Yes, it is always looking better, just figuring out how to make all the non Ubuntu programs work with it. StarCitizen will not run in it, which is sad, but it is a huge package anyways and still is in alpha.

They should not give away their code, in that it just opens doors to more abuses such as malware. What they do need is an updated business model so you can get help recovering from their "updates", not just say "too bad" and have you spend money to undo their crapware.

I tend to agree with you position, blarman. Although not strictly anti MS, I do think it is their core business to find ways to cushion the impact of a bad update. You cannot get a live person to help any more, and their forums are also a bunch of very aristocratic "MVP"s. Look at the "Win7 won't update" topics and you find nothing but the same answers over and over, and people saying "it doesn't work" then silence. There are dedicated web pages to how to kill orff the Win10 monster they delivered unasked, there are web pages that now tell you how to get around Windows Update as well. Not what I call stellar support, as none of this comes from MS.

Well, I make chips for a living, so I am fairly well up on both ends of it. I understand the huge variations of configurations, and what works for one may not work for another. That said, the large number of suicidal "updates MS has released in the last 10 years or so, indicate they do not understand that complexity, enough to protect their customers. Probably 80% have auto update on, because they either don't know or do not understand what it does, and so a large group wakes up to find their machine is a brick. Or, as this one did, it ran fine for a little while and then bricked. Easy to undo if you have a recovery disk and can back out, but a lot of people stare at their brick, then have to go blow 100 or so at Best Buy to let the geek squad unbrick it, with no guarantee it wont brick again. That is a bad business model, like having changes to aircraft software that just sort of didin't work, oops. Their business is software, and they are too focused on ramming their money machine stuff down peoples throats, than providing customer support. IMHO of course...

"Companies who want to sell a PC with MS on it have to agree to Microsoft's terms."

That wasn't the issue. The issue was that Microsoft was openly forcing distributors to sell ONLY Microsoft Windows-based PC's. They couldn't sell Apple or IBM. That was what they got busted for in the anti-trust suits. They weren't competing on merit (and by the way, I agree with you that OS/2 fell flat - I tested it) but on their monopolistic muscle.

"The people and markets chose MS."

Uh, I wrote my thesis on this. IBM couldn't get out of the mindset that hardware was the real seller. Novell bankrupted itself trying to compete with Microsoft in Office Productivity. UNIX didn't care one way or the other, being primarily focused on mainframes. Apple forced out Steve Jobs and cratered (until they brought him back). There were no real choices but Microsoft at that stage in the game. But Microsoft benefited by their competitors' implosions - not the superiority of their products.

I look at the mobile platform space as particularly illustrative: Android owns 60% of the market, Apple another 30% and everyone else a combined 10%, with Windows mobile around 5%-6%. Why? Because they were incredibly late to the party for one. Their initial product lines were total crap for two. I worked with Windows CE devices and they were an unmitigated disaster no matter what form they took - they were buggy as all get out. The most recent crop is much improved, but still faces enormous hurdles in adoption. Not being able to multi-task until very recently also didn't help.

"They test their OSes massively before release."

I don't doubt it. And having written software I completely understand how such complex pieces with that many lines are going to have bugs and need updates.

But I also had a few friends who worked in Redmond who quit after only a couple of years because of the antagonistic environment there. Not everyone can be Google, I realize that, but according to them, this went way beyond that and it started at the top. Have things improved since the management shakeup? I would say they have. But the history of the matter vs the last few years are a stark contrast - not an example of consistent management ideals.

I have been working with computer for years before that. Started programming Timex Sinclair 1000 - Apple II+, PC's since Windows 1, and DOS - even modified http://command.com so it would run other bat files besides autoexec.bat. I'm have worked on coding and support from their beginning. I have certified as MCSE, MCP+I, CompTia A+, and Network+. I do network design/install/security including all cabling - switches - routers, database design and admin, web design/web server admin, software design, etc... So I'm very tech savvy. There are also different perspectives on all these matters.

Netscape wanted to use Microsoft API's to write their browser. Microsoft developed their own internal APIs which they based IE on. Netscape - nor any other developer is in any position to demand that MS write any subroutines or API's to make their code easier to write. If the routines they wanted to use had issues, write their own.

Bill gates just recently made the point that one of his biggest mistakes in MS was not having lobbyists to deal with the government. Too many socialists in the government (Clintons) did not Microsoft or its size and listened to too many of their ideas and chose to make an example of MS. The plain fact is - they wrote their code - they have no obligation to tell others how to use it, to teach them how to use it, or to fix it for those who can't troubleshoot and write their own code when needed.

Companies who want to sell a PC with MS on it have to agree to Microsoft's terms. If they don't want competing software on the computer sold right along with their OS and the re-sellers (which I was for many years) agree to this - tough. I as a reseller don't have to agree - I could sell Apple. I could sell it with DR-DOS on it and some other turn-key system on it instead. MS created an OS that others didn't feel they could readily compete with so for the most part they didn't (although I assume you do remember OS2 that died away and was supposedly sooo much better). The people and markets chose MS.

Now, I'm not saying everything MS puts out is just wonderful. But they have done what they needed to do considering competing systems, hardware capabilities, etc...

They test their OSes massively before release. Have you every seen the process they go through to deal with issues and get new tests out - it's freaking amazing!
There is an argument against all these anti-MS points. I have to go right now - but would be glad to point them out to you if interested.

Windows 10 sucks.
I upgraded a while back. Had so many problems, I went back to Windows 7.

I had used some Apple's software up to about 10 years ago. In an "update" and "upgrade" Apple in one swoop destroyed my customized database structure and wiped out all the data in it. I will go back to them "only over my dead body".
EDIT: Corrected spellinf

"Microsoft has not tried to control how businesses write software"

You obviously haven't been around much in the tech world. I was hacking autoexec.bat files on my dad's computer since Windows 3.1 and I've been doing professional technical support since Windows 95, including everything from desktop support to application development and support and now databases.

Remember Netscape Navigator? I certainly do. It was the first "killer app" after the spreadsheet. Why isn't it around anymore (except its codebase)? Because of Microsoft's heavy-handed tactics.

Microsoft was convicted of illegally controlling the practices of the distributors of Windows PC's by prohibiting them from selling competitors' products.

What about the inclusion of Internet Exploder as part of the OS and how it broke third party apps on nearly every update for more than a decade?

All of Microsoft's changes to the desktop, the task bar, the control panel, the interface itself - all based on what Microsoft wants people to do. Their development environment - again pushes Microsoft's way of doing things. Microsoft's own lingo (especially concerning databases) runs counter to everyone else - especially EF Cobb - the inventor of the relational database.

Does Apple do the same thing? Yup. Never denied they did. But I've been working with tech for 30+ years, 20+ professionally as a Windows Admin. Don't try to defend Microsoft's business practices. Have they gotten better lately? Getting rid of Balmer was definitely a good move. But forcing upgrades to Windows 10? Office 365? These all smack of Microsoft's practices of control.

www.ubuntu.com - what's a "windows"? :)

And that is why there are no computers in my home that use Windows. We use Linux.

That's a funny argument. Microsoft has not tried to control how businesses write software other than giving them best practices and making efforts to offer an OS that gives less ability to write software that crashes the whole OS when other companies software is improperly written. They have free development platforms - there are many other development platforms produced by other companies, any company can write software for windows to do whatever they want. Granted this is similar in the Linux world - but Apple is the epitome of what you are blaming Microsoft for doing. You for all practical purposes cannot develop and produce Apple software without their approval and blessing. If you want it available on their store - only if they approve it. Their development systems are produced by them. Microsoft has always been open to free market software design. They have not been open to giving away their code for free - but I don't blame them for that and am opposed to the whole notion that they should.

If I can't read a link because I choose to run ad-blocking s'ware, and the company chooses to setup an elaborate adblocking detecting screen then I won't read the ad!

I have update set to manual on both my computers so as not to have to deal with the random MS computer hijacking. So far things run well that way. I would not put it beneath MS to sabotage Win 7. For some reason they REALLY want everybody to switch to Win 10. It may have to do with the fact that Win 10 does a lot better job of spying on your computer.

You're not the only Apple user. I've been an Apple fan since the 1st Mac came out. I was attracted to Apple for security reasons as much as the more user-friendly interface. Back in the day when the Macs used Motorola CPUs, the operating system kernel was burned into read only memory, and unhackable, unlike the Microsoft BIOS. As Apple transitioned into the Intel CPUs, I was worried, until I learned they were using a modified Unix as the base for the new operating system, OS-X.

Since I'd worked with the intelligence agencies for several decades, I'd gained an appreciation for how solid and secure Unix was. I was horrified when those agencies got lobbied into Microsoft machinery. After the supposedly cheaper Windows machines were installed, the software security manning had to be quadrupled, and security patches began arriving sometimes more than twice a week. It hasn't let up, so far as I know. Before I retired, I was among those who recommended a change to a Linux operating system to bring back a more secure environment without having to buy new machines. The Microsoft lobby was just too strong.

I'm on the evaluation team for the different builds and had to go back one build for this reason. Once I went back and flagged the problem build, I have had no other issues with Windows 10. I went from Vista to 8.0, then 8.1.. Love Windows 10.. Much better than all of the other versions since 8....

Exactly! I get messages every day on my home computer saying "Microsoft recommends you upgrade to Windows 10". I keep saying "ohiocrossroads recommends I stay with what I have that doesn't work too bad."

When I bought my current computer, it was just before the advent of W10. The clerk gave me a coupon for an automatic upgrade from W7. My son, the software/hardware engineer cum guru has a beta (I guess of W10) and told me to forget about it and stick with 7. So far, no major problems, but like all Windows products, continuing minor problems, just enough to be frustratingly annoying.

There are a few, probably more Linux users than Apple. But all having a lot of common reasons.

I'm surprised I'm the first Apple person on this thread. I quit Microsoft in disgust many years ago, when an upgrade essentially destroyed my computer, and switched to Apple. My family has 2 iMacs, 2 iPhones, 2 iPads, and 2 Apple laptops. Apple isn't perfect, but for us, it's been a hell of a lot better than Microsoft on just about every important metric: ease of use, service, capabilities, and reliability.

Well, WIN7 has apparently been sabotaged. I have found any reload will never work in Update, it just runs and runs. I have spent hours troubleshooting it, and no issue was found. Research shows more and more people are seeing it. Right now I have Update running on my good machine, we are 1 hour into a 67 MB 6 patch download, still at 0 %. This is part of their aggressive screw the customer force them to quit campaign. There is a manual update option available, I have to see how that works. The same site has a widget they built for you to easily turn off the Win10 upgrade crap as well.

Yes options..options..

It isn't their Q&A, it is the internal structure of the company. Microsoft for many years was built around the business philosophy of making companies do things Microsoft's way. And they were able to get away with it for a time because they had a monopoly on the market. Now that portable devices are the rage and Android is killing them, they've been forced to realize that their tactics don't work anymore.

I stopped it before it ever started: by blocking the update to Windows 10.