Windows 10 May Reserve Another 7GB For Updates.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

Not better hardware, but hardware that can actually run the OS comfortably with enough storage. Put the blame on the OEM's that pushed out crap with only 32GB of eMMC storage. 

I'll put the blame on both.

32GB is enough to run quite a few operating systems comfortably. ChromeOS for example is around 2GB (and the OS partition contains duplicates of almost everything, so that it can be restored easily in case of issues).

So shipping some computers with 32GB of memory isn't actually a problem. It is more than fine for a lot of people even. I wouldn't handle it, but lots do. The problem is that Windows is bloated. Windows takes up a massive amount of space for no apparent reason, when compared to other operating systems.

 

When Chromebooks started taking over the market, Microsoft pushed heavily for super cheap Windows laptops (like I said, for example giving away Windows for free to manufacturers who made certain cheap Windows laptops).

You can put the blame on manufacturers for not putting more memory in the computers, but the computers were designed to be dirt cheap to compete with Chromebooks, and it would have worked decently well if Windows wasn't so bloated.

 

I guess it's like talking about Minecraft.

Try playing Minecraft on something like a core 2 duo and it will be a terrible experience. The hardware isn't good enough. But at the same time, Minecraft is terribly coded (parts of it is open source so we know this for a fact) and if it was rewritten it would run much better, possibly even on a core 2 duo (like a lot of Minecraft clones does).

 

I don't think you can put the blame on both.

Bad software on bad hardware = bad experience.

Bad software on good hardware OR good software on bad hardware = decent or good experience.

[Drak3]

8 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

Mac OS userland is FOSS and comes in part from FreeBSD

OSX's userland has few open source components. Beyond kernal and the bare minimum components, it's closed souce.

 

Also, FreeBSD is derived from BSD, a source available distrobution. None of the BSD evolutionary stack was designed ground up to be open source, which IMO is a HUGE reason it's far superior to Linux.

13 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

if present they are resolved quickly

As far as I've seen, that's only true if you're the developer of your own variant that is only targetting a extremely small selection of hardware. Basically the highly customized Linux versions that companies like Amazon create, where basically the only open source component is the kernal.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

So... do better.

You clearly seems to know everything so you don't need to read any documentation, what the complaining.

Where is yiuan88 OS?

We are waiting!

 

Where is the cure to cancer? You seem to treat it as a joke, and a trivial disease like a common cold with a cure on a perfectly healthy person, and that cure is available at the corner drug store for a nominal cost.

 

Don't talk when you know nothing

While I don't agree with yiuan88 on a lot of things, going "you do better!" is one of the most pathetic arguments you can make. It's just an ad hominem attack. You're essentially saying that someone is not qualified to criticize someone else, rather than actually arguing against the points made.

 

I can't sing. Does that mean I can't criticize someone for singing poorly?

I can't sew. Does that mean I can't complain if my new shirt I ordered online is missing a sleeve and has a big hole in the back?

I can't draw. Does that mean I can't say a drawing is ugly or bad?

I can't design and manufacture a CPU. Does that mean I can't say that Bulldozer was bad, and is really bad by today's standards?

I can't direct a movie. Does that mean I can not say a movie director has created a bad movie?

I am pretty bad at cooking. Does that mean I can never tell a restaurant that the food I ordered doesn't taste good, or isn't cooked properly?

 

Things are not compared against what you can do yourself. Things, such as Windows, are compared against what other people (who may be me, you, or some other person) have created. In this case we can compare Windows to other operating systems that other people have created. That is perfectly valid and reasonable to do.

 

 

Also, no need to get so sensitive about someone calling something cancer. Cancer is both an illness, as well as a noun that means something malignant that spreads. If you think Windows is bad, and that it is spreading then cancer is actually the correct word to use. Not sure why you felt the need to go on a tangent about how the common cold can be cured by stuff from a corner drug store.

 

 

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

Solaris is Unix not Linux. Design for servers, and poor market share made Oracle fire all its core developers of the platform.

In other words, its essentially dead, and all that gets updated are the open source packages that they use. 

It's true that Solaris is not Linux, and that it is designed for servers. It's false that it's essentially dead and only the open source packages that they use gets updated.

Solaris is still actively developed and the last major release came out 4 months ago. In that update (11.4) they introduced silicon secured memory, redid the security audits, added an application sandbox management tool, optimized how Oracle Database functions in various ways, per file auditing, verified boot auditing and many more things.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

OSX's userland has few open source components. Beyond kernal and the bare minimum components, it's closed souce.

More than few, just the whole GUI and it's libraries and GUI programs are closed, you could run a MacOS system with only open source software (in the past there were some darwin distros called DarwinOS, opendarwin and puredarwin)
 

Every other part including the basic system drivers, the init, the networking stack, printing system, basically everything underneath the pretty MacOS GUI which is a lot of code, the FreeBSD part includes the most "core utilities", that's also why we got hackintosh working on other PC's that are not Mac
in the past there also were some pretty bad bugs in here too like the sudo password thing which made me laugh a lot
 

29 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Basically the highly customized Linux versions that companies like Amazon create, where basically the only open source component is the kernal.

Still CentOS, Debian etc are the most widely used distributions, also a company developer can be a Debian contributor and maintainer, with nothing to envy distros owned by a company, that doesn't change anything with how a Linux Distro is typically developed

FreeBSD and *BSD developers in general are more focused on quality of their code by making it simpler which is one of the main unix philosophies which has it's advantages, you could just compare the "echo" command from the GNU variant to the OpenBSD one
 

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

Solaris is Unix not Linux. Design for servers, and poor market share made Oracle fire all its core developers of the platform.

In other words, its essentially dead, and all that gets updated are the open source packages that they use.

I don't know why people care that much about something not being "unix" which is just a commercial name today, binary is never and will never be portable between them except with some sort of emulation and library translation like FreeBSD with Linux and still code has to be rewritten every time in most cases, an "unix-like" distro could be more unixy than an "unix certified" OS and could lead rewriting more or less part of a source code between more of them, that's the only advantage on making your OS "unix-like" except on expecting how things work without learning too much once you understand how one unix-like distro works 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Lukyp said:

you could run a MacOS system with only open source software (in the past there were some darwin distros called DarwinOS, opendarwin and puredarwin)

Not with *just* the open source that Apple puts out.

 

2 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

that's also why we got hackintosh working on other PC's that are not Mac

No, it isn't. Haclintoshes work because OSX is coded to run on Intel x86 processors, albeit with a proprietary EFI. Bootloaders that fill in blanks and tricks OSX into thinking it's running on a Mac is why we have Hackintoshes.

[Guest]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Not with *just* the open source that Apple puts out.

 

No, it isn't. Haclintoshes work because OSX is coded to run on Intel x86 processors, albeit with a proprietary EFI. Bootloaders that fill in blanks and tricks OSX into thinking it's running on a Mac is why we have Hackintoshes.

Also because of a Darwin ppc to x86 port, there are also some Darwin patches as well to make it work with AMD cpu's that couldn't be possible without the source code, the same applies with FakeSMC which is what you are referring about, there also are some drivers modified and ported for making it work with some chipsets always not possible or a very hard without the source code

[Drak3]

Just now, Lukyp said:

Also because of a Darwin ppc to x86 port, there are also some Darwin patches as well to make it work with AMD cpu's that couldn't be possible without the source code, the same applies with FakeSMC which is what you are referring about, there also are some drivers modified and ported for making it work with some chipsets always not possible or a very hard without the source code

What's your point? Isn't going to make Linux not inferior to all other options.

[Guest]

Just now, Drak3 said:

What's your point? Isn't going to make Linux not inferior to all other options.

I was just talking about macos lol 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

I found space sniffer to be very good,  although since installing the second 3TB hdd and setting all the game installs and work to it, its really only the desktop that gets cluttered.

I think from this update thing the 7GB can be on any hard drive, so no worries. 

[yian88]

13 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

So... do better.

You clearly seems to know everything so you don't need to read any documentation, what the complaining.

Where is yiuan88 OS?

We are waiting!

 

Where is the cure to cancer? You seem to treat it as a joke, and a trivial disease like a common cold with a cure on a perfectly healthy person, and that cure is available at the corner drug store for a nominal cost.

 

Don't talk when you know nothing

Your replies are most of the time nonsense.

Because microsoft holds the software world in a chokehold any new OS would fail due to lacks of drivers and software even linux sucks because of microsoft, drivers like AMD Radeon have no Crimson control panel on linux, you basically get a working driver but with no control panel which is the most important part.

The cure to cancer already exists under the form of linux, but the cancer called microsoft bribes companies to continue keeping their position as dominant OS, happened with AMD/Intel CPU support on older windows, happens with DX11/12 games instead of using vulkan they pay and collaborate to use DX only, so even if the "cure" (vulkan/linux etc) appears it wont be adopted because of MS.

 

The issue with windows is not the kernel, in fact their model is most likely better than linux, the Windows issue is Microsoft itself they keep adding garbage designed software on top instead of shredding weight and old bad design decisions, and it shows there are so many redundancies being kept in windows, so much bloatware and components/services running in the background that are not needed and can no longer be disabled.

 

Its pointless to go in depth with you but if you want a clear example of how crap windows it is and outdated try go into file exporer and search for a component in windows any dll or file you want and see how much it takes even on a modern SSD, then download something like Ultra Search and do the same and see the difference, and note ultra search doesn't do indexing, indexing is an abomination that was intended for old slow hardrives although its bad implementation, funny even with indexing windows is slow as hell.

Example benchmark, searching word AMD in C:/ (i have amd pc+drivers so lots of files)

File Explorer: 17 seconds found 35,439 items/folders with indexing on

UltraSearch: <1 sec found 35,624 items/folders without indexing

 

Interesting that without indexing the results are the same, and since indexing eats up resources scanning my drives in the background i disabled it, its useless component.

 

 

Now the questions is pretty obvious, why after decades and billions of dollars and tons of ignored feedback is Microsoft unable to provide such simple improvements to windows components? the indexer hasn't been updated in over a decade(since vista), all they do is add bloatware like Cortana search that cant find shit ever except ads and app recommendations on bing that works pretty good and fast.

 

 

 

 

[Drak3]

12 minutes ago, yian88 said:

even linux sucks because of microsoft

Linux sucks because Linux is a bad platform and was designed that way. Not because of Microsoft.

 

Unix doesn't have the same issues.

 

[Uttamattamakin]

4 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

One is better off going to a recycling center, get an laptop from there for $50 or so, get an 120-250GB SSD (especially now that they drop in price) and call it day.

Late Core 2 Duo with Windows 10, 4GB of RAM, and an SSD will fly especially compared to these low end systems, and you end up paying less, and might end up with a better display, and similar battery life, 13-14inch, and maybe a an entry level Nvidia/AMD GPU in it. And that is if you go with the Core 2 Duo... and not a 1st or 2nd gen Core i5, which obviously will be much faster, and better Intel integrated graphics, and so on. Worth a look at such center, is all I am saying.

You are technically correct but still... with all due respect.... think about the average run of the mill user. 

Think of the college student who is not tech savvy at all.  Which is still most of them. Trust me I know lots of students have no idea how to use their email.   I can't see them comparison shopping for a used laptop and knowing what any of what you just said means. 

 

This move makes obsolete the lower end computers sold in many schools bookstores. 

[Drak3]

6 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

This move makes obsolete the lower end computers sold in many schools bookstores.

No, those were already lomg obsolete.

[Uttamattamakin]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

No, those were already lomg obsolete.

Obsolete from the standpoint of the average LTT user (including me) would mean unable to game on or give us a high end or midrange experience.  

 

Obsolete OBSOLETE is what we are talking about here.  Obsolete as in useless, unable to be used, bricks.   Obsolete in the way that a 286 was once windows 3.11 came out, or a 486 once windows XP came out.  (Though I am sure someone tried it).   

[aezakmi]

13 hours ago, Rune said:

....why not just check for space before doing the update?

those are dangerous words to say in front of MS son

 

[GoodBytes]

20 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

You are technically correct but still... with all due respect.... think about the average run of the mill user. 

Think of the college student who is not tech savvy at all.  Which is still most of them. Trust me I know lots of students have no idea how to use their email.   I can't see them comparison shopping for a used laptop and knowing what any of what you just said means. 

 

This move makes obsolete the lower end computers sold in many schools bookstores. 

I was saying it more for people here than the masses, in my head.

But very true. And you have to be sure that the system works, and it might die on you next week with no support, while a new system, you'll have that 1 year warranty at the very least.

[GoodBytes]

45 minutes ago, yian88 said:

Your replies are most of the time nonsense.

Because microsoft holds the software world in a chokehold any new OS would fail due to lacks of drivers and software even linux sucks because of microsoft, drivers like AMD Radeon have no Crimson control panel on linux, you basically get a working driver but with no control panel which is the most important part.

Microsoft doesn't hold anything. Windows is only on ~37% of systems.

Linux based OS  is running on 0.85% of systems.

 

You are just angry with the reality of using an OS that doesn't get proper third party support. That is all. Yes, it sucks, but that is life. This is a similar reality to anyone who

But instead of making an intelligent conversation on the topic, you scream nonsense and act like you know everything and everything is trivial to you.

 

Quote

The cure to cancer already exists under the form of linux, but the cancer called microsoft bribes companies to continue keeping their position as dominant OS, happened with AMD/Intel CPU support on older windows, happens with DX11/12 games instead of using vulkan they pay and collaborate to use DX only, so even if the "cure" (vulkan/linux etc) appears it wont be adopted because of MS.

I don't even know what to say... You are blinded by your fanaticism. Doesn't mean that an OS kernel fits your needs/liking that it fits the needs of everyone.

The biggest issue that most Linux based OS has, is the toxic environment that it set, promoting elitism and refusing to take criticism. This is why Linux from 1998 has not really changed when you compare it now. And this is why the growth of the OS has been lackluster beside on Server space, as for many application, it is the only option out there.

 

Quote

The issue with windows is not the kernel, in fact their model is most likely better than linux, the Windows issue is Microsoft itself they keep adding garbage designed software on top instead of shredding weight and old bad design decisions, and it shows there are so many redundancies being kept in windows, so much bloatware and components/services running in the background that are not needed and can no longer be disabled.

Microsoft is about making an OS that fits the masses the best. It is about providing the best backward compatibility that they can. It's not perfect, but you can run Windows 3.1 programs in Windows 10. You can't run MacOS 9 programs under OSX.

 

It doesn't aim to run in your microwave, nor a Raspberry Pi 3 (although some people managed to do it). It targets PCs that we have today.

 

Quote

Its pointless to go in depth with you but if you want a clear example of how crap windows it is and outdated try go into file exporer and search for a component in windows any dll or file you want and see how much it takes even on a modern SSD, then download something like Ultra Search and do the same and see the difference, and note ultra search doesn't do indexing, indexing is an abomination that was intended for old slow hardrives although its bad implementation, funny even with indexing windows is slow as hell.

Index is a bad implementation.. don't tell that to Google... Their search engine might be so much better without indexing, that it might break space and time as we know it.

Indexing is critical. The fastest NVMe SSD in RAID is still far slower than you RAM. Index is needed.

 

I don't get the point of DLL file size with anything. Windows has a lot of feature and a lot of backward compatibility in place... stuff cost space. Sorry to hear that Windows is consuming 20GB out of your 1TB drive. I think you can live. If not, well you said it, there is Linux.

 

Oh and go to Cancer centers and be sure to spread the word of Linux. Don't worry, no one there will wish you have cancer, as no one wishes that to even its worst enemies, even the devil itself.

 

Quote

Example benchmark, searching word AMD in C:/ (i have amd pc+drivers so lots of files)

File Explorer: 17 seconds found 35,439 items/folders with indexing on

UltraSearch: <1 sec found 35,624 items/folders without indexing

Ok! Finally, we can have an intelligent conversation:

 

I tried, and Windows was faster than UltraSearch on my Surface Pro 3 (by a hint)

UltraSearch doesn't search through content files. It just looks at the MFT.

Doing the exact same search and letting Windows do its full search (that is doing the index search which was done before UltraSearch, and check through files which, of course, ended much later than UltraSearch), I got 58,913 from UltraSharp, and 98,575 from Windows.

 

Quote

Now the questions is pretty obvious, why after decades and billions of dollars and tons of ignored feedback is Microsoft unable to provide such simple improvements to windows components? the indexer hasn't been updated in over a decade(since vista), all they do is add bloatware like Cortana search that cant find shit ever except ads and app recommendations on bing that works pretty good and fast.

I don't see many people voting for what you are asking on the Feedback hub.

Microsoft will improve if they are many people voting on it.

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, yian88 said:

snip

I mostly agree, but I see the situation as from a marketing standpoint as I said previously

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

I don't even know what to say... You are blinded by your fanaticism. Doesn't mean that an OS kernel fits your needs/liking that it fits the needs of everyone.

The biggest issue that most Linux based OS has, is the toxic environment that it set, promoting elitism and refusing to take criticism. This is why Linux from 1998 has not really changed when you compare it now. And this is why the growth of the OS has been lackluster beside on Server space, as for many application, it is the only option out there.

 

Microsoft is about making an OS that fits the masses the best. It is about providing the best backward compatibility that they can. It's not perfect, but you can run Windows 3.1 programs in Windows 10. You can't run MacOS 9 programs under OSX.

 

It doesn't aim to run in your microwave, nor a Raspberry Pi 3 (although some people managed to do it). It targets PCs that we have today.
 

I don't get the point of DLL file size with anything. Windows has a lot of feature and a lot of backward compatibility in place... stuff cost space. Sorry to hear that Windows is consuming 20GB out of your 1TB drive. I think you can live. If not, well you said it, there is Linux.

Anyway I think you are misleading the Linux community from the actual developers, how would they not take criticism? There have been arguing between developers itself, but that has nothing to do with fanboyism? They just fix issues.
Linux has changed in the last years just with the interest it had, as more companies like Intel, Microsoft etc joined the development, the more it became developed, speaking of system drivers (which is the most consistent part of the kernel) 

I already said my opinion about thirdy-parties (always speaking of interest in the market, that's why has more market share in Servers)  

Still there is no excuse to Microsoft not optimizing their software size, and they could make a linux-like approach by doing a modular Windows 10 OS like Server Core imo,  backwards compatibility exist also in Linux when LSB was developed, the fact you can't make an old Ubuntu package work on a today distro it's just because at how package management handles the dependencies, doesn't happen with snap or flatpak packages.

This doesn't apply only for system drivers, but it's a matter of ABI, they could be forced to work in theory, I wouldn't try it anyway

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, yian88 said:

<snip>

 

I also agree again, but I imagine the data to be around 2/3% for desktops as it is the value I often see in all those reports with some margin of error

[Salv8 (sam)]

well...

looks like i'm not upgrading untill there is a registry or group policy hack to disable this (Microsoft usually does this for business devices that need this type of control, pro should have the option but home might not.)

[mr moose]

people really do love clutching at straws,  I still haven't heard a decent argument for needing 24/7 up time on a home computer or a solution to the problem of people not updating.   Instead we get pages of irrelevant discussion trying to argue how good Linux is.   The only time Linux is relevant is if it is better suited to individual needs, if so then use the damn thing and stop trying to insinuate the world is out to get you.

[79wjd]

Just now, mr moose said:

people really do love clutching at straws,  I still haven't heard a decent argument for needing 24/7 up time on a home computer or a solution to the problem of people not updating.   Instead we get pages of irrelevant discussion trying to argue how good Linux is.   The only time Linux is relevant is if it is better suited to individual needs, if so then use the damn thing and stop trying to insinuate the world is out to get you.

I've ran into a couple issues with automatic updates.

 

As a general rule I don't want to waste time waiting for an update/restart to happen, so I'll never initiate it on my own. As such, there were quite a few instances where Windows would update itself overnight and then when I went to use my Surface in class (for the first time that day) I would have to wait for it to finish the update process -- which could often take 20 minutes. Because for some reason that doesn't happen automatically with an update.

 

The other time(s) I've ran into an issue with Windows update is when I was running a queue of encodes, which take many hours each. Often windows would decide to update while in the middle of the encode, so not only would the progress on that specific encode be lost, but the whole process would cease to see progress until I logged back in and restarted it.

 

I can fully understand the reasoning behind forcing updates, but it absolutely does interfere with my workflow, and which is why I don't use Windows except where I have to (games).

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 I still haven't heard a decent argument for needing 24/7 up time on a home computer

It's not just that, you can't totally control when your PC is downloading and installing updates, is it hard to understand that for someone that actually need to work with their PC needs to decide when to install them? You can postpone them but not always, it's a bit annoying imo.
 

50 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Instead we get pages of irrelevant discussion trying to argue how good Linux is

Lol seriously? Those are only two posts, while on the other hand others are saying wrong things about it too, so it's definitely not just that. But on the update side, I could say it's definitely better so that's in part true

Edited January 9, 2019 by Guest

[Blademaster91]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I'll put the blame on both.

32GB is enough to run quite a few operating systems comfortably. ChromeOS for example is around 2GB (and the OS partition contains duplicates of almost everything, so that it can be restored easily in case of issues).

So shipping some computers with 32GB of memory isn't actually a problem. It is more than fine for a lot of people even. I wouldn't handle it, but lots do. The problem is that Windows is bloated. Windows takes up a massive amount of space for no apparent reason, when compared to other operating systems.

When Chromebooks started taking over the market, Microsoft pushed heavily for super cheap Windows laptops (like I said, for example giving away Windows for free to manufacturers who made certain cheap Windows laptops).

You can put the blame on manufacturers for not putting more memory in the computers, but the computers were designed to be dirt cheap to compete with Chromebooks, and it would have worked decently well if Windows wasn't so bloated.

I guess it's like talking about Minecraft.

Try playing Minecraft on something like a core 2 duo and it will be a terrible experience. The hardware isn't good enough. But at the same time, Minecraft is terribly coded (parts of it is open source so we know this for a fact) and if it was rewritten it would run much better, possibly even on a core 2 duo (like a lot of Minecraft clones does).

I don't think you can put the blame on both.

Bad software on bad hardware = bad experience.

Bad software on good hardware OR good software on bad hardware = decent or good experience.

I'm blaming the OEM's for limiting the machines on purpose to get you buying another laptop when you realize how much it sucks with only 2GB of ram and 32GB of storage. I don't consider 32GB to even be enough for my phone, and quite a few phones now come with 4GB of ram and 64GB storage for around $300 so it's definitely the computer OEM's making an extra few cents in margins by not opting for at least a 64GB eMMC drive and 4GB of ram,especially if the OEM's are getting Windows for free.

I think 32GB is enough for ChromeOS,with how limited you are on the device, until you sideload a bunch of Android apps and actually use the laptop.  Not sure about Minecraft, but if its like how most games are developed,the devs program the game to work on what people are using the most,rather than spending a lot of extra time and money getting it to work with older hardware.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

While I don't agree with yiuan88 on a lot of things, going "you do better!" is one of the most pathetic arguments you can make. It's just an ad hominem attack. You're essentially saying that someone is not qualified to criticize someone else, rather than actually arguing against the points made.

 

It's true that Solaris is not Linux, and that it is designed for servers. It's false that it's essentially dead and only the open source packages that they use gets updated.

Solaris is still actively developed and the last major release came out 4 months ago. In that update (11.4) they introduced silicon secured memory, redid the security audits, added an application sandbox management tool, optimized how Oracle Database functions in various ways, per file auditing, verified boot auditing and many more things.

It's a valid argument when there are always people in MS or Windows threads that act like they can make a better OS while calling something "trash" or "cancer".

I haven't seen Solaris on anything that wasn't a server,and apparently the FOSS community considers the OS to be dead since Oracle made the OS proprietary with a restrictive license.

51 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

It's not just that, you can't totally control when your PC is downloading and installing updates, is it hard to understand that for someone that actually need to work with their PC needs to decide when to install them? You can postpone them but not always, it's a bit annoying imo.
 

Lol seriously? Those are only two posts, while on the other hand others are saying wrong things about it too, so it's definitely not just that

I've been learning Linux,haven't had any issues yet on Mint, and if people prefer Linux thats fine, there are lots of things MS could copy like the update packages in Linux or how OSX does it reminding you to update whenever you're done rather than forcing you to update all the time. But like every Microsoft related thread turns into "windows sucks" threads.