulk of its users. Most people shouldn't care. It takes away an option however, and there will be a small percentage of people legitimately affected for the worse by the move. And because it is a change, some people will even notice it happening. But, more likely than not, most mainstream users won't notice or care.
Comments
Post a Comment