I agree with parent, most non-technical people don't want to be system admin for their OS, so MS taking over is not really a bad deal. All my computers are IT managed and I have never had any update issues, so maybe there is some special sauce there via group policy. I have instructed them to section off my work PCs so they never update unless I tell them to, and it works. I get months and months of uptime till I take the reboot hit and do the updates.
The special sauce is probably WSUS, which allows them to control the update process for everyone and determine which updates they get and which they don't. Additionally, the WSUS channel for updates is behind Microsoft's normal updates, which allows for them to prevent problematic updates from reaching WSUS servers in the first place. Of course, home users get none of this.
I personally believe it is arrogance to say that non-technical users shouldn't be allowed to control their own PCs. And besides, a lot of users of PCs at home are technical. So I strenuously disagree with you.
Your arguing against something I didn't say. You can disagree with me, but you can't put words in my mouth. I didn't say or imply "shouldn't be allowed" or anything similar.
Since my comment was along the lines of "people should get a choice", if you did not intend to argue against that then one wonders what the point of your post was.
I mean, look at your language: "MS taking over is really not a big deal". How am I supposed to have interpreted that?
