I hate Windows for all the monetisation and privacy issues but I never really had problems with it killing my computer.

It's kind of disingenuous of you to proudly say, "I don't use the same version of Windows that this person likely does and I don't have the same issues that this person does so they must be full of shit".

That's the difference between the Home and Pro versions though. The things that generally break on the Home versions are all the things not generally enabled on a domain controlled Pro version. Thisbis more about Microsoft just being bad at small updates versus these giant roundup packages they like to ship.

The interesting thing for me is that I own two different surface pro 7 tablets. I have one for work and one for home (now that work doesn't require me to bring my own device anymore). The work surface has windows 10 pro on it. My home one doesn't, The difference is very interesting. The IT team have disabled a lot of stuff on my work surface that I don't even have access to on my home unit. I don't often have bugs from updates breaking things at work. I do at home though which is enough for me to perhaps upgrade the windows key on my home unit someday. If I don't install linux first which is a possibility.

I find this to either be a lie or self inflicted.

"I've never experienced what you describe, so it must be either imagined or your own fault."

I've seen this nonsense over and over again in communities of all kinds, most often in tech forums (where there are always a few participants suffering from a big-fish-little-pond effect). It's a very rude and foolish bit of human behavior.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

My two cents, I could say the same as the author. My Windows work laptop most of the times cannot wake up from sleep (you know, opening the lid after it's closed) so I have to force a restart. There's a 50% or less chance that Bluetooth and WiFi won't work at all (they won't be displayed on Windows, like it's not even a feature) after I turn the laptop on, so most of my pre-work morning is restarting the laptop until it's working as intended. It's the third laptop I got from them, they're different models but they're all HP, and they all had problems. The Macs and the same HP laptops running Linux have none of these issues.

It’s disingenuous and probably harmful to be telling people to disable updates that lead them to be exposed to vulnerabilities.

That is probably why Microsoft forced updates on people in W10.

It's not harmful to tell average people who run windows to disable updates, because you can't disable the updates as a single-license scrub.

(Theres usually some hacky bullshit to delay or block updates, but they break constantly and you have to keep finding new ones, because Microsoft thinks of their userbase as stupid babies who can't be trusted with their own hardware).

Also, you live in your own personal slice of Windows control with your hundreds/thousands of systems being managed with group policies. I have no doubt that you don't see issues, because your company chose a few models of laptop or desktop and know how they'll react to the updates. You can turn off the annoying shit, and choose specific updates at specific times. Microsoft doesn't want to piss off their corporate customers, especially the ones with massive spending contracts with Dell/HP/Lenovo.

Thing is, outside of you - and your groups of other corporate windows admins - the general user (with varied hardware/software configurations) don't have the safety of catching issues on a few test machines and delaying a deploy to the fleet, or even the option to delay updates at all, and they're screwed over constantly by random broken drivers, system setting that aren't respected between updates, and bloat/backdoors that you can't opt out of.

It is you who is being disingenuous, by suggesting that the windows update system has no flaws, because you operate in an extremely controlled environment with tons of safeguards and - ironically - way more autonomy.

It's not a failure to consider the alternatives that slows adoption, it is the very real material problems with those alternatives.

It's not fair that a multinational corporation gets to wield virtually limitless power to starve the alternatives of oxygen and create as much friction as possible in the process of switching, but it is a very real problem, and blaming the users won't solve anything.

Yes, because I need Adobe to do my meh wage part-time job in developing country from my one and only working laptop and I don't have the luxury of surplus money, time, and mental energy to do anything about it.

But I get your point. If I have the means, I will fix my broken Thinkpad and definitely install Linux there the first chance I get. Either that or Adobe finally release Linux version, which will probably be released after Half-Life 3.

I can't wait to try Endeavor (so I can finally be an obnoxious person who say "I used Arch^-based^ ^distro^, btw")

Most people believe they will start seeing problems where there were none before. They need to invest time into research about their use-cases, which is a cost even before switching.

The typical user used Windows since before they became scared of change, so that's what they'll stick with.

The pain of using Windows still can and will be higher without the majority of people switching to anything.

There might be a day when Microsoft caves and releases a Windows that is more like what we wanted, but I imagine it's going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.

I thought that was going to be with Windows 10's forced updates and telemetry, but people just stopped caring. I'm pretty much assuming that'll be the same for the current batch of nonsense. I can't imagine how bad it would have to get for the general public to say "enough is enough".

You know it's not the same person posting every time

Some people have moved passed thinking about it. Others have just started. Its a growing sentiment and more people are starting to feel it.

It's not easy committing to the change when you have no knowledge of the platform. The status quo is always easier until it no longer is.

Having seen how different Linux is from what it was 20 years ago, it's way more approachable than it used to be. Most people could adjust pretty quickly, but with so much of the technical bits hidden from sight, the average PC user these days isn't as tech savvy as they were many years ago, and making the switch can be intimidating.

Linux won't work for my needs. I would switch if it did.

It's like when people in abusive relationships suddenly realize that their partner doesn't actually care about them, and everyone around them is like "Yeah, no shit. Fucking leave their ass."

He prescribed me a medication but when I went to get it from the pharmacy they just gave me a bunch of precursor chemicals which are just toxic if not combined in the right way. When I asked for help the pharmacist just said "RTFM"

Also, what is a comorbidity?