I'm moving to linux.

[TheCreator]

Methods aside, I think it is fairly understandable where Microsoft is coming from. People are conservative and lazy and would stay on outdated OSes for who knows how long, which would force commercial software vendors and in turn Microsoft to continue support those platforms. Which is frankly a waste of resources. Web developers had it with their IE zoo not so long ago, so no thanks =).

It turns out that Microsoft's support is not valued by "lazy people". It might be useful when something breaks, but if it's not broken, why to fix it? Yes, people are lazy and nobody is going to change that. It should be noted here that laziness is actually a form of resistance against the update terror. MS is forcing us to move ot their newest OS and we lose a lot of time just on learning where the f***g buttons and menus have gone to. All this time could be spend on some creative activity, but we spend it reinventing the wheel. A big loss for us, but MS saves some $ on support. Can't they update their business model instead? I'd pay just for not having to change OS.

IE is a different thing. Microsoft has always been setting their own rules rather than following open standards. The strategy has been paying well until the internet boom with other browsers entering the scene. People hated updates in Firefox just as much as they hate them in IE (Windows), but Firefox has been striving to follow open standards from the beginning, so that the developers at Mozilla didn't really need to force people to update, while MS finally got their asses kicked for ignoring open standards.

On desktop everything go out of date pretty quickly and sooner or later you are forced to update because new versions of some essential application is not built for your release anymore. Then you can try to continue to maintain some things by hand but this is a huge step down in user experience.

Joel Spolsky refers to this as to "fire and motion" tactics. The new software is not better than the old one and you don't need it, but you are forced to update so that you don't have time to compete with the software vendor. In the Linux world things seem to be a bit different. In that world it is perfectly normal if someone wants to use archaic software like Vim or Emacs. There are downsides, sure. I go crazy every time when such a basic thing as copying to clipboard doesn't work again, but that's still better than having to update everything just because some asshole in a suit has decided that you have to udpate.

[Krice]

MS is forcing us to move ot their newest OS and we lose a lot of time just on learning where the f***g buttons and menus have gone to.

In Windows 10 they didn't go far. It's practically Windows 7 with new style and some new features. Maybe you should try it first before comments like that.

[Cfyz]

I certainly never had that "some essential application is not built for your release anymore". It really doesn't happen if you install software from the distro's official repository.

It depends =/. I may be a bit biased here but with my work primarily related to multimedia development, packages like cmake, mercurial, gcc, vlc, ffmpeg, gstreamer, etc. stop being updated in repository fairly fast. 'Stable' releases are a bit too stable and regular 'unstable' releases are prone to break things. All I've wanted to say is that in this department Linux is worse that Windows which mostly touches the system UI.

MS is forcing us to move ot their newest OS and we lose a lot of time just on learning where the f***g buttons and menus have gone to.

I may be rude here, but this is just stupid. No, seriously, just how much do you need to re-learn with each Windows release? A couple of buttons and dialogs, around 15 minutes in total? Every mobile app or web site shuffling its UI and workflow almost constantly and everyone adapt like nothing. You do not need to study buttons and menus, you just use it as a tool it is.

IE is a different thing. Microsoft has always been setting their own rules rather than following open standards.

The problem with IEs was that developers (not Microsoft, other developers) were forced to support more versions and provide their products adapted for the older ones. This is counterproductive, with either the cost of the product going up or the product being made with correspondingly outdated technology. This is more or less the same with OSes: either more effort to support everything or forsaking some user share.

[Aleksanderus]

MS is forcing us to move ot their newest OS and we lose a lot of time just on learning where the f***g buttons and menus have gone to.

In Windows 10 they didn't go far. It's practically Windows 7 with new style and some new features. Maybe you should try it first before comments like that.

Windows 8 was MUCH more revolutionary than 7 because it added some weird shit that I tried on my firend's PC and I had a big rage trying to figure out what does what and getting butthurt...

[Krice]

Windows 8 was MUCH more revolutionary than 7

I wouldn't use that word in this context. It was a big mistake than anything else, that's why Microsoft went very quickly from 8 to 10 and returned to more computer-like user interface.

[TheCreator]

I may be rude here, but this is just stupid. No, seriously, just how much do you need to re-learn with each Windows release? A couple of buttons and dialogs, around 15 minutes in total? Every mobile app or web site shuffling its UI and workflow almost constantly and everyone adapt like nothing. You do not need to study buttons and menus, you just use it as a tool it is.

I may be rude here, but it seems that you don't get the scale of an OS. I'm sure you do, but for some reason you are pretending you don't :-)
It's developed by thousands of engineers, it has millions of source code lines. In 15 minutes you may discover all changes in Notepad, assuming that you use that program often enough. As of the OS as a whole - no chance, sorry, you won't fool me. No, it's not 15 minutes. It's more like 15 minutes every single day until next major update (every 2 years, this used to be Microsoft's normal tempo). This makes 730 * 15 minutes = 10950 minutes, which is about 182 hours. This is roughly how much time you are going to waste to learn your new OS, probably without any significant gain. I'd rather devote that time to learn things I still don't know about Linux - at least I'd learn something useful.

In Windows 10 they didn't go far. It's practically Windows 7 with new style and some new features. Maybe you should try it first before comments like that.

I'm smart enough to gather knowledge about software before I actually install it. Nevertheless, none of my posts in this topic say that Windows 10 is revolutionary in any way, I'm only ranting about its intrusive marketing and about worthless updates in general, that's it, Maybe you should read more carefully before making comments like that.

[Cfyz]

it seems that you don't get the scale of an OS. <..> It's developed by thousands of engineers, it has millions of source code lines. In 15 minutes you may discover all changes in Notepad, assuming that you use that program often enough.

I think you are getting to this from the wrong end. Or consciously making it absurd. The code base is complex indeed but you are not the kernel developer, are you? What changes from version X-1 to version X from the user's perspective? Start button placement? A second spent to idly wonder why. Network center dialog design? A minute to familiarize with new location of IP address. Search dialog looks slightly different? Doesn't really matter, you're there for search results only.

What I'm getting about is that in the usual workflow you generally interact with just a tiny subset of the OS. This subset varies somewhat from user to user but it is rare to someone actively use even quarter of dialogs, menus and utilities of the OS. For the infrequent tasks (expand disk volume, flush dns cache, disable system component, etc.) you either figure it out or google the method because it is just not worth to remember. Does it really matter how much clicks you have to do to restart printing service or which menus to traverse? Under one minute you find the way, restart the damn service and successfully forget about that. Because it is not the actual work you're doing. The 'work' is Photoshop, Eclipse, Starcraft II, Facebook, etc. Everything not related to it just not worth the time. Will I become more productive by remembering every single control on every single dialog in the OS?

That's what I've meant under 'around 15 minutes in total'. 5 minutes to find the icon on the new desktop and about 10 more in the next few months while looking for this or that a few times.

[TheCreator]

Start button placement? A second spent to idly wonder why. Network center dialog design? A minute to familiarize with new location of IP address. Search dialog looks slightly different? Doesn't really matter, you're there for search results only.

The question is why they make all these changes if they don't matter at all. From my perspective user interface improvements are one of the major reasons to update, assuming that they make sense (hiding Start button or rearranging controls in a dialog obviously doesn't). If there are no visible improvements, any update is a waste of time and resources for both software vendor and user.

[Xecutor]

Win 8 have IO priority implemented. Process with lower priority cannot (In theory) slow down process with higher priority by intense disk usage.
Task manager shows disk io utilization by processes. And shows more details about services. If some svchost consumes too much CPU, you at least see what services are hosted by this process.