Microsoft did use some pretty sneaky tactics there, for a bit. For example when they changed the [X] close gadget to an "implied consent" to allow the upgrade to proceed. Even they admit that was a "poor decision" on their part.
Still not the same as "forcing" someone, however.
Both systems were running windows 8 and 7 when they went to bed and both had 10 when they woke up, no prompting. And I had did some of the "prevent windows 10" but I hadn't had a chance to see if there were any new methods to prevent the windows 10 upgrade that day.
I don't know, I have very little sympathy for someone who says that their computer runs poorly. Or their car, or the plumbing in their house, or anything else, for that matter. Take the time to understand it and make it better. That's the whole "if you want something done right do it yourself" attitude, lol. :lol:
Thats why I went OS. I can't fix some of windows issues without the source.
I opened a ticket with MS on typeperf.exe. In windows 2000 it was a resource kit tool. It was bundled as part of the OS in server 2003 so it then became officially supported. If you call the cpu % utilization with an * for the CPU/Core # it will sometimes give a - number. I was able to duplicate it and opened a case and MS decided to not fix it instead giving a workaround. So I provided the workaround to the monitoring team and for the next couple years they hated me because every time they put an invalid cpu % utilization ticket in my queue I'd send it right back to them with MS's workaround (which wasn't feasible to implement BTW).
My point is that every 'fault' of open source is in reality a 'fault' with software development in general no matter if the source is opened or closed.
For every open source developer that doesn't value their users input there are just as many that do. Likewise there are close source developers who think they know what the end users needs/wants better than what their users do (Apple/Microsoft).
I seem to recall Commodore developers were often called out for not listening to what their users needed/wanted. But when it comes down to it if you get stuck with a close source package that has unresponsive developers your stuck. If you use an open source package and the developers are unresponsive then you can simply say fork it and make it the way you think it should be. You don't have that option with close source.
I wish they would just OS the code and let us work on it. For now AROS is the next best and when I don't have an application in AROS I need Linux works best. I don't have to check for the daily trick to prevent upgrade with either.
